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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2gxusd | why is it not advised to keep the phone plugged in after it has been completely charged? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gxusd/eli5_why_is_it_not_advised_to_keep_the_phone/ | {
"a_id": [
"cknj2a2"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"Modern chargers stop charging the battery once it reaches 100%.\nAfter this the phone will bypass the battery and use the electricity from the wall socket directly. The charger can become hot if you use a lot of power (similarly as the phone will get hot if you draw a lot of power from the battery).\n\nSome (very much) older chargers, as well as chargers that are defective can heat up beyond a safe point and cause damage. This is likely the reason that this \"unplug when fully charged\" advise still floats around.\n\nFor modern cell phones (using lithium ion based batteries) it's in fact best to discharge the battery as little as possible, as using the battery will over time degrade the battery's life (even if very slowly). Hence it's in fact better to keep your phone plugged in."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9wqq4m | why is it correct to say "an historic moment" instead of "a historic moment"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9wqq4m/eli5_why_is_it_correct_to_say_an_historic_moment/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9mj8wz",
"e9mldap",
"e9monr7",
"e9mtd0y"
],
"score": [
12,
46,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Many scholars feel it is not correct. But if you have the sort of British accent where you don't pronounce the \"h\" then the word \"historic\" begins with a vowel sound — and such words are preceded with \"an\" rather than \"a.\"",
"Whether you use \"a\" or \"an\" has to do with the sound that follows it, not with the letter that's actually written. So we'd all say \"a hotel,\" because most English accents pronounce the \"h\" sound that begins hotel. But we would also say \"an hour,\" because I don't think I've ever heard an accent that pronounces the \"h\" in \"hour;\" the word basically sounds like the word \"our.\"\n\nHistoric is a funny one though, because some accents pronounce it with an H sound (like in the word \"hotel\" or \"hiss\") and some pronounce it without (like in \"hour\" or \"honest\"). Whatever your personal pronunciation, you should use that article like \"a Historic moment\" or \"an 'istoric moment.\" If you're pronouncing the H and saying \"an Historic moment,\" you're doing too much!",
"Neither is correct or incorrect, it just comes down to pronunciation and linguistic norms.\n\nIn British English, for whatever reason, the 'h' sound in 'historic' is more or less dropped, but *only in this specific phrase* (the 'h' sound is generally weaker than it is if the word was used in an American English context, but it's still there). Thus, because 'historic' begins with a vowel sound, you have to use 'an.'\n\nIn American English, the 'h' sound is not dropped. Thus, because 'historic' begins with a consonant sound, you have to use 'a.'",
"It really depends on the first sound of the next word. I think the following sound correct:\n\nA hard life.\n\nAn honest opinion.\n\nA hope chest.\n\nA horror show.\n\nA history lesson (I think this may be different depending on whether or not you personally pronounce the \"h\" in history. So when written out, I suppose I would refer to what the proper pronunciation would be.)\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3a9u4q | what's going on with the reform votes in hong kong today? what are they? | I'm reading the news about Hong Kong from today and it's hard to follow, mainly because I don't know what the reform is aiming to do. So apparently, there were 5 votes for YES (mainly by liberals) on reform but 28 other voters walked out, meaning that reform is successful? This reform would allow TRUE democracy (aka universal suffrage)? Of course I think there's the confusion of whether this would hold or not... Did I comprehend correctly? Please explain like I'm 5! Thank you in advance! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3a9u4q/eli5whats_going_on_with_the_reform_votes_in_hong/ | {
"a_id": [
"csalro2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a bit more convoluted. HK, under the basic law (which is essentially its constitution, though it is not a sovereignty ), is to move towards universal suffrage in electing the chief executive and the assembly. The basic law originally dictates that 3 steps are required to be cleared to achieve that (existing administration initiate the bill, existing assembly pass the bill, mainland china gov nodding). The Chinese gov last year decided to make this process more difficult by inserting 2 more steps and putting a nomination committee in place so that effectively only candidates they approve of can attain the nomination. This is what triggered the mass protest last summer. The pan-democratic camp wouldn't fall for it so they decide to veto it (the bill requires a 2/3 super majority, whcih the pro beijing bloc doesn't have)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2agls1 | what would happen to our body if we could increase gravity like in dbz? | What would happen if you work out in a machine that can increase gravity like in Dragonball Z? Goku trained from 10G to 100G and vegeta even at 500G as far as i can remember. Would you get strong as goku or vegeta?
WIll this be possible in the near future? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2agls1/eli5what_would_happen_to_our_body_if_we_could/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciuvo5t",
"ciuwkp1",
"civ3tl3",
"civ4c7u",
"civabqm"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes you would get stronger, though there is an upper limit. Saiyans are physically tougher than humans, their bones and organs can take more punishment.\n\nBut yes if you started working out in a room at 1.5gs you'd get stronger and when you went back to 1g you'd be significantly stronger.\n\nGranted you can do the same with weight lifting.",
"At 10G your poop would crack the porcelain of your toilet. ",
"at ~5G's you will faint. If you have the G-Suite, your G-spot rises to ~9Gs. Fainting happens because all the blood pools down at your feet and not enough blood gets to your brain. Fighter plane pilots can experience up to 9G's so they wear a G-Suite .",
"Youll go super\n",
"Others have explained the issues with this already, but it's time for some fun facts.\n\nAt 2g your weight and the weight of everything else is doubled, effectively. Everything is twice as difficult. Good for training!\n\nAt 5g, the average person blacks out, so don't skip straight to this setting. Luckily blacking out will cause you to fall over, restoring enough circulation for you to wake up and crawl over to the controls.\n\nAt 10g, the force of gravity is enough to overtake your heart and drain your brain of blood beyond the known limits of human endurance. This is probably a good thing because things just get worse and worse at this point.\n\nAt 38g, all falling objects will have the muzzle velocity of a Glock after one second. Anything you accidentally drop will hit the ground with the speed of a 9mm bullet. Better be careful.\n\nAt 100g you would always be carrying several thousand pounds of weight simply because of the air above you. Of course, this is assuming that the air would even be able to stay up, which it couldn't. Instead it would be highly compressed at ground level to the point where it's about as thick as mercury. Your lungs wouldn't be able to handle this pressure and you'd suffocate.\n\nAt 500g if you were to drop a weight from head height it would hit the ground at over 3000 meters per second (in a vacuum, but at 500g you might as well be in a vacuum anyway). Conveniently enough, at 500g x grams hitting the ground from 2 meters up will have the energy of x grams of TNT, so a kilogram weight would have the energy of a kilogram of TNT. Even if you were somehow able to get a weight above your head despite the fact that it weighs 500 times as much as usual and your circulatory system has collapsed, the first time you slip up and drop a weight it's going to make the ground explode and rip apart anything nearby like a giant frag grenade. Not recommended unless you're the prince of saiyans."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
368wdi | why are pneumatic tires the standard? why hasn't there been a no flat replacement for cars and bicycles? | Umm.... what the title said. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/368wdi/eli5_why_are_pneumatic_tires_the_standard_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"crbsp05",
"crbtipw"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Pneumatic tires are good at absorbing severe bumps while providing a smooth ride and good traction.\n\nHowever, *run-flat* tires (which don't completely fail when the air pressure fails) are becoming a little more common.",
"The tyre is a major part of a vehicles suspension, as it absorbs vibrations as small bumps. As already mentioned, a pneumatic tyre is needed over a solid rubber tyre for a comfortable ride. \nRun-flat tyres are sometimes used on modern luxury cars. They can support the vehicle weight on their sidewall and can be driven at lower speeds for short distances. This gets rid of the need for the driver to change the tyre themselves, but the stiffer sidewall can effect fuel economy and the heavier tyre can reduce ride comfort, requiring a more advanced suspension system. \nAuxiliary rubber inserts are also sometimes used, which sit around the rim and can support the vehicle when there is no air in the tyre. \nBike inner tubes often have a \"slime\" in them which will seal the tube in the event of a puncture. \n \nAirless tyres which offer suspenion properties similar to pneimatic tyres do exist, and [new versions are in development](_URL_0_). The main disadvantage is the flexing between the materials can cause a large amount of heat to build up, which is why they are mainly used on slow moving vehicles currently. It is something we could possible see as a replacement to the pneumatic tyre in the future."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/hHXMZXy.jpg"
]
]
|
|
3lopz8 | why does fox have paid programming and bull riding on instead of an nfl game? why can't they have two games on like cbs does? | I want to watch a game other than Tampa Bay v New Orleans | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lopz8/eli5_why_does_fox_have_paid_programming_and_bull/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv7yzu9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I answered a similar question last week:\n\nFOX, CBS, and the NFL have very prescribed ways that the NFL plays out on TV.\n\nThere are 3 day games shown in each area maximum. This allows one station to have exclusive access to a time slot to get all of the views, for example, CBS for you right now! In the other time slot, each station is allowed to show a game\n\nIt's just about money.\nOn to why they show paid programming -- because they know viewership will be basically zero while there is football on another station, so they just farm out a shitty program to try to make a tiny bit of money\n\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
84eym6 | the controversy surrounding the bell curve. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84eym6/eli5_the_controversy_surrounding_the_bell_curve/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvoz7le",
"dvozcr3",
"dvoziix",
"dvozl1w",
"dvp05cs",
"dvp3k32"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's nothing wrong with the bell curve itself as a way to analyse data, however the issue is with the commonly posted graph showing white people with a IQ higher than other races by showing the bell curve differences. All this really points out is that you get different IQ results if you had a different socio-economic upbringing. As in, if you had access to a safer school with less crime and parents who pushed you in school, you'll tend to be able to higher on a standard IQ test.\n\nThe real thing this should bring up is addressing or discussing why certain races are subjected to more racism or hardship instead of implying using this data to say that some races inherently have worse scores.",
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with a bell curve (technically called a normal distribution). It's fundamental to statistics and therefore many areas of science and mathematics.\n\nWhat they're probably referring to is *The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life*, which is an (in)famous book from the mid-90s that argued, among other things, that intelligence differs between \"races\". The title comes from the fact that intelligence as measured by IQ tends to have a normal distribution in populations. ",
"1. One of the writers was a real life Nazi the rest more mundane racists.\n2. There is no peer review that agrees with their data, methodology or findings\n3. IQ means nothing in regards to intelligence (which continues to evade a firm definition so how can it be measured?). It's a bit like saying tall people must be good at basketball because they are tall",
" > My question has to do with the idea of Simply taking data points and finding out that they align along a bell curve where the average, the most common is in the middle and the extremes or at the end.\n\nThe problem being pointed out isn't a problem with the bell curve, but a problem with taking any data set and presenting statistics about that data set without considering all the factors. One poster essentially took data about IQ scores separated by race, and showed that the mean in one race was lower than in another, concluding that one race is smarter than the other in general. The person criticizing that is saying that there are other factors than innate intelligence that can contribute to that difference, such as income inequality between the two groups. You can look at bell curves and find differences between groups, but you can't make conclusions about the underlying cause of those differences without a lot of further analysis.",
"I don't think the comment you linked to was talking about bell curves in general as a means of analyzing data. It seemed like they were referring to [The Bell Curve](_URL_0_) which was a controversial book published in the 90's that made a few big claims about intelligence - most notably that there are notable differences in intelligence between races.\n\nThe book has been pretty heavily criticized for being published without submission to peer review and for assuming that IQ is a useful and important measure of intelligence. There's a lot of competing information that IQ scores are skewed fairly hard by cultural and socioeconomic factors rather than simply \"brainpower,\" so a lot of the criticism falls on the authors making a lot of assumptions about intelligence as a measurable, comparable number without really justifying the idea. That, and the racism.",
"The normal distribution is what you'd expect to see if the phenomenon you are studying is random, like the wear on a bearing or the weight of an insect.\n\nThe problem with people is that they are people, and their behavior really isn't very random. The weight of people isn't as randomly distributed as the weight of insects because people do stuff to influence their weight.\n\nWhen you get to *The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life*, you're getting into a double-bad area. The notion that IQ is a fixed (or meaningful) parameter are not well supported by scientific studies. It turns out that education and practice have significant impact on the results of these tests. Adding statistics to your discussion of IQ is like adding statistics to your study of weight and ignoring that some people are on a diet. You can do the statistics right and get a result that's nonsense."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve"
],
[]
]
|
||
9lv5ua | alcohol absorption time in the human body. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9lv5ua/eli5_alcohol_absorption_time_in_the_human_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"e79op4d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's basically one drink per hour. \n12oz beer\n8oz wine\n1.5oz liquor\nAll gone in one hour.\n\nYou can detect the presence of alcohol longer than this. But your only detecting the traces left behind by the alcohol. For example I knew a liver doctor that had been working with alcoholics so much he could tell all about your drinking just from blood work. The amount of certain liver enzymes are a big tell as to how much and how long ago you consumed alcohol."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3i1uo1 | why do the fork, knife and spoon seem universal? where did they originate from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i1uo1/eli5_why_do_the_fork_knife_and_spoon_seem/ | {
"a_id": [
"cucmjlv",
"cucmkjf"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Using those utensils is far from universal.There are many places that don't use any of those to eat. Chopsticks are common in East Asia. Using bread is a popular way to eat in the Middle East. Hands are probably the most common way to eat food in the world.\n\nAs to the development of utensils, probably started as ways to prepare food first. A knife to cut meat and plants with. Some kind of spatula/stick to handle cooking food. Skewers to cook pieces of meat over a fire. In Europe it became a sign of wealth to not eat with your hands. Mass production spread this custom to the lower classes, and eventually across the world.",
"The book [The Evolution of Useful Things](_URL_0_) is a brilliant book that covers this topic and many others.\n\n\nPart of the chapter/section 'How the fork got its tines' is available on Amazon's 'look inside' part (under 'first pages') - well worth a read if you ask me so won't try paraphrase it here.\n\n\nEDIT in a little more explanation: It was quite common for meals to be eaten with two knives in medieval England - though the knife was less like a modern table knife and more like a dagger - food would held by one knife and then cut with the other before being speared and eaten from the point of the knife. The use of forks in dining (at least in England) seems to have come from Italy, where it was considered unclean to eat using hands/knives alone. It took a while to spread into England and was ridiculed as being effeminate. The suggestion is early forks had 2 tines and were generally used in the kitchen and for carving and not for 'scooping' of food from the plate to the mouth. 2 tines worked well for cooking/carving meat but less so for transferring it to your mouth and over time 3 tines were added, then 4. By the 18th Century in Germany forks had come to resemble what we would see as a table-fork today. The suggestion (design wise) is that 2 tines is too few to balance food, 3 too small, 4 about right and 5 too many and therefore it is less easy to remove the fork from the meat/stab it in in the first place. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Useful-Things-Artifacts-From/dp/0679740392"
]
]
|
||
19384d | how does a guitar effects pedal work? | I buddy and fellow redditor was building an [effects pedal](_URL_0_) from scratch. How do all of those little components come together to transform the clean input signal to the fuzzy, sweet sounding output signal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19384d/eli5_how_does_a_guitar_effects_pedal_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8kfslu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It really depends on what kind of level of detail you want to go in.\n\nThe basic idea is that a signal goes from the guitar to the pedal, and the pedal processes it, which you probably know. The signal is carried through the wires as an oscillating voltage, which is how it gets translated to sound. An A, for example, would be a voltage oscillating at 440 Hz.\n\nAll a pedal does is use different types of circuitry to modify that signal. You might want to amplify the signal to make it louder, put a delay/echo on it by having it \"repeat\" whatever sound gets made a few milliseconds later, you can do various effects by shifting something called the \"phase\" of a signal.\n\n[Here](_URL_0_), for example, is what a *very simple* distortion pedal would do. The input signal (green) goes in to a component called an amplifier, which boosts the output signal (pink). In addition, since the amplifier only can provide a certain amount of power, some of the \"peaks\" of the amplified signal get cut off at the top, which is why the pink line has those funny plateaus. This is one of the classic identifiers for distortion: it boosts some of the weaker parts of the signal, which makes the sound fuller, but relatively deadens the stronger parts as a result, which gives it that crunchy sort of feel.\n\nThere are also low and high pass filters, which dampen certain frequencies, which effects the sound tremendously. The tone knob on your guitar is an example of a high/low pass filter (depending on where the knob's turned to), which is why things sound less bright when you turn it down.\n\nThose are the two simplest elements of any effects pedal, but it's much more involved than that. If you want to understand how every component of an effects pedal works, you kind of need to be an electrical engineer, unfortunately. It's far beyond the scope of ELI5."
]
} | []
| [
"http://tagboardeffects.blogspot.com/2011/02/zvex-woolly-mammoth-vero.html"
]
| [
[
"http://i.imgur.com/CvaK2yi.png"
]
]
|
|
7m2v2j | why does beer gets colder on my fridge thats at 5 celsius, than outside my house at -1 celsius? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7m2v2j/eli5_why_does_beer_gets_colder_on_my_fridge_thats/ | {
"a_id": [
"drqx5qt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If it's in the sun, it could be receiving energy/heat that way. It will still give off heat to the surrounding air, but the balance of heat it receives/loses makes it warmer overall (or it cools more slowly).\n\nAnother option is the surroundings may be more/less effective at absorbing heat from the can. A metal shelf in a fridge (for example) will absorb heat pretty effectively, while a wooden porch might be less effective.\n\nHowever snow (or ice or freezing rain) would be even better, partly because a lot of it could contact the curved surface of the can compared to a flat shelf. So I'd expect it to cool faster, if you left it out in conditions like that. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2urn4h | why are there so many (for lack of a better word) "opposite" prefixes? examples include un-important, in-fallible, ir-reparable, ab-normal. | Is it because they have slightly different meanings, or is it just because these words originate from different peoples and languages?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2urn4h/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_for_lack_of_a_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cob16m2"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It's due to some obscure rules.\n\n\"in/im/il/ir\" are used with latin derived stems (like intolerable, impenetrable)\n\n\"un\" is used with words that have the suffix \"ed\" or \"able\" (unfounded, unable)\n\n\"de\" is usually used for a verb (like defuse).\n\n\"dis\" is used like \"de/un\" but reflects a reversal, not a negative/opposite (Disable means to make something able, no longer able. Unable means it was never able in the first place.)\n\n\"a\" or \"ab\" is used for adjectives ending in \"al\" (like abnomal).\n\n\"anti\" means \"against\". (\"Antifreeze\" means it's against freezing, not the opposite of freezing.)\n\n\"non\" is used for basically everything else."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5qbl2v | why are creatures in deep ocean huge? shouldn't the pressures make them small? | Like whales and giant octopuses (octopi?), shouldn't the immense pressure of water make them small? why are they so big? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qbl2v/eli5_why_are_creatures_in_deep_ocean_huge/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcxw4pl",
"dcxwqm6",
"dcxxqc2"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
14
],
"text": [
"Water does not compress much. So even though there is significant pressure, it doesn't affect them very much. It affects us because we have air in our lungs, in our sinuses, and dissolved in our blood.",
"Two things. First, the vast majority of deep ocean animals are small. I won't go in to a lot of detail, but search for deep ocean animals and most of them will not be as large as your two example.\n\nNow, on to those examples. Whales are more of surface creatures, some of which have adaptations to be able to go deep. They do this specifically to get food. [There are different mechanisms that allow deep diving whales to survive the pressure differences](_URL_0_). The reason for their size is the same as [the reason for all whales being big](_URL_1_) - it could be to help conserve warmth, or it could be to prevent being prey, or maybe a combination of different factors like that.\n\nGiant and colossal squid, on the other hand, are a different story. They are native to the deep ocean. But, the pressure isn't really an issue to them, no matter what their size is. The reason pressure becomes an issue to something like a submarine is that you have this low pressure area inside where the air is, so you have to have a reinforced structure to keep the immense outside pressure from crushing it. A squid does not have air pockets or compartments like that - their whole body is essentially like a fluid, so will be under equal pressure from all sides, including inside and out. The only time this really becomes an issue is if you rapidly bring one to the surface of the ocean, which will cause the gases dissolved under the high pressure to release from the fluids, essentially giving them \"the bends\" like a diver that surfaces too quickly.",
"No. The major issue has to do with *differences* in pressure. If you took a submarine and sent it to the ocean floor, it would get crushed. But if you cut a hole in the submarine and let it sink to the bottom, it would not, because the water inside would be at the same pressure outside and they would cancel eachother out.\n\nHumans have a problem because we have all sorts of *air* in our bodies. There is air in your lungs. In your digestive system. There is air in the sinuses of your skull. If you tried holding your breath and diving to the ocean floor, your rib cage and skull would crush long before you got there. There are other structural, metabolic and physiologic problems for humans to survive at depths but I don't think you were asking about those.\n\nDeep sea fish don't have so much air in their bodies, so, for example, they won't have swim bladders. **They also have a very high water content of their cells.** Water is notoriously incompressible. Putting more pressure on it will simply make it push back with the same pressure---its *volume* won't change, unlike a balloon filled with any gas. Deep sea creatures also have differences in terms of the structure of their organs and even the enzymes in their cells so that they can withstand higher pressures while maintaining their shape and function. You don't have this, so you would get squished even if air wasn't a big problem.\n\nWhat about whales? Whales are actually mammals and breathe air. They have lungs. But unlike you, their rib cage is very flexible and their lungs are specifically adapted to getting crushed when they dive. \n\nPressure itself then is not a very limiting when it comes to size. In fact, the ocean environment (though not pressure) might even facilitate it. Because of buoyancy, they feel less stress from gravity enabling them to reach larger sizes. Large size also means they have less surface area to lose their body heat, so they can survive with slower metabolism, even in colder temperatures. There aren't so many things that can go into the deep sea, so they might be less likely to suffer from predation. I made that last one up, though.\n\nWe don't really know why/how some creatures got to be so big, but pressure is not a limiting factor, at least not for the pressures you encounter in the deep sea."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-deep-diving-sea-cr/",
"http://www.whalefacts.org/why-are-whales-so-big/"
],
[]
]
|
|
534u2p | why does the usa send billions of dollars to other countries when it's public schools are broke, healthcare is hurting, and infrastructure is crumbling? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/534u2p/eli5_why_does_the_usa_send_billions_of_dollars_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7pymum",
"d7pyo58"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because humanity is important as a whole. We might have crumbled roads, but some places have none. ",
"It doesn't. The US spends less than 1% of the national budget on foreign aid.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid"
]
]
|
||
qt9bu | why can't computer programs accurately predict how long a task will take? | Installation, defragmenting, the "microsoft minute"...
It really seems to be of a crap shoot when timing tasks and I'm sure there's a good reason for it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qt9bu/eli5_why_cant_computer_programs_accurately/ | {
"a_id": [
"c409x6b",
"c40a53p",
"c40bxj9"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because computers are rarely just doing one thing at a time, it can be very hard to predict exactly when you'll finish something. \n\nLet's say you're at work. You're working on some document. Then your boss calls and needs you to put out a fire. Then your colleague takes you out to lunch. Then someone comes to chat with you. Then you get 2 hours of solid work done. Then you get distracted by reddit. Then you finish your task. Initially, you may have only thought it'd take 4 hours. Then all those distractions hit, so you said 8 hours, but then you got that 2 hours in where you were doubly productive, so now it's only 3 hours left. Then reddit, so 20 days instead.\n\n\nIt's the same with computers. You may just be copying a folder, but your computer is also idling, running the OS, handling any other applications that are open in the background, etc. Sometimes, you'll get a lucky stretch where there's not much going on and you can get more stuff done. This is especially true of downloading things online, where the load on the server you're talking to, or even any of the nodes you hit along the way, can have an impact on your speeds.",
"One reason (there are several) is that the status bar gets broken down to subtasks. If there's a team writing a program, the guy in charge might say \"Alright Bob, you get the first half of the bar, Sue, you get the second half\" because he doesn't know ahead of time who will take longer. Bob might be last and just register when he's done - causing half the bar to fill up at once. Sue might be more careful, logging each thing she does, so the bar seems to fill up continuously.\n\nAnother problem is that programs often depend on other programs, and they don't know how long the subprograms take. So if the bar presents doing 9 units of work and then letting another program take over, the first 90% might be accurate but the last 10% can be a crapshoot.\n\nAnother is that not all work is equal. Say the program is supposed to analyze some files somehow. It might know there are 20 files to analyze - what it might not check is that 19 of the files are 2KB and the last one is 3GB. So the large files is going to take forever and make the bar not last a good amount of time.",
"They don't spend much time tweaking that algorithm to be correct, to put it simply. Instead the software just knows it is on, say, step 7 out of 65 steps. Not all 65 steps are equal in terms of the amount of time they take due to variations in the type of task (calculation vs. file system operation), size of data (3K vs. 500MB), prerequisites, etc.\n\nIf making that bar accurate was a high priority, it could be done."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7wai2b | why the market is dropping so rapidly? please | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wai2b/eli5_why_the_market_is_dropping_so_rapidly_please/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtyu5sn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"r/news or a stock/investing focused sub"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
64ea2n | how hard would it be to purposely forget your native language? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64ea2n/eli5_how_hard_would_it_be_to_purposely_forget/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg1fzav",
"dg1gilh",
"dg1gysx",
"dg1nx14",
"dg24cz2"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
48,
25,
6
],
"text": [
"If you're a kid who grows up in a country or family that uses a different language other that your native language, extremely easy. There is an entire generation of kids last named Sanchez and Martinez in the US who don't know a lick of Spanish.",
"If you had about 50 to 75 years and no one spoke to you, or you never heard the old language... you'd forget it.",
"This is from personal experience, thus only anecdotal but I think it answers the point well.\n\nMy family is largely Icelandic. I'm 6th generation in America, and my family moved when there was a volcanic eruption which caused a large famine on the Icelandic isle. \n\nMy great great great grandfather moved here and lived on a farm in North Dakota with a few dozen other Icelandic peoples, where they only spoke Icelandic to each other and their kids went to school and learned English. Most kids didn't finish school because they worked on the farm, and I don't even know if all the kids went to school (they were of more use on the farm than in class). \n\nMy grandfather and all of my great uncles were fluent in Icelandic their whole lives and it was their primary language while they lived on the farms from birth until age 18. Once they were adults, some stayed and others went off to college, to big cities, some got married, etc. However, the most peculiar part (to me of course), is that they have all 99% forgotten Icelandic. Something they had used so incredibly much for so long, they have all lost the skill of their mother tongue that was their sole language to speak to the people of their community.\n\nWhy? Because as with any skill or talent, the less you use it the more it falls into disrepair. As you use your native language less and less, your ability atrophies over time and sooner or later your skills degrade until eventually you've forgotten a language you had spoken for 1/3 of your entire life and can only remember a few words.\n\nKeep in mind, this is how they (my grandfather/great uncles/aunts) described it when I asked them this very question. They didn't purposefully throw it out the window, it just slowly left them as they used it less and less.\n\nTL;DR:\nIt's not hard per se, it just takes time. Over time, one can forget their native language, whether on purpose or on accident. \n\nEdit:\nI have spoken to my grandfather and asked him about why he chose to go monolingual instead of bilingual, and his reasoning is fairly solid. When he and his siblings (and cousins on the farm) became teenagers they all spoke fluent Icelandic, but they spoke English to those the same age as them. They felt somewhat outcast and \"not quite American\" and so they tried to become more American to fit in. Keep in mind, my grandfather was 4th generation on this large, communal farm. \n\nHe said he can still understand some Icelandic despite him not having spoken a full sentence since he moved out at the age of 18. But he went from thinking bilingual to monolingual only to fit in. He cannot think in Icelandic, nor can he say many words but he still recognizes it, and can read the words and know some of the meanings. \n\nHe compared it to an encrypted hard drive, that he knows the cipher for it is laying around somewhere in his brain, yet he doesn't know where to find it, nor does he know where to get help from tech support to unlock those old abilities. I hope this clears up any confusion! ",
"I can tell you that I grew up bilingual in the US. Learned my English from playing with kids on the street, television, etc. When I entered kindergarten, I remember being conscious of needing to speak English (was not natural). I moved out of the house when I was 21 and stopped speaking the language. \n\nFast forward 20 years and we adopted kids from there. It took me about a week to 'get my tongue flexible' and shortly after that, I realized I was back to thinking in Lithuanian. \n\nI guess I am a testimony that if you keep it until you are an adult, you keep it forever. ",
"It's not hard at all. My country, Kazakhstan is officially bilingual and lots of people here used to study both Kazakh and Russian at school. But in my area, everybody prefers to speak Russian, so Kazakh being a native language can be eassily forgotten. Even though I know some basics of how to speak Kazakh, I already forgot most of the words and sometimes basic grammar of it. I am planning to study it up. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
16f3oj | what are soft/hard dollars | i need it for a project and i have no background info on finance. what does it mean to spend soft dollars. Particularly in respect to its use in Citizens United | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16f3oj/what_are_softhard_dollars/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7vgak7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The correct terms are \"soft money\" and \"hard money.\" \n\nTo understand soft money you have to first know what hard money is. Hard money is anything that is considered electioneering. The FEC decided that they will regulate contributions directly to candidates or contributions in favor of a specific candidate. That is hard money. But there is a loophole that as long as you don't specifically ask someone to vote for someone (or not vote for someone) its no longer electioneering, it's just an issues ad. People can donate unlimited soft money because it isn't regulated. These ads are often issues ads that clearly support a candidate without saying it directly. For more information read:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.howstuffworks.com/question498.htm"
]
]
|
|
5woy01 | why does binary use 0 and 1 instead of 1 and 2? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5woy01/eli5_why_does_binary_use_0_and_1_instead_of_1_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"debq91l",
"debqqp7",
"debqx61",
"debxedu",
"debyuj9"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
12,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Really it uses \"off\" and \"on\", this is just represented as 0 and 1. Representing \"off\" as \"0\" makes a lot more sense than representing it as \"1\".",
"Because it makes math work. Let's look at decimal (base 10, \"normal\") numbers: if I have the number 104, it means I have one hundred, zero tens, and four ones (or 1 \\* 10^2 + 0 \\* 10^1 + 4 \\* 10^(0)). \n\nBinary does the same thing, except with \"2\" as the base instead of \"10\". So 1001 in binary is (switching back to decimal here) 1 \\* 2^3 + 0 \\* 2^2 + 0 \\* 2^1 + 1 \\* 2^(0), which adds up to 9. That doesn't work if you use 1 and 2 instead of 0 and 1.",
"The same reason our base-10 number system uses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.\n\nThere is no symbol 10 in base 10.\n\nAny base has symbols up to, but not including the base you say it is. So base 10 has symbols up to 9. Binary has all the symbols up to 1.",
"You still need to represent zero with binary numbers.\n\nThe symbols used are honestly arbitrary, you just need enough symbols to cover the size of the base. But all systems need to represent zero because it's part of the range the number system needs to express.",
"There are three reasons I can think of, two of which have already been mentioned.\n\nOne is that the binary number system just doesn't have the symbol '2' in it. '10' is a perfectly adequate representation of two in that system.\n\nThe second is because at the end of the day all that really matters is there's an ON/OFF, YES/NO, TRUE/FALSE dynamic going on in the circuits of the computer. There's only two possible states the electronics can be in; call them whatever you want. But it makes sense that 0 should be one of them so we can note that the passive, \"default\" state of the computer is one thing, and then the \"1\" represents the alternate, changed state.\n\nThe third is that it actually has some use for logic and data analysis. To use an example from the class I should be studying for, imagine that you're trying to create a math equation for a computer program that could predict whether someone will not be able to pay back their loans. You have an equation that looks something like:\n\nprobability_of_default = 0.25x(person_is_student) + 0.0003x(debt)\n\nThe word \"debt\" just represents the amount of money they borrowed. But the word \"person_is_student\" represents whether or not that person is a student. If you express it as 0 for \"not a student\" and 1 for \"is a student\", that's super useful because it means that part of the equation all multiplies to 0 if the person isn't a student, which is what you want.\n\nIf you tried to use 1 and 2 for student status, you'd have to code extra lines to tell the computer to check if the number is \"1\" or \"2\" and do different things accordingly. Making something go away by multiplying by 0 in one case is a lot easier."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5yo8gg | why western formal menswear is always white and black, with something tied around your neck? | I like classic mens fashion, so recently i started wondering about what visual effects lapels, ties, Black and white generate, how they work and how it became socially accepted.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yo8gg/eli5_why_western_formal_menswear_is_always_white/ | {
"a_id": [
"dernwoi",
"ders9x1"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"I only know about ties. They used to be functional. Weirdly, in the Croatian military during the 1600's, they used to tie the top of their military jackets together (instead of a top button) with a bit of cloth. King Louis XIII liked the look so much he made it a requirement for royal gatherings. It became fashionable as a result. Never really went out of style.",
"Tie - > Crawat - > Kravat - > Kroat\n\nKroat soldiers wore neckties and they became European fashion when the most powerful of all the Europeans (whom, to this day, other Europeans will listen to and emulate) decided he fancied them.\n\nAs for the black and white-ness of the menswear, consider that\n\n* it was very unusual to go places unaccompanied for 'nice people', and \n* you didn't really know what fantastic colors the ladies would show up with until they, well, showed up. \n\nSo, black and white was a utile \"goes with everything, emphasizes your date's color choices\" standard. \n\nI've heard it said the V shape of the neck makes men seem taller and top-heavier (both masculine traits in Europe), which I buy - but have read no proof of that reasoning being around at the time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
je4vc | how to pick a lock? info inside. | I know will people will ask me what kind of locks, and I'm asking about any type of locks, from common door locks to deadbolts to car door locks to padlocks. Anything. I need a very detailed answer. What do I need to do it? Can it be done with very common objects, and if so, with what and on what type locks? Where can I get a lockpick? Are there certain types of picks for certain types of locks? Is it possible to learn how to pick a lock from having very little to no experience?
Thanks, reddit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/je4vc/eli5how_to_pick_a_lock_info_inside/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2bclyh",
"c2beepe",
"c2bclyh",
"c2beepe"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure you want this explained like you're five.",
"Hit the Auto-Attempt button until you run out of lockpicks.\n\nNOTE: Works best if in possession of the Skeleton Key",
"I'm not sure you want this explained like you're five.",
"Hit the Auto-Attempt button until you run out of lockpicks.\n\nNOTE: Works best if in possession of the Skeleton Key"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
47qgnh | what is human? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47qgnh/eli5_what_is_human/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ev4y1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Are we human, or are we dancer? my signs are vital, my hands are cold"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ozdbm | tim and eric | A bunch of my friends find it hilarious, including those that I find to be intelligent and have a good sense of humor. I genuinely don't understand it. The best I can surmise is that the point is to force the viewer to say WTF and laugh at how little it makes sense? I honestly don't know. As an example, in their IAMA one of them said the 'Oh Mama' sketch was one of their favorites [link](_URL_0_).
Can anyone explain their sense of humor? I don't want to write it off, but because I genuinely don't understand it I can't help but find it to be stupid. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ozdbm/eli5_tim_and_eric/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3l94kn",
"c3lage3",
"c3lahps",
"c3lakl6",
"c3lal36",
"c3lb0fu",
"c3lbm88",
"c3lc2gm",
"c3lc3ys",
"c3lctor",
"c3ld3tj",
"c3leaw0",
"c3lebqg",
"c3ledh2",
"c3lehmy",
"c3les7x",
"c3lfbui",
"c3lojld"
],
"score": [
46,
11,
8,
3,
28,
2,
2,
2,
5,
10,
2,
3,
5,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a matter of taste, so it's hard for me to label why I like Tim and Eric. First, I can understand anybody not liking Tim and Eric, I wholly recognize how ridiculous it is, which is 98% the fun.\n\nHere's how I break down Tim and Eric to skeptical friends, there are two parts:\n\nSatire: A lot of Tim and Eric sketches are just making fun of terrible public access television, ridiculous television shows, music videos or infomercials (Thanks Cinco~!). Sometimes it's so unfunny, gross, or borderline unnerving that it becomes funny.\n\nOnce I read a quote from one of them saying that their show is essentially \"the nightmare of television.\"\n\nSurrealism: This would be the \"WTF\" type of humor that comes along with the show. This part, well, honestly, drugs help. In seriousness, though, this part is where it gets labeled as stupid and dismissed. This portion really boils down to personal taste and how funny you find the randomness/awkwardness/whatever-else-ness of it all.\n\nGood looking out on at least trying to give them a whirl, it's definitely an acquired taste. My favorite sketches are usually the Cinco parodies, everybody can relate to terrible infomercials and far-fetched products. By the way, check out Tom Goes to Mayor. ",
"I can stand about five minutes then they get all greasy and gross me the fuck out. Then again the invented Dr. Steve Brule, my hero.",
"It's \"So unfunny it's funny\". Except that type of humor only really works for youtube videos and the like as a quick, rare joke. When you keep doing that joke over and over, then you just have an intentionally unfunny show. Like anti-jokes, they need to be few and far between. ",
"You could ask them yourself: _URL_0_",
"I had to watch the entire first season before I \"got it.\" Rarely laughed. When I go back and watch it again later, I laugh my ass off.\n\nIt's alternative comedy. Don't focus on the actual jokes, but more on the premise, the situation, the parody. Look at things from a layer up. I guess it's like reading between the lines.\n\nThink about how 'normal' comedy has made you have expectations. You already know when a joke is coming, you already know the structure of a sitcom. You laugh and enjoy it because your expectations are fulfilled. When watching the show, realize that it breaks expectations and is very illogical. You will laugh at the unexpected and laugh at being surprised. The unknown is incredibly entertaining.\n\nIt can take time to get into the 'proper' mindset, but it's totally worth it.",
"Tim and Eric are an example of Absurdism.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I share your sentiment exactly. My friends urged that I watch it, and I sincerely gave it a try but I could not just enjoy it whatsoever. And it's not that I don't enjoy the \"wtf\" shows, but the humor feels so dry to me.\n\nMy friend compared it to watching Napolean Dynamite or Borat, both of which I liked. I suppose because all three of them have sporadic, unexplainable things happening in them. I couldn't feel it though.\n\nI suppose I answered in more of a AskReddit fashion than an ELI5, but I can only give my perspective from an outsider.",
"a common theme I've noticed: Things that are supposed to be good, they make disgusting. That's a very frequent joke. Sex is between unattractive people. Food is gross and hands are frequently touching it. etc.\n\nIMO, the best is the \"Jim and Derrick\" episode where they really take meta-humor to a high level, very referential both about their own show, and what the fans focus on in their show, and their fanbase in general, all under the guise of a show antithetical to their fanbase. Really well layered comedy.\n\nAlso, I've noticed in a lot of interviews with comedians, that many comedians refer to it as their favorite show, so maybe there's an aspect of comedy that comedians find funny. I don't know there though.",
"i feel the exact same way as the op",
"At least they don't watch Big Bang Theory.",
"I can't stand them. I'd fake having cancer to get the make a wish foundation to get them to meet me so I could kick them both in the nuts",
"I don't find them funny... I think of them as more of a modern Dada art movement...",
"I chewed on this for a long time before answering. I mostly agree with you. I do think there's value to their show, although I rarely like it. In fact I usually hate watching it. I want to commiserate with you and be insightful, but I want my answer to not be a) grandiose, or b) patronizing. \n\nFirst of all I think only about half of the people who say they like it, really do (I know that sounds weird, but stay with me). They don't like it because they \"get\" it. They like it because the form resonates with them. They're looking for something this formless and grotesque. They're bored, flipping through channels. I think most often they're people taken off guard, who didn't have it built up as \"amazing\" by their friends, and they came to it by accident. They're sharp people, not easily pleased, and one day they flip to Adult Swim and \"HO-LEE SHIT. Finally someone is doin' somethin' new!\"\n\nBut also think some of their stuff is just really funny. For anyone. If they have a shtick, it's taking something from the world of more conventional comedy, something a little observational, and then turning it into a nightmare. I think this is best exemplified by [\"It's Not Jackie Chan\"](_URL_1_). (Come on, that's fucking funny.) I feel, however, that [Stewart Lee's comedy](_URL_2_) is leaps and bounds better at this. It's funny on the surface, and it has a point of view. It's - dare I say it? - satire! And I like satire most of all. Tim and Eric's strength AIN'T satire. But some people don't care about point of view or satire. And they're not wrong.\n\nI think, though, that there are people who (careful how you parse this, JessePinkman) are just pretending they like it. No, not so they'll seem smart. I'm not being elitist. But sometimes I look at the show and I just say \"Ok what is there to like about this really? On ANY level?\" And I think for these people, it being so hard to take IS the appeal. Okay, there were people who dismissed Jackson Pollock, but he was doing something great, and people felt really good defending him. And THEN there are people who defend horrible bullshit like GG Allin or Keith Boadwee (Go ahead and Google them, I dare you), and they just want to be on the side of transgression in art (Now I'm getting grandiose). \n\nTo bring it back to Earth, [Wonder Showzen](_URL_0_) was a show on MTV2. Did you ever watch it? Most of the time, the idea seemed to be to get people to change the channel. But some people held on. It seems to me, those people just wanted to pat themselves on the back for being the kind of person who liked it, not because they actually liked it.\n\nI'm being unfair because sometimes Wonder Showzen was funny too. But not as often as Tim and Eric. ",
"OP, you're not alone in 'not getting' Tim and Eric. I'm a member in what appears to be a minority as well.",
"You have to smoke a bowl first... then all will be revealed.",
"Absurdity is hilarious.",
"[The universe. What a concept.](_URL_0_)",
"They're like the r/circlejerk of television/movies. Their TV shows are a spoof of the usual TV shows out there. I watched the movie yesterday and it is basically a spoof of all different sorts of movies."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwhZ8Y82xw4&feature=related"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ozast/we_are_tim_and_eric_ausa/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLwPXMedIaI",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8u4CEBVq7s",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yQP3frvrA0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Sp-nl4rTU"
],
[]
]
|
|
c41zb4 | how do digital cameras focus by me just holding down one button? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c41zb4/eli5_how_do_digital_cameras_focus_by_me_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"eruk8ww",
"erulqev",
"ervfdw2"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They analyze the data coming from the sensor and adjust the focus until they get the clearest image.\n\nWhen you're out of focus, the level of similarity between pixels is high, as the image comes into focus, the similarity between pixels drops. The camera adjusts the lens until it finds the point with the lowest similarity between pixels.",
"there is a software running in the camera which scans the fokus and tries to find the setting with the sharpest edges on the sensor. This only works if you have sharp edges on the object you want to photograph. try an autofokus on something smooth, and it will fail.",
"There are different ways a digital camera does this.\nThe most popular method is \"contrast autofocus\".\n\nWith contrast AF the camerasoftware evaluates how sharp the image is. Then the camera focuses a bit and checks again if the image got sharper. So it's basically the camera cleverly focusing around until the software says \"stop here, this was the sharpest image I have seen\". The software detects sharpness by measuring the contrast. The higher the contrast, the sharper the image.\n\nAn other method is \"phase autofocus\". While contrast AF is cheap since it only requires software, phase AF requires an additional sensor, making it more expensive and therefore less widespread. But it has some benefits over contrast AF.\n\nThe phase AF system uses a clever optical mechanism to project the desired image section multiple times on the additional sensor. The clever part is, that the projected images are further away from each other on the sensor the more the real image section is away from being at focus distance. So the image distance on the sensor is a measurement of the defocus. This way the camera immediately knows how much and in which direction it has to adjust the focus. Without trying around.\n\nPhase AF is often found in expensive premium cameras.\n\nEdit: typo; typo"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4j4s29 | how are diamond-coated/tipped tools so much more cheaper than the diamonds you buy for jewelry? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j4s29/eli5_how_are_diamondcoatedtipped_tools_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"d33oo5w",
"d33ool7",
"d33oqjw",
"d33rmfx"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Those are machine-made, really impure diamonds. They are tiny (more like dust than anything else), don't really look like diamonds, and are really easy to mass produce. Jewelry-grade diamonds, on the other hand, must either be mined or produced with specialized equipment under much more stringent conditions.\n\nAlso, mined jewelry-grade diamonds are nearly all owned by De Beers, a globe-spanning monopoly which controls the entire supply and sets prices. They are the primary reason for the ad campaigns which convinced people that diamond engagement rings were necessary, and did nothing about conflict diamonds for decades until people noticed that thousands of people were dying for their shiny rocks every year.",
"The supply of jewelry diamonds is kept artificially scarce to keep the price high. \n & nbsp; \nAlso for industrial uses, it's a lot harder for a marketing campaign to brainwash people into thinking a sawblade should cost two months' salary. Either it cuts what you want it to cut or it doesn't, and if it does but you can't afford the price of the blade, you're going to find a cheaper alternative to having to make the cut.\n",
"Diamonds for jewelry have to be perfect to a very small degree of variation in cut, color, and clarity. Diamonds in diamond-tipped tools are just tiny shards, fragments, practically like diamond sand. They can be any shape, color, or clarity. Here's a closeup on what the \"tip\" looks like-\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSame reason why composite board is cheaper than, say, a solid walnut plank. ",
"For jewelry, you want diamonds that look pretty, so that have ideally no flaws, and are at least decently sized. For industrial applications, the only thing you want the diamond for is its extreme hardness, and you couldn't care less about whether it looks pretty."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_tool#/media/File:Diamond_blade_very_macro.jpg"
],
[]
]
|
||
8qoa7q | why are zero-calorie sweeteners used mostly just for beverages rather than food? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qoa7q/eli5_why_are_zerocalorie_sweeteners_used_mostly/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0kqytu",
"e0krcvx"
],
"score": [
29,
4
],
"text": [
"Zero calorie sweeteners are hundreds or thousands of times as sweet as sugar.\n\nIf you make something where sugar is part of the bulk ingredients, like chocolate chip cookies, suddenly you're missing the cup or two of sugar which was a big part of the total volume of the dough, plus it affects the chemical reactions that occur when cooking (sugar browns and caramelizes, this greatly affects the flavour) and overall can affect the texture.\n\nSo it's easy to use non-sugar sweeteners in say, bubblegum, where the bulk ingredient is gum base, but harder for say a cookie.\n",
"holy grail of fake sweeter is a zero-calorie inert substance with same volume and taste as sugar and same baking/cooking characteristics. taste they sort of figured out. not the others."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4yppie | why we need to become unconscious in order to sleep? | I understand that we need sleep for our bodies to have time to recover and heal, but why do we need to be unconscious to do that? Why can't that process take place while relaxing or doing something the required very little brain activity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yppie/eli5_why_we_need_to_become_unconscious_in_order/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6pjlmw",
"d6qjxd9"
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text": [
"There are a few animals that are capable of remaining conscious while sleeping, such as dolphins. This is a phenomenon known as [unihemispheric sleep](_URL_1_), in which one half of the brain is sleeping at a given time.\n\nAs to why humans did not evolve to be unihemispheric sleepers, it is likely that the requirements to do so would detract from our other abilities. Our brains are set up in a way that the activation of both the left and right hemispheres are required to perform most tasks. Patients who have undergone a [corpus callosotomy](_URL_0_), a surgical procedure that severs the connection between these two halfs, often experience difficulties with tasks that require synchronization of both sides of the body (ex. tying shoelaces).\n\nSo likely, even if humans could become unihemispheric sleepers, we would not be able to perform any useful tasks. If we do want to be unihemispheric sleepers while keeping all of our current functionality, we would need redundant areas of the brain, which would be a big investment.\n\nFrom an evolutionary standpoint, unihemispheric sleep is most useful to animals that must be constantly on the move (ie. long migrations, swimming mammals that need to surface, etc.) and are capable of maintaining this constant physical activity. Humans have no such requirements (since we can rest safely in shelters), nor the ability to do so (since gathering the required calories would have been hard for hunter gatherers). Therefore, our brains changed to increase our cognitive abilities, rather than our sleeping abilities.",
"An important detail which most commenters are apparently unaware of: You are still conscious while sleeping. \n\nSleep is considered to be a state of altered consciousness, not unconsciousness. This is because you can still respond to stimuli while asleep, and wake up if necessary. \n\nIn other words, everything is working normally while you're asleep. If you're unconscious, that means something is NOT working normally. Things that should wake you up aren't waking you up. Unconsciousness is a sign of something seriously wrong, e.g. brain injury, seizure, alcohol poisoning."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosotomy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unihemispheric_slow-wave_sleep"
],
[]
]
|
|
1md7lm | why people care at all if humanity has to continue, or thrive, or even survive. | Why does every movie or show end up with the idea that we must save humanity? What would be so bad about us dying out? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1md7lm/eli5_why_people_care_at_all_if_humanity_has_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc83008",
"cc837jn",
"cc84nwg",
"cc852s6"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It usually involves the hero of the movie wanting to survive as well... And he usually has a family with him so he'd want them to live. Usually...",
"Historically, it's because early social animals that actually cared about each other (a little bit, sometimes, when it's convenient), and put on a show of caring for each other did better than the antisocial jackasses who didn't do either of those things. We're descended from the slightly more empathetic group, because other members of the tribe were more likely to go out of their way to help out the altruists than the sociopaths.\n\nPsychologically, it's because when we see someone hurting (or dying) that we have any sort of connection to at all, we imagine that happening to us, and actually feel pain as a result. We're motivated to avoid that pain, so we try to prevent the suffering of people we're close to.",
"I find it scary that you don't care. There are people you love out there. Humanity has created such great and beautiful things. Yes, humanity has also fucked up, but the continuation of your own race is essential. ",
"Imagine humanity as a team you play in. You would want them to win."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2hecv7 | what makes god more more prominent than the greek gods? | I never really understood how God is more known in the world today. It dawned upon me whilst I re-read the books from the Percy Jackson series. Without trying to start an argument I'll say I'm [Agnostic](_URL_0_). So why do more people believe in God, why not the Greek gods instead? Is is because there are more evidence of existence? Like the Bible etc.
I've searched the sub-reddit for an answer but didn't really find anything so I apologize if there already was. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hecv7/eli5_what_makes_god_more_more_prominent_than_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckrvz0i",
"ckrw7nx",
"ckrxd8f"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"His fan club 1) isn't extinct and 2) is way bigger than theirs ever was.",
"The story goes that during the reign of Constantine, he had a vision that under a Christian symbol, he would be led to victory. There is speculation about his own religious practices after said victory, but because of it he allowed Christians to practice freely and Christianity soon became sort of the state religion of the Roman empire. \n\nSince most of Europe and North Africa were Roman, a lot of land became Christian. While it is true that the Roman empire split and with that split Christianity also got divided... and the Muslim expansion converted many Roman holdings to Islam... because Christianity had been a part of one of the greatest empires but by being an ideal also outlived its empire, it maintained a hold in Europe - which is where most of the ideals of modern society are traced back to.\n\nSimilarly, Christian groups historically destroyed pagan movements with force (like the destruction of many of the relics of the Latin American religions) or incorporated ideals of those religions and claimed that those ideas being shared was evidence of Christianity's reality.\n\nLikewise, it's a religion that tells it's followers to spread is message throughout the world. Many of the old world religions made no emphasis on doing so, and some were practically secret societies in terms of who and how they initiated believers.",
"Monotheistic religions have a way of gobbling up polytheistic religions.\n\nIf you are polytheistic, you are ok with someone worshipping a different god than you. The hunter worships Artemis, the blacksmith worships Hephaestus, and if that weird foreign guy worships Yahweh, what's the harm?\n\nMonotheists see it very differently. There is Yahweh, and everything else is evil, and they are highly motivated to remove evil from their midsts, once they come to power. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
279dpy | is it common to pick up accents to which you are exposed in as little time as an hour? | Me and a friend of mine both have frequent online interactions and notice that we typically come out of conversations (mostly with Irish people) with strong accents similar to those of the people which we were speaking to. This can take as little time as an hour and vary from an intonation on Os (from Canada) to full on accents (from Ireland). Most of these accents go away partially within a few hours, but some of the intonation or other features remain. Any explanation?
Possibly Important: We are both from the south U.S. and have been trying to keep from picking up our local accent our entire lives. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/279dpy/eli5_is_it_common_to_pick_up_accents_to_which_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"chyme9o",
"chynbyx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's very usual to pick up an accent when you travel to a new location, though it normally takes longer than an hour. You might speak using more local vocabulary rather quickly, but the actual accent will usually take a few weeks or months to pick up.",
"Subconsciously our brains adapt to our surroundings, just like you pick up the pace when you're walking with a slightly faster group of friends or you accidentally catch yourself mimicking the body language of people around you or responding to it. Your Brain decides the best way to survive is to fit in. People who are eager to please tend to do this more quickly than others but its all adaption and it eventually happens to everyone. If you like saying things a certain way and you hear them a lot, then you imitate them more often and with conscious effort sometimes.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
62ej8y | why in sports when players get injured do they call the players "injury prone" if almost all injuries are random accidents? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62ej8y/eli5_why_in_sports_when_players_get_injured_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dflv5z4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They aren't totally random accidents.\n\n* Players have a degree of control over how aggressive and risky they play ('smart' aggressive vs. 'stupid' aggressive)\n\n* Players have a lot of control over their strength, conditioning, flexibility and warm ups. All of this can impact injuries. They also have control over rehab protocols, which can impact rehab time.\n\n* There is a genetic basis for flexibility as well as for tendon, ligament and bone strength. Rehab time may also differ from person to person."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
96fvii | how come presidential elections always end up around 50-50 and never 40-60 or larger difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96fvii/eli5_how_come_presidential_elections_always_end/ | {
"a_id": [
"e404cb2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In the USA, roughly 47% of people will vote Democrat and roughly 48% of people will vote Republican, regardless of the candidate. Most people will simply vote for whomever their political party has chosen to represent them. This is why Democrats don't typically rally very hard in places like California, or why Republicans don't spend much time in Texas -- those votes are already secured. \n\nThe remaining ~5% typically determine the victor, which is why so much effort is spent in courting \"swing states\". \n\nThere are exceptions, but they are rare. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
b1xmkf | what the frick is the difference between method and character/classic acting? | Saw something about method actors and it annoyingly peaked my interest on what the difference is and it's driving me bonkers that I can't find a solid dumbed down explination on the differences. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1xmkf/eli5_what_the_frick_is_the_difference_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"eioxoeg",
"eioxv1d",
"eip3myj"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Classic acting is getting into character when required, and doing what's needed to bring a character to life, but it has to be supported by a good script, or it falls down, because you're acting to the script. You're being told what the characters motivations are, and using your ability as an actor to convey that convincingly. \n\nThe idea behind method acting is you try your best to 'get into the head' of the character you're playing so that you don't need to be told what that character's thought process is - you'd already know. A technique to try and do this is to apply their character to situations other than that which the script demands of you. Normally that manifests in that the actor *is* the character for the duration of the shoot, whether in front of the camera or not, in order to get their head in the zone that they **are** whoever they're there to play. They're not acting, they are the person. \n\nIf you can do it, what this allows for is free-flowing improvisation, when necessary, because you're not just playing a character to a script, at that point you *are* the character, so respond as they would, whether or not a director tells you to. \n\nDustin Hoffman's known for method acting, which resulted in arguably one of the more famous improvised moments in cinema, from [Midnight Cowboy](_URL_0_). The taxi driver wasn't supposed to be there. The street wasn't closed, but they'd timed the walk to arrive at the crossroads on a green light for walking, and the taxi driver jumped the light. The result was Dustin Hoffman's character reacting completely in character, and carrying on with their conversation on like any real person would do. \n\nWhereas someone acting classically would break character then, and you'd have to re-set the scene. \n\nNot that it's always a great thing method acting, but it has its uses. \n\n",
"Character acting - you play a pirate, you YARRR at everyone during the scene but when you hear \"Cut!\", you're back being a normal British actor from 21st century.\n\nMethod acting - same thing during the scene, but after the \"Cut!\" you're still YARRRing at everyone, hang a jolly Roger flag from your car and hide your movie money in a hole in the ground. ",
"I'm no expert (did some theater electives at uni, but nothing more). As I understand it though:\n\n**Character Acting** is the practice of playing non-archetype characters. Most narratives tend to centre around a couple of character archetypes (romantic leads, hero, villain etc) that behave in predictable and understandable ways. These archetypes allow the audience to quickly grasp the overall shape of a story and understand how they are supposed to feel about the main characters. Beyond these archetypes, there are all the other characters who are typically unique to a particular piece. Whilst these characters are usually less important within the narrative, playing them is generally considered harder because they are so unique. A good romantic lead (eg. Hugh Grant) only needs to put in the work to develop his character once, then tweaks it a little bit for each new role. A good character actor needs to develop their character from scratch each time (eg. Geoffrey Rush in Shine, Elizabeth, The King's Speech etc).\n\n**Naturalistic Acting** is the desire to achieve naturalism in a performance. All modern theories of naturalistic acting derive to some extent from the writing of Stanislavski, but there's a number of traditions. Naturalistic acting (of all traditions) is generally about authenticity rather than signaling. For example an audience might realize that a certain character is a villain because the actor performs in a way that seems really, actually villainous (authenticity), or the actor might let the audience know he is a villain by finishing every sentence with an 'evil laugh' (signaling). Naturalistic acting traditions usually achieve this authenticity by trying to close the gap between the character and the actor.\n\n**Classical Acting** is the English tradition of naturalistic acting. The key techniques are analysis and control. The actor starts by attempting to understand the character by analysis. This might involve research, role playing/imagination, textual analysis, analogy with events in the the actor's own life etc. After an actor understands the character intimately, they should know with certainty exactly what the character is thinking and feeling at any moment. From this knowledge, the actor can figure out exactly how this inner life of the character should reflect physically. Should their posture be tense or relaxed? How should they speak? Should their movements be calm and confident or twitchy and tight? At the moment of performance the actor can use their practiced and refined physical skill to precisely perform the role exactly as they envision it in their mind's eye.\n\nIn short, classical acting is about closing the gap between the character and the actor by moving the actor closer to the character. As a result, the performance is likely to hew much closer the script, and you can probably draw a bright line between when the actor is in character or not. \n\n**Method Acting** is the American tradition of naturalistic acting. The key techniques are experiencing and emoting. The actor starts by analyzing the text to identify the emotions that drive the character from moment to moment. The actor then finds within themselves various emotions that are analogous to the emotions being felt by a character. The actor develops triggers that allow these emotions to be dredged up on cue. At the moment of performance, the actor triggers the appropriate emotion and then simply 'plays themselves' responding to the situation and other characters in exactly the way that the actor themselves would under that emotional context.\n\nIn short, method acting closes the gap by moving the character closer to the actor. As a result, method actors are far more likely to improvise within the framework of the script. Additionally, it may well be harder to draw a clear distinction between an actor and the character they are playing. You might even hear someone say that such and such a method actor always just plays a version of themselves."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c412hqucHKw"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
dukq7p | when you wear colored contacts how does it not filter your vision to that color? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dukq7p/eli5_when_you_wear_colored_contacts_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"f76sv6m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Colored lenses are generally going to be clear in the center so you don’t get the color distortion"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4wrpws | what's the difference between treason and rebellion? | What makes a person a traitor? In the 1600s, Cromwell overthrew the king and became Lord Protector. He was seen as a hero? But then that government was overthrown for a monarchy. Which of these cases is rebellion and which is treason? Or are any of them treason/rebellion? I'm confused! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wrpws/eli5whats_the_difference_between_treason_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d69d4c7",
"d69dj9g",
"d69dnpu"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically the difference is whether you are successful or not.\n\nI mean, there are treasonous acts that aren't done to overthrow a government, like selling nuclear secrets to china.\n\nBut in terms of open rebellion, if you don't succeed you are probably going to be branded a traitor, and if you do then you are the leader of a rebellion. If US lost the revolution and went on to have a decent relationship with england, benedict arnold would be known as a defector not a traitor most likely.",
"Rebellion means mounting an armed opposition against the established government. Treason means violating your duty of loyalty to the government, which can be by rebelling, but also for example by supporting an enemy government. An important part of treason is that you have a duty--someone who is not a citizen cannot commit treason, though he could be a rebel.\n\nPeople who commit treason must feel that there is some overriding concern that justifies their acts. If they overthrow the government, naturally there will be no prosecution for that act.",
"Rebellion is trying to overthrow/replace your government; treason is acting in any way that seriously damages your government's interests. All rebellion is treason, but not all treason is rebellion: for example, I can be perfectly happy with the US government and still sell nuclear secrets to China because they're paying me for it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6leunc | how do rich people use donations as tax write-offs to save money? wouldn't it be more financially beneficial to just keep the money and have it taxed? | I always hear people say "he only made the donation so he could write it off their taxes"...but wouldn't you save more money by just keeping the money and allowing it to be taxed at 40% or whatever the rate is?
Edit: ...I'm definitely more confused now than I was before I posted this. But I have learned a lot so thanks for the responses. This Seinfeld scene pretty much sums up this thread perfectly (courtesy of /u/mac-0 ) _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6leunc/eli5_how_do_rich_people_use_donations_as_tax/ | {
"a_id": [
"djt90n3",
"djt98o8",
"djt9ckl",
"djt9cn2",
"djta9vr",
"djtah77",
"djtbaaq",
"djtbbhz",
"djtbjpd",
"djtbpq7",
"djtbzb5",
"djtcqed",
"djtf7wm",
"djtfjlc",
"djtfkrf",
"djtfplg",
"djtghg4",
"djtgros",
"djth84f",
"djti4ik",
"djtigxs",
"djtijww",
"djtilzt",
"djtiv46",
"djtjnli",
"djtjotm",
"djtjt0j",
"djtka89",
"djtkcli",
"djtldwy",
"djtlwh5",
"djtm9t6",
"djtm9wl",
"djtmxs1",
"djtoegc",
"djtogcz",
"djtpuv3",
"djtr1n4",
"djtr4xs",
"djtr61o",
"djtskm6",
"djttkju",
"djttt3x",
"djtup1x",
"djtuvir",
"djtv6zt",
"djtvu0z",
"djtwg9v",
"djtwn2y",
"djtwneh",
"djtx3mc",
"djtxcwq",
"dju0fi1",
"dju0iow",
"dju1lmz",
"dju356h",
"dju6tpp",
"dju9isl",
"djucbae",
"djuciwr",
"djun7ih",
"djure5a",
"djurgla"
],
"score": [
15,
225,
7,
3,
78,
2,
45,
94,
10248,
53,
180,
130,
7,
964,
328,
2,
2,
41,
3,
3,
3,
9,
5,
3,
5,
31,
2,
2,
6,
90,
2,
6,
2,
11,
2,
20,
2,
2,
2,
5,
24,
2,
4,
24,
3,
3,
4,
6,
3,
6,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
7,
5,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes you'd save more money just paying taxes on it. The way a donation works is its a tax deduction, so you just don't pay taxes on that money you are still behind in total.",
"You are correct that you'd keep more overall by not donating, but if you donate and take a tax deduction you're effectively paying 60 cents on the dollar in terms of cash flow... i.e. A $10k donation only means $6k less money to spend (after tax savings), which lessens the blow so to speak and might make some choose to give or not.",
"This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how tax brackets work. Many people think you can donate money to 'drop a tax bracket' and you'll save money at the end of the day. Which you can't do.\n\nOn the other hand if you make a donation to a foundation that will do services for you, you can save money. It's a legal gray area to do this but if it all worked out you could save a substantial amount of money. ",
"Well, you'd have more money if you just kept it. \n\nBut, on the other hand, if you value the work the charity does at 100% of the value of your donation, you'd give them money even with no deduction. \n\nWhere the tax element comes into play is when you only value the work of the charity at 80% of the money you give them. With no deduction, this isn't \"worth it\". With the 30% deduction that wealthy people who itemize get, it only costs 70% because the government will let you keep 30% of what you donate that you'd otherwise pay in tax. That makes charity a better \"deal\", you get 80% worth of value for 70% as much money.",
"You're right: it's normally better to keep your money than to donate, if you're interested in having more money.\n\nRich people donate money because they want to donate it, not for financial benefit. Of course individual motives vary--some people might be philanthropically-minded, other people might be more interested from the social prestige that comes with regularly giving large donations. \n\nIn either case, of course it's easier for a rich person to give away part of their money than for a poor person to do. By permitting donations to be deducted from taxable income, the government encourages donation (people can afford to donate more, because they save on taxes).",
"They don't use it to save money.\n\nThey use it to buy favors from the organization that they can cash in later either figuratively or literally.\n\nIf they're at the highest tax bracket, a $1MM donation only really costs them around $600,000.00. If they were going to donate some amount anyways, for altruistic reasons, they're essentially getting a 67% match from the government.",
"The only way it saves you money is when you lie about the value of a donated asset. Let's say that your country has two tax brackets: 0% for under $100K and 50% for $100K and up. You make $150K/year, which means you thus pay $25K/year in taxes.\n\nYou have some asset that's worth $10K. If you donate it, you get a $10K tax deduction, which means that you get taxed as if you only made $140K -- and now you pay $20K in taxes instead. So you saved $5K by donating a $10K asset.\n\nBut next year, you do the same thing for an identical asset, but when you get it valued you bribe the guy to lie and say it's worth $30K. Now you're taxed as if you made $120K, which means you only pay *$10K* in taxes for the year. Now you've saved $15K by giving away an item worth $10K.\n\nThis is much easier with certain items than with others. For example, art, artifacts, collectibles. If I have a painting, or Marlon Brando's jacket from some movie, or a set of armor used in some historical battle, those are far more subjectively valued than say a modern car or a house, where the government can say \"hang on, your neighbour's house is very similar to yours and only sold for 1/3rd as much, that sounds off.\" Say that you wanted to reduce your taxable income. You could come to me and say \"sell me this item for $100K at auction, but coincidentally give me $99K as a gift the next day.\" I've effectively sold you an item for $1K, but now you have evidence that it's actually worth 100x that. You bribe someone to value it as such and then donate it to a museum. Now you might be paying $30K less in tax for the year because you gave away something worth $1K. It's generally a little more elaborate than this but you get the idea.",
"They can donate something other than money, which adds a lot of flexibility, especially if it is worth more to other people than to them. An athlete might donate signed sports memorabilia, a lawyer free legal services, etc. Also, since the value of non-monetary items is subjective, they can often inflate their value.\n\nAnother way is to donate to a charity you control. If you donate $50K to the charity that pays your spouse $50K to be the director, you get your tax deduction while essentially keeping the money. Then you donate another $30K, which the charity uses on the director's car.",
"You're getting a lot of different answers here, and most are correct but people here are talking about cash donations. There's another big type of donation that rich people make too and that's in illiquid/non-marketable assets such as real estate and/or shares in private companies.\n\nThe ELI5 is a little difficult, but the gist is that for private companies, getting a 'value' is about 99% art and 1% science. Accounting is a lot more assumptions and guess work than people would like to publicly acknowledge. \n\nSo what an individual can do is offer to donate, say, 10% of his company to a charity. Let's say that the company did really well last year so that guy can easily find an accountant to say that 10% is worth $10M. So the guy has a $10M tax deduction he can use as he sees fit (subject to AMT and other shit, but you get the point). The guy also knows that last year's performance was a blip and if he repeated that 10% donation this year, he'd only get a valuation of $5M. In effect he's got an extra $5M from the valuation. \n\nWhen I was younger, I was on the young alumni board for the university I went to for undergrad and we used to see this all the time. Someone would donate property/illiquid securities/art/etc with an 'assessed' value of (say) $10M, but when the school went to sell it, they'd only realize (say) $3M in cash. But the guy would still get to keep the $10M tax deduction. To a guy like that, a $10M tax deduction could be worth $4m to $5M easily.\n\nI'm sure you're wondering, and yes this is in that 'gray zone' that's just millimeters from being tax fraud. However, the IRS rarely pursues these cases 1) because they are *really* hard to win, 2) the school doesn't really care b/c they still just got a $3M donation, and 3) the school isn't going to 'help' the IRS (beyond bare minimum compliance) b/c the school would have to give up the $3M.\n\nA similar, but different, application of this idea is where Mitt Romney reported a [$102M IRA](_URL_0_) by having accounts toy with the value/valuation of the assets within the IRA. There's no reasonable way you could ever get that much into an IRA....unless you got your accountants to depress the value first then re-value later.\n\n***EDIT:*** I'm getting a lot of questions about how this worked for Romney. Here is a *purely hypothetical* example based loosely on when Bain Capital took out Domino's Pizza that I put in a lower comment - I'm putting it here so more people see it:\n\nI'm going to make up the exact numbers, but this is the mechanics: Romney had a type of retirement account where you could but $30K cash per year in the account tax free. He also had a private equity firm invested in private companies.\n\nRomney took $30K cash, put it in the retirement account each year - tax free. Each year, his accountants would say, 0.X% of your portfolio companies is magically equal to $30K, so Romney would take the $30K cash in the tax-sheltered IRA and buy 0.X% of his companies personally. He did this for about (I think) 15 years. After a while, he converted it to a ROTH IRA meaning that he'd pay a small one-time tax hit but withdrawals are tax free.\n\nLater on, his private equity company would sell the individual companies that it owned (or take them public). When they were sold, Romney would recognize the gain BUT it was now within the tax-sheltered IRA he'd pay no taxes and because he converted to a ROTH IRA, he pays no taxes on withdrawals. Genius.\n\nHere's a sort of hypothetical example. In 1998, Bain (Romney's PE company) bought Dominos Pizza for $1.1B. They probably used a standard PE structure meaning that they borrowed $1.0B and put down cash for $100M. So the company is $1.0B debt and $100M equity. Romney puts in $30K each year to buy some of Dominos ($30K/$100M = .03%/year). He buys .03% per year, for a total of .45% of Dominos after 15 years. At this point, he converts from a traditional IRA to a ROTH IRA paying roughly $100K in taxes ($450K in contributions multiplied by his tax rate at the time of the conversion - maybe a little more or less than $100K, but in the neighborhood).\n\nThen they take Dominos public, which they did. Dominos is worth $10B as of right now, so Romney's 0.45% of Dominos would be worth $45M. ***All completely tax free*** because its in a ROTH.\n\nIn reality, he has an IRA worth $102M, so my example is off by about half, but you get the basic mechanics. The IRS looked at it and said it was aggressive but not illegal when he ran for president in 2012. ",
"Once you have a certain amount of money, it's no longer about the money. It's usually about three things at that point:\n\n#Influence.\n\nDonating to charities, or political causes can buy you influence.\n\nOh, you want to get in good with Bill Gates? Well a healthy donation to the Bill and Melinda gates foundation might be a good idea.\n\nOh, you want access to US politicians? Why not follow Saudi Arabia and donate between [$10 Million and $25 million](_URL_0_) to the Clinton foundation.\n\nYou can't buy laws. You absolutely **CAN** buy lawmakers. If you don't think that's true, just compare congressional voting records with campaign contributors and see how those views line up. \n\nHell in some situations you buy both candidates so you never lose. Then you not-so-subtly remind the incumbent that your ~~Bribes~~ \"campaign contributions\" could just as easily go to their opponent.\n\n# Legacy\n\nThe other thing it may be about is your legacy. Ensuring you are always remembered. Humans are not Immortal, but your name & life may be.\n\nLook at President Donald J. Trump. He puts his name on **EVERYTHING**. And because he does so, his name will likely be remembered for centuries to come. Since his election tot eh office of the President we can be sure his name will be remembered for millennia.\n\n#Impact\n\nSome people want to leave a lasting impression on the world.\n\nBill Gates is the same way. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation donates to causes all over the world for all sorts of things. This and Legacy are also why rich people donate buildings to colleges. Not only will their legacy live on but the impact of that money will as well.",
"Probably not something the truly rich do, but us middle to upper middle class do this sort of thing:\n\nIf you are donating goods, say, used furniture, you can write off the value of the furniture. The IRS does not question values under $500. So, rather than sell that couch on Craigslist for $50, you donate it and write off some semi-realistic value close to but under $500 for it. Tax on $500 of your income is more than the $50 you would have made selling it.\n\nBag of old clothes? $5 at a yard sale or say $400 in reslae value donated and deducted.\n\nYou get the idea.\n\nDo this a lot, and you actually can save a decent chunk on your taxes, plus your donations can hopefully do some good. You can donate items under $500 multiple times without proving value. However, if you abuse this I'm sure the IRS will abuse you. We do donate stuff probably 10 times a year as we tend to purge regularly and have a kid who outgrows clothes constantly.\n\nEDIT: I'm not advocating or engaging in illegal activity. This is perfectly legal so long as you actually donate the goods, get an actual receipt from the charity, and deduct fair market value. All of which I do every time. There are plenty of tools out there to determine FMV if you cannot do so yourself or if you want to err on the side of caution. \n\nFurther EDIT: IRS Rules, specifically mentions the $500 thing on stating you need to file forms demonstrating value over $500 where appropriate: _URL_0_\n",
"Many times, the donation is not made in cash. It's made in things like stock grants, or artwork, or something that can be said to be worth more now than when it was originally acquired.\n\nThis lets you write off the appreciated value from your overall tax burden. For example, if you acquired a piece of artwork for $100k, you can donate it to a charity for a declared value of $200k later.\n\nThis $100k \"income\" is now a tax write-off that you can apply to offset *other* income. (If you made $100k in other income that year, you now made $0 for tax purposes.) In this way, it's possible to donate enough stuff in one year to completely cancel out all of your other income for the year and pay no taxes, or even to get a massive refund.\n\n(Edit: as some have pointed out, it's not quite this straightforward. You are limited to a certain percent of income. But it is possible to get around this rule through creative structuring of entities and to carry it forward in subsequent years. The underlying answer about why it is worth your while remains unchanged.)\n\nWealthy people's tax burden typically fluctuates a lot by the year and by tax law. So it's often a better deal, depending on timing, to do this than sell the item and pay taxes on the difference.",
"I have many wealthy friends. They are all older than I by decades. I'm hoping by the time I am their age I'll have also survived my divorce, single parenthood, midlife crisis etc and be wealthy like they are. Part of being a good friend is filling seats at tables purchased to support a fund raiser. So here's what I know. \n\nIt's more than half because they are thankful for their success and want to give something back. Generally they all support their former schools, local police and fire, and local non profits helping the poor. One has endowed scholarships and given millions to a local college despite never graduating from high school. One is inspired by god and spends tens of millions trying to cure homelessness. \n\nThe other half is more about how much they give. Almost all of these people make far more in profit than they can spend. Naturally they are not out buying lamborghinis and hiring forty strippers to go to TGIFridays with them for unlimited apps. They live well and travel but do not collect expensive and useless toys. That means they have a lot of income which accumulates every year and becomes equity. That income is taxed pretty heavily. So their accountants will recommend that X amount of charitable giving will result in a tax savings of Y and that in effect they are able to give Z extra to the charity which would otherwise go to taxes. \n\nOne of the weird things is that people tend to support their high school and college but not their grade school. We have a lot of private schools around here because the public schools suck, and the high schools are very well supported by alumni. But our excellent private primary schools operate on a shoestring. Oh well. ",
"Honestly, the average person doesn't really understand accounting/taxes that well and will just repeat information they don't understand. I've seen redditors downplaying donations to charities from wealthy individuals as if it's nothing because \"it's just a write off.\" \n\nIn general, when donating money or items you just reduce your income by the amount of money donated or the value of the item donated. If you made $10,000,000 in a year and donated $9,000,000 to charity during the same year, you'd essentially be taxed as if you made $1,000,000. Considering that someone who made $10,000,000 would only pay at most ~$4,000,000 in Federal Income Taxes on that amount, donating $9,000,000 to reduce your taxes by $4,000,000 obviously costs more than simply paying the taxes.\n\nAdditionally, lot of people here have already explained some \"loopholes.\" A couple I've seen are:\n\n* Donating a cheap piece of art and inflating it's value. This is 100% tax fraud.\n\n* Donating assets that have appreciated in value. E.g., you paid $1,000 for stock that is now worth $1,000,000. While this is a valid tax strategy, you are still not coming out ahead by donating. \n\n* Donating shares of a private company (so the market value is unclear) and having an accountant inflate the value is also tax fraud. Just because the IRS won't go after you does not mean that something is \"gray area.\" \n\n* Donating $5 worth of clothes to Goodwill and saying you donated $500 worth is tax fraud.\n\nBonus: [My favorite Seinfeld scene](_URL_0_)",
"There are lots of things to consider here. I can tell you how _I_ manage this. But...firstly, yes...in the end if how you receive \"value\" is cash-this-year then keeping it rather than donating it almost always better.\n\nCouple o' things I do:\n\n1. donating appreciated assets vs. cash. If i have a stock that is worth $100,000 more than when I bought it, I could sell it and pay taxes on that 100k and then donate it and get a tax-brackets-worth of deduction (plus this income will influence my tax bracket potentially). But..if I donate the asset I avoid the taxes associated with that 100K appreciation and then get the 100K tax deduction. So...if that asset is the the thing I can live without this year I can give 100K by donating the appreciated asset vs. $60K if I sell, pay taxes on it and then donate it. So...this strategy allows me _do more good_. \n\n2. I have a small foundation (which I've converted now to a much simpler donor advised fund that is easy and everyone should do!). This allows me to donate money _when I have it_, but give it to charities _when I want to_. This works by having the donor advised fund (or the foundation) itself be a charitable organization. So...the tax deduction date/event is putting the money in that fund (you can never get it back). Then you actually have the money distributed to charities when you want to. For me this means I can support some organizations every year even though some years it's either less tax advantageous to do so (e.g. a generally down year) or I'm just not comfortable giving up the money that year. \n\n(combine 1 and 2 together and what I generally _really do_ is donate appreciated assets to my foundation / donor-advised-fund).\n\n3. There is \"soft value\" that comes from being able to make charitable donations. These are undoubtedly create indirect economic return to the donor. \n\nAt the end of the day, when people say they are avoiding taxes with charitable donations they are not keeping more money, but they are _controlling the use of more of their money_. \n",
"When donating, the charity gets both what you would have kept *and* the tax, leaving the actual loss at 60%.\n\nExample: Donate 100.000, tax would be 40.000 anyways, so actual loss is 60.000. Charity gain is 100.000 as there's no tax. ",
"Sad that the overwhelming number of responses assume that rich people are doing this for some secret or public gain ...and not actually just doing it to help the causes they care about.\n\nThink of every single charity, college, prep school, advocacy group and soup kitchen in the country ...every board has members, often including rich donors. These people care.",
"One trick is to donate the funds to a charity controlled by you or your family members. Warren Buffet has [donated](_URL_0_) several billion dollars to charities controlled by each of his three children. He gets the tax deduction and his children get the money. They can pay themselves a salary from that money, they can expense things like cars, travel, even real estate, as long as they can claim it's used at least some of the time for foundation business. It's basically a win win, and his children can probably ultimately pass the foundation on to their children.\n \nNow consider someone like Bill Gates. He has donated billions to his own foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He's effectively donating money to himself. He gets the tax deduction but he now benefits by being able to control where that money goes, probably even using some of it for his own benefit.\n \nThat's not to say this is all bad, both Gates and Buffet have more money than they can spend in their lifetimes, a lot of that money will go to good causes, but you can at least get an idea how someone with a large amount of money could use charitable donations to gain a financial advantage.",
"A lot of posts might have already covered this but donating something other than cash has the benefit of acting as an instant sale for the FMV/appraised value of that item. Say you have a painting appraised at 10 million after you go through the trouble of finding a buyer, shipping it (possibly) and haggling with the buyer about cost, and assuming you've convinced them to buy it at the 10mil appraisal you'll have already spent a good amount money on trying to get it sold and will have to pay a tax on the amount realized by the sale. BUT if you donate the 10mil painting and take a 10 mil deduction you don't have the extra expenses that come a long with the sale so it's like you gained 10 mil tax free based on your ability to cancel out 10 mil in assets. This in turn incentivizes people to donate goods or land. ",
"One reason donating can be better than keeping the money is the person doing the donating is giving to an organization that indirectly benefits him. For example, a lot of tech companies donate to schools and organizations that promote educating future workers in the tech industry. Another more direct example, is the person's donation gives them access to some event like a party on a cruise ship or a ski vacation.",
"As a tax analyst for a 5 billion dollar bank... I would say that 99.9% of these answers are wrong. They are actually borderline comical.\n\nEach situation is different for each individual, so one blanket answer does not work at all.\n\nI have a couple 1,500 page tax books if you would like to do some light reading ;)",
"The point is you're going to give up the money anyways and some people would rather give it to a good cause rather than hand it over to the government. (Even if the receipt won't give you dollar for dollar) \n\nIn Canada you can get a \"charitable receipt\" from any \"qualified donee\" which includes but is not limited to charities. Who else is a qualified donee? Universities and municipalities are the main ones. Yes you can give donations to your local town, city. Some First Nations are also registered because they operate like a municipality. Most people are unaware of this.\n\n",
"Something I haven't seen anybody else mention yet that plays a huge deal into the process: appreciated illiquid assets.\n\nLet's say I buy a bunch of land in mountains of Colorado in the 80s for about $10k. It's somewhat close to a ski resort that was built in the 90s, so now the land is worth about $500,000. \n\nIf I were to sell it, I'd have to report on my taxes a gain of $490 thousand dollars, which is taxed at 3.8%. \n\nNow if I were to _donate_ it, I get to write off $500k off of my income. If that million drops me multiple tax brackets, I could potentially save more than I'd make, especially once you factor in selling fees and real liquidity of the ma, and get the money quicker. ",
"Scenario 1: rich guy/gal starts a foundation. Spouse is exec director of foundation. Rich guy/gal makes contribution to operating fund of foundation. Operating fund puts on lavish parties or \"fact finding missions\" to exotic locations the couple would have done anyway, but now are doing in a tax subsidized manner.\n\nScenario 2: rich guy/gal has a friend with foundation who wants to increase their operating fund for tax subsidized fun stuff. Rich guy/gal donates to curry favor, with a tax subsidy.\n\nBoth are technically tax fraud or conflict of interest but, if the person is not in the national public eye, will never get scrutiny and is very difficult to prove.",
"The tax efficiency of charitable donations are highly dependent on the type of asset that is donated. \"Money\" is often also known as 'Cash.' \nCash donations tend to not be as efficient as donations of 'Appreciated Assets.' Most donors who donate for maximum tax efficiency donate these type of appreciated assets. An example of this asset would be shares of stock. \n \nFor clarity, lets suppose this donor bought 1000 shares of ABC Company and those shares were bought at 10 dollars per share. Now, after time, they are worth 100 dollars per share. If that same donor was to sell these assets for cash, the amount made above and beyond of the original cost of 10 dollars per share would have taxes due. \n \nGenerally speaking, tax payers do what they can to lower their tax burden, not add to it. Instead, due to tax laws, donors simply donate the shares of stock directly to the Charity. The charity receives the shares and can sell the shares themselves. In most cases, this step up in original cost lessens or eliminates the tax due entirely. \n\nBack to the Donor during tax season, the donors accountant does their taxes and calculates how much they could give to maximize the efficiency of their tax costs. Lets say that amount is 25,000.00 USD. If you donate cash out of pocket, you are giving dollar for dollar, but if you give appreciated stock, you are seen as giving the full fair market price of that stock. \nGoing back to the above hypothetical stock purchase. The Donor has 1000 shares and each share is worth 100 dollars. He can give just 250 shares and achieve the same tax benefit. PLUS: The donor pays no taxes on that stocks appreciation from 10$ to 100$ and gets to keep his already taxed cash dollars in his pocket. The math is odd sometimes in tax and estate planning, but once you run the numbers, it becomes clear what you ought to do. \n\nTL;DR: Tax law incentivizes people to do things they want them to do for extra tax credits or deductions. There are many types of assets to donate, and they all have their pros and cons. ",
"Estate Planning attorney here. Lots of good, detailed answers in here. I wanted to throw in is some bullet points as a TL/DR. First, donating a high appreciation asset that may accumulate in value is a technique to get the deduction and avoid the taxes in the future. It's not as widely available today, as the estate/generation skipping/gift tax exclusion amounts are so high, but when used, it could drop the taxable estate significantly. Second, taxable retirement accounts or deferred annuities could be donated to avoid the income tax in respect of the decedent (IRD). Finally, I know it's hard to believe because so many on Reddit think the wealthy have no soul, but a lot of wealthy people are indeed very charitable, and they often will decide to direct their wealth to the charity of their choice rather than funneling it through the government. A lot of my clients base this on the subject of the charity (charitable intent), the efficiency of a charity, or the contempt for the the government deciding what to do with other people's money and taking their cut in DC that never gets to those in need. ",
"I would like to point out that many tax deductible organizations are rather dubious and can be political in nature. Which means you could get tax write offs by supporting certain agendas. I'm not saying all nonprofit organizations are like this, but one can support things and lower their tax bracket.",
"Because the wealthy aren't the greedy fucks people like to make them out to be. They can focus where the money goes to instead of bombing brown people in foreign countries.",
"I don't know if anyone has mentioned goodwill......The majority of big buck charitable donators are businesses......Goodwill is an intangible asset but is calculated monetarily........hence, why lots of big businesses give back to their communities via charitable donations. Ultimately, the greater the goodwill the more your business is worth over and above market value. \n\nFRS102:\n\nGoodwill is defined as future economic benefits arising from assets that are not capable of being individually identified and separately recognised. In particular goodwill is the excess of the cost of a business combination over the acquirer’s interest in the net amount of the identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities recognised.",
"You are correct that you can't \"make money\" by donating cash and writing it off, though, as others have mentioned, donating other assets can result in a net gain.\n\nHowever, there a few other circumstances where it make economic sense:\n\n1) The donation gets you something that you would have purchased anyway, but now you can write-off the cost. Examples could be as small as swag from your local public radio station or as large as a year of tuition or even a building named after you. I'm not saying that people reap a profit from this, but they get the benefit (which may be worth alot to them) AND they get it at a reduced price because they can deduct it.\n\n2) If they donate it to a non-profit which they control. They can then set their friends and family up as employees and pay the money to them and also write it off as a deduction. This happens pretty often with athletes and celebrities. Hopefully they are also doing some charitable good, but it's often pretty sketchy and there are some high profile cases where it looks like almost nothing charitable was happening.",
"Some charities are given tax exemptions by the government . Lets say you do control such a charity and you have loads of assets. You can donate sth you dont intend to sell like a house or property to the said charity and the charity will use it maybe as an HQ. Now the charity owns that property and since it has tax exemption , there is no taxes for it. As a consequence you cannot actually gain profits or value from your former asset . If you are controlling the charity though you can still go and hang out at the beach house you just donated.",
"Ya know when you go to the Good Will and donate left over promotional t-shirts from your 2003 company retreat? Now imagine you valued those ten t-shirts at $20 each. You just made a $200 donation to claim on your taxes! But did you actually lose $200? Was anyone in a million years gonna pay you $200 for those shirts?",
"Say you run a successful software company that sells a lame O/S to 90% of the planet. People think you're a dick. So you donate money to a \"charity\" and get your name engraved on a wall. Or you donate to public radio, and they read your name every morning before the news.\n\nThis costs you money, but you do save some on your taxes. But it is also ADVERTISING and BRAND AWARENESS for your company. People now think of you as a \"nice guy\" not the \"dick who saddled me with this buggy, virus-prone operating system that I am forced to upgrade every three years.\"\n\nSame is true of local charities. Go to some charitable event and the local bank, real estate company, and other local businessmen and politicians all have their name listed on the program, engraved in marble on the wall of the museum, or even have the wing of the hospital named after them. This builds up their image as \"community leader\" which is helpful later on.\n\nMoney is POWER, and by donating to selected charities (or starting your own, as Clinton did) you can use that power to affect public policy, often to your own personal benefit in the long run.\n\nRich people didn't become rich by being dumb. They use charity for self-aggrandizement, grooming their image, marketing, and for business connections.\n\nOh, and sometimes for charity!",
"You start a fund... I donate to your fund. I start a fund... you donate to my fund. Together we save the bird refuge that happens to border my house and we reach our goal to refurbish the historic docks on the bay that you just happen to doc your schooner.\n\n\n\n",
"An actual ELI5? It's a perk for being charitable.",
"\"It's a write-off for them!\"\n\"How is it a write-off?\"\n\"They just write it off\"\n\"Write it off what?\"\n\"Jerry, all these big companies, they write-off everything\"\n\"You don't even know what a write-off is\"\n\"...Do you?\"\n\"No, I don't!\"\n\"But they do it...and they're the ones writing it off\" ",
"Non-cash donations can often be assessed for different values, and for donations like antiques and art, the assessment is much higher than what an insurance company would assign. ",
"ELI5: When you sell something, you figure out it's value with the other party and sell it for that. When you donate something (other than cash obviously), you \"estimate\" it's value, and almost all of the time it's overvalued (because it's easy, the IRS isn't likely to come after you for it, and the other party doesn't care what you valued it at since they get it free), thus becoming more valuable as a tax write-off than just keeping it.",
"A lot of it is people are financially illiterate about taxes.\n\nLike people will say it's a \"write off\" on their taxes as if it's free money the government is going to send you. When it simply means the IRS views it as a business expense that counts against income.",
"What can happen (at least in the UK), is that the donor can essentially divert all of the income tax they *would* have been paying to the charity. If you have an income of £1,000,000 a year, you can divert the £450,000 the government was expecting directly to a charity of your choice (including one you set up yourself). \n\nThus, the government no longer gets the expected revenue from that tax, but instead, the charity gets all of it (of course, the charity gets the income as well, but the chances are that someone with income that large has a pile of capital they can live off, anyway). \n\nNow, you can get some pretty smooth benefits for being a charitable donor of that magnitude. They might engrave your name on a building, and invite you to lots of posh dinners where you can rub shoulders with influential people who can further your business interests. You're not allowed to get any direct tangible benefit out of it, but you can get lots of kudos and juice, basically because you are stealing money from the government to bribe people to be nice to you. Hell, in the UK they might give you a knighthood.\n\nYes, I can see the societal benefit in having capped tax relief for charitable donations, but like everything else which is rule-based, it can be exploited by the rich for their own nefarious ends. \n\n",
"Since a lot of folks are using Mitt Romney as an example, here's a nice tax dodge he used. (He actually worked to create the law that allows it.) He gave $100M to special account with his church. So he paid $0 in taxes on that donation. He then got a $100M loan from the church. So he has all his money in his pocket but didn't pay anything in taxes. Instead of paying interest though, this special rule allowed Mitt to pay a tithe instead, so he pays 10% of the $100M as his church required tithe each year. Which he would pay anyway. Oh, but the tithe is also tax deductible! Money effectively laundered. There ought to be a law. ",
"its quite simple, you can give $1 to chartity for an effective price of 60c and you decide where it goes, if the government taxes you ,you lose $1 to them and they decide where it goes",
"I've recently started to understand taxes a little more by self education. I know there are probably 50 accountants swarming this thread right now, so now is the time to ask. \n\nThere are a lot of storage units in NYC that sell for $1500 and are easily worth $10,000. The only problem is, selling all the crap takes forever, and a lot of man power to list on ebay etc. \n\nSay I bought a storage unit, and donated all the valuables from it to goodwill. Can I write off $10,000 in one shot? Saving myself $1000 on taxes in the 25% bracket?",
"There's other value to some wealthy donors besides \"saving money,\" don't forget. If you give $500k to the IRS, you don't perceive any increased level of service to you directly. If you give $500k to (let's say) a museum, besides the tax write-off you also get your name on a wing, which can be free advertising for you or just ego-stroking. You get a staff of people who's job it is to make you feel happy when you go to the museum. You get advance tickets to events, you get the opportunity to schmooze with other donors like yourself (networking with other very high-net-worth individuals). Maybe the newspaper writes a story or two about your huge gift.\n\nYou get social currency, in other words. And yes a lot of that value isn't tax-deductible, but it still happens and to some rich people it's worth it. ",
"Ok sometimes they really seam to like it. But that may be PR. As for example someone does something good and get a little tax deduction and promote it. They are investing in marketing. So they are \"saving\" money in that department.\n\nIt kinda works in my case. For example in Colombia there is a tax benefit for hiring people in hard circumstances. A local restaurant franchise only hires mothers that are the main or only income to a family (usually divorced or widows). And there is a mall that only hires security guards that were injured in the military. They look good +savings. \n\n(shameless propaganda, I'm happy my country sing the peace. It isn't perfect but there is less lead in people now)",
"Yes you would, this complaint is overblown because people see multimillionaires and billionaires effective tax rates reduced to 10% or so because they're counting all the money donated as income when in fact it really isn't the same as them earning it and keeping it.\n\nIt does give you the ability to steer the money, but if you just wanted more money you wouldn't give as much away, there's not really any trick here without resorting to actual fraud (inflating the value of assets \"donated\" beyond fair market value, etc).",
"The government does lots of things people don't like and also does most things very poorly/inefficiently. If you can donate your money to a cause you support over giving it to a ridiculously oversized government who just gets worse every year, then I think you would take that option as well.",
"Because some people might actually enjoy giving it to organizations they believe can make a bigger impact on society, than letting the government decide what to do with their own money.",
"There are a couple of factors to consider.\n\n1. The donation may *not* be cash - you could donate something you already own and get a write-off for that. Depending on what you're donating, you may get a better write-off than you could sell the item for, or it may save you considerable hassle. \n\n2. It may be a philosophical/ethical thing - they can pick what the money is going to, versus it just going into the government's general fund where it could go to things the person doesn't approve of.",
"I wonder how this works with companies like Hardee's/Carl's Jr. They ask that you donate $1 to veterans for a $10 coupon book. So, are they giving other people's $5,000,000 to charity and writing off their own $50,000,000?\n\nThat would mean that they're not helping anyone (their customers are) while reneging on paying a large chunk of their taxes that could very well be used for underfunded veteran programs.",
"The real ELI5.. whatever amount you make as donation counts against the income you've made that year, as if you made less money than you actually did.. therefore you get taxed on a lesser amount of money ",
"[This Bloomberg article](_URL_0_) includes details of how the Walton family (of Walmart fame) use a structure called a \"charitable lead annuity trust\" (CLAT, nicknamed a \"Jackie O. trust\") to avoid gift and estate taxes, and notes that\n\n > a Jackie O. trust can theoretically save so much tax that it leaves a family richer than if it hadn’t given a dime to charity.\n\nHowever, keep in mind that that outcome is not *guaranteed*. It requires that the earnings of the trust's investments outperform a particular rate set by the IRS.\n\n > The type of Jackie O. trust used by the Waltons doesn't generate a break on income taxes. Instead, the big potential saving is on gift and estate taxes. When a donor sets one up, the IRS assesses how much gift or estate tax is due, based on how much of the trust's assets will end up benefiting charity and how much will go to heirs. Most donors structure the trusts so that the heirs' estimated leftover is zero or close to it.\n\n > The IRS makes its estimate using a complicated formula tied to the level of U.S. Treasury bond yields during the time when the trust is set up.\n\n > If the trust's investments outperform that benchmark rate, then the extra earnings pass to the designated heirs free of any estate tax. The rate has been hovering near all-time lows since 2009. For trusts set up this month, it's 1.4 percent.\n\n > With a big enough spread between the actual performance and the IRS rate, a Jackie O. trust can theoretically save so much tax that it leaves a family richer than if it hadn't given a dime to charity.\n\n > Alice[ Walton]'s mother, Helen, chose an auspicious time to set up her first four Jackie O. trusts in January 2003. The IRS rate of 3.6 percent was the lowest since 1970, and Treasury yields rose the next month.\n\n > Those trusts can only save taxes if they beat that 3.6 percent rate. From 2007 to 2011 — the years for which the IRS provided public copies of the trusts' tax returns — they did so handily.\n\nThe article is good and talks about some other stuff as well. Worthwhile reading.",
"Putting money into charity versus giving it to the government will always do more good. Our government is too inadequate to handle money properly",
"In the tax business here: you don't make donations to get deductions. You do it because it's a cause you wish to fund. There ARE situations where making donations can reduce your tax bracket, etc. But at the end of the day, it makes more \"financial\" sense to keep the cash. ",
"Foundations are another scam; donate money to your own charity, take the deduction, and use the foundation to pay for travel, dinning, etc. Even pay salaries on a larger scale ",
"I used to be a yacht broker back in the day and this was a common thing. So you have a motor yacht that has comparable sold values in the $200's but yours has mechanical/cosmetic issues, etc. that would cost $100K plus to resolve, engine, generator, electronics, gelcoat, etc. it adds up quick. You get a marine surveyor that does a quick assessment of the boat and does not get into the mechanical side of the survey and you get a comp that shows a value in the $200's with a disclaimer (all the surveyors I dealt with would not create a false value, they would just base it on the type of survey they were paid to do) So then you donate it for a value of $200K and take the write off of whatever you can. This can be a big write off or even a loss, but for a boat owner that has a boat costing dock fees, etc. it's not a bad day when the boat's gone. The IRS got smart to this and 20 or so years ago they started to penalize you if you donated your boat to XYZ charity for $200K and then XYZ sold the boat for actual value of $75K, you would be liable for the difference of a sold price for 24 months after you donated the boat.\nI don't know if this is still the case but the workaround was for XYZ charity to sell the boat by a demised charter, example, they would lease the boat to the new owner for 24 months with a $75K down payment with a $1 per month fee and then transfer title at the end of the IRS 24 month period..I guess smart people are always one step ahead of the IRS. ",
"I can't believe how much shit I didn't learn... I feel like a muggle that's been teleported to a fucking cartoon network remake of Being John Malcovich. There's not a single thing I understand in these well-put, and honestly informative answers that I can say I understand 100%. It is actual magic as far as I am concerned. \n\nTLDR; TIL accounting is witchcraft and wizardry.",
"WOO! SOMETHING I AM UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO ANSWER! Alright, I have a degree in \"Arts Leadership\" which in layman's terms is an MBA in nonprofits. Part of my coursework was writing a research paper on the history of taxation and charitable giving. This is not so much a direct answer, but it will lend perspective:\n\nOver a century ago, the big names in money (Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, and so on) made their money, cornered their industries, and gained their power. As they aged, they started to realize that money could only do so much for them.\n\nOne man, specifically, saw that his wealth was only a piece of the puzzle. Andrew Carnegie, looked back on his life and his humble beginnings and realized something was amiss. He saw about him two types of wealth: Those who inherited and those who earned.\n\nThose who earned were living the american dream, look at Jobs and Gates, they had humble starts, made something big and got stupid rich and worked hard for their wealth.\n\nCarnegie knew that his empire owed its genesis to his education and his access to learning. He came to realize that there were more out there like him, all of which had the power to create and control whole new industries, but unless they had the ability to get a hold of the education to utilize it, they would never tap into that potential.\n\nThis was a problem because up until this point, the only real way to get wealth was to inherit it. The old families (the Roosevelts, the Kenedy's, and the other Manhattan families) who were part of old american dynasties were ruthless in protecting their wealth and hoarding it and growing it (much like today).\n\nCarnegie knew that these families would prefer to take all the money they could and leave the rest of the nation begging for scraps so he set out to change the way we see taxation.\n\nIn the days before the US was even a notion, taxation was uncommon. Most communities banded together to do their duty. If the town needed a new hall built, the masons would gather and lay the foundation for free, the carpenters would cut and build the structure for free, the blower would make/install the windows for free, the seamstresses would make the curtains and such for free, and so on. If you were unable/unwilling to help, you paid a tax to cover costs that could not be avoided (like travel expenses). This applied to roads, schools, and all other community assets. The people were taxes as little as possible because the governments knew that the people hated it and it would give incentive for them to rise up and overthrow those in power.\n\nThe US inherited this mindset, but Carnegie sought to change that idea. Carnegie proposed and pushed for a tax to be place on all those who inherited wealth. Then, he created a loophole saying \"you can pay tax *or* you can contribute that money to charitable causes of your choosing. \n\nCarnegie himself was fiercely competitive with Morgan and JD Rockerfeller and to the end of their lives they would compete to see who could give away the most money. By the end of his life, he sent the bulk of his family fortune to a trust. The trust's job was to make education accessible to the common man so they could climb the ladder of the classes of this country.\n\nThe Carnegie foundation supplies huge grants to almost every library in the country so they can afford to buy books for anyone who wishes to read them.\n\nCarnegie made donating large sums of money popular to help the wealthy adopt that life style and you'll find that anyone form a family that is considered \"old money\" (who happens to be a direct heir and not a distant relation) finds it a mark of pride to reserve a portion of the family fortune to contribute to notable and worthy causes. The nouveau riche are the ones who tend to spend money flamboyantly and make a big show of it (like rappers showing off their cash). Now these are always the case, sometimes you see old money families loose it all because someone was an idiot and spent cash like there's no tomorrow and there's nouveau riche who are well retrained with spending and charitable in their donations.\n\nSo, to wrap it up, the rich donate because of Carnegie's actions. He created the taxes they pay and incentivized them to prefer donations over paying taxes. ",
"Kinda simple. Lets say I have to pay 4 bucks to tax. Charity allows me to have tax relief oof 200% of what I donated. So I donate 2 bucks. Pay only 1 buck bcos of the donation tax relief to tax and I save the last 1 bucks instead of paying all 4 bucks to tax. Now multiply by millions",
"Answer to part 2 ..... I see a lot of misinformation and complicated answers here. The absolute bottom line answer, simplest terms ... even at the most upper extreme tax bracket.... $1 of your income kept in your pocket and taxed, is more valuable than the tax benefit of giving it away. \n\nThat remains the same with you give $1 up to the charitable donation cap of 50% ... Source, my own experience. IRS Enrolled Agent for 15 years, and former lead staff accountant for an international corporation. \n\n\nPart 1 ... there's no perfect answer. Some donation deductions are not cash, just cash value. So that's a good way to trick the system. Others are just ways for people to write off money given to a favorite source. Like if you give to your college football team. Some people actually are philanthropic. Some people (like the clintons ...) have donated to organizations they own to claim a deduction on the personal end and then have it as income on another end. Just creating a non taxed loop. It's just a matter of who is really good hearted and who is trying to trick the system. At the end of the day, unless your tricking the system, a dollar saved is worth more to you than a dollar donated. ",
"Explained like you're truly 5.\n\nPeople donate something non-money that's valued higher than they payed. Pay $2 million for a painting, get it valued at $4 million and donate it. Get a $4 million tax write off instead of $2 million. ",
"Rich people make donations for the same reason the rest of us do -- generosity and wanting to fill a need. The tax deduction makes that donation, that they'd make anyway, cost less after taxes. Or, it allows them to give more at the same net cost as a non-deductible donation.\n",
"People who say, \"He only made the donation so he could write it off their taxes,\" usually mean, \"He's rich; he couldn't possibly be generous. He must have an ulterior motive. His donation doesn't count.\" \n\nBut the people who benefit from that donation do still benefit."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/whats-really-going-on-with-mitt-romneys-102-million-ira/261500/"
],
[
"https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000"
],
[
"https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/30/news/companies/buffett-donation/index.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/17/business/how-wal-marts-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune/#.WV1y4ulLc4o"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1sfxoe | how do cities that offer free wi-fi not run the internet providers out of business? and if they do, how do they get away with it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sfxoe/eli5_how_do_cities_that_offer_free_wifi_not_run/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdx7e2q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Free wifi is generally fast enough to do email and shop online, but not good enough to stream movies, play games, or download large files in a timely manner. Many people are willing to pay extra for better speeds. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6iwhkw | why british sports such as cricket and rugby were embraced by india, australia, new zealand and south africa etc but not usa or canada? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iwhkw/eli5_why_british_sports_such_as_cricket_and_rugby/ | {
"a_id": [
"dja3wys"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Cricket was actually quite popular in the early days of the United States. During the industrial revolution baseball became more popular because working-class people could play it. Cricket requires a carefully manicured and watered lawn, but baseball can be played in whatever field is handy. \n\nIt's a similar story for Rugby and American football. Because of both the demographics of who played it and historical coincidence, the two sports have diverged over the years. \n\nIn places like Australia and India, there hasn't been as much time for the sports to diverge. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1lzfwm | the collapse of the auto industry in detroit. | From my knowledge GM is one of the main auto industries that is from Detroit. If GM is still alive, how come Detroit is in such a bad state due to the auto industry? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lzfwm/eli5_the_collapse_of_the_auto_industry_in_detroit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc4bpdx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The vast majority of the people in Detroit involved in the auto industry were not the fatcat executives of GM, Ford, etc., they were people working in the factories. It used to be that a person could comfortably support their family on an assembly line wage. This is not feasible anymore, so the people that do still have auto factory jobs aren't doing as well as they used to. As the US economy has moved away from manufacturing jobs, the auto industry followed suit. The cars being made in the US weren't of particularly high quality, and this led to people buying foreign-made vehicles as well. This led to many people in cities such as Detroit and Flint, MI losing their jobs. There are many other factors leading to Detroit's downfall. Racial tensions are and especially were a big deal (huge riots in the late 60s are the most notable occasion). These tensions led to a \"white flight\" in which everyone with enough money (i.e. white people) left the city of Detroit and moved to the suburbs. You see, Detroit is a *huge* city in terms of land area. With everyone leaving, there are now large areas of Detroit where there's just... no one. Block after block of abandoned buildings. The Detroit metropolitan area is actually quite affluent, particularly in cities like Rochester Hills and Royal Oak. All of this coupled with decades of corrupt political leaders leads to a not-so-nice urban environment.\n\nEdit - Detroit is also a very cool cities in a lot of ways. Don't let fearmongerers who have never been there trick you into thinking you'll get shot the second you step out of the airport."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6243rf | why do slow-motion videos flicker light and dark? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6243rf/eli5_why_do_slowmotion_videos_flicker_light_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfjl2sm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Video guy here! Most lights illuminate things by pulsating light. It's not constantly on. It just happens so quickly that you can't see it with your eyes. \n\nBut when you shoot it in slow mo you can see that flicker/pulse. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
11dmbr | why isn't there a uniform shape for electrical outlets around the world? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11dmbr/why_isnt_there_a_uniform_shape_for_electrical/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6lizxn",
"c6lj7ci",
"c6llx2o"
],
"score": [
11,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Because there wasn't one single company producing electrical components for all countries at the various times that these countries were producing their infrastructure.",
"Because the voltages and frequencies of the electric supply vary. The different plugs prevent you from smoking your appliances.",
"That's a good thing, too. If your American appliances fit in our New Zealand outlets, they'd blow up the moment you turn them on."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
bygtbl | what is the underlying physiology of butterflies? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bygtbl/eli5_what_is_the_underlying_physiology_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqhg35u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Interestingly but perhaps not surprisingly, the DNA of a caterpillar is identical to the DNA of its corresponding butterfly. The caterpillar contains all of what will become the butterfly, yet the caterpillar breaks down into a caterpillar soup which forms into a butterfly. It really is an amazing thing.\n\n[Check this link out](_URL_0_) to read more about it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/caterpillar-butterfly-metamorphosis-explainer/"
]
]
|
|
7201h0 | tunnel ventilation | Why do transit tunnels require ventilation? In my case I'm thinking about the Seattle tunnels which contain busses and light rail. It seems to me that the action of the vehicles moving through the space would force enough air to be pushed ahead of them to forcibly ventilate the tunnel without need for mechanical fan systems. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7201h0/eli5_tunnel_ventilation/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnepagv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Even if the you do it that in normal case when traffic is flowing what would happen if there was a fire?\n\nSmoke from a vehicle fire in a tunnel will in a short time kill people that are evacuating by foot like passengers and vehicles behind it that like cant reverse because of other vehicles behind them. The you need large ventilation system that will create a airflow so you can escape and not be killed by the smoke."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
v7eaf | whats the main difference between the sunni and s'hia islam | I know its something to do with a dispute after Muhammed's death. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/v7eaf/eli5_whats_the_main_difference_between_the_sunni/ | {
"a_id": [
"c520w5y"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It was all about who would succeed after the Prophet(pbuh) passed away. One group or the majority decided upon Hazrat Abu Bakr to be the first caliph, wheras another group said it should have been Hazrat Ali(the Prophets(pbuh) nephew) and they split due to that reason. Hazrat Ali was eventually chosen as the fourth caliph but the damage had been done and the situation has been heading downhill eversince....\n\nI know wiki pages are not always the best answers but this one is pretty clear on what happened:\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_Muhammad"
]
]
|
|
2okb2w | how does holy communion work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2okb2w/eli5_how_does_holy_communion_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmnx6b8",
"cmnxia1"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I was raised Catholic. Catholics believe the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. It's not, as /u/Morgz_, that it always was. Part of the mass ceremony involved the priest consecrating the bread and wine, which is when the transformation happens. The proces is that the priest was given the power to do so upon ordination, and once he says the right inantation, it happens because, as Sarah Silverman said, Jesus is magic.",
"Transubstantiation is the doctrine that the wine and bread in communion is actually the body and blood of Christ. It is not a doctrine that is held by all Christians (mostly but not exclusively held by Roman Catholics), and it is something a little more nuanced than the belief that it turns into skin cells and hemoglobin. Those who believe in transubstatiation would say that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, but you should also keep in mind that the Church is often described as the actual body of Christ in communion. \n\nMany protestants will say that the bread and wine (or grape juice) hold the \"real presence\" of Christ. This means that Jesus is present in the bread and wine, but it is an explicit rejection that the bread and wine \"become\" flesh and blood.\n\nOther protestants will say that the bread and grape juice are a mere symbol to remind us of Christ's life and death.\n\nYour question touches on what is at stake, \"What happens in communion?\" It clearly has symbolic value, but is it *merely* a symbol? Most Christians will say that it is not merely a symbol, which is why it is called a sacrament. Most Christians believe that a real experience of Jesus is experienced in communion. Transubstantion is rejected by many Christians because it sounds like something magic is happening in communion if we claim that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. \n\nI don't know if that is the best \"ELI5\", but it's the best I can do without saying something that makes false claims about what others believe.\n\nAlso, /r/Christianity might be a better place to discuss this if you are looking for perspectives of people of faith.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2yaddm | why does java seem to have a reputation for exploits? is there something inherently wrong with how java works? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yaddm/eli5_why_does_java_seem_to_have_a_reputation_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp7otj4",
"cp7r91t",
"cp7slf5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"It runs on your computer.\n\nWhich is bad just like everything that runs on your computer. Java allows web servers to run programs on your computer and this is a big problem if you want to make something secure. You basically don't have the control over what the internet tells your computer to do. On the other hand it allows you to make web applications that need to do some heavy computation compared to PHP which runs completely on a server and not on your computer. It's a lot saver but you can't do very complex programs on a server that millions of people want to use.",
"Java along with flash is installed on most computers.\n\nIf I found an exploit in firefox I could exploit computers that run (a specific version of) firefox but not those that use a different web browser.\n\nIf I found an exploit in java I could exploit the vast majority of computers mostly ignoring what browser or operating system you use.",
"Java cumulates being\n\n- a runtime environment for general programs,\n\n- a browser plugin which, admittedly, has poor security because it was made back in a time when the real challenges were not known.\n\nJava is not at all a vulnerable technology, but having browser plugins that can run general purpose programs is a bad idea. Most importantly, for decades now, a plugin as general as the Java plugin was not needed in browsers. Whenever a browser was not able to do something that the Java plugin could, it was for security reasons. Essentially, the correct security policy for the Java plugin would be to not exist or to allow Java to run as JavaScript does (and GWT does that without a plugin.)\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2a10qr | why do we make more mistakes when we're stressed than when relaxed? | For example: when I'm late for work in the morning I've spilled more things, burned myself, etc. Countless more times than when I wake up on time. Normally if I'm in a rush it takes longer for me get out of the house.
I'm assuming adrenaline has some role in this but I'm not sure what roll | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a10qr/eli5_why_do_we_make_more_mistakes_when_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciqgbqs",
"ciqgfiw",
"ciqgzoi"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you're rushing and not concentrated at the task at hand. ",
"At least partially because stress puts you into fight or flight, which increases bloodflow to the hindbrain and decreases it to the forebrain (higher thought)",
"Stress makes your brain run differently so routine things suddenly become a little foreign."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
84ptay | what is a "monopolistic competition" and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84ptay/eli5what_is_a_monopolistic_competition_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvrgii1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Monopolistic competition is a form of imperfect competition.\n\nI'm assuming you know what perfect competition is. Well, monopolistic is when the products different companies make aren't identical enough to be perfect substitutes. Hence, they are differentiated by brand or quality. \n\nThis means that each producer has a bit of control over their pricing, because there are perceived differences between their product and other companies products, unlike in a perfect competition.\n\nHotels would be an example. Technically, hotels serve the same purpose, but different hotel brands offer different qualities of service, and hence customers can pick or choose on their perceived differences."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
32n5ny | why is mad cow diseases regularly related to cannibalism, despite theories that it was transmitted from sheep, to cows, to humans? | I am aware of similar diseases like Kuru (from human cannibalism), but once again is that not just from eating tainted meat, rather than an effect from cannibalism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32n5ny/eli5_why_is_mad_cow_diseases_regularly_related_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqcrk0t",
"cqcrqgl",
"cqcs84n"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Mad cow disease and Kuru are prion diseases. These are not well understood, but what is known is that they are highly \"contagious\" in the sense that if a mutated prion (which is glycoprotein normally found on the surface of cells) comes in contact with another glycoprotein, it turns it into a prion, inducing a sort of chain reaction. These glycoproteins are most abundant in the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), so when they go haywire and turn into prions, they cause the brain to turn into a sponge with holes. Hence the medical term for mad cow disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy. ",
"Mad Cow Disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also called new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans) is caused by a prion, which is basically a protein that folds in an abnormal way and acts as a virus. Prions aren't living, so they can't be killed by cooking meat. CJD is very closely related to kuru, as both are transmisible spongiform encephalopathies. As these prions primarily affect the brain, consuming infected brains seems to be the most effective at transmitting the prion.",
"Prion diseases are basically like zombies. The noninfected heroes (normal brain tissue) comes in contact with zombies (diseased prion tissue) usually through the noninfected eating zombie tissue. Once this happens the heroes then becomes infected. This cycle continues until it's basically all shitty (like the newer seasons of The Walking Dead.... ZING) and an apocalyptic wasteland. Then you die. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1th3t2 | if fires breathe oxygen, and we breathe out carbon dioxide, then why does a fire flare up when i breathe on it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1th3t2/eli5_if_fires_breathe_oxygen_and_we_breathe_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce7vf4r",
"ce7vi94"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the air you exhale has oxygen in it too. We inhale 20% oxygen and exhale 14-16% oxygen. This is why you can give someone oxygen during CPR, using your own exhaled breath.",
"two things:\n\n1) you don't breathe out pure carbon dioxide. when you exhale, by volume you breathe out 80% nitrogen, 14% oxygen, 4.4% carbon dioxide, and 1.6% other gases.\n\n2) when you exhale, due to fluid dynamics and air friction, your breathe drags air from the surrounding atmosphere in a rotational manner. meaning, the air you breathe out also moves air around you inwards towards the direction you blew. this air is more oxygen rich. this is actually the principle in which the [bladeless fan](_URL_0_) by Dyson works"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bladeless_fan"
]
]
|
||
a2urdv | what is grammar? | I'm a native English speaker and I'm stupid and can't understand grammar. Could somebody please explain it to me and provide examples? I'd really appreciate it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2urdv/eli5_what_is_grammar/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb1bga8",
"eb1by9j"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Grammar is just the set of rules that tell you the way language is structured in a language. The rules apply to words themselves, as well as the place in the sentence where the words belong. It's hard to come up with \"examples\" of grammar, since it is so prevalent in language.\n\n\"I are a native English speaker\" is not OK because it violates a rule of grammar. \n\n\"I am stupid and can't understood grammar\" is not OK because it violates a rule of grammar.\n\n\"Could please somebody to me explain it and examples provide\" is incorrect because it violates a rule of grammar.\n",
"Grammar are the rules around which a language is structured. There are many different types of rules that need to be observed in order for proper communication to take place.\n\nSyntax, for example, has to do with word order:\n“This sentence isn’t well together put.”\n\nSubject-Verb Agreement is another one that you can usually hear when it’s wrong:\n\n“She go to the store” (instead of) “She goes to the store.”\n\nDon’t feel badly if you can’t catch it all, very few people can. There are myriad rules to language, some more important than others, and many of them based on archaic language trends.\n\nFor example: Most children and/or English language learners will at some point make the error of saying “I goed to the store.” Now, “goed” sounds like it should be the past tense of “go” but it isn’t. “Went” is the past-tense, which is a completely different word. It used to be fashionable to use the word “wend” for going places “I wend a path through the woods.” But then “wend” fell out of fashion, “go” became more common, but “went” stuck around (being the past tense of “wend.”)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
309gyu | why can you sometimes "pop" a joint/knuckle, and other times not? | Wondering this because some mornings I can pop the joint in my shoulder, other times I cant | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/309gyu/eli5_why_can_you_sometimes_pop_a_jointknuckle_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpqbbzq"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Popping your knuckles is actually popping cavitation \"bubbles\" present in the sinovial fluid (basically the lubricant for your joints). If there are no bubbles present, there's nothing to pop. The bubbles tend to form following long periods of no motion, hence why they're present in the mornings and after long sedentary periods. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2xcvrm | if the life of a racing dog is so bad that greyhounds need rescuing, why is it still legal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xcvrm/eli5if_the_life_of_a_racing_dog_is_so_bad_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"coyyrb3",
"coyzmr0",
"coz0bdm"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
19
],
"text": [
"Rescue is a term that has come into the lexicon that really doesn't mean what it originally did. A pet rescue is a nicer way to say adoption from a kill shelter. You aren't actually saving it from abuse you are just making sure it doesn't get euthanized from over crowding at shelters. ",
"Money is the answer - and is likely to be at the root of any question you ever ask. \n\nInstead of tired-out greyhounds being put to immediate death, there is now an opportunity to adopt them.",
"They're not being rescued from their racing life, a \"rescue\" greyhound wasn't captured mid-race and put up for adoption. Once their racing career is over, its owner has little to no use for a large, high maintenance dog so this gives them a chance at a home as opposed to just releasing them in the wild or dropping them off at the pound. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6yfp2v | what happens to animals who live in the ocean beneath where a hurricane is? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yfp2v/eli5_what_happens_to_animals_who_live_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmmz4qg",
"dmn4u9l",
"dmn7kag",
"dmn8i63",
"dmn95z8",
"dmne990",
"dmneqdn",
"dmnggif",
"dmnhyi5",
"dmnlbgi",
"dmnldbg",
"dmnm6p5",
"dmnmcw7",
"dmnomig",
"dmnomud",
"dmnsc95",
"dmnt8ix",
"dmnua24",
"dmnw99q",
"dmnzhu2",
"dmo4zv9",
"dmo58on",
"dmo5e0s",
"dmo6lmd",
"dmo6tr9",
"dmo70c0",
"dmobasa",
"dmobizo",
"dmogpvs",
"dmojlb4",
"dmok5se"
],
"score": [
104,
15,
393,
143,
1189,
13,
5,
2,
16650,
2,
2,
2,
50,
2,
630,
3,
24,
4,
5,
14,
24,
46,
2,
2,
2,
16,
16,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly nothing, the only currents hurricane's would effect would be surface currents, which only go about 100m-200m deep, so for the kilometers of ocean below that creatures wouldn't feel anything. Though I guess more land debris do probably sink down to them during that time. Hurricane's do also cause upwelling at their center which cools surface Waters. Btw I'm a hydrology student, so by no means an expert, but we learned about this in my oceanography class.\n",
"They freak the geek out but in most cases they'd be fine. Closer to shore is far more dangerous.",
"Reef creatures (including the coral that make up the reef itself) and other shallow-water creatures suffer severely. Effects of past hurricanes can be seen on reefs for a LONG time afterwards.\n\nBut below roughly 100m or so, they probably wouldn't notice much.\n\nI am not a marine biologist but I would *guess* that organisms that usually live in the top layer of the ocean might temporarily migrate deeper if they can. ",
"After a hurricane tore through my town in Florida in late 2000s, I went to my dad's office to clean up some damage in front of the building. The office sits on a canal. The canal was littered with dead fish in it and on the banks. It stank for a while ",
"I had been curious myself about what all animals do, and I found [this](_URL_0_) \n\n > Sharks can sense the falling barometric pressure associated with a hurricane and leave the area. But other creatures are stuck. Fish and invertebrates can get driven onto land and stranded by the storm surge. Fish nurseries may be upset. Coral reefs can be completely destroyed; those that survive can take years to recover. Hurricanes have been known to kill fish, sea turtles, crabs and many other marine organisms.\n\n",
"the bottom of the ocean is the most stable environment on the planet. there are sulfur oxidizing tube worms that have been alive for thousands of years, essentially immortal organisms. ",
"I had a submariner tell me recently that unless you are on the surface or in shallow water it makes no difference",
"Ever heard of a \"rain of frogs\", \"rain of fish\", or similar? Those actually do happen -- rarely -- when waterspouts suck up a school of fish and fling them a few miles away.\n\nHurricanes don't do that directly, but can spawn internal tornadoes that do the same. And hurricanes do churn the water pretty badly, as others have mentioned.",
"Well, CaptainInertia, its like when you make splashies in the tub. The top is all wavy but under its not as craaazy. You can feel it on your toes though, can't ya? Well, your toesies are the fish deep down and your fingers are like the fishes at the top.\n\n*edit* thanks for the gold! And I have to say I didn't expect this to blow up! As for the comment breaking rule number 4, I joined ELI5 when it was first created, I don't think I even knew you can't explain like a literal 5 year old. Sorry mods.",
"On coastlines hurricanes will move sand around and may push the sand on coral reefs. The coral reefs may die causing the entire ecosystem to collapse. Small fish will travel to look for other reefs and big fish will have to as well to get food. The damage can be devastating. Coral reefs can take from months to years to replenish the damage.",
"I always assumed most of them can sense it's coming and will get out of the way, sort of like dogs and birds can sense a storm coming when it's still far away. I'm not really sure though.",
"Nothing really in the deep. I was on a submarine under a few cat 3 hurricanes. Just a bit of rocking. The deeper you go the less it rocks",
"What causes the raining of fish/frogs?",
"A long time ago I was a Navy submarine sailor. We were in the path of a hurricane, went sorta deep, not much happened.",
"So do sea animals head for deeper waters as rough weather approaches or are they caught off guard and just go with the flow?",
"It gets a little bumpy under the water but not that extreme. Source was once on a submarine beneath a hurricane.",
"I'm in a submariner in the US Navy. During a storm, the boat only rocks back and forth when we're shallow. Once we dive down, it's as if there's no more storm. Completely calm. You don't have to dive too deep to avoid the storm.",
"The deeper the fish, the less wind-blown waves affect them. More wind moves more water, more deeply. Fish near the surface will end up far inland during stormsurge. \n\nDeep enough and they won't notice. It's similar to how dunes move. The deepest part of a dune with the most sand over top will move the least and be the last to move when a strong enough wind blows. Instead of sand, we have water molecules that move more quickly.",
"They look up and say \"shit sure is going crazy up there\"\n\nSame as we do with the solar winds\n\n\nSame as the lizard men do when they look up at us.",
"The worst side effect that most marine mammals will experience would be high ambient noise levels in the ocean due to the storm. ",
"The underwater currents and turbulence become damaging depending on the speed/size of the hurricane. These current changes can sometimes last up to a week. Larger, self-propelled animals (sharks, dolphins, whales) can sense the pressure changes due to the incoming waves and dive deeper to avoid them. Smaller animals like fish and crabs usually feel the most effects and the same goes for underwater reefs. \n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"Off the coast of Key Largo in about 100 feet of water is the wreck of the USS Spiegal Grove. It was intentionally sunk to form a reef and scuba spot. They botched the sinking and she came to rest upside down on the bottom with the bow extending above the surface. With a second effort they got it completely sunk and laying on her side.\nThen in 2005 Hurricane Dennis came thru the area. the first divers to visit the wreck after the storm were shocked to find the wreck sitting upright on the bottom as originally intended!\n\n_URL_0_",
"Various aquatic life can get sucked into a hurricane but the hurricane causes a lot of displacement so instinctively they swim away. They get a long warning and is very unlikely that they actually get sucked up.",
"Ive actually kind of wondered lately what the heck people with fish tanks do to prepare for a hurricane. Especially if they evacuate. I mean, would you board up your tanks to protect them? Find a way to take your fish with you when you evacuate? Just leave and hope they're not all dead when you come back? What if your house floods? All your fish escape? The'd probably all die that way too. ",
"They often get to experience flight and land life for a brief moment before suffocation if they're close enough to the surface",
"A bit late. I am a marine biologist and one of my good mates has done some work on this. Storms will definitely cause a lot of damage to sessile (non moving) animals such as corals and sponges. This destruction is however part of the life in a reef, as it clears areas for colonization, keeping species diversity up in the long run. \nI specialize in sharks, and they can detect changes in barometric pressure that precede a storm. Tracking of some sharks in Australia and the US showed that sharks near the coast moved to deeper safer waters before the storms hit",
"They are fine. I was in the Submarine service for 20 years, just retired, and have the experience of being under water through many hurricanes. I will tell you that it is a crazy experience though. ",
"Was surprised a couple of times by tropical thunderstorms while diving. The only thing to notice 20 meters down is the fact that it gets a bit darker. For most of the sea animals such a hurricane is a non-event. ",
"I'm honestly not sure nor am I a credible person, But I remember years back during the South East asian tsunami in 2004 or 2006, I read an article about a diver who was underwater whilst the disaster was happening. He claimed he had no idea that a major tsunami was occurring and was happily swimming around the depths of the ocean. I'm guessing that animals that are deep down in the ocean may not notice much. ",
"Since this has kinda devolved into \"what happens to sharks and dolphins during hurricanes\" I'll put in my two cents. I live in a place with lots of dolphins and lots of hurricanes. \n\nDolphins will find a place with much less wave action... you'll usually catch dolphins way inside the bays in my area during hurricanes. And yes, I'm sure they're diving deeper and breathing less than on a normal day. So for at least costal dolphins, the answer is that they find more protected waters, like in bays or places where swell, wind is blocked. ",
"Does this localized influx of fresh water cause problems for any of the animals? "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/what-happens-animals-hurricane"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2012/10/22/what-happens-underwater-during-a-hurricane/"
],
[
"http://www.fla-keys.com/news/article/1504/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
669vui | how do make-up artists for shows like 'sons of anarchy' ensure that the fake tattoos always look the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/669vui/eli5_how_do_makeup_artists_for_shows_like_sons_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dggqxdt",
"dgi5srf"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"They do a makeup test for each actor prior to filming. This is done so they can experiment with different styles of makeup and get approval from the director. During the makeup tests they take a lot of reference images of the makeup. If you ever see some behind the scenes footage from the makeup department they have a lot of these reference photos around when applying the makeup. This way they can constantly check that the makeup looks exactly the same as in the makeup tests. If there is changes to the makeup during a scene, for example a fighting scene will have bruises and cuts added, makeup artists would walk around the set with a digital camera and a makeup kit to make sure they can change the makeup back between takes.",
"It's pretty easy to get temporary tattoos made these days. They just design an image and order a bunch of them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
7j99as | why are some smells stronger than others? e.g. with the same ammount of rotten egg and lavender the rotten egg would be alot more pungent | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7j99as/eli5_why_are_some_smells_stronger_than_others_eg/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr4mmpo",
"dr4ojpl",
"dr4p4io",
"dr4qxf6",
"dr4skx3",
"dr56cer"
],
"score": [
2,
38,
4,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Smells consist of microscopic particles and substances released into the air. Something with more moisture to evaporate or that otherwise more easily releases its odorous substances into the air, will smell more strongly than something that releases less. \nThis is, for example, why one typically can't perceptibly smell a rock. They just don't give off any odorous substances.",
"In regards to the potency of a smell, as noted, the amount of gaseous molecules that it has produces or the volatility of the substance is a major reason why some smells are more pungent. \n\nIn regards to your specific example, a rotten egg is undergoing decay and has many chemical reactions going on at that moment so there may simply be more odorous chemicals being produced than the flower. On top of that, the chemistry is something massively different from clear air, aka our reference point for odors. There is also an evolutionary advantage to having a negative reaction to the smell of something that is likely harmful, such as rotten food and so forth.",
"Because some substances are more volatile than others, meaning they release more stuff for our noses to detect. Some materials aren't very volatile at all, such as metals, though some metals can have quite specific scents caused by organic substances that accumulate on them.",
"Could be a survival adaptation, smells indicating a potential danger will be detected more readily",
"your body is more sensitive to some things because of evolution. compounds associated with death and decay tell you there is a serious health hazard nearby, so you are evolved to be well equipped to sense it and have a strong aversion to it. \n\nmany highly toxic compounds carry no scent because they're not something we interact with in nature. carbon monoxide is the most famous. despite being very dangerous to humans, it only occurs in significant quantities due to combustion, so we never had any reason to evolve the ability to detect it. ",
"Your body is composed of little pieces called cells. Certain cells have certain jobs. Some of these cells are able to sense chemicals in the air, these cells are called olfactory neurons. Olfactory neurons sense chemicals by use of special proteins called G protein coupled receptors. When one of these channels binds a molecule the G protein breaks away from the receptor and initiates a signalling cascade. Now, the single neuron response to a given smell is the same, if a smell is detected the neuron fires. This means that our brains recognize different smells by the sensory cells that recognize them, if the \"apple\" cells fire you smell apples. The reason these responses differ are several. Some olfactory receptors are more sensitive than others, they have a higher affinity for their ligand so they signal more easily (at a lower concentration of odorant) and more frequently (at a higher concentration of odorant). Another reason is that your brain is programmed to respond strongly to the firing of certain olfactory neurons, like those that can smell ammonia. A third reason is that smells bind multiple receptors. The apple cell can also bind odors from other fruits, like pears. If a class of chemicals is important to avoid (thiols, for example) then we will have many olfactory neurons that can bind that chemical to some degree, amplifying signalling.\n\n\nNinja edit: yes I know that apples have dozens of distinct odors I just didn't want to look up any aromatic compound names."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9r4an3 | how does my body “escape” a sleep trance? | For example, after staying up at night studying/out, there’s a chance that at one of my classes, I start to really start falling asleep. Like using the might of Zeus to even keep my eyes open falling asleep. When seemingly I’m about to black out and fall asleep, My body will jolt up, “shake it off” and seemingly loose all feelings of sleepiness.
I was just going in and out of consciousness a few seconds ago, how did I just catch a “second wind” and not feel like blacking out from sleep anymore? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9r4an3/eli5_how_does_my_body_escape_a_sleep_trance/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8e4cm9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe this goes back to the fight or flight mode in your body where you know you have to stay awake or else something bad happens.\n\nI’m assuming years ago when hunters were sleepy and needed to hunt they force them self awake with a jolt of adrenaline to get their mind more active.\n\nThis is probably what’s going on as you are studying late night when you should be sleeping.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1pbzsj | how the 64bit chip in the new iphone and ipad is useful despite those devices not having more than 3gb of ram | I've seen Apple telling that because of the new 64bit chip performance has doubled and the device is at least two times faster than the previous generation. However whenever I've seen any explanation for 64bit OS people always tell that it is useful for addressing more than 3GB of RAM. None of the Apple devices so far have more than 3GB RAM. So is that 64bit chip a marketing gimmick or not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pbzsj/eli5_how_the_64bit_chip_in_the_new_iphone_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd0tpoz",
"cd0uvvg",
"cd101hy"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They'll have to move to 64 bit eventually to make it easier and more straightforward to handle > 3 or 4GB of ram. They could have made the chip 32 bit and have the same amount of performance with < 3GB of ram. \n\nWhy go to 64-bit now, then? Marketing. Just like how 90's video game consoles always made a big deal over how many \"bits\" they had. Bigger number = better in the eyes of the consumer. \n\nEdit: a couple other things occurred to me: \n\nMoving to 64-bit now could give developers time to get used to writing things for 64-bit mode, but this isn't a factor since all of that low-level stuff is written by people at Apple anyway, and app developers don't have to deal with it. \n\nIf it's such good marketing, why didn't they move to 64-bit years ago, or why not even more bits? Increasing the bits takes up space on the silicon that could be used to increase actual performance, or be dropped to save on manufacturing costs. It doesn't make much sense to boost the number of bits unless your chip design is going to be used with > 3 or 4 GB of ram.",
"Has Apple really straight up said \"The device is two times faster since it's 64 bit?\" I kind of doubt that, since just about anyone in the entire IT industry can call them on that. \n\nBut /u/pork-cow is exactly right: they're laying the foundation now so they don't have to deal with it when they have enough RAM to really make use of it.\n",
"There are three things at play under the guise of '64-bit'. Register size (the actual internal size of two values that the CPU can add. And by 'add' read 'do any math on'), data bus size (the size of a value that can be read/written in memory in one go) and the address bus size (the number of distinct memory addresses available.) 64-bit can mean any one of those, although it should usually mean all three.\n\nThe first two things affect your speed in different amounts (being able to address more memory doesn't affect it, really at all): manipulating a value in the CPU is faster than reading one from memory. So, if you are adding two 64-bit numbers, reading them once, and adding them is significantly faster than reading 32-bit numbers twice. In a specific case like this, yes, the performance *of this piece* could easily be twice as fast, or possibly more.\n\nThis is not going to significantly affect something like a text editor. Almost all of the data handled is within a 32-bit word size (the data bus size. In software, we refer to the size of an integer that it can read/add in one go as a *word*.) Anything outside that scope is going to be rare enough that it is negligible. It isn't going to affect many phone functions, address books, or web browsers.\n\nWhere it will be most helpful is in number-crunching apps, such as high-dynamic-range picture editing and cryptograhy. (I don't really work on either of these, so if somebody does, please feel free to correct or extend my 5-yo explanation...)\n\nWhen you encrypt something, or hit a secure web page, etc, your machine has to do a bunch of math on very large integers. Having the ability to do more of the math with less memory reading is faster and uses less power. Encryption is a big thing, right now, and speed is typically touted as one of the downsides of encrypting your text messages, etc.\n\nIf you do something like averaging every set of pixel neighbors in a raw photo to compress it into a jpg, you do large array manipulation on several million numbers in a batch. If you're relying on division, etc, you can easily hit more than 32-bit equations. In this case, a 64-bit processor can also use less power and run faster.\n\ntldr; *some* things run faster at 64-bits. *Some* of those things are things that can make a camera/browser/phone work more smoothly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3jf20u | why does it seem that beaches up north or more rocky, while in the tropics they are more sandy? | or is that just perception? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jf20u/eli5_why_does_it_seem_that_beaches_up_north_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuooz0m",
"cuorhj6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"At least on the West Coast, there's plenty of sandy beaches on the actual Pacific ocean up through Oregon & Washington. Most people don't want to live there because it's cold, wet & stormy during much of the year.\n\nFor example, [Long Beach, WA](_URL_0_) claims to have the world's longest beach & it's a great bit of sand. Most of the Oregon coast is nice & sandy - at least the parts that aren't cliffs.\n\nSandy beaches might be a little less prevalent as you head north but that's probably because the more violent storms wash away the lighter sand.",
"It's largely perception. Sandy beaches in the tropics are a popular reason to go to the tropics, you know \"beach holiday\". People sunbathe, swim, scuba dive, surf and such on the tropics, and sandy beaches are suitable for these sort of activities. But people don't have that much interest to go sunbathe & swim, scuba dive and such in colder climates. Likewise when going to tropics, people don't have that much interest going to rocky cliffs and shores in the tropics, as you cannot sunbathe & swim and such.\n\nEDIT: However coral reefs are more common in the tropics, and dead corals make a big part of some sandy beaches.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.vanabode.com/images/long-beach-washington-picture.jpg"
],
[]
]
|
|
3itjxz | why aren't lawyers referred to as dr. even though they receive a juris doctor degree? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3itjxz/eli5_why_arent_lawyers_referred_to_as_dr_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"cujimfj",
"cujmlaj"
],
"score": [
12,
6
],
"text": [
"Lawyers traditionally have a special title, \"esquire\". It's usually abbreviated esq., as in, \"Bob Jones, esq\"",
"I'm a lawyer in the UK (England to be precise, as we have more than one legal system in the UK). Here \"esquire\" is an old fashioned way of saying \"Mr\". John Smith Esq. Lawyers sometimes put their qualifications after their names. John Smith LL.B, LL.M, LL.D would be a Bachelor of Laws, Master of Laws, Doctor of Laws respectively. However, people of my year of qualification (2007) and later now drop these and any references to universities (John Smith LL.B Cambridge) as it is no longer considered necessary/appropriate (unless you are full of yourself). Clients need to know you are fully qualified, nothing more. Only on your CV would you list all your qualifications. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
61uli1 | why does it matter which color wire you cut on a bomb? | If the movies are to be believed (I know there's only like a 10% chance of that), which wire you cut can make the difference between defusing and detonating a bomb. Why is that? Wouldn't any cut disconnect the detonator from the power source? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61uli1/eli5_why_does_it_matter_which_color_wire_you_cut/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfhdx3n",
"dfhe0j9",
"dfhe2tz",
"dfhe3pt"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nIt doesn't. It's just a stupid movie cliche that keeps getting reused by lazy scriptwriters.",
"there is no strict standard to wiring coloring. especially when you're thinking about a criminal mastermind bombmaker. do you think they'll follow IEEE standards on DC wiring colors? because the industry does it?\n\nyou can't just cut a wire because the circuit can be setup so that the detonation happens BECAUSE there's a cut in a wire. additionally, just like computer systems, you can have redundant circuits. two detonators crosslinked, if one is triggered, the other is triggered as well. you can't cut two wires simultaneously at the electron level.",
"Some bombs are designed so that if it loses power, it detonates. Sort of like a \"dead man's switch\" except with power, instead.\n\nSo you need to disconnect it in specifically a way that will prevent the mechanism from firing when it's supposed to (for example, removing the timer signal from the detonator) or something similar, rather than just turning the power off completely. But any bomb designer with any knowledge of electronics can make it trigger if it's tampered with at all.\n\nThat's why the usual way to dispose of a bomb is to detonate it on purpose in a controlled way.",
"Defusing a bomb is less than 1% like what you see in the movie.\n\nBombs made by evildoers are designed to detect tampering and blow up, rather than just sit there counting down until the hero defuses them. Countdown timers are not a standard feature. If you cut a wire that the bomb uses to detect tampering, then the bomb goes off. If you cut the power lead and the bomb has an internal trigger capacitor to fire the detonator, the bomb goes off. The bomb squad might try to disrupt all the wires at once, but simply putting the bomb in a detonation chamber and setting it off in a remote location is the preferred option."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WireDilemma"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
38jpvw | why is australia so strict when it comes to video games? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38jpvw/eli5_why_is_australia_so_strict_when_it_comes_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"crvpf67",
"crvt8v9",
"crvw65j",
"crw8gi6"
],
"score": [
41,
31,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"This isn't the full story, since they're still very strict, but for years Australia did not have an 18+ rating for games and only a 15+ rating due to South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson voting down all efforts to create one from 2003-2010 (it required a unanimous vote of the AGs). The 18+ rating wouldn't be implemented until 2013.",
"Not strict exactly, just different standards. Most games are made to American standards, which are more open-minded about violence, but less open-minded about sex. So, they tend tend to get a higher rating than they would in the U.S. Plus, we didn't have an \"R\" (over 18s) rating for video games until recently, so some games couldn't be sold. \n\nThe same thing happens with TV - you can curse all you want on TV and radio (I've heard Nine Inch Nail's \"Closer\" at 10am on government-funded radio), we've had close-ups of vaginas on commercial free-to-air TV at 9:45 in the evening, but \"The Walking Dead\" gets bumped from PG to \"Mature Adults\" due to violence. \n\nPorn's got different rules, too. Explicit \"Non-Violent Erotica\" is fine, but anything with violence in it (Max Hardcore, I'm looking at you) cannot be legally sold. \n\nFinally, if you'd like an example of strict rules about video game content, take a look at the fuss caused by the sex scenes in [GTA: San Andreas](_URL_0_). That'd be fine under Aussie rules, but our American cousins went all Oh-My-G*d, Think-Of-The-Children. ",
"Being Australian I feel like I can say something. It's actually drugs and sex that tends to get games banned here over \"violence\" most of the time. Yes violence in video games has caused games to be censored or banned but majority of times in the past its actually been other issues. ",
"We are a nanny state. We all follow the rules, say the same things, and think the same way (slowly). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9wvnmr | is breathing in ash from a wildfire worse than smoking cigarettes/weed or vaping? what are the physiological reasons? | I go to a Californian university close to some of the wildfires that are currently active. My friends who constantly smoke marijuana, cigarettes and vape bought masks and are making fun of people who don't wear masks calling them stupid and claiming that they're going to get lung cancer faster than if you smoke. Is this true? As far as I can tell, it isn't. Furthermore, which is more harmful, inhaling the ash from the fire or smoking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9wvnmr/eli5_is_breathing_in_ash_from_a_wildfire_worse/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9nnxfz",
"e9nprxe",
"e9nwm7d"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I don’t know about the comparisons but I do know that there are a lot of materials in the ash that are carcinogenic. Imagine all the plastics, asbestos, toxic chemicals that are being burned. If it was just wood smoke I might feel differently. Even that is a major irritant. ",
"I imagine that the range of things that might be in the smoke/Ash is higher, as is the potential size of the particles. It's probably more immediately dangerous in that regard. Obviously, neither are healthy for your lungs.",
"I'm not sure if one of worse than the other but the wildfire smoke will have Ash that will be inhaled where as cigarettes and such so not have that issue. The problem with breathing in the ash is it will stay in your lungs(same as with coal miners and black lung) which has been known to cause innerstitial lung disease and possible cancer (like mesothelioma from asbestos). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
62e3j8 | marxism | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62e3j8/eli5_marxism/ | {
"a_id": [
"dflrysb",
"dflty8t",
"dflu0eq",
"dflw1s4"
],
"score": [
100,
5,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Marxism is an economic and social model whereby social classes have been completely destroyed (everyone is working class), production is owned directly by the people, production is ordered by what society needs and not what drive profit, and our modern system of government is completely abolished. The end game for Marxism is a world with no governments, no borders, no profit, no private ownership, and everybody works to produce what society needs directly. Think of how animals like bees or ants live, if you will. The entire colony thrives when all individual parts act selflessly towards the greatest benefit to the colony as a whole\n\nMarxists believe in a step towards this from capitalism to socialism. Socialism would be a system where workers have a control over their production, but the world is still ordered into countries with currencies.\n\nMarxists believe that if everyone works at what society needs, the system will balance itself where most people will work on food production, housing, medicine and energy production, while more niche needs like artists, authors, and specialist medicines have less people working on them.\n\nIf capitalists believe that the market will balance itself through supply and demand, Marxists believe society will balance itself through human needs. They argue that capitalism leads more people to work for the profit of someone else, and not for the more efficient benefit of all of society. \n\nMarxism has never really been put into practice. Many ideas of Marx and Engels have been tried, and some continue still to this day. They're of varying levels of success, and often controversial because of basic human nature of being opportunistic and greedy. Most Marxists argue that no communist nation to date has been true to Marx's teachings, but rather become twisted models of capitalism with some incorporation of socialism. ",
"Marx wanted to describe as accurately as possible how capitalist societies function on both an economic and sociological level. The goal was to describe the past, the present and predict the future of human societies and why a socialist future would come about due to the inherent contradictions of the capitalist economic system. The intellectual tradition/social science that he started is what we call Marxism.",
"As an economist who specializes in the history of economics, it makes me very sad to see a lot of popular misconceptions floating around here. When I'm not on my phone, I'll try to clear some of them up with my own explanation. For now, I just want to say that even the Wikipedia article is a pretty good and accurate overview. \n\nEdit: well, looks like the OP has been deleted anyway, but I think the response by /u/apocalypsedao is excellent, fwiw. Obviously this is a complicated and contentious topic, but their post is clear and clearly well-informed. ",
"Marxism is the school of thought inaugurated by 19th century German philosopher Karl Marx. He spent the bulk of his writing talking about two things, historical materialism and the critique of capitalism. There is of course other stuff in his writing, since he and his buddy Friedrich Engels wrote a bunch of books, but understanding those two concepts will give you a good sense of what Marxism is.\n\nHistorical materialism is, at its simplest, the idea that the fundamental thing in human life is our need to produce to survive (these are the materials in materialism). We gotta make food, build houses, and get water to people in order to stay alive. Since humans can't really go it alone, society exists in order to provide people with the necessary stuff in order to live. \n\nNow society needs to be structured in a way to make this possible. You need people to actually do the work and people to control them to make sure the work gets done, a ruling and a laboring class. The laborers don't really like this arrangement and are by necessity a larger group than the rulers. Eventually the laborers get sick of the rulers shit and take over. This is class struggle. \n\nNow in the capitalist system, this happens (or happened, depending on who you ask) between the proletariat (the working class, moving gradually to the city to work in factories) and the bourgeousie, the ruling class, who own the factories. But there are other arrangements. Marx and Engels wrote about primitive societies structured around the family and feudal societies with kings and knights and stuff as well. History, according to Marx, is nothing but the progression of these class struggles (hence the \"historical\" in historical materialism). So, in short, our need to produce stuff in order to live is the sole driving force in history. This is the \"structure\" of society, everything else, including culture and religion is \"superstructure,\" ultimately a distraction from the reality of labor.\n\nNow for the critique of capitalism, and at this point my five year old has long since fallen asleep, dreaming of revolution. Basically capitalism really sucks, says Marx, because we are totally alienated from our labor. What this means is that we are completely removed from the actual work that brings the things we need to live to us. We have no idea about the reality of the circumstances of the factories that produce our everyday items. Marx was during the industrial revolution, when inhuman factory conditions were extremely prevalent, and a worker in one factory didn't know the conditions of another factory.\n\nThis is still true though, think for a second about the clothes you are wearing, and the labor actually involved in making them. Chances are you know very little. Furthermore, capitalism is all about the division of labor. Each worker does the smallest thing possible to produce his product. Marx wrote about a world in which everybody had become or will become button pushers at the factory, unless of course you own the factory.\n\nBecause we are so far removed from the products of our labor, we are enticed by our society to work these awful jobs to buy this nice stuff that seemingly comes from nowhere that we don't really need. This is the \"fetishism of commodities.\" Marx was talking about religious fetishes, you pervert. Basically treating ordinary objects as if they had religious value, since they seeming pop into existence right in front of you as you're all, \"oooo I want that.\"\n\nMarx wrote that these conditions could not hold, and that something had to give. He was right, to an extent. In the early 20th century the world went crazy with populist uprisings, not just communists but fascists as well, because people were sick of the status quo.\n\nMarx believed that communism was the answer, but note that communism is not Marxism. Marx was a communist, as were most later marxists, but he spent like 3 pages in all of his writing describing the reality of communism. Marx believed that communism (an idea which preceded him) was the answer because once the means of production were directly controlled by the working class, there was no more class struggle, and then so no more history, and we had figured it out. Go team humanity! But obviously it hasn't turned out that way.\n\nSo don't let anyone tell you that Marxism is a form of government. It's a school of philosophical thought that informed other, later writers (like Lenin), who wrote extensively about government. \n\nI apologize for the length, and to any marxists who might be offended because I left out their favorite bits.\n\nTldr; Marx basically wrote that history is driven by our need to survive and that capitalism sucks\n\nEdit: called him an 18th century dude because I'm an idiot"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
bpv7er | what are the purpose of 4wd and 2wd in vehicles? as well as each having their own hi and low buttons? | I've bought my first truck and it came with these buttons on the dashboard. But i do not know what they're meant for. Please ELI5 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bpv7er/eli5_what_are_the_purpose_of_4wd_and_2wd_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"enxu5g3"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"2WD stands for Two-Wheel Drive, either Front or Rear, depending on your car. Most likely, FWD.\n\nIn Two-Wheel Drive mode, the power of your engine will be sent to a single axle, and split among both wheels on that axle. This is the most common way you'll use your car. The unpowered wheels will roll passively, like the front wheel on a bicycle.\n\nIn 4WD (Four-Wheel Drive) mode, the engine can deliver power to all four wheels simultaneously, if it detects a loss of traction.\n\nHi and Lo modes refer to the gear ratio being used: Lo provides much more torque at low speeds, which is useful for navigating hazardous situations, such as snow and terrain."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2aia7w | if i quit smoking after 15 years? what changes will revert in my body and what will be ruined forever? | I cant run a 1/4 of a mile after smoking for 15 years, If I were to quit, would I eventually end up back to normal or is the damage done? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aia7w/eli5if_i_quit_smoking_after_15_years_what_changes/ | {
"a_id": [
"civhbbk",
"civhyw5"
],
"score": [
23,
4
],
"text": [
"From [_URL_1_](_URL_0_):\n\nAs soon as you stop smoking your body begins to repair itself...\n\nWithin 6 hours\n\n Your heart rate slows and your blood pressure decreases.\n\nWithin a day\n\n Almost all of the nicotine is out of your bloodstream.\n The level of carbon monoxide in your blood has dropped and oxygen can more easily reach your heart and muscles. \n Your fingertips become warmer and your hands steadier.\n\nWithin a week\n\n Your sense of taste and smell may improve.\n Your lungs’ natural cleaning system is starting to recover, becoming better at removing mucus, tar and dust from your lungs (exercise helps to clear out your lungs).\n You have higher blood levels of protective antioxidants such as vitamin C.\n\nWithin 2 months\n\n You’re coughing and wheezing less.\n Your immune system is beginning its recovery so your body is better at fighting off infection.\n Your blood is less thick and sticky and blood flow to your hands and feet has improved.\n\nWithin 6 months\n\n Your lungs are working much better, producing less phlegm.\n You're likely to feel less stressed than when you were smoking.\n\nAfter 1 year\n\n You’re breathing easier as your lungs are now healthier and more efficient.\n\nWithin 2 to 5 years\n\n There is a large drop in your risk of heart attack and stroke and this risk will continue to gradually decrease over time.\n For women, within five years, the risk of cervical cancer is the same as someone who has never smoked.\n\nAfter 10 years\n\n Your risk of lung cancer is lower than that of a continuing smoker (provided the disease was not already present when you quit).\n\nAfter 15 years\n\n Your risk of heart attack and stroke is close to that of a person who has never smoked.\n",
"You will never be back to 100% (the same as if you had never smoked), but I think if you give up and abstain completely for say 10 -15 years again, your lungs will recover significantly. I can't remember where I read it or I would link it, but I think if you give up around at around thirty, for a good 10 years, your lungs will heal to about 80-85% - i may be completely off here mind you - of the damage done. You will however have an increased risk of lung cancer, and you will obviously never have the lungs you would have had if you hadn't, but your lungs will heal. As for the running part... I have always ran, and I was a smoker for 15 years also. I ran a marathon twice as a smoker. You smoking isn't the only reason you can't run 1/4 of a mile, you're probably not fit enough and should do more exercise regardless (though giving up smoking would obviously be beneficial and you would find it easier). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.quit.org.au/reasons-to-quit/health-benefits-of-quitting",
"quit.org.au"
],
[]
]
|
|
1lngm4 | why does health care not cover dental, seems like teeth rotting out is bad for your health? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lngm4/eli5_why_does_health_care_not_cover_dental_seems/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc0xygs",
"cc0yw5x",
"cc0zfco",
"cc10rdo",
"cc1196x",
"cc119bl",
"cc12bxm",
"cc13ems",
"cc13ma5",
"cc14rc5",
"cc155dr",
"cc15iwe",
"cc19wr3",
"cc1c0b0",
"cc1fvl1",
"cc1gca0",
"cc1ghdy"
],
"score": [
25,
17,
5,
26,
18,
15,
2,
131,
8,
4,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Big Dentistry is always going to be able to give people not quite enough aneasthetic if it's profits are threatened.\n\nOr, possibly, because they've traditionally been different industries. Sort of the same reason that optometrists are generally covered under a different plan as well. Not so much that it doesn't make sense to have them all under the banner of health care, but that they aren't thought of in that sense so they tend to left out of initiatives that address them.",
"I wouldn't have the heart to tell a 5 year old that the entire world has governments which do not put a high value on the healthcare their low income citizens have. ",
"Some thoughts here:\n\nMost dental offices are privately owned and not subsidized by the government. Since they aren't subsidized, the cost of care remains high. Insurance companies have a tendency to try and bargain the COC down, which is much easier with businesses that are heavily subsidized. This is why even the best dental plans generally only cover 80% for procedure. In *most* dental offices, all of the equipment, staff, and space is payed for by the dentist who owns the company, so it becomes imperative that they make a profit. They also get no government student loan forgiveness, even if they work in a depressed or medically needy area (common with regular physicians and nurses). The amounts that medicare/medicaid will pay are a joke, and so many offices will not take government insurance at all. Those that do will often go the cheapest, quickest route, often pulling the teeth instead of restoration. \n\nAnd yes- bad oral health can have devastating and even deadly consequences. Bacterial endocarditis is often caused by oral bacteria. It can absolutely destroy the heart valves, and doesn't even depend on \"rotting teeth\". Periodontal disease is a big culprit, and one can have no cavities and still have gum disease. \n\nAnyhow, it's a huge problem in America, one that I hope is addressed eventually. It would be nice if the government could subsidize large regional dental centers the way they do hospitals and clinics. Bad teeth are kind of a silent epidemic here. ",
"It is in most developed countries. ",
"Well, it does, just not in the US apparently. ",
"My cousin just died last Wednesday because he did not go and get his abscess taken care of. Please go to the dentist if you need to! ",
"In many cases it is.\n\nBut, in places that it isn't, the answer is that it isn't covered - yet. Ultimately you're right, it should be. Healthcare started as insurance for extremely large expenses, surgeries and hospitalizations basically. As time has gone on we've developed absurdly expensive drugs to treat rare diseases, and while not all countries have pharmacare that's clearly on the hit list anywhere that doesn't.\n\nDental is next down the list. The thing with dentistry is that you are more or less capped in cost - you can always just have all your teeth removed and have dentures. More serious dental problems, that involve surgery into your nasal cavity and that sort of thing are usually hospital issues. Eventually, sure a lot of dentistry will need to be covered because there are big expenses, but there's not really a way to get a 1/2 million dollar dental bill without cost effective alternatives (getting all your teeth pulled).\n\nDefinitely wisdom teeth and accidents can be expensive - thousands maybe small 10's of thousands but not hundreds of thousands. ",
"This is why. The purpose of insurance is to protect you from freak accidents and give you peace of mind. So you have homeowners insurance so that if a tree falls on your house you can get it fixed. You have health insurance so that if you get cancer you can get chemo. You have auto insurance so that if you get into a wreck you can fix your car. All of these insurances protect you against a freak accident and distribute the cost of accidents over a large population with financial backing. \n\nDental care is different however. Unlike health care and the like it's a cost that is foreseeable. You go to the dentist twice a year, you are likely to have a cavity once every couple years etc. It makes no sense to pay a business to hedge against a cost that is completely foreseeable and can be planned into a budget. It would be like me getting insurance for my groceries. AKA \"I'll give you 10,000 a year, give me back some of it each week for groceries and take out 15% for yourself and costs. It just doesn't make sense and as a result most insurance companies don't cover dental realizing that for the most part it's simply a common expense that should be factored into a budget.",
"The American Dentistry Association does not (and is not required to) participate in Medicare, so dental has not been integrated into health care the way that vision has. \n\nMedicare also has a leveling effect on health care costs. Without predictable costs it's difficult to underwrite a good policy. (This is why dental insurance sucks.)\n\nAlso, unlike mental health, the US government has not established parity requirements that would require the same coverage for dental health as overall health.\n\nWithout any of these there is little incentive to write dental into health policies.",
"It's covered in many many countries. Just not America, because money.",
"It always kills me that medical, dental, and vision are separated in health care. Yeah, I'm in great shape. But if I can't eat food, or you know....SEE...isn't it safe to assume that's going to affect my fuckin' health? ",
"I heard somewhere (from a person, not the internet, so no sources to cite) that in Canada, dentistry is not included in OHIP because the dentists at the time of it's inception lobbied against it. (They knew they'd make more money charging privately.) \n\nI just had to google to check the definition of inception, because after I typed it my brain went \"wait, no, that's a movie...\" ",
"healthcare reform actually will require pediatric (kid) dental and vision benefits (coverage) within the medical plans sold on the state or federal exchanges",
"And why will they pay for Viagra for men but not hormone replacement cream for women?",
"I don't get why vision insurance doesn't cover LASIK. They would rather pay for a new pair of prescription glasses for me every year than $1000 one time to permanently correct my vision?",
"This is what happens when there is a system whose goal is not your health, it is to make money even though your health is supposedly why it exists. This is the danger of allowing profit seeking businesses to \"compete\" in what is a known necessity and cost of life such as healthcare.\n\n This is the same reason why government must be involved in scientific research; no private sector company will outlay funds for research that may not become profitable two quarters in into future, much less fifty years on or look into the possible arrival of an asteroid. If the goal is innovation, then research costs must be seen as a collective endeavor and cost that produce a public good for everyone, a capital expense if you will.\n\n In the same manner, if the goal of a healthcare system is health, then the government (society, that is) must step in to foot that cost. In both cases, coincidentally, this will have the benefit of driving down the costs and increasing accessibility, meaning better and more comprehensive healthcare will be delivered at a lower price. If the primary goal is to, as it currently is, make money, then the system will do so, at the expense of all other goals including and not limited to, your health. This not only adversely affects your health but it drives the price of care up and creates scarcity. This is exactly why the United States spends the most on healthcare by FAR with far less than optimal returns; i.e., life expectancy (_URL_0_).\n\nTL;DR Because the goal of our \"healthcare\" system is not health; it's money.",
"Because fuck you, that's why"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php"
],
[]
]
|
||
40ter3 | why aren't road signs slightly tilted? | I live in an area that snows. The road signs get covered in snow and become unreadable. Clearly heating or cleaning road signs would be expensive, but why don't they tilt ever so slightly forward, this would allow the vast majority of snow to fall and if any snow remains it wouldn't obscure the sign. You could make the tilt extremely small so you don't need to adjust the graphic on the sign. Am I missing something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40ter3/eli5_why_arent_road_signs_slightly_tilted/ | {
"a_id": [
"cywwome",
"cyxkbo1"
],
"score": [
58,
3
],
"text": [
"Two reasons strike me...\n\nFirstly snow round here doesn't stick to vertical surfaces unless it's blowing - and if it's blowing it would probably stick to the sign anyway.\n\nSecondly, you'd lose a lot of the self-cleaning that comes from rainfall.",
"The snow might pile up on the back of the sign, and if it's wet/heavy enough can lead to the sign tilting even more into the realm of \"too much\"."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2ejd22 | why does it seem like people who are older (i.e. - 30 and above) seem to have more of a gut even if they workout, and what can i do to prevent it from happening to me as i age? | I've heard of people who are older and are still physically active (runs marathons, etc.) but still have a "beer belly" even if they may have a skinny waist. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ejd22/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_people_who_are_older/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck00th9",
"ck0104j",
"ck012k3",
"ck02977"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"because their metabolism slows down and although active, they are not active enough to burn the extra kilojoules consumed as such the extra energy is stored as fat in the belly. \n\nyou dont want it, you keep on eye on your diet and keep an active lifestyle",
"Dont call us in our 30s older. Thats a designation for 60 year old's. 8-)",
"You can't outrun your diet.",
"Simple solution\nDon't drink beer and cut way back on carbs"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
j3hp1 | i suspect this can't be done, but can anyone explain what "postmodern" means li5? | Apologies in advance if this is too complex to easily explain, but I think I've been secretly pretending to understand this term for far too long.
EDIT: This had already been asked-- look [here](_URL_0_) for more answers. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3hp1/i_suspect_this_cant_be_done_but_can_anyone/ | {
"a_id": [
"c29ggj7",
"c28u9af",
"c28uma8",
"c29ggj7"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Post modernists believe there is no absolute truth, only relative truth, in that sense, everything is true and nothing is true.\n\nWhatever is true for you, may not be true for me.\n\nPostmodernist art tends to be absurd as it tries to prove the relative degree of truth value of any statement, including beauty.",
"Depends on the context, the term has different meanings in different fields. For example \"modernism\" was a distinct movement in Architecture and Literature and some other fields in the 50s and 60s, in those fields Postmodernism is often used to describe the different theories that came later reacting against the modernist style.",
"Got a few more answers [over here](_URL_0_)",
"Post modernists believe there is no absolute truth, only relative truth, in that sense, everything is true and nothing is true.\n\nWhatever is true for you, may not be true for me.\n\nPostmodernist art tends to be absurd as it tries to prove the relative degree of truth value of any statement, including beauty."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2xcs/can_someone_explain_postmodernism_like_im_5_please/"
]
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2xcs/can_someone_explain_postmodernism_like_im_5_please/"
],
[]
]
|
|
oaj1p | how do diuretics "flush excess fluid" from one's body? (x-post from /r/askscience) | For example- Why do I have to pee urgently after drinking strongly brewed, caffeinated tea? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/oaj1p/eli5_how_do_diuretics_flush_excess_fluid_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3fqs46",
"c3g1h63"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Am a nurse, not a Pharmacist, but I did reasonably well in pharmacology. \n\nDiuretics don't flush out excess fluid. They increase the amount of water that is not reabsorbed in the nephron (functional unit of the kidney). The most powerful diuretics work in the Loop of Henle, and are called loop diuretics. They include furosemide bumex to name two I can think of readily. When blood enters the nephron it flows through Bowman's capsule (I think it's called) and from there, due to hydrostatic force, water and other particles smaller than blood cells cross into the loop and then into the proximal and distal convoluted tubules. Normally most of this would be reabsorbed into the bloodstream through the capillary blood vessels that are all over the nephron. Diuretics prevent this reabsorption. Hope that helps. If not I'll try again or be corrected by someone who knows it better than me. :) ",
"In a little simpler terms.\n\nYour kidneys help filter your blood for bad things that you don't want in there. When you drink liquids, the water from the liquids goes into your blood. A major job for the kidneys is to take out the excess water in your blood, and take it to your bladder where you can pee it out.\n\nThe kidneys pull out a lot of water, so that they can get to the little stuff, and then normally once they're done, a lot of the water they pulled out gets put right back in again (re-absorbed). Some gets sent to the bladder, though.\n\nThings that make you have to pee are called diuretics. They basically block the re-absorption of water in your kidneys. You take the water out of the blood, but these diuretics stop you from putting so much of it right back in. More of it goes to your bladder.\n\nAlcohol is a classic example. It blocks the re-absorption of water in your kidneys so that more of it goes to your bladder and you have to pee. This is why people tend to have to pee all the time when they're drunk."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3sma7t | why can my computer run games like portal and deus ex perfectly well, but it struggles and lags while playing online flash games? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sma7t/eli5_why_can_my_computer_run_games_like_portal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwyipng",
"cwyis2s",
"cwysnz6"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It could be any number of issues, really, depending on your machine and what you're running.\n\nThe most likely culprit here, given your examples, is efficiency of coding. Code can be written in many different ways, similar to how you could write a sentence. For example:\n\n\"Peg's taxi didn't break its mirror.\"\n\n\"Margaret's taximeter cabriolet did not break its rear view mirror.\"\n\nBoth statements say the same thing, but one takes far longer to read. It's inefficient.\n\nCode writing is the same way. Experienced programmers know how to use code most efficiently to execute what they want while minimizing the work the computer has to do. The flash games you are playing are likely written by young programmers who haven't mastered their craft nearly as well as the people behind AAA titles.",
"Because those games are optimised through Direct-X. Flash is a bloated old POS format that takes up far too much processing power for what it can accomplish. Games engines are processed through your graphics card while flash is handled by your processor.\n\nThat's why most online video has moved from flash to HTML5 in the last few years. ",
"Flash is ostensibly designed to be simple and easy to use, not to be high-performance. With software and programming languages, there's generally a trade-off between performance and ease of use."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5qcrux | what does sunlight consist of, and why do some parts pass through windows while other parts don't? | Sunlight and its heat penetrates windows, but you can't get a sunburn from sun through a window. What causes this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qcrux/eli5_what_does_sunlight_consist_of_and_why_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcy6cnk",
"dcy9e9s",
"dcyvbcw"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Sunlight and heat are (in simple terms, heat is complex) both electromagnetic radiation. They just have different frequencies (the rate at which the wave repeats itself, think of it like the number of waves in a given stretch of ocean). \n\nUV light (higher frequency) causes sun burn. It’s blocked by special glazing on the glass. Visible light, and IR radiation (lower frequency) which feels like heat, are transmitted through the glass to your body. \n",
"Sunlight is borne out of nuclear fusion reactions. Atoms like Helium are smashed together by the sheer force of gravity. This causes release of a lot of energy. This energy is in the form of vibrating photons. Different photons vibrate at different wavelengths or in other words, different photos are excited to a different degree. Some photons we can see, some we cant. What we can see, we call visible light (think of a rainbow), what we cannot see is called either ultra-violet or infra-red, outside the rainbow spectrum. Out of this range of excited photons, some can cause you sunburn, some are fun to look at and some others just provide heat.\n\nWindows are made of glass. Sometimes the glass has special layers that block certain wavelengths. They are gatekeepers that keep some photons out. \"You're too excited, Mr. Photon, you can get through\". The gatekeepers work by either absorbing the light energy or by reflecting it or a combination of both. These layers or films are usually designed to keep out the photons that give you sunburn. So you can sit behind a glass sheet in the sun and not start looking like toast.",
"Late response, but hopefully I can ELI5 it with not too much assumed knowledge.\n\nWhen sunlight hits a correctly-angled prism, it refracts into its components, as in [this image](_URL_1_). That image includes all the *visible* wavelengths, but that's only a [tiny proportion](_URL_0_) of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, which ranges from gamma waves with tiny frequencies to radio waves with much bigger frequencies.\n\nMost of this EM spectrum, as you've probably put together by now, is invisible to us humans.\n\nJust either side of the visible wavelengths there are two wavelengths of energy that deal with the question you're asking.\n\nBefore red is *infra-red*. Infra-red light is a key way of transferring heat. You can test this by using a prism as per the first image, and putting a thermometer in each colour, and an extra one in the invisible part before the red appears. The thermometer in the infra-red part will receive the most heat energy, and report the highest temperature gain.\n\nAfter violet is *ultra-violet*. Ultra-violet (UV) light is split into its own subsets (UVA, UVB, UVC), but for the ELI5 response we'll just deal with UVA and UVB. These wavelengths of light (especially UVB) have a terrible ability to actually destroy DNA in your skin cells, at which point your body starts killing the bad skin cells, as bad DNA is something to be immediately rejected. This is how sunburn occurs. If you're fortunate enough to have enough melanin (a UV-blocking pigment) in your skin you'll be far less susceptible. Melanin is basically what makes a person's skin light or dark.\n\nTo your question, sunlight doesn't completely penetrate windows. The infra-red comes through, bringing heat. The visible wavelengths comes through, bringing 'light', but the UVB will not penetrate typical window glass. UVA will still penetrate, but it's not as good at destroying your skin as UVB.\n\nSpecially-tinted windows (eg cars) block out a portion of the IR/visible wavelengths to reduce incoming heat, and a larger portion of the UV wavelengths for protection.\n\nTL;DR - There's more to light than what you can see. It's the invisible wavelengths that 'carry' heat and cause sunburn. Most windows will let the 'heat' part of light through, but stop the 'sunburn' part."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/topics/radioact/Radio/EMSpectrumcolor.jpg",
"https://i.stack.imgur.com/eejRR.gif"
]
]
|
|
350o5d | if every action has an equal and opposite reaction (newton's 3rd law of motion), then why isn't everything in equilibrium? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/350o5d/eli5_if_every_action_has_an_equal_and_opposite/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqzuhpn",
"cqzyp4c"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it doesn't work like that. A better statement of the law would be that:\n\n > The application of a force to an object results in the object applying an equal magnitude and opposite aligned force to the actor.\n\nYou push on the table, the table pushes on you.\n\nHowever, if you look at the first and second laws, which are that things keep moving until acted on, and that the acceleration derived from a force is correlated with mass, you get that because most things in the universe are big, they tend to just keep going like the puck on an air hockey table.\n\nTechnically, yes, there is a point where all the possible energy has been used, where we are in total equilibrium, and it's called the heat death of the universe. It's slightly in the future.",
"Think of Newton's law in terms of energy.\nEnergy is always conserved. But it can be transformed.\nThe equilibrium is in the energy, not in the movement (or absence of movement). \nI push on the table: I apply a force F to the table.\nThat force pushes on the table's feet. If there are enough friction, a tiny amount of the energy is converted to heat (friction) but the majority of the force is sent back from the ground to the table, and from the table back to me. \nIf there aren't enough friction, some of the energy is transformed into kinetic (movement) energy. For instance the table might slide on the floor: some energy transforms into heat, some into movement, and a lower amount is received as a force back into my hand. \n\nIf there aren't enough friction on the table, my hand may slide; and then I might burn myself (friction = heat energy) and I will slide forward as I acquire movement (kinetic energy).\n\nIf I hit the table with enough force to reach the point of material resistance of the wood inside the table, then the table will only send back a portion of the force into my hand and another portion of the energy becomes deformation energy (the wood is cracking).\n\nSo - all IS indeed in equilibrium. But that's across all the different kind of energies, as energy is transferred from one form to another.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3iysdj | why do religious christians care so much about the legality of gay marriage, but not about the legality of cheating on your spouse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iysdj/eli5why_do_religious_christians_care_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"cukufc9",
"cukv1hr",
"cukvs8c",
"cukvxq6",
"cukywe0",
"cul06st",
"cul0c0h",
"cul0xih",
"cul17e3",
"cul1zli",
"cul28ll",
"cul2isq",
"cul2q6v",
"cul2v4q",
"cul2wa8",
"cul2xvl",
"cul32wy",
"cul381r",
"cul3brt",
"cul3dob",
"cul3gub",
"cul3y1q",
"cul3z07",
"cul416m",
"cul4ezg",
"cul6mir",
"cul6r1u"
],
"score": [
26,
756,
110,
6,
2,
14,
15,
4,
2,
16,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > the level of hypocrisy/cherry-picking on this particular topic seems through the roof. \n\nWell, that is kinda the answer. Some people justify their asshole-ness by the age-old \"God said so\"-argument, and cherry-pick from said religion what they want, or even invent new stuff to fit their personal opinion.\n\nThey use religion as a shield against criticism of their lifestyle, opinions and deeds. ",
"Two reasons:\n\n1. You're making a false comparison by comparing the *criminalization* of adultery against the *subsidization* of marriage. Gay marriage being illegal doesn't mean you go to jail for it - it just means that you can't file paperwork with the government. In contrast, adultery being illegal means they put you in jail for committing adultery. In any case, adultery does have legal consequences in many family courts.\n\n2. People aren't challenging Christian doctrine with regards to adultery. People overwhelmingly view adultery as morally wrong and only a few people on the margins are arguing that adultery is just fine. In contrast, proponents of gay marriage *are* challenging Christian doctrine by arguing that homosexuality is not a sin.",
"You're are misunderstanding the point of the Christian stance. They don't view marriage, gay or straight, as a political right but as a religious right, a religious ordnance that the government tacked on benefits on to. \n\nSo they see it as the government taking over a religious ritual for political gain. ",
"\"True\" Christians wouldn't care so much, they would be more focused on the Christian doctrine of leading people to salvation through accepting Christ as lord and savior, condemning people is a terrible way to do that. The real answer is that it's another method the \"powers that be\" remain in power. Since the dawn of civilization those who had power of others usually used a combination of religion, economics and military might to control populations, and to acquire power, in recent years the religious grasp over humanity has been eroding, the \"powers that be\" if you will have many tools they can use to secure their control, rallying a huge amount of people around a \"threat\" that isn't really a threat is an easy go-to, gays are an easy target, most people aren't gay. People of inscrutable power feed this paranoia to keep their base for voting for the malleable politicians right where they want them. You think the Santorums and Walkers actually give a crap if two dudes marry? it's a non-issue, but when instructed by the super-powerful to take a stand against they get votes as the \"moral choice\" while being agreeable to super-powerful agendas.",
"First thing I would like to say is that in my christian community, both are condemned as a sin. But, I feel the main reason why us Christians don't care as much about adultery is that it isn't something we can really fight over anymore. We don't have the power to criminalize something that is done in private and by choice of the spouse, and something that has been around in our country for so long. We do have the power, however, to say that gays should not be able to legally \"marry\", as to us, marriage is a holy partnership between a man and a women. To some, it kind of feels like somebody took someone else's product, and changed it to their new standards without receiving the owner's approval. Adultery would always happen even if it were to be criminalized, but Christians can still prevent their traditional views of marriage from being \"corrupted\" by preventing the licensing of gay marriages. \n\nEDIT: Please correct me if I said something incorrect.",
"Christians wouldn't make being gay illegal. \n\nThe whole thing hinges on being sorry for sin. Gay marriages institutionalizes sin. \n\nA homosexual act or act of adultery can be cleared up with repentance. ",
"I am neither christian nor homosexual. This is just the best explanation I've heard that doesn't involve hypocrisy.\n\nFundamentalist christians view both homosexuality and adultery as a sin. The difference is a matter of repentance. The cheater is \"sorry\" they did it, or at least claim they are. The homosexual is not repenting his/her sin. From the christian point of view, any sin is forgivable provided the sinner repents. Thus the homosexual is evil, while the adulterer is simply human.",
"A very similar argument happened in England just after WWII (I think) about state sanctioned divorce. If you read the chapter in CS Lewis' \"Mere Christianity\" the arguments on either side of the issue sound similar to the arguments surrounding the gay marriage debate. ",
"Can I tack on a question? If the bible verse specifically mentions only gay males, then why don't lesbians get a free pass?",
"Whilst a lot of people here are correct about fundamentalist view of gay marriage institutionalizing sin, a lot of other Christians are worried that the government would force priests and churches to marry gay couple. If those priests and churches do not support gay marriage, they are being forced into hypocrisy, and they would have no choice but to refuse despite any legal consequences. I am in full support of legal gay marriage, but not of forcing religions to accept gay couples in their rituals.\n\nAdultery is a completely different story in this regard.\n\n**tl;dr; Christians don't want the government to force religions to perform gay marriages when it is not part of their religion**",
"This is the real reason.\n\nIt is not about which one is more wrong at all. In fact, the severity of the sin is completely irrelevant. The problem would be that our country has taken an open and accepting position on allowing sin. That is the main reason.\n\nIf the government moved ot make a law saying adultery is fine because that is the person's nature and why should we not allow them the right to do it, then you would see just as strong a movement against it.\n\nMany did not like allowing homosexuals the ability to exist and thrive in our society, but that is the nature of a free society, but once the government moved to openly accept a sin, that's when many became upset.\n\nEveryone sins. It happens, but to make it legal is basically slapping God in the face to Christians. ",
"Because there is a disconnect in Christianity between the informed Christian and the \"formed\" Christian",
"To be fair the two aren't exactly comparable: Making it illegal to cheat on your spouse is somewhat like making it illegal to commit sodomy. Both make the sex act itself illegal. Those kinds of laws used to be widespread but have fallen out of favor lately. I suspect you could find Christians for and against one or both or neither of those kinds of laws.\n\nOn the other hand, gay marriage is more directly comparable to legalized bigamy or polygamy--IE if we were to not only make cheating on your spouse legal, but allow you to legally marry the person you were cheating with at the same time as your spouse. It's not about who you are sleeping with, it's about what relationship types society recognizes with marriage. Polygamy _is_ currently illegal in the USA and I don't see many people pushing to change that at the moment (though I expect that will change at some point in the relatively near future). \n\nSo you see, the first pair of laws deals with making sex acts illegal, the second pair deals with forbidding/allowing marriage based around those types of relationships. No comment on why people are ok with some of the above and not others, I'm just talking about the nature of the things themselves.",
"You struggle to understand why Christians are more vocal about homosexual marriage than adultery because you do not know the basis of Christian beliefs; the basis of Christian beliefs is *not* The Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are only the basis of *Jewish* beliefs; nevertheless, the basis of Christian beliefs (The New Testament) does demand abstinence from that behavior.",
"Christian checking in: Many of us believe in the separation of church and state as something applicable to the now mostly-complete gay marriage debate. The state should not and does not answer to Christian morality, so it is perfectly fine if the state decides to recognize gay marriage. Many of us believe homosexuality is wrong, but we aren't supposed to be the moral police. We're supposed to love others and not judge them. You are only accountable, in practicality, to God's morality if you decide to dedicate to Christ.",
"They view legalizing gay marriage as affirming gay relationships, which they view as a sin. Christians don't like any laws that affirm or encourage sin. They would also reject a law that affirmed adultery or framed it as permissible behavior. ",
"Salutations! My perspective is a non-religious person raised Catholic, which includes many years of specific Catholic education as well as study of other Christian sects and other non-Christian religions.\n\nFirst, divorce was \"illegal\" in the USA and many countries (and may still be in others), in that it was _not legally recognized_, similar to marriages of same-sex persons. So your question begins upon faulty information.\n\nSecond, while divorce is \"legal\" in the USA and other countries, _divorce is still unacceptable to Christians as individuals and sects as a whole_; some individuals and sects are completely against it, to the point that a person who divorced their spouse is unacceptable in their church or social circle. Other individuals and sects are accepting or ambivalent, however it is an error to conflate those with the beliefs of all \"Christians\".\n\nIn short, divorce is not acceptable to all Christians, however those who oppose it recognize that they have lost it as a legal matter, while those who oppose same-sex marriage have **not** lost it as a legal matter, so they continue to challenge it. \n\nRealistically, same-sex marriage will become settled law, just as divorce is, and the legal challenges will abate. That will not mean it as acceptable to all Christians, _only_ that they have stopped the legal challenges (in the USA and some countries). \n\nFrom a broader standpoint, Christians, numbering more than ONE BILLION PERSONS, cannot be lumped into a single monolithic ideology. As well, ALL humans are hypocritical. Their actions are not always rational internally or externally.\n\nTL;DR For the most part, the opposition by some to same-sex marriage is logically consistent within their sphere, because they _also_ oppose divorce, they just recognize that they lost that legal battle.",
"Because certain things like two consenting adults having a happy relationship makes narrow minded people uncomfortable, and things which don't make people uncomfortable but are still ethically wrong *at least in my moral code* is somehow are seen as ok.",
"My take is that it's not about their religion at all, but rather about their culture and personality. The thought of gay sex repulses them and makes them uncomfortable. Then they pick out a bible verse to support how they feel, and all of a sudden, it's become a religious issue.\n\nThere's hundreds of things the bible says is evil, and a lot of them are totally acceptable by today's standards. A religious person's moral code doesn't come from scripture, but rather their culture's filtered version of it. ",
"A lot of people in this thread seem to just assume every Christian is a bible thumping Republican, but that's really not true. From what I've been able to dig up, a lot of \"religious Christians\" (aren't they all religious by definition?) actually support gay marriage. \n\n > Evangelical Millenials: Pollster and Former Romney Director of Data Science, Alex Lundry, found that 64% of self-identifying Evangelical millenials support same-sex marriage. \n\n > Catholics: A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted February 23-27, 2013 shows 62% of American Catholics are in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.\n\n > [Source](_URL_0_)\n\nIt's a generational gap, not just a religious gap. Heck, even the current Pope has said a lot of things to indicate a pro-marraige equality stance. \n\nTL;DR: Christians aren't a hivemind. They're a community of over 2 billion people who have different beliefs and interpretations of their religious texts.",
"Easy: it is far easier to feel self-righteous condemning sins you would never commit anyway. Which is why homosexuality and abortion tend to be the most commonly obsessed-about sins among heterosexual male Christians.",
"How about the counter-Christian principle of wealth accumulation?",
"Opposing gay marriage is not about Christianity, the Bible, or anything having to do with religion.\n\nOpposing gay marriage is about homophobia. Period.\n\nGroups often look to religion to justify their opposition of something they fear/hate. It just so happens that the Bible has some passages about homosexuality. \n\nIf the Bible didn't have those passages, people who are homophobic would look elsewhere for justification.",
"Because it's not about legality or morality, it's about hating gay people, and making sure they don't have equal rights and status to homophobes.",
" Because half of their ranks are adulterers, while only about 10% of their ranks are gay. Once they are finally unable to deny their beautiful ape ancestry any longer, their insane, antiquated system of beliefs will collapse and we shall all be truly free. ",
"Because they already lost that battle. Religion has been repeatedly used to justify the conservation of socially questionable institutions when they are challenged for the first time such as slavery, miscegenation, segregation, the criminalization of fornication and prostitution, prohibition, sodomy, etc. \n\nThe vocal religious dig in their heels to try and prevent these laws being made or changed, but invariably lose since America - regardless of how loudly it is proclaimed otherwise - is a nation with a legal separation between any official religion and the offices and acts of government.\n\nGay marriage is the culture battle du jour, and once it is accepted widely in society, like say interracial marriage now is, it will just be an interesting historical footnote. When the next battle in the culture wars heats up (I suspect over lowering the drinking age or legalizing drugs) there we shall see the vocal religious again thumping their holy text and decrying the sinful nature of our country and the imminent wrath of god and breakdown of the fabric of civil society. \n\nReligion is merely a vessel for the conservation of society as is, designed to reject new ideas of how society should be organized, and obsessed with the place that tradition holds in said society - not always a bad thing, but something that can be easily utilized to deny rights to those who have not historically had them.",
"Because the best part of any religion is that you get to pick and choose what parts you believe in. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1ldgn1 | why the human body hasn't evolved past forming an appendix. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ldgn1/eli5_why_the_human_body_hasnt_evolved_past/ | {
"a_id": [
"cby4jn2",
"cby4k9b",
"cby4p2r"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Although it doesn't do anything, the appendix very rarely hurts anything (few people get appendicitis, very few die from it). As a result, having or not having an appendix doesn't much change how you reproduce, so there is very little evolutionary pressure to get rid of it.",
"The appendix may actually serve a purpose of storing necessary guy bacteria in the case of diarrhea or a similar virus wiping it all out.\n\nEven so, evolution requires a heritable mutation to cause some benefit, leading to increased mutant offspring as compared to normal. Appendices don't hurt unless they rupture, and not having one doesn't confer any extra benefit. Very few people ever have their appendices burst, and those that do don't usually die. Medical care is awesome like that. So, while not having an appendix might be heritable, it isn't inherently beneficial and it won't lead to increased reproduction. Hence, no evolution.",
"The answer to any evolution question is 1 of 3 things:\n\n1) Because it actually *is* beneficial to have that \n2) Because it actually *isn't* beneficial to have that\n\nor, much more often:\n\n3) Because evolution doesn't have a plan\n\nWe haven't evolved to lose our appendix possibly because of 1) but mainly because evolution has never randomly mutated a human child into not having one, because it's all just chance.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3cb6ih | if the world population is supposed to be too big for the amount of resources we have, then why do governments facing population decline actively encourage their citizens to have children? | Bonus question: does the world population *actually* outnumber its resources or is that a myth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cb6ih/eli5if_the_world_population_is_supposed_to_be_too/ | {
"a_id": [
"cstvr3z",
"cstwytf"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Governments with shrinking populations encourage people to have more children because otherwise the average age of the population gets higher and higher. Then you end up with a smaller and smaller number of young workers supporting old retirees.\n\n > does the world population actually outnumber its resources or is that a myth?\n\nPeople have been saying that an overpopulation doomsday is just around the corner for centuries now. Current estimates by the U.N. are that population will grow to a bit over 8 BILLION and then level off. That is manageable, though it may require a few innovations in resource consumption and some changes in how we live our lives.",
"People always create estimates around the information they have at the present. Have you ever seen newspaper articles from the 70s and 80s saying we're going to run out of oil by 2020? Well we're almost there and we're not close. The problem is that these estimates are made with the mindset that the technology we have would remain relatively unchanged. It's the same thing for population growth. Scientists 100 years ago predicted that the Earth could only handle 2 billion people and yet we've exceeded that by 3 times and then some. The people back then never envisioned we'd come up with genetically altered crops, super-fertilizers, and factory farming techniques that would greatly increase our capacity to produce food. There probably will come a day where we can no longer produce enough to sustain our population any longer, but that time isn't coming any time soon. \n\nPopulation growth isn't great for the environment, but rapid population decline is catastrophic for a nation's economy. In countries that are already overpopulated, population decline is desired, but they want it to happen slowly. A population decline of 1 percent per generation is acceptable, but 1 percent per year is really bad. People eventually get old and they have to stop working, and the young eventually have to support the old in one way or another. You don't want a situation where you get a population of 50 percent nonworking elderly with only 40 percent to support them. The working class won't be able to manage. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
61zses | why does caloric restriction decrease rate of aging? | So I've been reading some stuff out of idle curiosity but it appears that caloric restriction in mice decreases the rate of aging as well as apparently extending life span. One would imagine that fasting like that would be bad for you, and apparently in people, prolonged restriction in men and premenopausal women over 21 it causes loss of muscle mass, strength and reduced bone mineral density and even has a higher rate of mortality in older middle aged and the elderly, as one would expect; but can still make you live longer and look younger??? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61zses/eli5_why_does_caloric_restriction_decrease_rate/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfilw96",
"dfinxjj",
"dfiomvm",
"dfioucz",
"dfiqs4q",
"dfirr2h",
"dfisc1b",
"dfiv3ca",
"dfj2ko8",
"dfjtpe6"
],
"score": [
12,
6,
2,
2,
33,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty sure its an evolutionary development. Like those flies that come out of hiding in January. Where did they come from when the life of a house fly is 28 days and they are so huge they can hardly fly. Caloric restriction indicates drought or some type of scarcity of resource which would prevent reproduction, so they live longer. When otherwise dieing would be more practical, to make room for the next generation, one step ahead in evolutionary development. Also, living without big macs isn't really living, so reaper stops his tally. ",
"The most credible theory I've read has to do with inflammation. Basically, if you eat extra food, you're making extra work for your body. You bring in outside chemicals and pathogens on that food that your body has to process, when you don't even need the energy, so it's a net negative for your body. Inflammation taxes your body, causing aging.\n\nYou can be unhealthy and live a while, just as an obese man can starve to death. Health and age aren't necessarily linked 1:1. Constant lack of food isn't good for you, but it also means there's not a lot of cellular division going on which means you age less, to oversimplify extremely.",
"It's thought by some that a decreased calorific intake also triggers more autophagy - the process by which cells recycle old, damaged organelles and less needed parts. These are recycled to make new components, and the increase in autophagy due to starvation, ultimately decreasing the amount of old, dysfunctional cell components leads to an improved life span due to less complications and more efficient cells. \n\nTLDR : Cells eat bits of themselves better when starving, making the recycling process better and cells \"cleaner\" from excess organelles.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Unfortunately, we don't really know. The aging process is poorly understood, though there's a fair bit of research in the area.\n\n\nIf I were to guess though, I'd say that although we need energy to live the process of extracting energy and storing energy causes \"wear and tear\" on our systems. From that it would follow that if you only consume and use the minimum amount of energy it would cause the minimum amount of wear and tear. This would translate to living longer, though I would also say that you're not decreasing the rate of aging so much as decreasing the rate of premature aging.\n",
"I think that you may need to relook at the science. Prolong fasting does not cause appreciable loss of muscle mass, strength or bone density. Check out _URL_0_ for scientific studies. These studies conclude that fasting is associated with increased regenerative markets, along with a decrease in risk factors such as diabetes, CVD, cancer and aging. The research above also highlights and increase in stemcell production and nero pathways. In fact, the use of Intermittent Fasting has become all the rage among atheletes in order to cut wait but increase performance. I can give you a ton of links but it would be better to just Google it.\n\nThe theory behind the benefits of fasting are that lack of food slows down cell division in parts of the body but stimulates the growth in others while preserving as much muscle mass as possible. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense. For most of our existence we have been hunter-gathers and would eat when we had food. We did not farm until relatively recently. Thus, our bodies developed not knowing when it would have it’s next meal. Had our bodies not been adapted to fasting for extended periods then we would have gone extinct long ago. \n\nWhen our ancestors fasted it was because they had no food to eat – it was not a choice. No food put is in survival mode and the body responded. In order to survive that body would conserve any energy it could (stop splitting cells where it could), preserve muscle mass so that we could chase prey, increase cognitive function so we could think clearer, and start utilizing stored fat for energy. All of these things contribute to a longer life and decrease signs of aging. \n",
"One is that all food causes oxidative stress which ages you. Basically the process of the food being broken down into energy releases free radicals which cause damage. So basically every meal you eat is aging you a tiny bit. Less food means less aging. The other is cellular autophagy. When your body is short on food, it begins eating itself. It starts by breaking down damaged and malfunctioning cells and recycling them. This leads to having more of the healthy, younger cells running the show.\n\nTangentially some foods are less oxidative then others and you can trigger autophagy through fasting. So it may be possible to mimic some of the caloric restriction benefits, by eating properly and fasting from time to time while still eating enough calories overall to generally maintain muscle tone and energy levels. So you get to keep a decent quality of life and still maybe add a bit on the back end.\n\nEdit: Just wanted to add, that though you seemed to use caloric restriction and fasting interchangeably, they are not the same. Generally speaking consistent caloric restriction will cause the body to lower your lean body mass in order to adapt to having fewer available calories. Fasting by contrast seems to preserve muscle at first. A fast of even a few days does not cause a noticeable decrease in lean body mass, most the energy will come from stored fat. It's as though evolutionarily, your body thinks it needs that muscle in order to get more food or else it will starve. Whereas the guy who is getting just slightly fewer calories everyday for months on ends up adapting to the new normal by loosing muscle.",
"I am pretty sure you need to separate fasting from calorie restriction when looking at the science, they are slightly different.\n\nThe benefits of calorie restriction seem to play off of protein metabolism, growth factors, testosterone, and other hormone responses, but researchers haven't nailed anything down. From what I have read you have to be EXTREME in calorie restriction, to the point that it is difficult for most humans to maintain voluntarily, for the numbers to come out in your favor. Haven't read much about looking younger...although ageing and our biological processes are essentially oxidation, (?) so if you stop fueling the body the biological process slows and there is less cell death/turnover, but that is only a huge speculation on my part.\n\nfrom _URL_0_ (this study looks at humans)\n\"The mechanisms by which CR slows aging and protects against age-associated diseases are not known yet. Many interrelated and overlapping metabolic factors have been proposed to play a role, including a reduction in growth factors (e.g. insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1)), anabolic hormones (e.g. insulin and testosterone), and circulating inflammatory cytokines (Fontana & Klein, 2007). Calorie restriction and reduced growth factor signalling both elevate resistance to oxidative stress, reduce cellular damage, and increase lifespan in experimental animals (Mair & Dillin, 2008; Russell & Kahn, 2007).\"",
"How is any of this possible when you take someone who is say, anorexic? Physical signs of aging tend to intensify through caloric restriction...very confused. \n \nSource: Am anorexic. ",
"What does all this mean in practice? Not eating consistently for 2 days a week? month? Eating only a small meal in the evenings on those set days? \n\nLowering average caloric intake in general? ",
"It decreases the rate of \"aging\" because your body will slow everything down to adapt to your energetic input. \n\nBut you will lose muscle mass, hair, your bones will be more fragile and you will only eat tasteless food for the rest of your life. To me, that is being old.\n\nAll of that to expand your lifespan by 3 months when you will most likely die in a stupid accident or cancer will catch you up before that...\n\nJust live life"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy"
],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115002247"
],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3569090/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4j674v | where does the energy from radio or other waves go when disrupted by a faraday cage? | I know that a Faraday cage prevents types of waves from passing through it but where does the energy from these waves go? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j674v/eli5_where_does_the_energy_from_radio_or_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"d33ze4c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"think of it as a large concrete tube placed vertically in a pool.\nWhen a wave is generated outside the tube, the water inside the tube will go undisturbed and an observer will not feel the wave. The tube didn't really adsorb the energy of the wave, it just redirected it.\n\nIn a case of a grounded faraday cage, some of the energy is redirected to the ground, in a un-grounded faraday cage, the electromagnetic waves are simply bouncing on the cage.\n\nThis is simplified but should give you a good idea.\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
873qnu | why does the syphon effect not occur when we suck from a straw? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/873qnu/eli5_why_does_the_syphon_effect_not_occur_when_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"dw9xxrg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A siphon gets the energy to pull fluid up the tube from the energy of the fluid falling down the other side of the tube; the total movement of the fluid is overall downward.\n\nWhen drinking from a straw we are pulling a relative vacuum at the top by increasing the volume of our sealed mouth where the only inlet is through the straw, forcing fluid into it from ambient air pressure. The total movement of the fluid is upward in that case meaning the energy to power that movement must come from the muscles increasing the volume of our mouth, not from any falling fluid.\n\nA siphon effect could only work if you were drinking from some flexible straw while under the cup."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1iz0wo | jim crow laws, and the significance | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iz0wo/eli5jim_crow_laws_and_the_significance/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb9fpau"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Jim Crow laws were laws in the Southern United States that started to take effect in the late 1800s. They mandated a \"separate but equal\" status for african-american citizens and were the gateways and legal backbones to racial segregation in anything from schools, restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains. The name separate but equal was not accurate in practice, and it almost always resulted in conditions that were inferior."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1n9lqw | why uk doesn't want an european federation? | As an Italian I've always wondered why England is so Anti-Europe and Independentist, is it because of monarchy/political/historical problems or economical opinion? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n9lqw/eli5_why_uk_doesnt_want_an_european_federation/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccgldgl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your friends suggest that it would be in everyone's interest to group together and rent a large house. Your friends are mostly good people, but Bill is known to leave his shit everywhere and rarely does dishes, he's a slob and you don't \"fit\" with his lifestyle. Furthermore, Joe has a gambling problem. You know that Joe will frequently blow all of his money on blackjack and booze fueled all night benders, and inevitably have a hard time coming up with his rent. You're a young professional and fairly well off and responsible. You don't want to get dragged down by Joe's financial issues, nor do you want your house rules reflecting Bill's laxed way of life. You opt to rent an appartment. Maybe Bill think's you're stuffy, joe think's you're a dick who doesn't like helping his bros out, and the rest of your friends don't think you're a team player, but you get your own place with your own rules and have no responsibility to bail out your friend when he is having yet another bad night at the slots."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3lt9hc | how does the voyager still have power after all the years it's been in space? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lt9hc/eli5_how_does_the_voyager_still_have_power_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv95f6r",
"cv97ns6",
"cv98om5",
"cv990z9",
"cv99yzk",
"cv9ch0z",
"cv9dbti",
"cv9dh5h",
"cv9ezm7",
"cv9flup",
"cv9fqjx",
"cv9gbro",
"cv9gpn5",
"cv9h1it",
"cv9hzh8",
"cv9ie6r",
"cv9iexb",
"cv9itq7",
"cv9ki69",
"cv9kkob",
"cv9lw35",
"cv9m5xv",
"cv9phio",
"cv9qf5j",
"cv9qxsg",
"cv9ssy0",
"cv9su97",
"cv9u4yo",
"cv9v4sg",
"cv9w7xj",
"cv9x97j",
"cv9xp2v",
"cv9xqjv",
"cv9z6h8",
"cvacbr0"
],
"score": [
1397,
4853,
40,
7,
21,
32,
60,
17,
2,
9,
3,
4,
50,
25,
16,
12,
3,
4,
23,
27,
2,
5,
2,
6,
3,
2,
5,
2,
4,
3,
4,
4,
9,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It has a nuclear reactor on board. It's not the same kind of nuclear reactor that you see in power plants or large naval vessels; it just has a piece of radioactive material which gets hot thanks to its radioactivity. You can harvest a little bit of electricity whenever there's a difference in temperature between two places.\n\nThe nuclear reactor is able to produce a *ton* of energy over the course of its life. I'm fond of [this](_URL_0_) comic showing just how massive the energy density of nuclear fuels is compared to chemical fuels like coal and gasoline. Nuclear fuels get their energy from Einstein's famous E = mc^(2), where the energy you get is equal to the mass the fuel destroys when it decays, multiplied by the speed of light squared. The speed of light is a huge number, so you get a *ton* of energy this way.\n\nOver time the fuel runs out, though. The rate at which fuel is radioactively decaying is proportional to the amount of fuel that's left, and the energy it produces is proportional to the amount of decay. This means that when you first build the reactor it produces the most power, but over time it produces less and less. Voyager uses Plutonium 238 as its fuel; Pu-238 has a half life of about 88 years, so every 88 years the power production will have dropped by half. The other components of the reactor also degrade, so the power loss is somewhat faster than this.\n\nThe Voyager probes have been in space since 1977, so the reactors are now producing about 1/4 less power than when they were launched. To compensate for this the probes have been shutting down systems as necessary to conserve power. ",
"Take two pieces of metal and put them very close to one another. Then heat one of the pieces of metal. The resulting temperature difference between the two pieces of metal generates a very small electric current.\n\nVoyager 1, 2, Cassini, Galileo, Curiosity, and New Horizons use a small pellet of Plutonium to create this heat difference. The radioactive decay is what generates the heat. It doesn't provide very much electricity but is extremely long lasting.\n\nEDIT: Been logging in and out for a few hours now answering some folks but its bed time. Also obligatory thank you to the generous redditor.",
"Why use the nuclear stuff and not solar panels though?",
"Probably another ELI5 question: Why couldn't the voyager be solar powered? ",
"random how many years was voyager in space? ",
"They have to refuel, but they were never designed for such a mission. Several times throughout their voyager they had to do repairs that should have occured while dry-docked (re-crystallizing the dilithium matrix, etc.). Voyager is an intepid class starship. \nAs such:\n\n\n > Intrepid - 4 month resupply, 1 year minor refit, 5 year major refit. Intrepid ships are intended for patrol and short tours with limited missions. Intended to be attached to one or two bases for regular resupply. Voyager's mission was based out of DS9 to patrol the badlands and Cardassian border for Marquis activity. They were never expected to travel more than a week away from any Federation supply point.",
"The spacecraft actually carry two types of fuel—one to power the thrusters, the other to keep the electricity humming. The propellant is hydrazine, a simple concoction of nitrogen and hydrogen that smells like weak ammonia. It was chosen—and remains favored today—because it's cheap and has a very low freezing point. The Voyagers' jets are used to orient the vessels; the geek term for the hydrazine is \"attitude control propellant.\" (There's no need for constant propulsion, of course, because space is gravity-free, so the initial boost went a long way; the spacecraft additionally took advantage of the outer planets' gravitational fields, which act like slingshots to increase speed.) NASA estimates that the Voyagers' fuel efficiency is upwards of 30,000 miles per gallon of hydrazine.\nger 1 has enough hydrazine to keep going until 2040, while Voyager 2's juice can keep it hurtling along until 2034. (Though the spacecraft are identical,Voyager 2 has had to expend more hydrazine visiting Uranus and Neptune.) The real limiting factor is the other fuel, plutonium-238 dioxide. This is what powers the Voyagers' scientificinstruments and communications equipment. The plutonium is converted into electricity by onboard radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), which feed off the heat generated by the radioactive fuel's decay. The fuel spheres are encased in a special iridium alloy, to prevent contamination in the unlikely event that the Voyagers crashed shortly after takeoff in 1977.\n\nThe plutonium's radioactive decay means that the fuel is generating less and less heat as the years go by, and consequently the RTGs are producing less and less power. At launch, the RTGs were cranking out 470 watts worth of electricity; now it's more like 315 watts. NASA is trying to combat the problem by shutting down non-critical systems, and alternating which instruments are on and off. But come 2020 or so, there won't be enough plutonium left to keep the heaters working, and everything of value will shut down.\n\nSource _URL_0_\n",
"Is it bad I expected answers about Star Trek Voyager.....?",
"Am I the only one that came here expecting an answer on the USS Voyager?",
"I can't be the only one who thought this was about Star Trek: Voyager. Anyone? PLEASE. SOMEONE.",
"I can't be the only person who thought this meant Voyager from Star Trek. I was very confused for a few minutes. ",
"did anyone else think this was about the Starship Voyager from Star Trek?",
"Clicked on comments to figure out why voyager had power after years in space. Found out not talking about Star Trek :/\n",
"Each Voyager spaceprobe is carrying a chunk of plutonium-238 oxide in an iridium case. Pl-238 generates a lot of thermal energy as it decays (it spontaneously glows red hot in sufficient quantities). This heat is then converted into electricity. As the fuel decays, it produces less and less heat, allowing for the generation of less and less electricity. IIRC some non-essential systems have already needed to be deactivated, and total system shut down will likely occur around 2025. The reason power can continue to be generated for so long is that Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years.",
"Even though I'm a Trekkie, I feel like I'm the only one who did NOT think of Star Trek Voyager... Mostly because the OP didn't say \"USS Voyager\" ",
"EDIT: I want to point out it doesn't say which voyager...\n\nI'm such a nerd I thought you meant the USS Voyager featured in the popular TV show. Anyway In response to the question based off it WERE the USS Voyager. \n\nFederation star ships are powered by what is called a warp core. Warp cores vary among star ships but the basic mechanics are similar:\n\n > On Federation starships, the warp core usually consists of a matter/antimatter reaction assembly (M/ARA) utilizing deuterium and antideuterium reacting in a dilithium crystal matrix which produces a maximum output of 4,000 teradynes per second. (VOY: \"Drone\")\n\n > 22nd century warp cores were designed as oblong cylinders connected by pylon conduits directly into the warp nacelles. (Star Trek: Enterprise) In the 23rd century, the warp core was not situated in the main engineering. The main warp reaction occurred in a dilithium crystal converter assembly which consisted of two flattened rounded nodules situated directly in front of the warp plasma conduits to the warp engines, which were behind a large metal grate. (Star Trek: The Original Series; ENT: \"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II\") By 2270, most Federation warp cores were redesigned to consist of a large warp core unit in the secondary hull with matter and antimatter channeling into the core through vertical conduits, with the resulting energy directed to the nacelles through a horizontal conduit leading out from the rear of the core. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)\n\nHowever, on the USS Voyager they used several methods of conserving energy. Kes, an Ocampa, created a hydroponics bay to grow fruits and vegetables used to cook food rather than using the ships replicators. During a brief alliance with the borg, Voyager was outfitted with several borg upgrades that were allowed to remain intact to more efficiently use energy. \n\nIm sorry I'm sure there are more but this all I could come up with. Thanks WikiPedia!",
"I sincerely thought this was going to be about star trek. I thought I was going to be able to weigh in ;/",
"A radioactive isotope produces thermal heat which is converted into electrical power. Its called an RTG.",
"Did anyone else think OP was talking about Captain Janeway's ship? \n\nIf not.\n\nNeither did I...",
"Came in here to mention all the times they traded for dilithium in the delta quadrant. Left feeling dumb, muttering \"oh, *that* voyager\"",
"Did anyone else wonder why someone was asking a Star Trek question in ELI5?",
"Good planning by NASA and good technology I guess - nuclear power is amazing when done right.",
"Anyone else think OP was talking about Star Trek?",
"It's nuclear, baby. \n\nThe same way opportunity(rover) on mars does ^(I think...). Electricity from heat, By means of radioactive decay! [You can read about it here](_URL_0_]/technologiesofbroadbenefit/power/) \n\n\n",
"depends which *Voyager* you mean, the star trek one runs on dilithium that they trade their crap for, the real one uses radioactive decay, and should be good for years and years to come, like way longer than any of our lifetimes, IIRC.",
"More importantly, how is it repaired each week? It should have looked like it was in \"Year of Hell\" by the end of the first month.",
"ITT \"Am I the only one who thought of star trek lol?\"\n\n",
"I thought everyone knew that they gathered dilithium crystals from planets and asteroids whenever they could. Generally, an Intrepid class starship can go for about 4 months before depleting its supply but when you're stuck 70,000 light years from home, you try to resupply as often as you can. \nI honestly thought that this was /r/DaystromInstitute or /r/startrek but I still answered anyway.",
"How many of you thought the OP was talking about Star Trek?",
"Before you write anything to star trek, please see below. Everyone has already made a comment about star trek. ",
"they pick up dilithium on various planets along the way. spoiler alert they already made it home tho",
"Saw this on my front page... assumed it was from /r/startrek or /r/daystrominstitute and was about to type out an explanation. Good thing I looked at the comments first!",
"Nuclear power. Technically, a RTG.\nRTGs are basically a peltier cooler in reverse.\n\nIIRC, Voyager will still have power for experiments and radio until 2020. Around 2025, not enough power will be available for the spacecraft to conduct experiments and it will go silent and \"Die\".",
"The USS Voyager is the first ship equipped with a class-9 warp drive, which was intended to be tested in deep space, allowing for a maximum sustainable speed of Warp 9.975 (Source: _URL_0_) ",
"I believe they keep re filling with deuterium from nebula's and whatnot when ever they get a chance. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://xkcd.com/1162/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/11/what_fuel_does_voyager_1_use.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Voyager_(Star_Trek)#Design_and_capabilities"
],
[]
]
|
||
8ds1tm | why is peeing in the pool gross? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ds1tm/eli5_why_is_peeing_in_the_pool_gross/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxpipc6",
"dxpisc8"
],
"score": [
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Because other people swimming in the pool don't want your pee to get on them. If they wouldn't let you pee directly on them, then they're also not going to want your diluted pee all over their skin, in their eyes, and in their mouth.",
"First, because you're pissing into liquid other people are swimming in.\n\nSecond, because the molecules in urine combine with the chlorine in pool water to form toxic chemicals that are legitimately damaging.\n\nSo one is a common aversion, the other a rational concern. Just don't do it. If you feel the urge, get out and use a bathroom. It's not some huge imposition."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5nkx37 | why aren't there more "network" tv stations? | For my entire life there have been four of what I would consider network TV stations: ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. I get these without having cable. I also get PBS and a couple others which may be considered network as well though I'm not sure.
I believe FOX wasn't always counted among these so seemingly it's possible to break into this space.
Why aren't there more networks, especially as it appears to me that the cable TV model is losing its appeal to many younger folks?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nkx37/eli5why_arent_there_more_network_tv_stations/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcc9eld",
"dcc9mdv",
"dcce6vv"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the \"network\" part of network. All of those companies got started by setting up over-the-air antenna broadcast systems, with tons of antennas throughout the country showing the same things simultaneously. They still maintain OTA setups.\n\nIn modern times with the internet and such \"broadcast the same video to everyone at the same time\" seems almost commonplace, but when those guys got started decades and decades ago it was an enormous technical undertaking to set that up.\n\nUnlike say, cell phones, there's no network for a newcomer to sit atop, they'd have to work out deals themselves. A company like Straight Talk wireless can buy network usage from Sprint and bam, nationwide coverage. But a new TV network would need to work out an enormous number of individual deals.",
"There were other attempts, like WB and UPN in the 90's that eventually merged to become the CW...\n\nBut the issue is that being a broadcast network means lots of rules/regulations about offering educational/informational programming, censoring language/content in return for using public airwaves. And given the popularity of cable, satellite, and now streaming services where those rules don't apply makes becoming a network less attractive relative to just launching a new channel or even re-vamping the format of an existing one to include new shows. AMC can shift from showing old movies to carrying high production value series like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, without having to program 21 hours of prime time programming a week, running a news division, carrying children's programming, etc.\n\nAs you mentioned, cable TV model is losing appeal and subscribers, but it's still a lot easier to get your shows onto apps and streaming services for viewing with streaming devices, computers, and mobile devices (Netflix, HBO Go, Hulu, ESPN app, etc. through Apple TV, FireTV, Google Chromecast...) than to go through the process of getting broadcast spectrum and abiding by the broadcast laws.",
"It used to be that ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only networks because they had contracts with local stations and didn't poach each other's stations. Most local stations were a part of someone's network.\n\nFox got started because Rupert Murdoch knows how to make a deal. He used content that was considered very edgy at the time to form a new kind of network and then began courting local stations on the idea that the edgier content would draw more viewers. Which it did, based on shows like Married... With Children and The Simpsons. But the FOX network caught on because Murdoch knew how to get local broadcasters to jump ship.\n\nThat's also why things are moving to cable, and now Netflix/Amazon/Hulu. It's just easier to get your content out there if you avoid broadcast networks. If you're a smaller channel, BET for example, you can try to break into the broadcast networks or you can sign on to a cable provider. The latter is much easier. The market at work- make it more difficult to do business and fewer people will do business with you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4de3ms | why do professors continuously write exams with extremely low averages and then curve, rather than write easier exams? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4de3ms/eli5_why_do_professors_continuously_write_exams/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1q3pbb",
"d1q4089",
"d1q53bp",
"d1q6n1l",
"d1q7so6",
"d1q8obs",
"d1q90ms",
"d1q9mff",
"d1qa2no",
"d1qadck",
"d1qamrv",
"d1qbg1m",
"d1qc5ty",
"d1qcatk",
"d1qcn5q",
"d1qcu0n",
"d1qdhvi",
"d1qdjyf",
"d1qdzlk",
"d1qedwx",
"d1qesvm",
"d1qetmz"
],
"score": [
825,
118,
29,
5,
14,
15,
22,
2,
2,
9,
9,
7,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"if they set the bar too low, they wouldn't get a representative sample of what the class understands.\n\nFor example: if you're in calculus class, and the test only has \"what is 2+2?\" on it, then obviously everyone will pass. Which tells the professor nothing. If, however, there is a wide sampling of problems of varying difficulty, the professor and his staff can accurately gauge where the students are having trouble.\n\nEffectively, this is one of those areas where failure is probably more significant than success - having the entire class fail on one chapter tells the professor that he or she maybe didn't do a good job explaining, or the TAs need to spend more time on that area. They wouldn't know this if the tests were so easy that everyone would pass.\n\nTo say nothing of the fact that people need to be challenged in order to grow.",
"It shows Profs. the full range of what the class knows. If tests were easy enough for 1/2 the class to ace, then you only know they've mastered that minimal portion of the material. If everyone is stretched to their limit, then the profs. have a better idea what the class learned and what they didn't.\n\nCollege classes are not meant to be training, where the goal is to learn a fixed set of informatio. Instead it's about exploring a subject to it's fullest to learn as much as you can in the allotted time.\n\nHowever, as college becomes a commodity, classes start to look more like training and less like education.",
"Other answers are correct but also, it's easier to make a test too hard, and then add a curve, than to make a test too easy, realize that everyone in the class is getting a 95 to 100, and try to lower people's grades to something more reasonable. ",
"A few reasons:\n\n1. As many have mentioned, to gauge the true abilities of the class. They can then teach to the gaps.\n\n2. To find the motivated and talented. Think of it as PhD recruiting. It can also serve to motivate students to learn more as a result.\n\n3. They are recycling exams, and you just might not be in a terribly good school. Sorry, but it's true. If they came from MIT where they taught as a post-doc, and got an assistant prof. position at a third tier state school, the students are not going to have equal abilities.",
"because if everyone got a 90%, then it's too easy.\n\nbut if most maxed out at 60% but a few got a 80%, then it's a class that challenges and shows the diamond students. \n\nthis is true in working world as well. my first manager told me. nobody gets a 80% on their annual review. not unless you sold a billion dollar contract. if you dangle the carrot in front of the horse, he'll reach for it. but if you just give him the carrot, he'll just stand there. ",
"Education researcher here. Experts (like your professors) don't remember what it was like to ~~be~~ think about the topic like a novice (like you). They write an exam that they think is reasonable or even easy, but it is not easy for students. Curving makes up for the difference between expert expectation and novice performance.\n\nEdit: clarified the expert-novice difference",
"My OChem professor would make tests that were way too long to complete. He told us this beforehand, tell us that he didn't expect us to finish. He would say his goal was to provide something of everything on the test. \n\nHe didn't want to have a short test. One that he would have to decide what topics to include; a test that would play to some people's strengths and other's weaknesses. He wanted a long test that you could show him what you had learned, and he gave lots of opportunities in a lot of topics that were covered.\n\nAfter the test it would serve to show where a student needed to improve. \"You couldn't answer a single question about ketones?\" or \"you did well, but it's clear you're not understanding chirality?\" \n\nedit: He would aim for a bell curve over %35-40. He gave an automatic A if you ended with a test average of over %70",
"Some professors want a binomial distribution and the only way to get that is to make the test ridiculously difficult. You either do fairly well, or really really poorly. And some ace the bastard. Those who ace it are given special attention because they're brilliant.",
"I understand if average is 60% but i had a prof who gave 30% average (top mark was around 60% i heard). How would this ever help anyone understand anything?",
"It is done to prevent information loss. More specifically, it is avoid hitting a ceiling (and losing the ability to discriminate among the top performing students who all got 100%) or a floor (and losing the ability to discriminate among the lowest performers).\n\nIt is for this same reason that you can't just lighten a photo that's too dark in Photoshop or darken it if it's overexposed, without the final product looking grey and washed out. Data is lost at each end of extreme values.",
"George Smoot did this in his Quantum Mechanics class at UC Berkeley. Class average was in the 40s but there were a few students who got 100%.\n\nSmoot was teaching to the sharpest students in the room. Everyone else was along for the ride.",
"Imagine you have one of those big classes with 200 or so students. With that many students, your expect your exam grades to fit a specific pattern, what's called a [normal distribution.](_URL_1_). Lots of people do average on the exam, a few perform exceptionally well, and a few perform exceptionally poorly. \n\nExams are designed (in an ideal world) so that grade on it directly corresponds to subject matter knowledge and subject matter comprehension. Like the exam, you expect some people to be exceptionally bright on the subject, most people to be average, and some to be under-performing (I'm going to run out of euphemisms for 'catastrophically failing' by the end of this).\n\nThe difference between the distribution of exam grades and student knowledge on the subject is that the exam grades are capped at 100, while student knowledge could conceivably be infinite. So while your student competency distribution may look like [this](_URL_3_), if you write an exam where the average student should get a 75, the exam grades maxing out at 100 makes your exam grades look like [this](_URL_2_) in practice. \n\nThe exceptionally smart students are stuck with the same grade as the sorta smart students. \n\nNow look what happens if you give a exam where the average student is expected to get a 40, like [this](_URL_0_). \n\nNow the exceptionally smart students have the ability to distinguish themselves from the kinda smart students. All you have to do then is just shift everyone up a bit and you'll get the distribution you expect. ",
"As someone who has written math exams:\n\nWe wrote the exams fro what you should know. About 1/3 was pretty much problems you have seen in class/homework. This tests weather you did the work in class/homework. About 1/3 was similar problems - maybe we change the letters for the formula, maybe we combine two formulas, etc. This tests weather you can apply what you learned rather than just saying this is like the class problem and i just follow the recipe. The last 1/3 was questions you have not seen but that test your understanding. For example in a linear algebra class one is often asked to find the eigen values and eigen vectors of a matrix. A fun way to test your understanding of what is going on and not just he recipe mechanics is to give you the eigen values and vectors and ask you to come up with matrix. This tests your understanding. \n\nThis gives us a good separation of those who cannot do anything and should fail, the C that can follow what we did in class but that is it, The B who somewhat understands the material and the As that truly understand the material.\n\nthen comes reality. Professors are not promoted based on how well they teach (except community colleges maybe and liberal arts colleges maybe). In fact your dean/chair may pull you aside and tell you to spend less time trying to be a good teacher and more time on grants and research. Nonetheless bad reviews from students or complaints from the parents can hurt our career. So we uhm curve your grades also known as inflate them.\n\nThis btw is based on experience from Harvard/MIT and R1 state institutions.\n\n",
"Most of these examples are in math and science which still favor norm referenced tests that are designed to have a curve so that you can identify the best of the best and the worst of the worst so students can determine to move on in the subject or not. In high school, the goal is less about sorting and more about mastering skills and specific key content that can be applied later when specializing. Therefore, standards based assessments are more likely to be used. Standards based only marks the work against the standard - not each other. This creates much higher passing grades because you are comparing students to what you want them to know, not each other. Different types of assessment are needed for sorting, certifying, or learning. In college, sorting and certifying are more necessary. ",
"Writing the test you want to measure how well your students are learning - how much did they learn and how well did they learn it.\n\nAnecdote:\nI had a professor who would write exams with too many questions that were meant to cover too much material. \"You shouldn't try to answer every question\" were our instructions. If you tried you'd end up losing points on the meatier ones or miss out on the trickier nuances of some problems or miss the gimmes at the end - the whole point being to first scan through the exam to assess the material and pick which problems to hit and which to skip. Try to be efficient and economical about it - it was in an engineering course, so you could tell if you had to use math, if it was worth many points, if it was short answer or essay, I could go on....\n\nThe TAs and the students could then see what parts of the material they understood and what parts needed more work. And in many courses what you're going for is not 100% memorization of many series of facts but a conceptual grasp on the tools required to begin to understand the more advanced topics.",
"In my experience the average is typically ~60; this doesnt stop a few people from getting 90+\n\n",
"What I don't understand about this is when the class average is around 30-40%. I totally get the standard bell curve or even slightly lower with the average being around 60% but when my engineering friends tell me that a 50% or higher is a solid B+/A-, that's what doesn't make sense to me. How is failing half the test an A? \n\nMaybe it's because my degree was in social sciences, but when the class is getting an average of 30-40% on tests, that seems like a disconnect between the professor and the students.",
"There isn't really a good ELI5, but the honest answer is that the vast majority of professors are trying to apply some flawed method of statistical analysis to a class in order to differentiate the students based on understanding of the material mixed with some completely ambiguous concept of aptitude in the subject..\n\nMore realisitically, it completely confounds the data of \"understanding of material\" due to the vast number of variables involved with each person in how they perform on tests. If everyone were a machine and you were just measuring how much information they stored and how quickly they can use it in varying situations, then this method would be completely fine. I'm sure the point I'm making is pretty clear now; the understanding of concepts by human beings, considering how complex a system each individual is, can't be accurately measured in such a way. If I had extenuating circumstances on an exam day and ended up not being able to get breakfast, then the contents of my stomach are being more accurately measured than my understanding of the material, for a simple example (and hopefully one that won't rile the crowd of people who would say something like ability to handle stress or what not are just excuses, regardless of the mountains of research on it).\n\nThis isn't even going into how students could have misunderstood the question due to unclear terminology instead of lack of understanding of the material. I recently had a homework question that said \"evaluate this integral to the first order\". First order of what? For homework it's not so bad since I can ask the professor, but on a test this wastes time and creates huge problems.\n\nIt's a giant farce and a mockery of education. It's even incredibly stupid at a fundamental level when looking at it through statistical analysis: who the hell would effectively take one data point on a single set of concepts and claim that single data point is a statistically sound measure of something so amorphous as understanding of material and aptitude? There is just so much wrong with this system and the justifications in these comments are ludicrous at best.",
"I'm a TA. I can chip in.\n\nMost professors have TA's (even if you don't interact with them) working so they don't care much about reading difficulty. They have what is basically modern slaves working for them. I am not supposed to work more than 20 hrs a week (visa conditions) but that very easily extends due to my professors weird expectations.\n\nMaking an exam too hard or too easy just squeezes the distribution. Which is not good assigning letter wise. If you make it too difficult or hard, the factor of luck is the deciding factor (if someone managed to study that exact example on an ibscure referance by chance, made a silly mistake or they managed to come up with the trick that allows for a solution; these are luck based rather than skill) which is not fair. So you want to distribute.\n\nIn reality there are two bell curves, a low one and a high one. There is a thing such as good and bad students. So the ideality is shifted a bit. Grading always results in bad value assignment. Each method has some shortcomings. Homeworks, presentations, exams, orals etc. Exams are by far the most accountable ones though, since you have paper proof.\n\nWhen nothing works, you want the students to work for things. So you should aim to make exams that are difficult enough to be extensively studied for (which is where all learning is done usually) but not too discouraging so that people dont give up. ",
"they do it so you're forced to study and learn. even if you scored low, and then got a 30 point curve and ended up with an 85, you still learned more than if you were continually given easy tests that you scored an 85 on.",
"There's already great answers here.\n\nI feel that high schools (in the US at least) are doing a disservice. The reason why an average of 50% seems \"low\" is because most students are used to a 90-100, 80-89, ... 0-59 scale. You're negating an entire spectrum of useful information. Students need a gauge to improve themselves, that's difficult when you're getting full marks.\n\nWith that said, take grades with a grain of salt. Grades define only a curriculum's perceived rating about you. In application and reality, there's many other factors that'll contribute to and detriment from your career performance.",
"They're testing to failure. The object is to find out what you do NOT understand, rather than what you do.\n\nThe curve basically exists so that testing to failure doesn't royally fuck up your grade for the class.\n\nAt least that's the ideal. Individual professors can fuck this up by curving when there's no need."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/g3dCuoe.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution",
"http://i.imgur.com/X2Ynko9.png",
"http://i.imgur.com/13qzqQb.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
8ej6er | why is it not possible to modify a file's name while it's open? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ej6er/eli5_why_is_it_not_possible_to_modify_a_files/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxvm1kb",
"dxvpfmr",
"dxvq66t",
"dxvu3n0",
"dxvvgld",
"dxvvhi0",
"dxvwb30",
"dxvx7v6"
],
"score": [
1018,
6,
36,
7,
2,
27,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because Windows forbids it. There is no technical problem with allowing it, and in fact other OS'es generally do allow it.\n\nWindows uses a policy of locking files when an application is accessing them, which means they cannot be deleted or (depending on the type of lock) renamed.\n\nThe reason Windows does this is (probably) to keep things simple and understandable from the user's point of view. What would happen if you deleted a file while an application was in the middle of reading from it? In particular, what would the application see? Would it be able to continue reading? Would it get some kind of error that it then had to handle?\n\nFrom a technical point of view, the answer is simple (the application would still hold a reference to the file, so it could continue to read and write the file as if nothing had happened), but from the user's point of view, Microsoft has chosen not to allow it.\n\nBut these are policy decisions, not technical limitations.\n\n**Edit: **\n\nTo be clear, my explanation of *why* Microsoft has chosen this behavior is based on guesswork and half remembered blog posts by Microsoft engineers. Another plausible reason that comments have brought up is simply backwards compatibility. 30 years ago, DOS was created to behave this way (and that was perhaps just because it seemed the simpler way to do it back then), and it is possible that Windows has retained this behavior *solely* to preserve backwards compatibility. My guess is that both are factors. They certainly don't want to break backwards compatibility unnecessarily, but they also have a long record of introducing new functionality on an opt-in basis so that legacy applications aren't affected, and they could have done something similar if they wanted to allow renaming of open files if the thought it was a desirable feature.\n\nRegardless of the motivation for this behavior, it is a fact that the Windows kernel does support everything needed to allow you to rename or otherwise modify a file while it's open.",
"When you try to open a file in Windows, Windows uses the file's name to identify it. Things could go wrong if the file name changed while it was open. That's why they disallowed renaming a file while it's open.\n\nWhen you try to open a file in Linux, Linux uses the file's inode number(basically like an employee ID, always unique) to identify it. The inode number remains the same for a file no matter what its name. Therefore you are allowed to rename files in Linux while they're open.\n\nAlso understand that this will depend on the software used to open the file, because the software developer can decide between using a name to identify a file, or using the inode number.\n\nHope that makes it clear",
"I can. (Linux)\n\nIf, for example, I open a handle to a file and then move said file (eg here), it works like you might expect, I keep writing to the new file after the move: _URL_0_\n\nHowever, bear in mind that this very much depends on *the program in question handles files*. For example, if I edit a file in `vim`, rename it (`mv`) and then save-quit, I get the unedited file under the new name, and the edited file under the old name. This is presumably because `vim` (a text editor) isn't maintaining a constant handle to the file. So unless you actually know how the program in question you're using works, it's risky business.",
"When we say we are \"opening\" a file, this could actually mean a couple different things depending on the application. The two primary operations we do with files is read and write. Compare this to filling out a form, or doing a homework assignment. Most of the time, you have to read some info on the form, such as a question, and then write something down onto it and then continue reading. Some applications will work the same way, they need to be constantly reading and writing to a file. Some programs (but not all) that do this will put what's called a \"lock\" on that file. Its like if you were in a group project and said \"I'm going to write by myself, because if we did it at the same time, we would get in each other's way\".\n\nNow on the other hand, think about if you were reading a book, or if your homework had an instruction sheet that didn't need any writing. It would be fairly easy to share with someone else. They could read over your shoulder or sit next to you at the table. You'd both be getting the same information, because neither of you is changing it. Applications can work like this as well. When they start, they'll do a preliminary read of the file, and forgoe locking altogether. Other applications can do the same thing at the same time.\n\nAs others have said, windows is a bit more strict on this for the sake of user experience. But it's not always the case, simple text editors won't always lock the file they have open, and will let other programs make changes. Therefore, having the file \"open in two programs\". It all depends on what the application needs to do with the file.\n\n",
"best guess is that Microsoft followed the golden rule \"assume the end user is an idiot\". I mean I can see how this can FUBAR a lot of stuff. Imagine if you are editing a configuration file or something in use by an application file name and in turn the number of calls to the help line saying that \"windows broke and i did nothing (even though they did)\".",
"Apple also allow user to modify file name with the file open. You can even edit the name directly at the menu bar itself. ",
"You can do it on a Mac. It's just a Windows thing?",
"lots of explanations but initially was because using the filename as a primary key was faster and used less space\n\nas CPU speed got faster and memory cheaper, developers started using a hidden index to refer to the file and the name would be a label - of course this leads to duplicate filenames"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://pastebin.com/G3gb03u8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
19pocr | why babies are born all messed up when a a brother has sex with a sister? like an inbred child? | I just saw a post that had a picture of a pretty fucked up baby and it said "this is what happens when you knock up your sister"
Well I never really knew why that happens, can someone explain? I remember hearing how it's because of certain genes. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19pocr/eli5_why_babies_are_born_all_messed_up_when_a_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8q6ifq",
"c8q6ull"
],
"score": [
29,
12
],
"text": [
"What you're talking about is \"deadly recessive\" genes.\n\nSexual reproduction (rather than asexual reproduction, where a creature does not need a mate to create an offspring) has one big advantage: it combines the DNA of two different creatures.\n\nSo let's say there's a recessive gene in your DNA. It's not a good gene, it'll mess up your heart, or cause brain development issues. Fortunately, tho' you have this gene, it is recessive, and you also have a perfectly functional gene which is dominant. So the bad gene does no harm to you.\n\nNow, your sister also has these same two genes. No big deal for her either.\n\nBut if you two both produced a child, that child will inherit one gene from each of you. If the child inherits the bad gene from you both, then it doesn't get the good dominant gene to overwrite the issue, and ends up with the brain development issues or the malformed heart etc.\n\nNow, there's a chance of picking up a bad gene in any kid. But the chances of getting two copies of the same bad gene is considerably greater when both parents have it. And in the case of siblings, they're much more likely to share the same genes.\n\nMake sense?",
"Hey Bottlehoez. You're on the right track when you say it's about genes.\n\nWhen a baby is very first made and a sperm from a dad reaches an egg from the mum the cells combine their genes to form a new set of genes.\n\nThe thing is that your DNA (the molecule that holds your genetic information) gives the instructions to your body like \"have blue eyes\" or \"have brown eyes\". Because your parents gave you one set of instructions each (dad's sperm and mum's egg each had their own genes) which your body then chooses to listen to. Scientists know that some genes are \"dominant\" and will always be picked by the body and others are \"recessive\" and will only be picked if there is no dominant genes around.\n\nSo, when you are coding for eye colour, brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes, so if your DNA from your mom says \"blue\" but your DNA from dad says \"brown\"? It's brown eyes for you! Funnily enough though, you'll still carry the gene for blue eyes from your mum in your DNA. It's not forgotten, it's just not used. Remember that!\n\nThat's all well and good for eyes, but DNA is complicated and codes for millions of different things. Sometimes our genes aren't great and we get one set of instructions from a parent that are bad for our health \"have your spine outside body\" is one that can be passed down from your parents. Luckily the other parent will probably have the gene for \"have a spine inside your body\" and the normal one is dominant, which is great! Healthy baby!\n\nNow, imagine that the person above had twins, not just one \"healthy baby!\" but two!\nThey are both carrying the \"bad spine\" gene, so if they were to have children there is a chance that they would both pass down the \"bad spine\" to their offspring! This would mean that there was no \"healthy\" dominant option to pick from, just two \"unhealthy\" recessive options. This would mean the baby would be born in this case as a very sick child.\n\nThis is why you see \"incest babies\" often being very sick. It's not always the case, but sometimes there is just not enough \"good\" instructions in the DNA to cover up the bad instructions, leading to illness\n\nTLDR; if there is little genetic diversity (eg inbreeding) then there is a much higher chance of having \"bad\" traits passed from both parents to a child. The more diversity the more chance of having a \"healthy\" trait in the child's genes to cancel it out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
11kjmv | how water seemengly "spoils" if left out too long? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11kjmv/eli5_how_water_seemengly_spoils_if_left_out_too/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6n9jhm",
"c6nahmv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Stagnant Water is a breeding ground for bacteria.",
"why does bottled water have an expiration date?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1b5tn5 | why is money backed up with gold | Why gold? Why do we "collect" (or used to)
Gold and not any other metal or anything else to back up the worth of our money? What makes gold so special and valuable above any other good? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b5tn5/eli5_why_is_money_backed_up_with_gold/ | {
"a_id": [
"c93vgem",
"c93vj2n",
"c93vk17"
],
"score": [
19,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Currency is no longer backed by gold in any country. The currency of the US (I'm not sure about other countries) is backed by the federal government, not any physical object.",
"Most if not all money nowadays isn't backed with gold. Money that isn't backed with gold is called \"fiat currency\". And keep in mind that other minerals are expensive too. But to answer your question:\n\nWe needed something and gold was the best choice. [Here](_URL_0_) is a good article from NPR Planet Money explaining it. \n\nThere were only so many choices. We couldn't use:\n\n* Something that was a gas.\n* Something that would combust (catch on fire) really easily.\n* Something that would corrode/dissolve/go-away really easily.\n* Something that was radioactive (would kill you).\n* Something that was really common.\n* Something that was really rare.\n\nThat only leaves a handful choices. Some of them weren't discovered until the 1800's, one of them tarnishes really easily, and one of them won't melt unless it's really hot (too hot for ancient peoples to make it).\n\nThat only leaves gold.",
"Paper money only has value if people believe it has value. How do you convince people to accept paper money when it's first being used? Simple, you say \"you can trade in this piece of paper for this much gold\". Now as long as people believe that the government actually has that much gold, money will have value. At some point though paper currency had been accepted for long enough that people felt that because they all collectively agree that paper money has value, and no one actually trades their money back in for gold, then you don't really need the gold to exist for the paper money to have value."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium"
],
[]
]
|
|
6o8vvv | do animals get sexually aroused when touched like humans do ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6o8vvv/eli5do_animals_get_sexually_aroused_when_touched/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkfga2f",
"dkftddu"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"They can yes.\n\n\nMy dog on his own has sprouted an erection just scratching his belly right and he's been neutered for the last 4.5 years.",
"Some do, yes. Artificial insemination procedures have to get the semen somehow. That somehow (at least with dogs) is to present them with a female in heat and then manually stimulate them until a collection can be made. Yes, it is awkward."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
c91h3h | why movies subtitles sometimes omit words? | I practice english by watching US tv series with English subtitles and I have noticed that sometimes subtitles are not 100% accurate. Some words are omitted or changed.
Why does this happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c91h3h/eli5_why_movies_subtitles_sometimes_omit_words/ | {
"a_id": [
"esrxpjj"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"Because, depending on the requests of the distributors, you may need a certain number of characters per line and different reading speeds, meaning you have to make a subtitle within a limited time and if the person speaking says a lot in a very little time, you will have to accomodate. For example, netflix requests for 42 characters per subtitle, 2 lines max. Other companies have different standards."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
678jof | what are these circles i have marked on google maps? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/678jof/eli5what_are_these_circles_i_have_marked_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgohqex"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They're called 'revetments'. Piles of earth built up to protect whatever is inside the circle from blast and shrapnel of a near miss. They're probably for artillery, given the round shape, but possibly anti-aircraft artillery. \n\n [Pic](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/trail/Vietnam/img/1_lrg.jpg"
]
]
|
||
15lsfk | what is the difference between dui and dwi? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15lsfk/what_is_the_difference_between_dui_and_dwi/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7nlgcm",
"c7nt6f3"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"DUI is an acronym for driving under the influence. DWI stands for driving while intoxicated. In some cases, depending on state law, the two terms are both used to describe impaired or drunken driving. Some state laws refer to it as DUI and others call it DWI.\n\nHowever, in states where both terms are used, DWI usually refers to driving while intoxicated of alcohol, while DUI is used when the driver is charged with being under the influence of alcohol or drugs",
"I will preface this by saying that every state is a little different and all I know about is Texas. \n\nIt all has to do with the definition of 'intoxication'. Under Texas law intoxication is defined as having a BAC of .08% or higher OR not having the normal use of you mental of physical faculties due to alcohol, drugs, or both. DWI (driving while intoxicated) means that they can prove you are intoxicated by either a blood test or field sobriety test. DUI (driving under the influence) means that they know you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
57fiwo | why is it harder for weed smoke to set off my fire alarm compared to a little smoke from my burnt grilled cheese sandwich. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57fiwo/eli5why_is_it_harder_for_weed_smoke_to_set_off_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8rjizw",
"d8rk0lv",
"d8sbyxh"
],
"score": [
20,
49,
4
],
"text": [
"Like I've hot boxed this place before. No alarm. Just a lil baby burn on mah grilled cheese and my neighbors are mad",
"There are two types of smoke detectors: optical and ionizing ones. \nI don't know if ionizing smoke detectors have a harder time detecting weed smoke than sandwich smoke, so I'll focus on optical smoke detectors, which are more common in households anyway.\n\nOptical smoke detectors have a light barrier inside of them. If smoke particles enter the detector, they reduce the amount of light that reaches the end of the light barrier. \n\nThe smoke from your burnt sandwich contains alot of soot, which has lots of big molecules. It's pretty easy for a smoke detector to detect these. Your weed burns relatively cleanly and doesn't contain as much big particles as the sandwich smoke. ",
"The particles of gross combustion (burning your grilled cheese sandwich) are physically larger than the controlled combustion results of a rolled cigarette, joint, or pipe smoke.\n\nThe smoke detectors in homes are designed to ignore cigarette smoke so that smokers won't disable them.\n\nThe smoke detectors on airplanes, particularly in the bathrooms, are designed to react to cigarette smoke because burning plains are a completely different problem.\n\nThe core difference is the temperature. When you draw on the smokeables you get a nice bright cherry. This high heat does a great job of atomizing the materials that are actually burned.\n\nMoreover a lot of what you inhale/exhale is actually vapor instead of smoke. The cherry provides heat to the column, that heat does the \"Vape pen\" thing to the material closest to it, evaporating instead of burning the material. This in turn is why the last hit/drag is so much more bitter and nasty. It's pure smoke and very little evaporated volatiles.\n\nAs a normal human it's way easier to clog the house with smoke from a kitchen fire or burnt food than it is with a doob."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7bxmvy | how does a company benefit from offering its employees discounts on its products? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7bxmvy/eli5_how_does_a_company_benefit_from_offering_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"dplkfgo",
"dplkfty",
"dplkm86",
"dpll5qr",
"dplmu9o",
"dplpog9"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
11,
7,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Recruiting and retention. A discount is a job perk which draws people to work there. The discount often keeps them there too. This acts to offset the marginal cost of the discount as well because you now have a built-in frequent buyer.",
"It benefits by having happier employees. The company is not really losing anything by it, either; the price employees pay is often what a wholesale customer would pay.",
"I work for the cable company. Receiving comp services means I am familiar with the products, and can therefore educate the customer and recommend other products they may benefit from.",
"In the tech industry (and many others), it's called [\"Dogfooding\" or \"Eating Your Own Dogfood\"](_URL_0_).\n\nThe idea is that you want employees to be intimately familiar with your products, and you want to quickly find out what is working and what isn't. You can't always rely on customers to tell you the good and bad things about your products.\n\nIf a person walks into a clothing store and asks for a recommendation, an employee that owns a bunch of the clothing is going to be able to make better recommendations. It's also much more reassuring for a customer to see employees wearing the clothing of the store they work at rather than the clothes of a competing company.\n\n Conversely, if an employee buys a piece of clothing and it falls apart or stretches out, they're more likely to report that back to the store owners compared with a customer who may just stop shopping at the store and not report anything.",
"They also don’t have the expense of marketing and selling to employees that they have for regular customers, so it’s a perk to attract and retrain with little cost. Additionally, it sends a positive message if their employees use their products themselves, gain first hand using them, act as ambassadors for their employer, etc.",
"Like any other benefit, it allows the company to pay you a bit extra without actually increasing your salary. The cost of this compensation is also a lot more variable per person than others like salary and medical, because some people will use next to none of the discounts while some may use much more, but overall it might be cheaper than simply bumping up everybody's salary and people may preceive the value of the discount much more than it actually is (i.e. a person mentally thinks a 10% discount is worth an extra $1000 a year, but they only ever seem to save $500 from the discount).\n\nOn top of that, a discount on good is still money back into the company's pocket, potentially making the benefit even cheaper. If a product's price is $10, the employee only pays $9 and it costs the company $9.5, that means the company only lost $0.50 on that item, but the employee gained a whole $1.00, further compounding both the low cost to the company and the high preceived benefit to the employee.\n\nFinally, the discount isn't taxed, but the employee still gets the benefits. So the employee doesn't pay income tax on the money saved and the company doesn't pay payroll tax on the benefit. Win-win."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
clz67f | why is it that, before i fall asleep, my body suddenly snaps/jolts as if a bolt of lightning struck me? it's frequently accompanied by my teeth clenching suddenly. happens sometimes when i'm awake and lying down too. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/clz67f/eli5_why_is_it_that_before_i_fall_asleep_my_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"evytgrk",
"evytnwi",
"evytv5b"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I would guess that you're fairly young and still possibly growing. What you're describing sounds a lot like something called a Myoclonic Jerk. Basically, a trigger of some kind leads to the sudden contraction (or relaxation, but not in your case) of a muscle or muscle groups. In young people the most common manifestation occurs on starting to fall asleep or wake up, often in the form of the legs \"jerking\" downwards. \n\nHaving said that, if it happens a lot, causes pain or disability, or you're not a young person then consider mentioning this to your doctor. Myoclonus can be a response to lowered oxygen levels associated with a number of conditions, such as sleep apnea. It can also be caused by quite a few other issues, and a doctor can help you figure out the root cause if needed. \n\nGiven that this is only a problem when you're falling asleep though, it's probably harmless.",
"/u/AAVale is right on the money. \n\nIt's often otherwise known as a [Hypnic Jerk](_URL_0_).",
"First off, I'm not a doctor by any means. \n\nHowever, I have a friend that is a neurologist and I asked him the same question.\nHe says that it's perfectly normal and it's actually considered a sign of a healthy brain. He explained it as being like a cascade of brain signals finishing up at the same time. (ELI5)\n\nIf it's worrying you, speak to your doctor about it. \n\nNever pay too much attention to the internet about health things because people seem to delight in telling others that they have cancer or a stroke or suchlike. \n\nAlways speak to your doctor if you feel something is not right with your health. We only get one body in this life, treat it well."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnic_jerk"
],
[]
]
|
||
4qvc1z | why do old school phone batteries last for a decade whereas newer phones last barely 3 hours? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qvc1z/eli5_why_do_old_school_phone_batteries_last_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4w6aoh",
"d4w6blp",
"d4w6e43",
"d4w6f8u",
"d4w6nem",
"d4w6wji",
"d4w6yqn",
"d4w739e",
"d4w7s4d"
],
"score": [
4,
33,
19,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Old school phone batteries don't last for \"a decade\". They may last for a couple of days before needing to be recharged, and that's because smartphones use a **lot** more power than older cell phones, and people with smartphones use them throughout the day to do various things like browse Facebook, listen to music, check email, etc., whereas old-school phones were just used for phone calls and texting.",
"Battery tech has improved in the past decade, but not enough to account for the increased power draw in newer phones. Smart phones just draw much more power than an old-style flip phone.",
"Old phones barely did anything. They had very little passive functionality so they took very little power to do nothing. Modern phones do more. \n\nAlso people have exaggerated in their mind the battery life of old phones. They had great standby times. The famous nokia 5110 had 180 hours of standby, but the talk time of about an hour and 45 minutes, the iphone is between 8 and 10 hours depending on the model. \n\n",
"Older phones only had a simple light to illuminate the screen, a small LCD display, the barebones processor inside, and the cellular antenna, leading to a use of less battery. This, combined with the fact form-factor was not a huge issue at the time, allowed for longer usage of the battery life.\n\nHowever, modern phones have a full LED display, an AGPS chip, proximity sensors, cameras, more powerful processors, and more. This, and the combined need for sleekness and smallness, uses up more power on a regular basis, leading to seemingly lower modern battery lives.",
"It's not that battery tech has gotten worse, or that it's stagnating, it's that other tech has advanced far faster. Battery tech and energy efficient hardware is still advancing, but instead of using the same form factor, smartphone manufacturers are instead making batteries smaller.\n\nOlder phones also didn't have to deal with all the new technology we have. They didn't have 5+ inch full HD, or 4k HD screens to contend with. They didn't have a variety of apps which use location services, bluetooth, or wifi/LTE to contend with, or quad core processors and GPUs. People back then used their phone to make and receive phone calls, and that was it, other than the random Snake game or two. Get a standard, basic phone now and you'll also be able to use it for days on end without worrying about charging it.",
"because today's phones requires more power to operate. you have the screen and apps running all the time causes batteries to run faster/",
"Hello, first i think that the new technologies such as high defi ition screens, high data speed known as LTE, and the built in OS and so on. All these increase the power consumption. Now adays batteries are not weak but encounter high power demand. Thankfully latest smartphones made such great improvement in battery life (average 2 days lasting)",
"Because we use newer phones' features much more, while older phones are pretty much used only for calling, texting, and becoming frustrated over the shoddy Solitaire program on the device.",
"Disable data. Disable all software that might run automatically. Turn on whatever power saving features your phone offers. Never turn on your phone's screen except to dial the phone quickly. Your phone will likely last days. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4yz4dt | why does electronics shrink in size and multiply in power so predictably? can't they just work on making machines that make smaller machines all the time ect to get the most output? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yz4dt/eli5_why_does_electronics_shrink_in_size_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6rl39x"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They have been making machines that can make smaller machines, for over half a century!\n\nBut we've reached the limit now, or very close to it. Individual components on chips are now just a couple of atoms across, and there's no way of making them smaller.\n\nThat's why modern processors use things like multiple cores to get more processing power, rather than getting smaller and smaller."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6sxuua | why does a laptop/desktop make noise while switched on but phones/tablets are silent when switched on, yet they are all computers with similar parts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sxuua/eli5_why_does_a_laptopdesktop_make_noise_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlgdk95",
"dlgdkae",
"dlgdm63",
"dlgdua7"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Laptops and desktops use active cooling with fans, and may have mechanical drives which produce noise. Tablets and phones only use solid-state storage and passive cooling without moving parts such as fans. Due to this they have more limited performance and power consumption, but are completely silent in operation.",
"Desktops and laptops have fans and hard drives, which make noise. Phones/tablets do not have those parts, therefore being silent. ",
"Some laptops may have moving parts such as a fan or a mechanical drive. However not all laptops do, take the [HP Stream](_URL_0_) for example. There are no fans, and the mechanical drive is replaced with an SSD (a storage device with no moving parts.) Similarly, phone usually opt for non moving parts as well. Therefor, they create no noise.",
"Laptops and desktops usually have fans to help cool the hardware components (power unit, graphics processor, computer processor, sound card). Laptops/desktops may also have mechanical hard drives (with a spinning disk). Phones and tablets don't have fans and use flash/solid-state drives.\n\nMost of what you hear is the fan(s) powering on. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/HP-Premium-Flagship-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B01MS6TKUA/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1502414224&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=hp+stream&psc=1&smid=ARKFFGMZRYG2X"
],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.