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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3dhdai | hat happens to the body fat when you are losing it due to diet or sports? | I mean, the fat can't just disappear, or can it? :D | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dhdai/eli5_hat_happens_to_the_body_fat_when_you_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct556nf",
"ct557te"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body breaks it down and converts it into energy, water and CO*_2_*. You expel the water by sweating and breathing, and the CO*_2_* by breathing as well.",
"You are breathing it out. Your body gets energy from burning carbohydrates (including fat). The carbon and hydrogen is burned with oxygen that you breath in, which forms carbon dioxide and water which you breath out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
360fkn | why does it seem more offensive to mimic a chinese accent rather than a british accent? | I see people doing british accents all the time but no chinese accents. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/360fkn/eli5why_does_it_seem_more_offensive_to_mimic_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr9julo",
"cr9l5bi",
"cr9pk6e"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I'd say it's for a couple of reasons:\n\n1) Chinese accents very often accompany racism and racist remarks, especially in the past (picture the kind of early 20th century Vaudeville rice-hat-and-slanty-eyes performance that would have often accompanied those accents), and this association has stuck\n\n2) Accents of people for whom english is not their first language, or a language that they speak often, often offensively focus on their lack of proficieny. A Chinese accent where English is spoken *well* is considerably less offensive than a Chinese accent where it is spoken poorly, which often comes off as mockery. Similarly, Chinese accents from Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia seem to be viewed as much less offensive (e.g. saying 'lah' at the end of sentences is rarely, if ever, seen as racist). These places coincide with places where English is much more commonly spoken.\n\nIf you think about which accents seem racist and which do not, it seems that, generally speaking, English accents from English-speaking countries are not seen as racist or seen as less racist than English accents from non-English speaking countries. So an Indian accent seems less offensive than a Chinese one, and Jamaican accents and Nigerian accents are often imitated.",
"Don't forget, mocking can go both ways. The Chinese probably laugh themselves stupid at English. The Brits can and do laugh at some aspects of US accents. \n\nIt's the context that makes things racist.",
"English isn't the native language of China, but it is for Britain. Speaking Chinese with a Chinese accent wouldn't be racist. But more importantly, there is a long history of speaking English in an Asian accent as a method of putting down the Asian culture and people (look at the humor from the late 1800's up until the mid 1900's for examples). It's still a touchy subject. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cv1n27 | why do humans instinctively react to objects moving quickly towards them by closing their eyes or looking away? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cv1n27/eli5_why_do_humans_instinctively_react_to_objects/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey1aaqq",
"ey1aflx",
"ey1ayaf"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"We instinctively duck if it's a large object, but close our eyes if it looks smaller, because that would be an insect or some dust.",
"It’s mainly about protecting your eyes. Pretty much any other part of your body can heal quite well but if you damage your eyes or even just one of them it can make survival extremely difficult.",
"The opposite, actually. If you don’t look away, you wind up getting hit in the eyes or face instead of the side of the head. Ideally you wouldn’t get hit anywhere in the head, but if you’re going to get hit somewhere, the eyes and face is definitely not what you want to be in the line of fire."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5s0whp | why is a terrorist organization like isis so difficult to defeat? with so many powerful nations actively fighting them, how do they still have a leg to stand on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s0whp/eli5_why_is_a_terrorist_organization_like_isis_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddblky3",
"ddblrgg",
"ddboo5y",
"ddbplrr",
"ddbr5bk",
"ddbre40",
"ddbrq7c",
"ddbrxg5",
"ddbs5c3",
"ddbtf3t",
"ddbun9m",
"ddbuqw1",
"ddburre",
"ddbv5kk",
"ddbv80n",
"ddbvg9h",
"ddbvhfe",
"ddbvkbj",
"ddbvuvb",
"ddbvz2q",
"ddbw8vz",
"ddbwffn",
"ddbwhzq",
"ddbwmo8",
"ddbwu27",
"ddbwuen",
"ddbx38g",
"ddbx5wh",
"ddbx7qi",
"ddbx9uy",
"ddbxaas",
"ddbxf23",
"ddbxi3w",
"ddbxmpf",
"ddbxnlf",
"ddbxnlz",
"ddbxvmr",
"ddbz3n1",
"ddbzh9j",
"ddbzhkb",
"ddbzjop",
"ddbzqfg",
"ddbzty1",
"ddbzu4d",
"ddbzy4l",
"ddbzzuy",
"ddc012t",
"ddc0kyt",
"ddc0p1l",
"ddc0wub",
"ddc119z",
"ddc11uy",
"ddc198b",
"ddc1g5o",
"ddc1k06",
"ddc23yu",
"ddc2azp",
"ddc2cfa",
"ddc2utr",
"ddc3yfv",
"ddc4mnz",
"ddc4rxx",
"ddc52gs",
"ddc7dnd",
"ddc7ozf",
"ddc817t",
"ddc8qz4",
"ddc9gqb",
"ddca2gr",
"ddcadhc",
"ddcaia7",
"ddcbgwl",
"ddcch6o",
"ddccyvr",
"ddcd9dk",
"ddcde7t",
"ddcdmkv",
"ddcex1q",
"ddcezcn",
"ddcfdum",
"ddcfmbi",
"ddcft13",
"ddcgcfj",
"ddcgdvh",
"ddchlvr",
"ddchy2e",
"ddciwmd",
"ddcjjp2"
],
"score": [
24,
7,
471,
2769,
2,
112,
8,
169,
7,
149,
13,
15,
5,
6,
44,
5,
10,
2,
8,
206,
2,
7,
52,
2,
6,
5,
7,
4,
5,
3,
7,
4,
9854,
14,
115,
4,
38,
6,
2,
2,
2,
11,
3,
2,
11,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
8,
9,
2,
3,
4,
3,
3,
10,
3,
3,
3,
3,
9,
2,
3,
4,
3578,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
9,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"They leader hides underground. They mix with civilians. They are not a traditional army. Their attacks are guerilla.\n\nMilitaries are generally not adapted for this type of combat. Vietnam was a great example of this. The VC was able to maximize casualties by using ambushes, mines, and untraditional techniques.",
"I'd say for the most part it's just a cycle of vengeance for many,as these countries bomb and attack the organizations they kill off innocents or terrorist that are family members of these innocent people and could therefore give said innocent people a motive to hate these countries which leads to more recruits and the numbers fluctuate as the war moves forward.",
"ISIS is a country without its own country. When we fight Iraq, we know where they are. When we fight Afghanistan, we know where they are. When we fight ISIS, they exist in many countries, mixed in with people we don't want to kill.... So they are extremely difficult to bomb, and they are extremely difficult to fight hand to hand, because we can't tell good guys from bad guys... Until they start shooting. Then it's too late.",
"In addition to ISIS being a guerrilla army, there are a few other reasons...\n\nThey are not only fighting to gain territory, but in order to control it they also need to act like a government for the people living there under their rule. When organizations like this succeed in providing electricity, food and water for their people, they gain some legitimacy and sympathy from people in the region. (Surely they're not doing a great job, given the circumstances, but I'm sure their followers are giving them some leeway.) This is how the Taliban is still in power in parts of Afghanistan, because they do make efforts to keep the people fed, employed and somewhat protected. \n \nISIS has been well funded, and this is a major reason why they're still surviving. They have hijacked oil fields and sell that oil on the black market. They are also secretly funded through unknown supporters, likely to be Saudis who share their religious ideals and support the growth of Salafism/Wahhabism in the Middle East.\n\nThe long term strategy of the Obama admin, from my understanding, was that they would eventually run out of funds, and once they did that they would begin to see fractures in the morale of their fighters, and a general diminishing of local support as they fail to keep their promises to the people in their \"caliphate\".\n\nSo airstrikes have been targeting their shipments of oil and illicit funds, cutting off their supplies which has led to a [reduction in their recruitment efforts and an increase in defections.](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"Because (as history has taught us) it's being fueled on both sides by essentially the same entity.",
"Because the US has spent the better part of two decades bombing people. This has taken people who would have likely just lived their lives, and radicalized them by killing members of their families, destroying their communities and leaving them with less options to live their lives. Enter ISIS a group organized around the idea of resisting this ongoing campaign of destruction and plunder of their lands and suddenly there is a glimmer of hope that the \"imperialists\" might be battled. This group shares the local religion, uses its funds to rebuild communities, and give the appearance of helping the people. And bam! You have a self sustaining recruiting method. The more the US bombs, the more people get pissed and lose hope and join the resistance. It is a cycle that was totally predicted when the US started to fuck around in the middle east.",
"Because having your familly blown to bits at your neighbors wedding will piss anyone off enough to start shooting people.",
"At the end of the day, it comes down to forces on the ground. The three main forces fighting ISIS on the ground are the Syrian army, the Kurds, and the Iraqi army. \n\nEach one has it's own reasons for not defeating ISIS yet.\n\nThe Syrians are exhausted and busy fighting several different groups.\n\nThe Kurds may be the best but the Turks are interested in not letting them be too successful.\n\nAnd the Iraqi army was a joke and is still rebuilding from their defeats a couple years ago.\n\nIt doesn't matter how much you bomb someone, eventually you need your grunts to take and hold ground from their grunts.\n\nAmerica bombed the ever loving shit out of Vietnam and we all know how that turned out.",
"We are secretly giving groups affiliated with them arms and money for one...\n _URL_0_",
"First and foremost, the impact of terrorist organizations is manipulated (overblown) by those who want to create a 'permanent enemy' in the minds of their citizens.\n\nThis allows them to lead a generally fearful population who will then tend to support nationalistic, authoritarian, and militaristic activities. This also allows the leadership to deflect focus from domestic issues and/or cronyism and/or profiteering by smoke-bombing (like a magician) their citizens with \"TERRORISM!!1!!\" to distract from their sleight of hand.\n\nThis doesn't mean that terrorists don't exist, however, what it means is that if we treated them as criminals and crazy people in a straightforward manner we'd take away virtually all of their incentive.\n\nThe goal of terrorism is to frighten their undefeatable enemies into taking foolish actions in response to their activities. If we don't act like fools, they lose.",
"I like to think it's because it's an ideology, and fighting an ideology is hell of a lot harder than fighting a standard army due to other people with similar beliefs adopting the same ideology in different countries... it's difficult to fight a worldwide army.\n\nEdit: grammar",
"Because they have an unlimited supply of U.S. arms, vehicles and funding? ",
"The more aggressive we are against them, the more collateral damage we cause. The more collateral damage we cause, the easier it is for them to find recruits.",
"They aren't easy to kill. With someone like the Nazi's in Germany, you can storm the capital, take control, and you can end the war right there. But Isis and Al Qaeda are like tumors. If you don't take every last bit out, it will just grow back. Imagine if, after taking Berlin, you had to find and kill every single remaining German soldier. And none of them were wearing uniforms. And some of your own men were secretly German soldiers. And they will fight until, and after, they die, with no regard for personal safety.",
"It's mostly a matter of the countries who claim to be fighting ISIS, do not have a primary interest in fighting them. Biggest contributors, you could say, to the fight against them is Russia and USA. But the US actual interest is in pushing a major oil pipeline through Syria to the EU. As a matter of fact USA supports rebels who technically fight alongside ISIS. Also it's well known that Saudi Arabia, a major US ally, who receives weapons and money from the USA, most likely supports and funds ISIS. Russia is technically supporting groups who fight ISIS but only because they're supporting the opposite side of the war in Syria that the US does. This is likely because they want their own pipeline through Syria to the Baltic Sea so they can control oil exports. Both oil pipelines are pending projects and one can see the ally relationships in neighboring countries and understand both US and Russian plans for the pipeline. Neither wants to necessarily directly fight ISIS as they would be diverting attention from the oil plans.",
"USA is supporting them by arming and teaching \"moderate rebels\". Then they suddenly join ISIS. Turkey buys ISIS's oil.",
"My friends who are in the US Army said part of it is that when you kill one, his son is automatically recruited. ",
"Two explanations - ISIS is difficult to defeat because it is an idea and an ideology that continues to attract recruits willing to fight and die for it. It is not possible to shoot or bomb out an ideology; the only way to eradicate or push it into irrelevancy takes time and education and good governance. It is especially difficult with an ideology that is culturally deep-rooted and aligned with a religion - ISIS claims to be the new Caliphate and demands that all Muslims are required to support it and move there. \n\nThe second explanation is the core of ISIS were Iraqi Sunnis who found themselves out of power and being killed when the Shia regained power after Saddam. They had trained military officers who could direct the cannon fodder fighters to capture and hold large swathes of territory across the borders of at least 3 countries. The civilian population initially sided with them due to the bad governance they were facing and by the time they realized their mistake, ISIS was deeply embedded in heavily populated areas and killing civilians wholesale to suppress dissent. ",
"You cant deploy conventional millitary tactics againt nonillitary targets. Civilian casualties are worse news than isis.",
"On top of the other comments, Id like to add: think of ISIS as not an army, but several, smaller militias or pods that don't communicate regularly. Some of these militias can be \"homegrown\" and just claim to be isis as well. Now how do we target these numerous, smaller militias? While information intercept can lead us to the larger threats, there are still hundreds of smaller groups that claim alliance to isis which you cannot track because they do not communicate. As well, once targeted, they will blend in with their neighboring civilians (sometimes in safe spots like mosques, hospitals, schools, etc) so the threat cannot be eliminated. The \"pro\" to all this is (as it IS a con within itself) that as multiple, smaller militias they are not organized/coordinated enough to be of major threat. Most of our domestic, terrorist attacks are people within the US claiming Isis alliance and not those from the Middle East entering the US to commit an attack. There are other reasons as well, but this is a major contributing factor.\n\nEdit: Source - took a political science course last semester and asked the same question. ",
"Simple answer is scapegoat.\n\nAs long as there are recourses the US wants in the middle east. We will have someone or something to fight to keep us in the area.",
"If governments really wanted ISIS gone, then they would be gone.\n\nWhy do you only see documentaries of kurds or left over iraqi soldiers fighting? Because they are the only ones fighting. \n\nIf the world powers really actually cared about defeating an organization that has committed terrorist attacks then they could defeat ISIS in a week if they wanted to.",
"In this case, the use, threat, and utility of force are not effective deterrents or solutions to psuedo-organizations like ISIS. These types of organizations are bound by a similar ideological belief, which makes waging traditional war against them incredibly difficult, if not impossible. \n\nWhile a lot of responses here are partially right, I have to say that the situations in the Middle East and North Africa are a lot more complicated than starving them of money, supporters, leaders, or having a strong military presence on the ground. If things were that simple, we would have solved the issues in the Bush years, or during Obama's troop surge and increased drone strikes.\n\nBut, why is ISIS so hard to defeat? Because ISIS can be boiled down to a combination of fringe religious ideology, long-standing cultural identity that goes back hundreds to thousands of years that Western powers tend to choose not to fully understand, and the economic + governmental damage Western powers initially caused dating back to the raping and pillaging of the area back during the the era of global European colonialism (that this region still hasn't recovered from).\n\nQuick Edit: I see a lot of people throwing Vietnam in as a parallel. Truth is, there are very little parallels to Vietnam and ISIS outside of guerrilla warfare. The manner in which we waged war in Vietnam was wholly ineffective for a variety of different reasons.",
"There would be no need to spend all the money on weapons and bombs if they went in and destroyed them too fast. The long war against them allows them to splinter and spread giving the military industrial complex more chance of making huge profits ",
"Little late to the party, but I had a professor once say that trying to take down terrorist groups was a bit like fighting a fire with gasoline. It gives them ammunition, if you will, to recruit. At the same time, doing nothing isn't necessarily an option. ",
"Let's not forget that the US is still lowkey supplying and financing ISIS, so they'll destabilize the Middle East.\nDon't have time to link any articles right now. Ut spend more than 5 seconds on Google and you'll fund plenty about it, from reputable sources.",
"Many of the forces opposing them are either working at cross purposes to each other, or only recently started seriously fighting them at all. For several years of the war the Syrian goverment, preferred to focus on more moderate opposition groups, leaving ISIS pretty much alone while pretending to fight them, knowing that the more extremist their opposition the more western states would prefer Assad over extremist jihadis with a habit of such gruesome executions etc. \n\nTurkey cares primarily about preventing the Kurds from taking de facto control of more land especially if Kurdish territory becomes all joined up. \n\nRussia cares primarily about keeping its naval base on the coast.\n\nIran cares primarily about maintaining a corridor of Shia control so it can project influence into the mediterranean.\n\nUntil recently when ISIS become one of the last anti-gov forces left standing it was only the western world that really saw them as the biggest problem, and their domestic climate is (post Iraq and Afghan conflicts) currently very risk and conflict averse. \n\nUntil recently also ISIS had been winning the conflict with Al-Qaida and its affiliates for the status of the worlds pre-eminent radical non-state Sunni actor - in the process they won the support of some who had previously supported Al-Qaida.\n\n",
"Can someone explain to me when ISIS started, and what their ideology is/why do they hate us? Are they leftover strands of the military that Saddam and Al-Quida (sp?) lead?",
"Because the only ones fighting ISIS with boots on the ground are Iraqi soldiers and some tribes up north. One of the major rules in any war is, you can bomb, you can use drones, \nbut without BOOTS on the GROUND you will not take anything. They are essentially the backbone. They claim territory. If in the future we are lucky enough to see a US and Russian coalition going there with boots on the ground, tanks, backed up by airstrikes, it would take a few months to eradicate them. That is if RU and US follow a strict no prisoner-shoot on sight policy which in case of ISIS they most definately should.",
"Lots of great information here/below but from a very fundamental perspective it boils down to fighting an ideology rather than an army is a war no one has ever won. Battles may have been won and time has favored one side or another but success is limited. Hence we still have Christianity vs Islam. ",
"It is hard to defeat it, when you are fighting it with one hand while arming and training it with the other.",
"They aren't really fighting them. They just support (!) the active forces in the country! \nSome with ammo, medicine, knowledge or air support, which is helpful but If they'd send troops aswell, it would be way easier to win against the is. The ground units, who are good at fighting, are the Kurdish ones, which are really (!) small. Not many fighters with worse weapons. \n\nThe gov just protects their area, Rebels are fighting but making no progress. Just after the Kurdish force joined there was some progress and other units followed like Iraqi troops and Rebels.\n\n ",
"Radical ideology is really what we are fighting here and every time collateral damage occurs it undermines our ability to fight radical ideas further. It actually helps spread the ideas. It's like carpet bombing a forest fire. \n\nFor some context, I was in Iraq in 2009. As you would imagine, most the destruction had already taken place by then. So I got to see the aftermath of our invasion. There was no open resistance when I was there. No one tried to fight us. They just watched us roll down the roads for the most part. \n\nNow imagine if you were say, 5 years old, and your home was destroyed by a bomb. Maybe someone from your family was killed. But it left you without anything to call your own. No one to call in case of an emergency. No one to call if your sibling falls ill. Not even a nation to call home. Not even shelter, except for what you can literally build from the rubble. \n\nNow imagine, little you sponging up all the info you can, all this has taken place around you, without you having any idea why. You see these foreigners who don't speak like you or look like you, you don't understand them, and you're told \"that's who did this to us\". Those *people*. No matter how bad someone tells you it was before, you can never feel like it could be any worse than it is now. \n\n**The enemy we are fighting now, is an enemy we created**. \n\nIt's no longer an abstract idea. The kids that grew up amongst the rubble that we prepared for them are now fighting age. Radical ideology spreads through the oppressed like a plague and those people will forever fight. It's not that I sympathize with them. I just understand the anger. Isis is just one of the many names that this ideology has fallen under(Boko Haram, Mujahadeen, Janjaweed, Al Qaeda) and it's not the only kind of radical ideology. \n\nThe difference is the amount of time, space, and motivation that's been necessary to breed. All of this is compounded by hostiles never being a uniformed enemy. They always wear civilian clothing. \n\n\nHere are some ~~pics~~ really incredible photos taken by a soldier in my platoon. These were taken during one of many humanitarian missions we ran while we were there. This shanty town was built in the protective area right outside our FOBs gates. This should help you understand what I mean. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nEdit: for those of you who think this has an anti American agenda, you are dead wrong. I am a patriot and I love my country. [Here is my response to that.](_URL_1_)",
"I went to University and studied applied intelligence methods(fbi/cia stuff) for a couple of years. For each of those years we had to analyze the stability of a particular country. My country was the small island country of Mauritius, that sits 1500 miles off the SE coast of Africa. One of the things we needed to keep up on was the possibility of terrorist attacks. Through my research I found that the possibility of a terrorist attack on Mauritius is close to zero. Reason being, 1) There's not a terrorist organization on earth that has nautical capability passed 1,500 miles. 2.)There's no natural resources for them to exploit. 3) Mauritius has more police officers on their island per 1000 residents than the United States does, and they also have a new naval ship donated to them by the Indian Military. To put it in a nutshell, Mauritius's doesn't have easily traversed borders, and they're too stable of a country for a terrorist attach. Meaning what? ISIS can't really do shit. If you take a look at all of the countries, or territory ISIS has \"control\" over, or has had control over, you'll that find these countries haven't had unstable governments for decades. They can only take over dystopian countries because militarily, its an insult to any military to even consider them one. What real military has to cut off 21 heads on social media to convince people they're powerful? None of them. ISIS are just a bunch of bandit murderers taking advantage of the medias need to sensationalize the minuscule into something story worthy. And a threat from the sky is pretty much impossible unless one person plans and commits the attack on their own. Reason being, governments put all their intelligence money into technical intelligence, and to pull of another 9/11 would require too much electronic communication to pull it off these days. ISIS just survives, they do not thrive. ISIS CAN'T DO SH*T.",
"So many misguided statements here let me try to set the records straight I work with Oil in the middle east and you people in the West honestly have no idea how much of your equipment, money, and other resources ends up in ISIS hands. \n\nA massive iraqi military base was taken over by 40 isis members and they got $65 million + USD in equipment. \n\nFirst world nations have too many guns, explosives, and vehicles to sell and they inevitably end up in the hands of ISIS super cheap. For gods sake I HAVE SEEN european and american TOW missles in the hands of arms dealers sending them to rebel groups.\n\nFighting ISIS is amazing for making money, that's why they have not been beat and we jump from afghan, to iraq, to ISIS, to Iran. As long as there is an enemy being supplied by half of the first world countries in the world they won't be beat because that isn't even part of the plan. ",
"Partially because ISIS is a set of values that anyone can adhere to (a very very bad set, mind you) and it's incredibly difficult to kill an idea.",
"It's not necessarily that ISIS are difficult to defeat, it's that anyone with the capability to wipe them out has no political interest in doing so. \n\nTaking out ISIS would require a sustained land invasion with tens, probably hundreds of thousands of troops occupying their territory for years on end.\n\nPoliticians and military advisors around the World have made the decision that it's better for their country's interests to allow ISIS to continue to terrorize the people they occupy and suffer the occasional ISIS-inspired attack on home soil than having to deal with the headache of a multi-year full-scale war in the Middle East.",
"All it takes to defend ISIS and friends once and forever is a few million permanently stationed soldiers, a couple hundred thousand medical professionals, at least a million teachers, the biggest investment in infrastructure there ever was and an entire generation or two in north africa and the middle east that grows up in peace. oh, and an agreement between the US, Russia, Israel, Iran, all the Arab states and Turkey. \n\nAs you can see, it's simple. ",
"Because \"Ideas are bulletproof\".\n\nIf what motivates you to fight is your religion or a deep set political belief, the act of someone trying to smother the belief by violence only reaffirms your belief and further radicalises you. This is as true for religious extremists as it is for political revolutions, ideologies are just inherently hard to crush. \nThe war against terrorism and the slew of middle eastern wars is leaving a desolate land where radicals are born. It might therefore be the very act of trying to defeat terrorism that is breeding terrorism.",
"Maybe because TPTB created ISIS and have been funding such organizations since the 70s in order to ensure conflict and a reason to fund W A R S.",
" > The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. \n\nHenry A. Kissinger. ",
"Several reasons.\n1) They get support from people who care more about money than morals. e.g. Guess who sells them oil? Weapons? Ammunition? Even medical supplies? Look it up, it's not hard to find out.\n\n2) The methods used to fight them tend to create more of them. ie Rampant bombing of areas and indiscriminate killing of civilians. We may not like it, but that's how most of the fighting the West does in the Middle East goes down. And put yourself in their place, if your family were innocent and bombed to fuck by some American drone, and this crowd offered you a chance to strike back at their killers, you might well leap at the chance.\n\n3) Religious fanatics tend not to make rational decisions.",
"1. Rich Saudi Arabians fund them. \n\n2. ISIS recruits young people, knowing that many yearn for a purpose in life (what greater purpose is there than to serve God?) and really want to fight. \n\n3. Guerrilla movements want to lose against establishment powers in order to ultimately win against them. ",
"Because powerful forces stand to make a lot of money with them around... \n\nISIS was created by powerful forces and are funded by powerful forces... \n\nThey could be wiped out easily. But lots of people stand to make a lot of money as long as they are around.",
"This also goes beyond the scope of one militia group or another, and more into \"What is Wahhabism? When did it start? What did it do?\" - Some study will teach you how they, in WW1, were radicals funded by Britain in WW1 against the Ottoman Empire. They believed \"modern Islam\" had fallen corrupt and wanted to punish it. So they would kill teachers, blow up schools, kidnap students on the way to school, etc. The middle east was the most sophisticated region of the world and in a period of less than 20 years, the entire region was sent back to the stone age. \n\nThey founded Saudi Arabia and The Taliban - many groups such as the Mujaheddin in Somalia and Yemen, the Al-Queada groups, Carlos the Jakal, all of them are Wahhabis. Imagine if Christianity had been hijacked by a stone age fundamentalist sect that many US Soldiers and police and judges suddenly converted to, and they began imposing their religious laws in spite of our national laws? Now, imagine if it became powerful enough, quickly enough, to become uber-powerful in Canada, Mexico and USA? That is kinda what happened with Wahhabism.",
"Isis was created to destabilize Syria thus the US had no intention of defeating them. There's photos around the web of John McCain actually meeting with Isis leaders.",
"Now that you read all the contrived answers, here is the simple truth: Our Military Industrial Complex wants it that way.",
"Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist on this issue. But in order for governments to gain more power they need a enemy. If that enemy was utterly destroyed they would lose a scape goat.",
"Because people keep joining them, due to disparaged youth with little to no opportunity to make it in the world in any meaningful way they seek out causes and cling to them. Its the same way gangs exist and keep persisting despite hundreds of thousands of police for example.\n\nYou can't simply round up potential terrorists in camps and start segregating or killing them because any youth in poverty is a potential converted to the cause. Any marginalized person who feels fear of an other, including Caucasian etc it doesn't matter what margins they feel they are affected by it just matters they feel put down or fear of others. These people feel the need to protect themselves or their group of people and as they are young, again, pledge and buy into a cause and message that is specifically tailored to make these people feel as if they have a purpose or could empower their-selves and their marginalized group.\n\nSo as long as people are downtroddin, cast aside, fearful, or even just unfulfilled... There will always be people lashing out at the system etc. Fear is a big one, its part of being human and can NEVER go away. As long as organizations like ISIS have recruits, they will exist.",
"It's not so much a militia as it is an idea. Kind of like a religion, it's not easy to make people change their beliefs.",
"Nobody mentioned that part of the reason ISIS is still around is because countries like the U.K. and US indirectly funded them heavily during the Obama administration through countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The US essentially created ISIS. We've sold billions upon billions in weapons to Gulf states that fund terrorists. It's disgusting and nobody here mentioned it that I've seen. Hopefully that will change under Trump. Tulsi Gabbard just introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists today act that is aimed at fixing this problem.",
"I'd liken it to fighting weeds in vegetable gardens. You want to kill the weeds, but not the vegetables. Weeds get picked because any chemicals could hurt the vegetables, but the weeds keep growing. You're constantly pulling weeds, there's just no end to it. The weeds might be from seeds long dormant in the soil or they might blow in from somewhere else. You could just pour heavy duty chemicals on everything, but then nothing would grow there for centuries. \n\nSo, in a way, we could wipe out ISIS quickly, but the collateral damage would be insane.\n\nGranted the above is ignoring the psychological/sociological aspects of ideology and religion.",
"ISIS is so difficult to defeat because it is **a part of the local communities.** Imagine if where you lived had no federal or state authority; instead the only government around was your local/county government. Instead of a police force, there is a militia force. That militia is primarily made up of folks who live and are a part of that local community... which makes it extremely difficult to distinguish between \"an innocent civilian\" and \"an ISIS militant.\" \n\nSure it *could* be easy to defeat ISIS, but that would involve killing every single person in the area. For every 100 ISIS terrorists you kill, 1,000 civilians die. Nobody wants that. \n\nPlus, the overwhelming amount of brutality and bloodshed will likely lead to others (in the surrounding local communities NOT affected by ISIS) to perhaps radicalize in a slightly different way than ISIS did. Thus making a full circle. ",
"ISIS is funded and controlled by the West as its destabilization army. ISIS IP addresses have been traced to British government addresses. The US has funded, trained and given weapons to them on record. Israel was caught saving two ISIS lives in Turkey, also on record. McCain has taken selfies with ISIS leaders and this is freely available to see on the web.\n\nThe reason they are so hard to beat is because those fighting ISIS don't want to beat them.",
"Because the US is actively funding ISIS and using them as an excuse to justify our presence in the Middle East while we destabilize the living shit out of it and rob every country over there of every single natural resource they have.... Mainly oil.",
"Not to beat a dead horse or sound corny, defeating an idea is impossible with any amount of military action. ",
"Because good guys have to try their best to distinguish between actual enemy combatants and people who support the ideology but haven't done any terroristic acts.\n\nThis ideology also glories martyrdom, which effectively makes every death of a terrorist a rallying cry for those on the edge. As long as the ideology lives on, there will be an ample supply of new recruits. \n\nSo far the world powers have a lot of success militarily, but an effective strategy to combat the ideology hasn't been established.\n",
"The United States - namely the CIA and Pentagon fund them simply to use them as a tool for regime change in the Middle East.\n\nCan't destroy what the US clandestinely supports.",
"Tl;dr: everyone is fighting over who gets to beat ISIS. Normally it would be the Iraqi army but it collapsed.\n\nA big part of the problem is that Iraq and Syria are a huge mess, so there's so many fights over who gets to fight ISIS, because whoever frees a place from ISIS controls it.\n\nThe Iraqi army collapsed in 2014 when the soldiers literally decided to leave their weapons and run out of Mosul from the ISIS army that came. The Kurds want to fight but the Turks, Assad, and the Iraqi Arabs don't want them to. Assad's army is busy fighting for their own control on all fronts, and same with the counter-Assad forces like the FSA. Sunnis don't want the shia militias. The Turks want to get in on the action but the Iraqis don't want them to. And everyone is nervous about Americans getting involved again, especially the American public.",
"Well there are a plethora of answers but it boils down to war is just a loose term, ww1 and ww2 were total war, so everyone and every part of society was geared to war and defeating the enemy. Today's \"wars\" are limited air actions and even more limited boots on the ground. \n\nLiterally gotta walk over every patch of ground killing everyone who's the enemy. Not leisurely dropping bombs with the odd air strike. \n\nVery simplistic answer yes. ",
"Because, just like your SJWs these days, when things get tough they disappear into the crowd and cease their activities.",
"\"ISIS\" as an existential threat to the West exists because a variety of Western interests need it to exist. The military industrial complex needs to sell weapons. Right wing politicians need a baddie to unite their base. Network news needs ratings. As soon as ISIS is no longer needed, they will be just another bunch of rebel groups fighting in various conflicts. Most likely the ISIS brand will be retired when it is past its shelf life. Kind of like fashion brands get disposed of every few years as consumers move on to the new hot thing.\n\nRemember al Qaeda? They're still around, but they're like, soooooo 2004.",
"Grossly simplified: From a Military Standpoint ISIS is defeated. There are 3 Major Strongholds That have been essentially Surrounded by Strong Enemies. Airstrikes alone can only do so much.\n\n1 is Raqqa Its the Capital City of the Evil ISIS People. Raqqa has been completely Cut off from the outside by the Kurds. The Kurds cannot advance yet because Turkey does not like the Kurds. ISIS has many supporters in turkey and if the kurds Advance towards Raqqa the Kurds might get bombed by Turkey and raqqa would not be Surrounded anymore and ISIS would be free.\n\n2 Dioz El Zur Is a city south of Raqqa the Regular Syrian Army is fighting them there. But the Syrian army is stretched thin and Assad has strategic reasons to not expend resources and defeat ISIS there. ISIS is fighting everybody that Assad is fighting too. So assad waits until all parties have exhausted themselfs to swoop in later....at least that is the plan. And that is why in Dioz el Zur there wont be any decisive victory coming soon.\n\n3 Mossul, by far the largest stronghold of ISIS, the Kurds and the Iraqi Army have surrounded the city. The kurds fearing Turkish intervention and the Iraqi army...oh boy...well they are not very good at fighting i am afraid. They want to not damage the city too badly so they can use it later. So advances if any are very slow.\n\nIn Summary ISIS still exists but is defeated, even though a victory will still take a few months ISIS does not have the means to break any siege, their command structure is in shambles, either through targeted assassinations of leaders by the US or by filling their bags with (literal) gold and moving to nations that offer rich terrorists harbor. They cannot mount anymore offensives and after the atrocities they have committed can not expect clemency from the warring parties. So they have no reason to call it quits either. But even after a military victory the Idiology of ISIS has found many supporters in the middle east and among the muslim population in Europe. Terrorist attacks will continue until the people dont like ISIS anymore. Solution for this problem are not clear. Many hope that European freedom and liberty will make people not want to be terrorists and kill people. While others believe that if that is not happening that the muslims must leave. In any case ISIS is the worst thing that has happend to the middle east and to Islam since the crusades. Nobody can clearly predict what will happen, but everyone who studied the situation knows that the situation will not get better.",
"ISIS is no longer just an \"organization\" it has become a way of thinking, ideology. Yes they do have a \"chain of command\" but they have become so widespread with their ideas that every corner of the world probably has sympathizers. So, take out the top \"cut off it head\" if you will, someone will just replace them and keep the idea moving. It's sad but it is the reality of the world we live in now. Gone are the days when you can spend a quiet afternoon with your family at the mall, at a sporting event, at the park.... it is always in the back of our minds now that something may kick off. ",
"Take a look at this video to have an idea of what fighting ISIS looks like.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nISIS doesn't really have an army. ISIS doesn't really even exist as solid entity. Any number of the people walking around on the street could have been ISIS fighters, and you would have been none the wiser. Think of it like if the TEA Party in the USA became militant. We know who the leaders of the TEA Party are, and we would know if someone stepped up or got promoted to a leadership position, but how do we really know who is a MEMBER of the TEA Party unless they self-identify as one?\n\nThis is why people keep saying that ISIS cannot be defeated militarily, or even by us; they have to be beaten by those that live there. A conventional army can't fight car bombs, IED's, suicide bombers, and terrorists posing as civilians and taking shots at you from the back.\n\nOur military superiority has done its part. We've killed most ISIS leaders, and constant air strikes have wiped out their capacity to wage open warfare. That's only half the battle though.",
"I'm really going to try to tackle this, *like I'm 5*. Inherently many of the nuanced points might not be conveyed well.\n\n**School Yard Example:**\n\nEveryone is out a recess and many of the kids are eating snacks, but Billy and his close friends don't have any snacks. Billy and his friends are playing in the sandpit grumbling about being hungry. Eventually, \n\nBilly gets so fed up about this that he decides to grab a toy, and throw it at a kid with a snack. Billy tells his friends that if you join me, I'll give you part of my snacks, whatever that may be. Some of them like the sound of that, some of them don't. Billy changes his tone, this time threatening, he says help me throw toys at the kids with snacks, or I'll throw toys at you.\n\nNow everyone in the sandpit is on board, or at least isn't going to oppose it. Billy takes his toy airplane, and he throws it at George. \"OUCH\", George yells. George and his friends are angry. They have more energy because they aren't hungry, and being frank, George has more friends. George rallies his friends together, they come over to the sand pit, and they take all of the toys away. They warn that if they act up again things will get worse.\n\nFrom Billy's point of view, his still starving, and now some \"meany head\" just came in and took something he really enjoyed and cared about. As you can imagine, Billy isn't going to sit there and take this, now he's more angry. He's now gossiping with all of his friends about how much George and everyone else sucks, and finally he starts cooking up a new plan to get back at them.\n\nBilly acts up again, he walks over, throws George's sandwich on the ground and stomps all over it whilst yelling about how this is justified and George is mean. Well, this doesn't go over so well, George winds up, and punches Billy square in the face. After a quick squabble George, having more friends to back him up, wins and Billy goes away. Billy and his friends are still hungry, now they don't have toys so their frustrated, and Billy has been punched in the face so they have something specific to use as proof that George and his friends are bad people; imagine how angry that gossip must be.\n\n**Afterwards**\n\nThis example highlights that while Billy and George are fighting with increased vigor, no one is addressing the real issue: Billy is hungry. In fact George, in his frustration, just keeps making things worse when he shows up. This example highlighted a few things:\n\n* To end extremism you need to tackle the root grievances. If you don't, similar organizations and thoughts will just keep arising. If Billy is hungry, punching him won't fix that.\n* Many are coerced into fighting, or into not speaking out against it. There is usually a dogmatic inner group of dedicated radicals that must be dealt with by force, but as you get further from them people are less devoted. At the fringes many are only joining the fight because they're getting paid, and couldn't support their family otherwise.\n* Playing into the story of extremists usually helps them significantly with recruitment. When George punched Billy, now all of Billy's friends are all hyped up and ready to help out. A real life example of this was the [Abu Ghraib Prison](_URL_0_).\n\nThis example also fails to communicate a few things:\n\n* Extremism isn't solely comprised of Islamist extremism.\n* There are many more problems besides hunger, but poverty is a huge one.\n* Extremist tend to recruit young males most effectively, this provides them with an immediate outlet for adventure and excitement, a cause, a chance to have much more influence than they probably otherwise would have. Many counter violent extremism (in the development space at least) aim at young people to catch them at this key stage.\nThis example doesn't set any historical context.\n\n**End**\n\nUltimately this still leaves out a lot of what's at play here, but I still think it's useful to explain whats going on. Hopefully if anyone actually reads this, people will comment to help me fill in the situation more wholly. yet if there was one take away here, it's that we keep trying to fight the people instead of the actual problem. Even if we did magically \"defeat ISIS\" tomorrow, a new organization would rise with the same anger and concerns as the one before it. Sure it would have different features and iconic components, but it would more or less be very similar in what drives it and makes it function. That's where Developmental Assistance comes in, to address the root grievances and stop the situations perpetuating these organizations.\n",
"**TL;DR: To almost every actor in the region, they are more useful alive than dead**\n\nTo understand the answer, we must first understand some significant points:\n\n1) Any answer that says \"x is the main problem\" is super simplistic. It may have part of a problem, but, like the rest of the grown up problems of the world, a complex issue like ISIS/terrorism cannot be reduced to a single point.\n\n2) There are always more questions than clear answers. This is a significant problem when lives are at stake, but I do believe that, given the research over the last century or so, we have a fairly reasonable idea.\n\nThe single sentence answer, which necessarily needs to be broken down into a thousand different pieces, is as follows:\n\n**The vast majority of terrorism in the last two centuries has been committed due to the political interaction of identity and the state**\n\nTo understand this completely, we have to understand the concept of the nation. Most people around the world feel nationality in at least three levels:\n\n1) Lowest level - The state as a function of nation\n2) Mid level - the Ethnic group as a nation \n3) Highest level - Religious group as a nation\n\nThere are other \"nations\" as well, but these three are the most common. Now, the marriage of Westphalian peace that designated (theoretically) standard borders and the increased centralization and power of governments, the challenge became to somehow synthesize these three. The idea of a political \"people\" is born. The most cohesive state, then, was one where people shared all three national identities. The least cohesive state was one that had neither 2nd or 3rd, and thus even the function of the state as a nation fall into peril. \n\nFollowing the peace at Westphalia, Europe was consumed by violence which was primarily nationalistic violence. Between revolutions, revolts, genocides, and ethnic cleansing, Europe was a blood bath from 1648 to 1945. When one portion of Europe reached stability, another portion was lit ablaze by nationalist politics.\n\nThe Arab world never had that moment. Even after the fall of colonial powers in the Arab world, the cold war politics of the US and Russia necessitated that the Middle East, a key region in the cold war, could not suffer the instability like that of Europe after Westphalia. So strong men were put in place who clamped down on the political negotiations which are required for the long term stability of a state which functions as a nation (A nation state).\n\nNow, fast forward to today. The strong men of the Arab world collapse (Saddam and Yemen forcefully, Mubarak, Qadhafi, and Assad by public pressure). This unleashes a huge tide of suppressed nationalist politics, which is always, always, always both disastrously bloody and excessively violent. Add in the Western exploitation of Pan-Islamism for combating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which leads to 9/11 (once the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and other mujahideen groups focused on two other Empires encroaching on \"Muslim sovereignty,\" the US (Iraq, Palestine, the Gulf) and Russia (Chechnya)).\n\nNow, how does this lead to terrorism against the West? \n\n1. The West obviously has a terrible reputation in the Middle East, going back two centuries. But **America's** bad reputation starts in the 50s, with the opposition of the United States to Mossadeq, the United States propping up of Israel, the US opposition to Nasser (who was extremely popular in the Arab world), and the United States support of dictators. Now, add the Iraq sanctions and the Iraq War II, and you get just flaming hatred for the West.\n\n2. That hatred is used by the Pan-Islamists in fighting the US wherever it has presence in the Muslim world. But, for nationalists like ISIS, it has a much more sinister use.\n\n3. Attacking \"the West\" creates legitimacy for ISIS. Due to the involvement of the US during the cold war (and after) in the Middle East, hatred for the West is immense in the Arab world. Attacks against the \"oppressors,\" then, serves as a legitimizing tool in a fight where manpower is at a premium. \n\n4. This leads us to ISIS of today. It is a nationalist movement which gains legitimacy for showing how it is fighting the historic oppressors by bringing the war to them. \"We are doing to them what they have been doing to us\" is the line they use consistently in their recruitment material. The goal, though, is to swell their ranks LOCALLY, not to actually harm the west in any way. No one seriously thinks ISIS is creating any real national security risk for Western nation -- not ISIS, and not Western nations. This is just a really great propaganda tool for them. \n\nNow, given all the above, why is ISIS so difficult to defeat:\n\nThe reason why ISIS in particular has not been defeated, is, primarily power politics:\n\n**1) Power politics between nations always supersedes the threat of terrorist organizations**\n\n**2) ISIS is not the main concern of Middle Eastern nations. The power imbalance and vacuum between Iran, the Gulf allies, and Turkey is**\n\n**3) The Syrian civil war adds to those complications significantly**\n\n**4) Nations are more focused on fighting for power balance than against ISIS**\n\n**5) In managing the power politics in the Middle East, ISIS is actually useful for most if not all powers in the area**\n\nLet's give a couple examples:\n\n1) Turkey: \n\nTurkey was fighting Assad in Syria, but the Kurds to the north were a serious threat to their territorial integrity. As such, they helped ISIS fight the kurds to the north as well. But to assuage Western powers, they made a show of fighting ISIS as well.\n\n2) Saudi:\n\nSaudi is actively funding ISIS to push back Iranian allied Syria and Iraq and force Iran into a perpetual war with ISIS. This is because the Gulf allies are terrified of being surrounded by the Iranian led alliance of Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. It therefore needs to ally with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda to force Iran into perpetual war and keep it from cementing that alliance.\n\n3) Iran:\n\nIran wants to fight ISIS. It really does. It's probably the most active in fighting ISIS. But it can't make a death blow to ISIS yet, because of Iraq and Russia.\n\n4) Russia:\n\nISIS is extremely useful to Russia. As long as ISIS remains a force, it provides Russia diplomatic cover for its activities in support of Assad as long as it can shove a few bombs towards ISIS and say that it's there for terrorism. Therefore, Russia NEEDS ISIS to assist its ally Assad.\n\n5) Iraq:\n\nIraq is a key ally to Iran, and ISIS is an existential threat to the Shia regime there. BUT airpower is extremely limited in efficacy, Iraq doesn't have a strong enough ground force to take ISIS on itself, the US won't allow the only other real enemy of ISIS (Iran) into Iraq en masse to defeat ISIS, and the other members of the anti-ISIS coalition see ISIS as to useful to destroy just yet\n\n6) The US and the Western Allies:\n\nThis is where things get really fun. The West wants to defeat ISIS. But to do so would effectively hand Syria to Russia\\ and Iraq to Iran, making a giant power block from Iran to Syria and Yemen to the south. So it wants to use Iraqi ground forces to force ISIS into Syria and let them fight it out in the Syrian civil war, while putting diplo pressure on Iraq to break its ties with Iran and try to isolate Iran diplomatically. \n\nThe key to defeating ISIS:\n\n1) End the Syrian civil war\n2) Bring about political reproachment in Iraq and Yemen\n3) The powers in the area will crush ISIS in a day\n\nEdit: All the above is an interpretation consistent with the theories of the school of realism in international relations. For more information about the realist school, read \"The Man, the State, and War\" by Kenneth Waltz, \"Theory of International Politics,\" by Waltz again. For my favorite sub school, offensive realism, read \"Tragedy of Great Power Politics\" by John Mearsheimer. \n\nEdit: Thank you for the gold kind stranger!",
"The more you fight them, the more fodder for recruitment they have.\n\nTerror is the end goal. Our reaction is their fuel. The more we fight them, the less they grow.",
"We're fighting ourselves, that's why. The middle East is the CIA, (ISIS, Al Qaeda), vs the Pentagon. That's why it's called \"theater\". It's a show put on by the 'military industrial complex' Eisenhower warned us about in order to milk us dry. It's a big drug dealing, gun running, pedo ring using our military bases to smuggle contraband and sex slaves around the world while avoiding customs. Heroin from Vietnam was smuggled in the coffins of dead soldiers for cryin' out loud. Of course these psychos don't wanna shut it down and it won't stop until we stop'em. ",
"so many bad answers here. The primary reason is that all the big entities are not actually fighting them on the ground. The US, and to a lesser extent other western powers, will bomb them from time to time. But due to concerns about collateral damage, they just don't carpet bomb an ISIS town. It's just a small air strike here and a small air strike there. \n\nTo actually defeat them you need ground forces. None of the major forces - including the Syrian army - are fighting ISIS on the ground. The biggest one doing so is the Iraqi army, which is in the process of pushing them out of Mosul. But again, they don't want to just turn their own city into rubble and don't want to kill their own civilians trapped there. So it is very slow and methodical fighting.\n\nISIS has been losing ground for a long time. But this mix of no large armies fighting them + slow advances so as not to kill civilians = slow progress. ",
"We dont want to destroy ISIS rather prop them up and make them an enemy so we can keep building bombs and weapons. The Middle East was more stable before the US invaded. When you take people out of power like Saddam it creates a vacuum and more chaos",
"A lot of good answers. One fact that seems to be missing is the logistics of where the strongholds are. ISIS and others do not just sit in a camp in the middle of nowhere in the desert. They are smart enough to realize that the US won't go bombing recklessly heavily populated areas. (Yes, we have killed civilians even though it has not been admitted). Mosul was taken by ISIS and the only way to flush them out is one by one on the ground unless you want to carpet bomb the whole city and deal with the backlash of killing thousands of innocents. This approach would just breed more hate to us and we end up back at square one with a new leader emerging and starting another Islamic group and naming it something different. We will go through dozens of Islamic groups like ISIS in our lifetime. In ten years it could cycle back to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Most likely, a current student of Al-Baghdadi will break off on his own and create an even more radical group in the foothills of Iraq.",
"Religion and ideological values set a foundation but ISIS is unique in how it has grown beyond just \"cult status.\" The reasons for this are vast and highly connected to their financial funding, social media presence, the global awareness of the group, and ability to recruit across borders. \n\nWe could talk about the drive to create a caliphate - essentially an Islamic State as the name ISIS would suggest. This has grounding in the Koran though no doubt Islamic scholars always debate the details just like we see in other major religions. This is part of the reasons for having different denominations and sects. Religion is a fluid thing and never concrete, which is why they can persist for extended periods of time. All this said, I find the religious aspect to be to simple to explain the power of ISIS. \n\nI should add I work in Compliance (AML and terrorist financing are my focus). I think the financial and media driven elements paint a larger story of how ISIS continues to exist so well. \n\nMuch of ISIS recruitment is done online and in places where people are at their lowest and most susceptible to promises of a better life - or promises of providing some better standing with a higher power. Jails throughout the EU are an example breeding ground. The uncomfortable thing about this is it is not a unique strategy - every religion or life changing ideological organization (like AA) provide similar services. We consider most religious visitors or organizations dedicated to, at least, social norming such as with AA when the goal is to convert alcoholics to non-alcohol driven lifestyles. Islam is not exempt from this and is generally accepted through much of the word - and heavily through policy in countries under Islamic law and EU countries as well (which some consider to be a contributing factor to ISIS attacks in Belgium and France for example). \n\nThe recruitment is critical because it not only provides a \"body,\" but everything that body can provide. While some become fighters and even smaller numbers suicide bombers or executioners, most become just a part of the ISIS nation. The soldiers need food, places to stay, work and money to fund equipment, etc. Some of these people involved in the ISIS network may be by force - as may be the case with many business owners forced to pay money to ISIS just to exist. They also own and receive money from much of the oil flowing out of the Middle East, adding a serious amount of revenue into their coffers. \n\nIn order for the caliphate to work, there needs to be a functional economy. While it's disputable to what extent ISIS really operates a standalone economy - I have seen examples of a possible currency created for ISIS members used to pay for goods and services. I have also heard of members being paid salaries - for fighters this is extra concerning as no doubt mercenary types may not care for the religious experience, but more for the financial opportunity. Recruitment of foreigners often begins with some coercion of having basic needs met with money, housing, a social group, etc. Situations like this help show how ISIS is not just a religious institution, as even the non-religious can benefit if they are valuable enough - and everyone is valuable, even if you are just a body a bomb can be strapped too. \n\nPulling from my work experiences evaluation merchant relationships with generally large corporations of the world, I can tell you screening measures are often lax and to some extent arbitrary. It is made worse by organizations wanting to save money so they do the bare minimum required to remain \"compliant.\" This has meant half-assing documentation required to do business with new merchants, for example. \n\nStill, when the vetting system works correctly, it is still difficult. The key to defeating ISIS is to remove their money flows - but this is made difficult to do as they do not just use traditional banking systems but also Islamic banks, hawala exchanges, cryptocurrencies, etc. All of these things paired with organizational layering on an international level helps ISIS breed the money it needs and, importantly, keeping it available and accessible when needed with little concern for being discovered as associated with ISIS. \n\nWhen it comes to financing ISIS, it can be difficult to determine just when money is being used by or for ISIS. Most money is not being sent via PayPal to \"ISIS.\" Some send money to front business set up by the ISIS organization such as the Al-Aqsa Foundation which is found on many terrorist watch lists now. Other times a person pays for a regular service or good - like food at a grocery store - and the store owner ten cuts a check to an ISIS member who can deposit into an account used for purchasing guns and housing for soldiers. You can see how the rabbit hole can become very deep. \n\nThe hardest part in all this from a Compliance industry perspective (or obviously my own take on the industry I am professionally involved in) is that things operate on hindsight and predictive analytics. It's easy to flag a terrorist after they kill someone and are captured from a battle ground, less easy to identify people who haven't done anything illegal. After all, like I said, some ISIS supporters don't go to war and just provide a home to live in or a personal check. Not illegal until you can connect the person receiving the funds with ISIS and depending on location the intention of the individual providing the service or money. \n\nThe last stop in this overview is at the level of governments - and how they are motivated by money and self-preservation in most instances, above all. When financing of terrorism comes from the state level - true power is really provided to ISIS. An example outside of the world of terrorism is the development of the country of Israel not too long ago. It required a push from countries around the world for land to be granted to the Jewish people so they would have a permanent state. In the same way, the goal of the Islamic caliphate is to create a state (or world) for Muslims. Microcosms of this exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran that having Islamic banks and Sharia law systems.\n\n ISIS is terrifying because they are emulating past state creations but now with a camera constantly affixed on them - but often controlled as well. ISIS has some top tier marketers and video/photo editors out there and this has allowed them to breed fear and submission on a global stage. Yes, politicians may speak out against them and people hold candlelight vigils outside of terror sites, but these things do not control ISIS. They manipulate every word to new propagandas - some of which you can readily keep up with in your language of choice through the ISIS magazine DABIQ. \n\nMy end thoughts - you have to kill the money trail. It's not as simple as we would like it to be and is made worst by corruption at the state level where terrorism can easily be funded. Engaging in actual war is probably mostly useless, especially if war is fought by just killing a handful here and there in isolated situations. It's largely symbolic as it makes people feel like actions are being taken to remove the threat, but for some embedded in the theology of ISIS every death brings one closer to god. As a result, many with ISIS seem to lack a fear of death, a factor that makes them a different enemy than just \"going to war with the German Nazis.\" ISIS is truly terrifying for me as they can be an invisible enemy when they want to be, and few will stand in their way. \n",
"ISIS is a manifestation of ideology of an oppressed people. Many religions like Christianity and Judaism trace their roots to oppression and non-conformity to prevailing power structures, beliefs and elites. ISIS can and will be defeated but with the seemingly intractable conflict in the Middle East it seems the ideology itself will continue to evolve and spawn new manifestations. The question could rephrased to 'Why is an ideology difficult to defeat'? Ideas can never be defeated but radicalisation can be. When pursuit of any ideology becomes rabid societies tend to self-correct. There will always be opportunists who see gold and power in fomenting and correcting adjustments. Sometimes opportunists and extremists trip over each other.\n",
"ISIS is never going to end. Terrorism in general is never going to end. It's a religious cause, that spreads the message of slaughtering the non-believing masses, in the name of Allah. People actively come join the cause, not the army itself. So even if we came to defeat their leaders, take back the territory they stole, the message is gonna expand across the entire world. Those that believe in the cause are gonna wreak havoc on those they deem unjust, for the evil governments have banded against their religion and destroyed the caliph that is Abu Bakr al-Baghadi, or whoever it is now, and they'll keep on rebelling. And a lot more attacks are gonna be happening soon, in Germany, in France, in Italy, in the U.S... Everywhere really.\n\nDon't see it as an army, that easily might get destroyed by reaching the very center and source. See it as an extremely reactive disease, ever expanding across the globe. And if we keep trying to grip into it, worse will follow. Remember when the gripped in on Iraq? ISIS was created. Now, I'm saddened to say this, but I truly believe worse will follow, if we grip into ISIS now.",
"You can never win a war against a noun. The war on drugs will never work, nor will the war on terror. A uniformed and cohesive enemy you can defeat, not a noun. ",
"We keep buying their oil, and they stole a bunch of gold from Iraq and Libya.\n\nHope that is ELI5 :D\n\nThe Gold:\n\nAfter uncertainty began arising in the future of oil price stability, Sadam and Gadafi started investing their oil revenue into other commodities that were more stable, like gold. After their governments were taken down, this gold stockpile was plundered and disappeared.\n\nReports indicate that Libya has somewhere around 7 billion in Gold and Silver commodities stockpiled, while Iraq had something like 14 billion unaccounted for. This is enough to fund these terrorist groups for some time, and happened when such an event would have been impossible to track. The fact that these commodities existed is not really debated, just who took them. I think we can safely assume a large amount of it went to funding ISIS at this point. ",
"It comes down to getting the local population on your side. If you agitate them, don't work well with them etc. They turn on you and just see you as an outside threat. They recruit people easily becasue there are so many people who have been directly affected by a bombing. Put yourself in their position, you live in the middle of a desert, you believe in an afterlife and an all powerful creator. Then some guy comes along and kills your niece with a rocket. You are now incredibly mad. Then this other guy in your village says it's from the terrible west, (which it generally is), and says that if you help him you can get back at the people who did this. He says there are people in the community who are working with the people who killed your niece. And we need to find them and kill them before more people die. Then a big rebel force rolls into your village, parading around with flags, makeshift military armored trucks, etc. They are saying they are going to go fight back against the people who are bombing them. Now after all this your family has fallen apart, maybe you are watching day in day out as your city gets bombed, maybe it's just the radical interpretations of holy books that eventually gets to you. Either way you are hopped up on religious koolaid, you are incredibly pissed off, and someone just gave you the means to get back at the people who have more or less destroyed your life. And all you have to do is join us. That is how people get radicalized, war after war after war for decades. I'm going to say this as non politically as possible. The US is very heavily indirectly funding ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The US provides a massive amount of funding and weapons to Saudi Arabia. Source [1](_URL_2_),[2](_URL_13_),[3](_URL_5_),[4](_URL_4_) Then Saudi Arabia Turns around and funds terrorist groups all over the world. Source [1](_URL_11_),[2](_URL_8_),[3](_URL_1_),[4](_URL_3_) The reason that they don't stop funding is becasue the military industrial complex [makes hundreds of billions of dollars from these wars](_URL_0_). [And when the military industrial complex has their hands in the pockets of the people in power](_URL_10_), the people in power tend to not want to stop the wars. There are also many other reasons as to why it's hard to stop a group like ISIS. It's easy to retake the land, the US by itself could probably defeat ISIS in under 4 days if it committed to it. It's very very hard to do so without creating a power vacuum and making things worse in the process. Source: the current state of the middle east and the war in Iraq. Historically there have been two ways to deal with a problem like this. One you go in and kill literally everyone, civilians, military and take the rest as slaves, and destroy every memory and building made by the people you are against. [See the annihilation of Carthage, third Punic war.](_URL_12_) The second is a far far better solution. You withdraw your military, set up a border make sure they can't invade you. Then wait for a while. From this point three things might happen. [One the people themselves with rise up and put an end to the current rule.](_URL_6_) [Two the economy will collapse and a new government will form.](_URL_9_) or three [the established government or your own government will try and make economic ties with the country to try and persuade them to change themselves through trade deals, or other kinds of deals](_URL_7_). Keep in mind the second of the two options might well fail and you are back to the beginning. However it's the best option for reducing loss of life. That is just looking at how things have played out in history, it very well might be that none of those things happen and something else that no one has yet thought of will happen. Only time will tell. ",
"Who says we are actually trying to defeat them?",
"You cannot shoot idealogy. You cannot kill ideas. The whole idea of a war on terror is ridiculous. You cannot war against an idea. The only way to defeat terrorism is to heal the idealogical rifts that created the terrorists in the first place.",
"Because the forces that are fighting them (the US) is also supporting and arming them. Isis gives the US a reason to be in the middle East to further their oil interests",
"Us govt keeps pouring weapons into the region, and losing shit all over the place. Like millions in cash was lost in iraq.",
"You and Mr. ISIS are having a 1v1 knife fight in public. When you begin to approach he grabs a bystander and cuts their throat then grabs another one. He says if you take another step this guy dies too. How would you go about winning the knife fight? ",
"What else are the news gonna spin between adverts?",
"Because you can kill the fighter but you can't kill the idea. (Islam)\n\nSome other bastard will pick it up and keep fight going in a matter of time under a different name like Mujahideen, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and so on. \n\nAlso, with all the weird rules we have against us in war, we have our hands tied behind our backs and can't end them so ruthlessly that people fear joining them like we used to in WWII.\n\n",
"Becuase everyone wants to be free. But are unwilling to do what it takes, becuase no one wants to look like a bully when we wipe out an entire religion that want to take over the. World.",
"They're actually Israeli agents trying to destablise Arab oil producing countries. ISIS cannot be stopped until this truth is know to the world at large.",
"It's politically convenient to have them around. Want to scare up some votes? Say ISIS is growing and your opponent is weak on ISIS. Already in power and want some more? Say ISIS is planning an imminent attack and you need more control to protect everyone. \n\nHave pesky protesters and want to jail them? Point to ISIS and say you're the more humane one since you're not beheading them like ISIS. \n\nNeed a pump in your approval ratings? Kill an ISIS #2. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://deadstate.org/u-s-airstrikes-drive-isis-recruitment-down-to-just-200-new-fighters-a-month/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-14/congresswoman-says-us-arming-isis-introduces-bill-stop-it"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/a/PD3GO",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s0whp/eli5_why_is_a_terrorist_organization_like_isis_so/ddccx1b"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5woZG9fQtqo"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/",
"http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/",
"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/obama-administration-offered-115-billion-weapons-saudi-arabia-report",
"http://thefreethoughtproject.com/clinton-us-govt-saudi-funding-isis/",
"http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ",
"http://www.independent.co.uk/us/saudi-arabia-us-arms-deal-weapons-sale-tanks-guns-barack-obama-a7182186.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions",
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/22/obama-strengthens-iran-deal-over-gop-outcry/94286304/",
"http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union",
"https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=D",
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-clinton-foundation-isis-same-money-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-a7397211.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carthage_\\(c._149_BC\\)",
"http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-defense-congress-idUSKCN11R2LU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
atkh1r | muscle atrophy | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/atkh1r/eli5_muscle_atrophy/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh1l4sw",
"eh1nmh7",
"eh1rs7i"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A decrease in muscle mass. Commonly seen in sick/elderly people (who are bed ridden). Not using the muscles shrinks them.",
"Muscles take a huge amount of resources to maintain. If it isn't being used, such as if you are bedridden or have nerve damage, it will shrink (atrophy). This will also occur if your body really needs nutrients, like in severe protein deficiency. \n\nInterestingly, your muscles have (approximately) the same number of cells regardless of if they are big or small; they grow by increasing the size of individual muscle cells, not by increasing the number of cells. ",
"If you don’t use it, you lose it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
e6c8j1 | why does food soften when heated? | I don't mean melting things like cheese or butter, but like a tortilla that is more rigid at room temperature, and then fluppy when heated (before crisping up when heated more). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e6c8j1/eli5_why_does_food_soften_when_heated/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9p6qhr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a couple reasons. In some cases there are components that become less rigid when warmed. In tortillas there is often some fat that will heat up and become softer.\n\nAnother reason is that any existing water will turn to steam and make things softer. Like steaming wood to bend it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2c2dyx | after being hit with tranquilizer darts, is the target ever at risk of seriously injuring themselves by collapsing onto the dart with it pushing into them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c2dyx/eli5_after_being_hit_with_tranquilizer_darts_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjb9hyk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is also minimized since the dart has small needle for a nose but then is fairly large and flat to stop it from going too deep. Most likely if someone were to fall on it it would just break off the needle rather than going any deeper. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9sg3s5 | how do belly buttons form? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9sg3s5/eli5_how_do_belly_buttons_form/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8ohgfu",
"e8otblp"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's the place where your umbilical cord was attached to you in utero. It was used to bring oxygen and nutrients to you as a fetus. Once cut after birth it heals into the belly button ",
"Yeah the umbilical cord just dries up and falls off on its own. This happens because the blood vessels inside it contract down hard after birth, occluding them, and then they fibrose. It basically just dries out and falls off. \n\nFor what it’s worth, I think it’s pretty cool and unique. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
v8bqb | air mile/frequent flyer credit cards | Hi, I just turned 20 and am looking into applying for a credit card. I have saved all the money that hasn't gone directly to rent, living expenses, or tuition since I was 16, and fully intend to pay off the balance in full every month.
That being said, I have no idea what in the world an Air Mile/Frequent flyer credit card is and how they work. I know my parents have one that they put their large purchases on, and I have the option of getting one, but is it worth getting that over a rewards card? Also, is it limited to what carrier fulfills it? Are those cards the reason people board hours before me at the air port? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/v8bqb/eli5_air_milefrequent_flyer_credit_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"c527whq",
"c5296br",
"c53e2v2"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Any sort of \"rewards\" credit card works the same as a regular credit card. The only difference is that the issuer will offer an incentive for you to use the card, in the form of \"rewards.\"\n\nBasically, the way credit card companies can afford to \"reward\" you with anything such as mileage or redeemable points is that every time a credit card is swiped, the issuer gets a small percentage of the overall purchase, charged as a fee to the merchant swiping the card. The issuer then gives you an even smaller percentage back as a \"reward\" for using their card.\n\nNow that this has been established, the way the credit card issuer chooses to reward you is variable. People who travel often may opt in for a card that rewards them with airline mileage, whereas other people who like cash back may choose a card that rewards them a percentage back on groceries or gas.\n\n > Also, is it limited to what carrier fulfills it?\n\nUsually, yes. Check with the company issuing the credit card for more details on how you can redeem your rewards. There is no \"standard\" for how these things work, it is up to each individual issuer to setup their rewards program however they'd like.",
"Air mile cards are just one kind of rewards cards. If you pay off the balance every month, you might as well use a rewards card as the fee for using a credit card has basically already been built into the price of what you are buying.\n\nMost airlines offer a credit card that is linked with their own frequent fliers program. If you spend enough on the card and/or fly enough this can give you additional perks like boarding early. It varies a lot from airline to airline though so do your research.\n\nCC issuers deliberately make their rewards structure opaque and hard to understand (e.g., rewards change after 3 months or the value of a \"point\"). I would try and find a trusted 3rd party site that reviews credit cards. I found this one online: _URL_0_",
"At 20, unless you really want/need those miles I'd forgo the airline cards in favor of a standard rewards card. While CC issuers *do* make the rewards tier a tricky game to follow, the right cards have locked rewards that can be useful. My AmEx gets me 3% points on groceries, so it generally only comes out at the market. My Amazon Visa is 3% on Amazon purchases, so that's where it gets used. Shop at Target? Their card is 5%, applied at the register. I use the different cards exclusively (no debit, no cash if I can) and by paying off the balance *every month* I make back around $500 a year between them. Which is a month of free rent. :) As none of the cards have an annual fee, this costs me nothing.\n\nTwo handy websites that will evaluate your needs and make recommendations for CCs that are appropriate to your situation are [Credit Sesame](_URL_1_) and [Credit Karma](_URL_0_). Both require your social security number to access your financial information, but they're legit.\n\nMost importantly, ask yourself why you want the CC. Are you interested in building credit? Just want it in your pocket in case of an emergency? CC issuers rely on people being careless with their cards, and the effects a CC *will* have on your credit are far-reaching. Do your research and find the right, no-fee CC for your needs. Establishing good credit at your age is easy and so, so important. You don't want to be walking back mistakes made today years from now, and barring some uncomfortable alternatives -- bankruptcy, going into financial hiding for seven years -- these decisions will be with you that long."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/december/money/credit-card-deals/compare-credit-cards/index.htm"
],
[
"http://www.creditkarma.com/",
"http://www.creditsesame.com/"
]
]
|
|
4ieo4m | here in the uk we are one of the windiest countries in the world, but also very northerly with quite weak sunlight, so why is there such a big push here for solar power as opposed to wind? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ieo4m/eli5_here_in_the_uk_we_are_one_of_the_windiest/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2xf9qw",
"d2xfd5x"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm no expert, but as far as I know it's because:\n\na) Solar panels can be fitted on your house personally, whereas wind farms need to be done on an industrial scale, and there needs to be new groundwork set out (i.e. To get electricity from point A to point B).\n\nb) Solar panels don't produce any noise, and people are less likely to complain about them being unsightly, whilst there are many groups who are opposed to wind farms due to the noise and the ugliness of them.",
"Wind power can be very inefficient, whereas a good solar panel receives the sun through thick cloud cover. \n\nWind turbines need electricity to get them going in the first place, and they don't actually produce that much power. My secondary school got a little (around 12m high) wind turbine to make themselves look green, and that thing won't pay itself off in energy produced for decades, whereas the solar panels that they put on the roof of every building paid themselves off within a few years. Now the school is completely carbon neutral (meaning it produces all of the energy it needs) in summer. \n\nWith solar power you get near-constant sunlight. Sure there are peak hours, but the sun is always overhead during the day, and gone at night. In contrast, wind power is nowhere near as reliable: there can be no wind, too little wind, even too much wind. I was in Devon and Cornwall during the January/February storm in 2014, and I saw a lot of shattered wind turbines that were either completely broken or had been disabled, pending repairs.\n\nSo in summary, the basic technology behind wind power is nowhere near as advances as solar power, on top of that wind power is reliant on a very unreliable resource. Offshore windfarms are superior to land-based windfarms in about every regard, which is why there was a big movement a few years ago to install a lot of them in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland (which pissed off Donald Trump).\n\nThe one advantage wind has over solar is space: solar farms require vast amounts of space to be covered, and there really isn't much of that in the UK. With wind turbines, a large amount of them can be installed in a relatively small area for their size.\n\nIf you are looking to make a property more energy efficient, invest in solar power, not wind. If I recall correctly the government will actually pay you for providing to the national grid if you produce a surplus amount of energy (although the government might have axed that)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2pdbf9 | why build streetcars/trolleys when busses work fine? | I have a hard time understanding what benefits do streetcars have over busses as a form of public transportation in cities. Streetcars need to stop at traffic light, just like busses and they move at similar speeds. If you need a form of public transit that isn't inhibited by traffic lights, light rail and subways should work (albeit a bit expensive.)
But I don't understand the value added by spending lots of money building rail tracks on roads and running streetcars on them. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pdbf9/eli5why_build_streetcarstrolleys_when_busses_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmvllrb",
"cmvmtw4",
"cmvmuq1",
"cmvoqhe"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Streetcars have higher capacity than buses, and are cheaper to operate. So, yes, there's a larger investment up front, and you can't easily or cheaply change their route. But over the long term, on a route that will always have a lot of traffic, a streetcar will be much cheaper to operate.",
"I don't know what the official reasoning is, but I think it makes a lot of sense to put in streetcars in areas that get a lot of tourist traffic. Bus lines are complicated and intimidating, particularly for those not used to traveling by bus. Whenever I travel by bus, I'm never entirely sure that I've gotten on the right bus or that I won't end up in the absolute wrong place because a bus can literally go anywhere the street goes. \n\nStreetcars and trains, on the other hand, can only go where the tracks go so the opportunities for screwing up are limited. Also, if you do make a mistake, you can easily fix it by getting off and back on going the opposite way. Streetcars just feel safer and easier to tackle for someone who isn't familiar with a city, which is why I was thrilled when my city started putting in new streetcar lines in some of the most popular tourist areas.",
"In addition to what Teekno says, developers like streetcars and subways better than bus routes.\n\nDevelopers take public transportation into account before investing in building a new project. A bus line can be moved on a whim, so they are less sure it'll be there. A subway or streetcar line will not be moved easily, so the developer can count on it and be more confident in his project.",
"Around a century ago the question was the reverse, we have busses because of tire and gas businesses."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4izjmn | why haven't holograms, similar in design to that of the tupac one, been used in more everyday scenarios such as advertising or display cases etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4izjmn/eli5_why_havent_holograms_similar_in_design_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d32fibp",
"d32gf5w",
"d32gs0e",
"d32kudf"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
22,
4
],
"text": [
"Money. That hologram was estimated to cost somewhere between $100 000 and $400 000. Also known as most products' entire advertising budget, and your average billboard doesn't have several technicians being paid $1000 a day (at minimum- someone able to pull that off probably got to name their price) to make sure they keep working. ",
"I'll add that the conditions for viewing holograms must be just right for it to work. It won't work out in the open in daylight, so a dark room, a stable platform that does not vibrate, and you need to control the vibration in the air as well.\n\nCheck out this [How Stuff Works article](_URL_0_) for more info",
"Tupac wasn't a real hologram, it was just a projection against glass using an old Victorian theatre trick called [peppers ghost](_URL_0_)",
"There are in fact holograms (technically Pepper's Ghost Illusions) in use in everyday scenarios. For examole, there is (or was) one in use at [Birmingham Airport](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram2.htm"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost#Concerts"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkLXJwCm2Lg"
]
]
|
||
7s8fbo | why are animals seemingly terrible about judging when to cross the road? fov issue? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7s8fbo/eli5_why_are_animals_seemingly_terrible_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt2rguj",
"dt2ri4v"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"A lot of animals actually have a much better FOV than humans. I think the explanation to this is that they don't just cross when a car is coming, but the only time we really notice an animal crossing is when they jump in front of our cars. An animal can cross a road many times when no cars are around so it thinks that it is always safe to cross until it's not.",
"Having watched a bunch of different types of animals cross roads for years, I'd have to disagree with you. A few animals will jump out into traffic, but most calmly wait for it to pass before they walk, scurry or scamper across.\n\nAs a result, in more densely populated areas, this has actually been naturally selected for.\n\nThe exception to this rule tends to be animals that travel in groups: the lead animal waits for a gap in traffic. The rest of the group then follows along behind, even if the gap has already gone past. So you'll see raccoons, opossum, rats, deer, moose, sheep, etc. where the *first* animal crossed the road safely, and one of the trailing animals panics and crosses when it isn't safe so they don't get cut off from the rest of the group.\n\nIncidentally, this happens with people too. Watch a group of kids jaywalking; the first one checks for a safe gap when they can cross; then invariably the rest dash after the first, no matter whether it is safe to do so or not."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
98yd83 | hearing aids | How do hearing aids improve one’s poor sense of sound? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98yd83/eli5_hearing_aids/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4jn60f"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They are custom programmed to amplify the frequencies of sound (usually high pitch) in which the wearer has lost. If the hearing loss is too profound, bone anchored hearing aids or cochlear implants transmit the auditory vibrations without using the ear drum. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5rwxu4 | how do they determine that a country lost/gained x thousand job at a specific point in time or for a specific reason? isn't the number constantly changing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rwxu4/eli5_how_do_they_determine_that_a_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddayde6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > How do they determine that a country lost/gained x thousand job at a specific point in time\n\nSurveys mainly. In the US, the agency in control of this is the BLS:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTheir website goes into more detail, but basically they survey companies across the country. However, generally they can't really get more specific than monthly data, and even that is extremely noisy. \n\nThey also look at things like prices (they used to have people go into stores and look at certain representative goods, but i think it's starting to become more automated), and track those as well\n\n > for a specific reason? \n\nFor the most part, they don't have a specific reason, but they can look at specific industries. It's pretty easy to see \"manufacturing went up x%\". Figuring out why is extremely difficult to do.\n\nIt can be done occasionally, but it's a mix of two things- theory (well, if we have more robots, manufacturing jobs should probably go down, so we can attribute x% to this), or comparing different regions. However, there aren't always good comparisons, so it makes this *extremely* tricky. Even if you do have good comparisons, you almost never have a situation where only 1 variable is changed, which makes it even trickier.\n\n > Isn't the number constantly changing?\n\nYup, which is why the number is so noisy. They can do some corrections based on future months, and there is some inherent error. But you can still get a general picture.\n\nGenerally speaking, you don't need to know how many jobs are down +/- exactly 1. +/- say, a thousand, is more than close enough, when you're looking at such a large population"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.bls.gov/"
]
]
|
||
bids1a | when people say that they called “their lawyer” when they need assistance with random legal matters or even after getting arrested, do they have someone hired beforehand? does the average person need a general attorney ready to call at all times? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bids1a/eli5_when_people_say_that_they_called_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"elzvcgd",
"elzvp73",
"elzvtiv",
"elzvukw",
"elzw78f",
"elzxuu8",
"elzypnr",
"elzzbdy",
"elzziqs",
"elzzm2r",
"elzzo5n",
"elzzpez",
"elzztru",
"elzzxwz",
"em004up",
"em009cj",
"em00evs",
"em0140l",
"em01gbf"
],
"score": [
12,
77,
37,
8,
3,
71,
8,
5,
4,
3,
6,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some people (usually very wealthy or who are in court a lot) keep a lawyer on retainer. Otherwise most people saying that probably just have a phone number. Maybe they've worked with that lawyer before too.",
"Some people and businesses have a lawyer \"on retainer,\" meaning that they pay the lawyer a fee to have them available should the person/business ever need the lawyer's help in the future. People in certain professions or who deal with lots of contractual issues may have lawyers on retainer, but it's rare for a typical person to have such an arrangement. \n\nWhen an average person says \"my lawyer,\" it likely refers to a lawyer to be picked later, a lawyer who they previously hired (even if the lawyer hasn't agreed to take the new case), or a friend who is a lawyer and would be likely to assist them.",
"Got a call from a client one day, I answered to hear him say, \"Oops, I hit the wrong speed dial button.\" There are some clients that use services often enough that you're pretty clearly their lawyer.",
"You can call most lawyers to briefly inquire into your matter. This doesn’t mean you’ll hire them for that matter, but a lawyer will likely be willing to provide very basic information in hopes you will retain them. Later, the person may retain the lawyer to assist them with the matter.\n\nOtherwise, they’re probably talking about a lawyer they’ve dealt with or hired before. They’ve briefly called them and have had some sort of preliminary conversation about the matter. The lawyer is probably hoping they’ll retain them again.",
"If you know a lawyer that you normally hire for your matters, that's \"your lawyer\" the chances of that person needing to be on constant retainer is extremely low, but some people do need that, and keep it. It's the same as saying \"my contractor\" is the one person I call when I need work done.",
"As a former police officer I can say that a good number (not all) of people use that as a scare tactic or to make themselves appear like they have some protection so that accusers will back off or take a lighter approach. \n\nThe fact being that unless you’re in a job which affords you an attorney on retainer and you’re using that attorney for advice on work related issues, the “I’m calling my lawyer” statement is bullshit. Or this person has been in enough trouble that they are using this as an out. \n\nWhen a person has told me “I feel I need to contact a lawyer before we talk” then it makes total sense. That’s not defensive compared to “I’m calling my lawyer”. It’s like “ok fella, let me know how that works out for you”. It’s all in the context and posturing.\n\nI bought a new house 2 years ago and hired a lawyer to go over all the paperwork with me. He is “my lawyer” with regards to the sale of the house. And when I hit a brick wall with the developers on some warranty issues I called him “my lawyer” for sale of the house and issues pertaining to the house. If I got arrested for shoplifting and needed a lawyer, he would not be my lawyer. I dunno if he’s even seen the inside of a court room. He handles real estate law. \n\nBoth my cousins and my uncle are lawyers. None of them are “my lawyers” other than being family lol. \n\nAs I said, it’s all context and usually a statement made as a defensive tactic rather than reality.",
"Very few people have lawyers standing by: it's called having them \"on retainer\" and almost no \"regular people\" do it. Mostly just larger businesses, the mega wealthy, or people who constantly use lawyers on a regular basis for whatever reason. \n\nIn almost all cases, they either A) mean they're going to call \"**a**\" lawyer, and saying \"my\" lawyer just sounds more impressive, or B) are simply lying in an attempt to be intimidating.",
"If you are in business in the US, do over 500k a year and/or have employees or write contracts you should have a regular lawyer. You don’t need one on retainer, but it is great to have one that is somewhat familiar with your business.",
"I have a CPA to help with tax preparation since I have more than copy/pasting w2 boxes. I've signed over \"Power of attorney\" for him to talk to the IRS on my behalf if they come knocking.\n\nThey did come knocking once, claiming I hadn't even filed like 2 years previously. It turned out it was a F up on their end. That was the closest \"talk to my attorney\" situation I've had.\n\nAnd clearly that's a very specific domain, not someone I'd be calling up if I ended up in jail.\n\nEdit: Well if I ended up in jail for tax related reasons then he'd probably be involved.",
"Sister is a lawyer, so if I ever get into a situation she has friends that she can refer me too.",
"I work in insurance claims. We get this all the time from people who think it's going to scare more money out of us. Truth is, your adjuster would rather deal with a relatively sane lawyer instead of your crazy high maintenance ass. So we ask them for the lawyer's name, and 9.5/10 they don't really have one.",
"Many people will have dealt with a lawyer in some capacity or are friends/acquaintances with a lawyer. Everyone should at least have someones name and number around.\n\nIts the person that you would would first contact to get the lay of the land\n\nMy guy is a bankruptcy attorney but I would call him for a criminal matter first and he would be able to do day one stuff and then help find someone to take over the real meat of the case after",
"My father throughout his career always had a lawyer on hand because he dealt with IT instructional material that he needed copyrighted. Way back, my father briefly took on a business partner who he later found out was using my father's copyrighted material without his knowledge. I remember my dad telling me that once he found this out, he immediately called his business partner to say, \"I've called my lawyer. You'll be hearimg from us soon.\", and hung up on him.",
"I have a lawyer on retainer just in case. I paid him 1k a couple of years back and it just sits there. If I ever need something from him, I have him do it, then bring the retainer back up to 1k. \n\nWhen I pass away, I have directions on what he is to do with the retainer in my will (which he prepared), so I don't lose the money.\n\nIt's like having a lawyer credit card.",
"I have close friends who are lawyers, they’re really good friends to have. I had a major issue with my employer and she was the first person I called. She got me connected with a local specialist and that lawyer was able to significantly help me out and create a much better outcome. While I’m not a fan of people who are constantly litigious you do need to have a plan. As my friend said “if they have a lawyer you need a lawyer, that’s just how it works.”",
"No. That would be referred to as having a lawyer on retainer. Lawyers charge somewhere in the ballpark of $300-500/hr, so having one on retainer (available all the time) is something the average person cannot afford. Usually this involves a significant downpayment to retain them, and a reduced rate to keep them on retainer. You're basically paying them a salary to make sure they're available to represent you at all times. \n\nThe only ones who would have a lawyer on retainer is companies or rich people. Your average citizen only uses a lawyer when they need them and pay their hourly rate for whatever incident they need representation for. When someone goes off about \"their lawyer\" chances are what they're actually talking about is the lawyer they used to fight a traffic ticket 3 years ago who doesn't even remember their name. Which is just as good as having a lawyer's number, which everyone has access to. It means nothing more than \"they will get a lawyer.\"",
"The phrase \"my lawyer\" is ambiguous. There are three different interpretations:\n\n1. **X has a lawyer on retainer**. This means X pays a monthly fee to an attorney to handle whatever matters come up. The lawyer may work exclusively for X/X's company or may have other clients as well. The key is that this lawyer is being compensated to carve out a piece of his time to devote exclusively to X. This is obviously incredibly expensive so unless the person you're talking to is rich af this is not the case.\n\n2. **X has worked with an attorney in the past***. The average person needs legal services fairly infrequently. When they need something they go to a lawyer and pay a one-time fee for a one-time service. I'm talking wills, property deeds, lawsuits, one-off consultation, whatever. So when X says \"my lawyer\" they really mean that they will call this attorney and arrange for him to handle the matter in question. How dishonest their claim of \"having a lawyer\" is is kind of up for interpretation. If X has regular dealings with said lawyer it kind of holds water. If X is talking about the guy who wrote their mom's will 20 years ago then they're just bullshitting. Which leads me to point three...\n\n3. **X is bullshitting**. Incredibly likely. X is just trying to scare the person they're talking to into giving them what they want.",
"wait do people actually say this?",
"People who have a lawyer have no need to advertise it. Their lawyer would get into contact with you. The person more than likely would let you figure that out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5j5scw | why is the deposit 10 cents in michigan, while it's 5 cents on other states? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j5scw/eli5_why_is_the_deposit_10_cents_in_michigan/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbdw084"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"States do what they want. Some states set a deposit at 10 cents, some 5 cents, while others have none. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7cvd2h | why does moss/algae podaminantly grow on the north side of trees, houses etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cvd2h/eli5_why_does_mossalgae_podaminantly_grow_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpswj1j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The sun rises in the east and sets in the West and Generally in the northern hemisphere the Sun comes out of the South so the north side of buildings, trees, etc. Is the only side that doesn't receive direct sunlight and is thus the most likely to grow moss. The lack of direct sunlight results in dew, rain etc drying up the slowest on this side letting the moss grow."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4ddnt7 | why do so many houses have basements? isn't it cheaper to build another level than to dig? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ddnt7/eli5_why_do_so_many_houses_have_basements_isnt_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1pze9s",
"d1pzg7h",
"d1q0c0f",
"d1q14tu",
"d1q1nyv",
"d1q1r02",
"d1q48ky",
"d1q7hvn",
"d1q8scf",
"d1qa5ok",
"d1qaxvk",
"d1qbmz8",
"d1qcpma",
"d1qdvrn"
],
"score": [
115,
88,
7,
14,
2,
5,
3,
4,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually not. During construction at least, adding a basement is the cheapest way to add square footage to your home. Adding a second story to a home isn't as easy as it sounds - with a second floor, the first floor has to be engineered to hold up the weight of the second floor.\n\nAlso, in some areas, basements are beneficial as storm shelters. ",
"Building codes may require foundations to be below the frost line (the depth at which groundwater in the soil is expected to freeze).\n\nSince you have to dig down to lay the foundation, it makes sense to create a room rather than have a giant block of concrete. ",
"When building in certain areas, in order to build up, you also have to have specific foundation. If you're going to have a two story house, you still need a basement. Some people just prefer the basement (or the extremely popular walk out basement ranch style homes). \n\nThey're also handy for inclement weather. Many summer afternoons and evenings can be spent in the basement thanks to nasty storma. You might as well have an awesome place to stay since you'll be there anyway. ",
"Digging gives you more stability, so you can build taller, you don't have to worry about the house sinking if the ground gets too muddy. It's also good for storage as the temperature doesn't fluctuate underground. In an emergency, it can be used for shelter. ",
"One answer I haven't seen here is that it is sometimes easier to obtain planning permission. Going up may disturb both natural and architectural scenery, but going down doesn't, and is much easier to hide if you didn't get the permission in the first place. There was a recent(ish) article about this happening in London that I'll try and track down...",
"Building floors above or below the ground level both cost more money, the higher you go, the more economical it becomes to add one below i comparison to adding another floor above. Just what the tradeoffs are depend on available building materials and technologies.\n\nThat said, the primary purpose of a cellar is that the earth makes a really really good heat regulator, (eg: many caves in the world have almost constant temperatures year round and morning to night) This made underground storage one of the better options for both keeping food cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter- for instance, the dimly lit, cool, dry conditions in a properly constructed cellar are ideal for storing roots and vegetables like potatoes, onions, garlic, and so on.\n\nIt can also act as a convenient place to stash away furnaces, water heaters, and whatnot out of sight of the more livable parts of the house. (also, apparently, a basement is at least half way above curb level, and a cellar is at least half way below curb level, TIL)",
"You typically have to dig a little anyway, to set the foundation and run the utilities, so digging more doesn't represent that much extra expense.\n\nBut a lot of has to do with the local climate. If it is cold, you want to make sure your foundation is below the front line. If it is wet, you want to make sure it is *above* the water table.",
"In the Midwest, we need them because we get tornadoes, and the safest place to be during one is underground. I'm pretty sure most buildings in the Midwest legally have to have a basement in case of a tornado. ",
"Cellars are useful: being underground is a good place to be when tornadoes come calling, in cold climates they provide cold storage facilities, in cities they don't consume area, just add volume. In London UK in historic areas they aren't allowed to build up, so people are digging down, several stories down. Weird.",
"Basements in older homes in the south were used in summer for sleeping as its cooler below ground. Also food could be stored longer there. Before refrigeration people cut big chucks of ice from ponds and packed it with straw . Could last well into summer below ground in the cellar. Midwest homes needed basements for storm shelter. ",
"Surprised I haven't seen this yet: tornadoes. Granted, that's mostly regional and even then contingent on other factors (rocky soil, high water table).",
"We live in the Midwest. Living through a few tornados makes having a basement a HUGE plus in a house. Literally life/death difference. \n\nThe Uber really nice thing is if your basement isn't finished, you have the ability to have the rest of your house super nice, have a shit ton of storage, but at the same time not have to keep it 100% orderly all the time.\n\nTypically washers and driers are in the basement, too. Keeps them of of sight, out of mind. We also have a utility sink, central forced air heater and water heater, air con, etc. all of these are MUCH easier to access if you have a full basement to work in. Think of the alternative - crawling under your house and hoping nothing is living down there. No thanks. ",
"Doing my m.arch. surprised no one mentioned an important reason. \n\nOf course it's cheaper to go up, but in most (90+%) of residential neighborhoods, the max building height is under 35' (including roof).\n\nGiven those constrains, it's typically difficult to get a full 3 stories in that height, and so going down (where the foundation is going anyways) allows an extra floor of construction to be added. ",
"No one (at least in the top few posts) is discussing the fact that basements are usually not accounted into the limitations the municipalities post on house-owners in terms of built up area or maximum number of floors. For example, to give a *village* example since those are simpler, in my dad's home village the maximum allowed of \"above ground floors\" is 3 excluding the ground floor. The maximum percentage of land space one is allowed to build the building on is 40% of the total land space (so if the land is 100 squared meters or around 1000 squared feet, above ground floors can only have an area of 40 squared meter or 400 squared feet at most each). There are also restrictions regarding how much of each floor is allowed to be in balcony form and so forth.\n\nThese restrictions don't apply to basements in most cases I've seen. In the same village that I discussed above, you can keep going down with extra floors without any restrictions as long as you don't hit any water table or make the neighboring land unstable); I've seen as much as 5 basement floors on a 8-floor building (including those 5 floors). You can also utilize 100% of the land area to build on (i.e. you can use that whole 100 squared meters or around 1000 squared feet).\n\nNow the other aspects have been discussed: you usually need level the ground either way to build on (I almost never seen a land with leveled ground). Plus, in many instances you need to go a few meters or feet into the ground before you can lay the foundation because the top layer of soil is organic which is useless for construction (and damaging if anything). If you're going to have to dig a bit and work on leveling, then you might just at once go that extra mile and dig enough for a basement since you already mobilized all the digging equipment. In the case of a high rock-bed, however, digging is too costy that you're better off leveling your ground by adding material over the rockbed and then building upwards.\n\nThat's the general notion from an engineering perspective. One may also discuss how basements are safe in extreme storm situations and such.\n\nEDIT: I read a few more second and below level comments and noticed /u/NoUrImmature mentioned the points I discussed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4o7t8c | why the us president can only serve a set amount of terms in office when compared to australia where the pm can serve as many terms as they are voted in for. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o7t8c/eli5_why_the_us_president_can_only_serve_a_set/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4a9j5y",
"d4aaebo"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the beginning of America we didn't have election limits on the office of the president. However it had been tradition that no one served more than two terms because that is how many our first president George Washington served. This tradition however was broken by Franklin Roosevelt who served 4 terms as president. After him the US government then put in an amendment in our constitution limiting the office of the president to 2 terms of 4 years each. \n\nAMENDMENT XXII\nPassed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.\n\nSection 1.\nNo person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.\n\nSection 2.\nThis article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.",
"Two terms have been the tradition since Washington and Jefferson. Breaking that was considered extremely unpopular, Teddy Roosevelt tried it and got shot over it. Only FDR, an extremely popular president during a bad part in history, has ever broken that. The twenty second amendment puts the law into stone. The reasoning behind it was that a president whose in power for more than two terms gathers up both support and apathy. Eventually are just used to that person being in office and the presidential elections become a joke. Term limits are huge in developing countries for that very reason. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
atwrnl | why is palm oil in everything? what is it's purpose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/atwrnl/eli5_why_is_palm_oil_in_everything_what_is_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh3xlt4",
"eh3ymc2",
"eh3you7"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It extends the expiration time. It's used a lot in cosmetics for that,but you should avoid it in foods.",
"Palm oil is a type of vegetable fat that is semisolid at room temperature, you can compare it to olive oil that is liquid at room temperature. Most other fats are liquid at room temperatur or need to be refrigerated so the do not go rancid. \n\nIt is made from the fruit of the oil palms as the name suggest.\n\nSo if you are manufacture food product that can be stored in room temperature and contain solid fat is is a good option fore you. Even in product that are stored refrigerated but should remain semisolid like fat spread (that is what you put on bread often called butter or margarine even if most today are nor made of milk so no butter and have less the 80% fat so not margarine but low‐fat spreads often with a lot of palm oil in them)\n\n\n\nIs is cheap source of fat and well suited for product that do not need refrigeration. So food producer is something that is very useful. If it is good for you, result in environment problem where it is grown etc is a separate question.",
"Palm oil has the ability to be processed and to oil products with a diverse range of properties. It is one of the highest yield crops for oil production so the amount of land required to make oil is reduced. When you process palm oil you can produce saturated fats polyunsaturated fats and monounsaturated fats. These fats have different melting temperatures and properties that make them highly sought-after for processed foods. For example palm oil saturated fat is used as a replacement for butter or lard in baked products. Palm oil winds up being cheaper and more shelf-stable then the traditional fats. Palm oil is cheap it's grown in areas where labor costs are low.\n\nDownside to palm oil. For health reasons palm oil is it a problem because it is high in saturated fat and so ubiquitous in our food that it's hard to avoid .\nThey act logical damage that palm oil does is far greater. Palm oil industry is responsible for deforestation habitat destruction and land degradation. The palm oil industry is the primary contributor to the endangerment and ultimate extinction of the orangutan. To create palm oil plantations more than 50% of the jungles in Borneo have been clear-cut and planted with monoculture of palm. These areas are equivalent to a desert to Native species. Slash-and-burn is used to clear the forest. Jungle soil is actually very poor and land cleared will only support farming for a few seasons. When the land is degraded and the rains come topsoil is washed away leaving land that will no longer support palm oil and will no longer grow trees."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2xys1a | why some people in us have a problem with our government's relations with israel? | I recently got stationed in DC and every time I go downtown I see people protesting against the Israeli government or our government's relationship with Israel. For example a guy holding a sign that said I pledge allegiance to America or Israel? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xys1a/eli5_why_some_people_in_us_have_a_problem_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp4n1t7",
"cp4n3fh",
"cp4nfx2",
"cp4ogxb",
"cp4wpvk"
],
"score": [
26,
3,
43,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of nuance to U.S.-Israeli relations, but the gist of it is that the American government often seems to have unconditional support for everything Israel does. This is often at the expense of American national interests and sometimes even Israel's (the U.S. relationship with Israel has cost us more than a few friends in the Middle East, for instance).\n\nAn expression people sometimes use to describe U.S.-Israeli relations is \"the tail wags the dog,\" reflecting the fact that Israeli interests seem to dominate American foreign policy even though Israel would outwardly appear to be the junior power of the two.\n\nIf you're interested in more, I highly recommend *The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy* by Mearsheimer and Walt.",
"Over the years the US has devoted untold resources to dealing with various problems in the Middle East, and there is a perception that:\n\n(1) A major (or, to listen to some opinions, the only) reason the US has bothered to devote so much money and so many lives to dealing with these ME issues is the alliance with Israel, and;\n\n(2) That alliance is not really in our practical interest, but is maintained out of the ideological affiliation that some people feel we have with Israel.\n\n(1) is the ultimate source of the problem, but (2) is the reason why discussion of it becomes so frothy: talking about Israel is a way of talking about issues that strongly engage many people such as nationalism, race, religion, and specific historical questions.",
"Imagine if you had to support your little brother financially..and he was alway getting in fights and arrested..needing bail money, ect. If you refused \"fuck you, what kind of brother are you\"\n\nThen imagine he wasn't your brother at all, just some weirdo down the street.\n\nIt's like that.",
"The strange thing is our strong alliance with Israel only started around 1974- prior to this we were only a loose ally. This change was mainly driven by the soviet middle east threat and the need to create a strong middle east buffer with Israel,.Jordan and Saudi Arabia forming it. With the end of the soviet union in the 90's the US has mainly maintained this alliance out of habit and right wing christian - left wing jewish support. The reason there is a current controversy has to due with the US trying to balance the various powers in the middle east rather than completely backing a few of the previously mentioned key allies. This is seen in the detente with Iran, the actions in Syria of trying to get Turkey and Saudi Arabia to act, while supporting Iraq. Israel is not happy about this and is trying to sabotage this effort mainly by stopping an agreement with Iran.",
"Along with what everyone else is saying i will also add that we condemn a lot of other nations for doing some of the same exact things defend Israel for doing. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
24339m | why can't we mass produce super microbes to decompose plastic at faster rates? | After watching a documentary (Plastic Paradise) on plastic and its damaging effects on the environment, I googled around and ended up finding a few articles on people (one of them being a teenager named Daniel Burd if that matters) isolating microbes that sped up the degradation process of plastic drastically. However, it seems like those findings went no where and plastic is still flooding our oceans/landfills at a growing rate. So my question is: what's preventing us from using the solutions gained from previous experiments to combat this crisis? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24339m/eli5why_cant_we_mass_produce_super_microbes_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch34a7j",
"ch34b8p"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Lobbyists for the plastics/petroleum industry?",
"We can - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's already been done. The problem is that, once the bacteria is released into the wild, we no longer control it. So it could start eating plastic materials that haven't yet been thrown out, which would cause both economic and safety issues. Also (and this is the bigger point), it has the potential to seriously mess with the environment. The introduction of a new, widespread type of bacteria could crash entire food chains, and might do even more damage than the plastic is doing. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
cv8as5 | i’ve heard that the american economy post world war ii is unsustainable, why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cv8as5/eli5_ive_heard_that_the_american_economy_post/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey2hbio",
"ey2hxvl",
"ey3dzcd"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"An extremely large portion of our economy was actually involved with rebuilding Europe and Japan after the war. After their infrastructures were rebuilt, and economies had started to recover (which took decades) they took over much of those things.",
"Worldwide production capabilities had been destroyed in the immediate aftermath of WW2. The US was in a position to be the largest manufacturing country in the free world, and had tremendous market share when it came to rebuilding Europe and Japan. Once Europe and Japan were rebuilt, all that demand went away.",
"The issue with the US economic system is that it did not cope well with globalization for the secondary (=industrial) sector. Your economy was (is) built on a strong domestic market demand, which was and still is the driving factor behind large parts of the economy in the US. That's what made the US the biggest economy worldwide. \n\nBut it also lead to the fact that quality and invention fell behind. No need to be competitive when you just won the cold war and globalization was not yet beginning (good example: GM was the biggest manufacturing conglomerate worldwide, yet they sold 90% of their stuff domestically because it was uncompetitive in the global context) \n\nNow think further: due to the US dollar being a relatively strong currency the average American still has a decent amount of money to spend compared to a Chinese factory worker - but due to globalized markets folks now have the choice which things to buy. So average Joe began spending his money on foreign products, which are for the most part better value for money. The cheap side of products have been covered well by the Chinese, the craftsmanship has been covered by the European and the Japanese. \n\nSince average Joe now can get 2 Chinese washing mashines instead of one crappy GM washer or one reliable Toyota for the same price as a crappy Buick, he'll now spend his money abroad. \nThe problem is that Joe might work for GM. So he'll get a pay cut after couple of years because his company doesn't sell enough stuff. The chain reaction has started. \n\nSo over the years the US have built up a huge amount of yearly import surplus (this means that year after year you buy more than you sell, actually living on credit) which keeps on rising. \nIf you see \"the US\" as a corporation that means negative cash flow for the last 3 decades and huge dollar reserves are now held by Chinese and other countries. \n\nNow there's two ways to fix it: you can limit imports and force your own people to buy the uncompetitive products again (see Trump)... Or you can incentivise American companies to excel in their fields, making it even possible to not only sell their stuff to locals but to actually sell it worldwide.\n\nThe second mentioned way actually works amazingly fine for the US in software and fintech areas of the economy (see Google, Microsoft, and generally the tertiary sector). But even though the tertiary sector takes the biggest part of the cake, it's still not enough to offset the erosion of the secondary sector at the moment."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1r6ccx | how animals stay warm...i mean i know they have fur etc, but even with a coat on / gloves on and the rest, i feel freezing after long periods of time outside? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r6ccx/eli5_how_animals_stay_warmi_mean_i_know_they_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdk574s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It all depends on the animal. Some animals live in groups and huddle up together. Many animals have dens and that helps keep their sleeping place a steady temperature in the same way a properly-made igloo can keep humans warm. Some animals have different biological processes and do things like hibernate.\n\nAnother thing is... well... you ever think that maybe you're just a wuss? I don't mean you specifically. Just all of us. The idea of \"cold\" is relative, and being uncomfortable cold doesn't mean deadly cold. I'm from Wisconsin and I very clearly remember one X-Mas in Louisiana where everybody else was bundled up but I was outside barefoot and topless wearing jeans. But I have friends from Alaska, who laugh at me when they visit because my winters are 50 degrees warmer than them!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4va4zx | do additives in gasoline from petroleum companies such as invigorate or triclean actually do anything? or are they just a gimic to attract unaware customers? or maybe they do a little but are essentially negligible. please explain what they are and if they are worth a damn. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4va4zx/eli5_do_additives_in_gasoline_from_petroleum/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5wrhed"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Ok you have 2 blends of gas, summer and winter, each blends has additives required from your country mandated as law, these are mainly detergents to keep your fuel system clean and THEY WORK GREAT! Every gas station has the minimum guaranteed. \n\nProblem comes with the \"special additives\" such as shell, to be completely honest? It's not worth the extra money. Top tier gas included. You are more likely to spin a bearing, throw a rod, blow a gasket, bend a valve, burn a valve, placing \"octane boost\" on top of premium in a recommended 87 octane car because \"it was running rough\" (pro tip: if it says premium, get premium, if it says regular get regular!) on top of a host of other issues that is easy preventive maintenance than to \"gunk up\" your fuel injectors, even then a bottle of seafoam and your set (fixes most fuel injector issues outside of wiring/failing) and even then it's extremely uncommon to see. \n\nI'm sure you've seen the \"valve\" that shell gas prevented correct? It's a leaky valve stem o-ring leaking oil down, the problem only corrects itself with a replacement seal and a possible new valve, at high rpms it can cause a misfire from valve float"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7ab1rx | how marijuana gets you "high" | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ab1rx/eli5_how_marijuana_gets_you_high/ | {
"a_id": [
"dp8i3nq",
"dp8lids",
"dp8wtqv",
"dp8ynwe"
],
"score": [
25,
794,
9,
20
],
"text": [
"It contains a chemical (called Tetrahydrocannabinol aka THC, the white dusty crystals). When that is inhaled or ingested, the chemical gets into your blood stream. \n \nTHC is a psychoactive thing, meaning that when it gets into the human brain, it causes a reaction that messes with the brain. Depending on who you ask, THC may be there to protect the plant from being eaten - predators wouldn't want to go back to something that made their heads go weird. \n \nIt just so happens that some humans like the reaction it causes! ",
"Mandatory \"I'm a doctor\" disclaimer. In your body you have cannabinoid receptors scattered throughout your physiology (CB1 in the CNS and CB2 in the PNS). These cannabinoid receptors are specifically designed to be triggered by a substance manufactured by the body (endogenous) called anadamide. \nAnandamide that has many functions within the body associated with fertility and immune function. Current working theory is that the level gets extremely high right after childbirth. Common side effects of marijuana intoxication include short term memory loss, increased appetite, Euphoria, and paranoia. The same side effects would be beneficial immediately after giving birth including short term memory loss causing you to forget the pain you just endured, increased appetite to replenish lost nutrients during childbirth, euphoria making you happy with your new baby, and paranoia preventing anything detrimental happening to the child. \nAgain, this is working theory, and there is a lot of research currently in the subject. ",
"Dopamine is one of the brain's most important painkillers. When you're not in pain, the brain releases neurotransmitters into the system that inhibit the release of dopamine. When you experience pain of sorts, your brain releases a natural cannabinoid called anandamide that binds to the receptor that triggers the release of the inhibitory neurotransmitters, which allows dopamine (uninhibited) to then flow freely into the brain's synapse. \n\nWhen you smoke cannabis, THC (the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) mimics the natural cannabinoid anandamide and binds to the same receptor that prevents the release of the dopamine inhibitors. It doesn't mimic the actual neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin (the way drugs like meth and cocaine do) and so it doesn't cause your brain to work in reverse, which is why using cannabis in moderation doesn't appear to do any seriously long-term damage to your brain.\n\nThis is a cool interactive explainer on how different drugs affect your brain that we used in middle school health class (requires flash): _URL_0_",
"I'm at work right now so I will come back to edit and provide sources. \n\nWe have cannabinoid receptors. When synapses in the brain \"fire\" a chemical is released to these receptors that prevent that from firing again for some time. THC blocks these receptors and allow these synapses to fire multiple times without a resting period. So if I remember correctly, these synapses are all firing randomly.\n\nThis effect take solace in the reward center of the brain.\n\nI found a nice [video](_URL_0_) that'll help anyone understand."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/mouse/"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/oeF6rFN9org"
]
]
|
|
1vdhe5 | proper use of i.e), eg), and ex). | I'm five and what is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vdhe5/eli5_proper_use_of_ie_eg_and_ex/ | {
"a_id": [
"cer53px",
"cer55gv",
"cer5zc0",
"cer62ws",
"cer9wfx"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
50,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"i.e. - essentially means \"in other words\"\ne.g. - essentially means \"for example\"\n\nAnd ex, is just an abbreviation of the word example. ",
"They're both use to clarify whatever was said immediately before them. \"I.e.\" does so by restating it in different words. \"E.g.\" does it by providing examples. \n\nI'm not sure what \"ex\" is, I've never seen it used, unless it's just short for \"example\" in which case you'd use it like \"e.g.\"",
"i.e. is short for the latin id est (\"that is\") where as e.g. is exempli gratia (\"for example\").\n\n* i.e. is used more as a clarification, meaning \"in other words\"\n* e.g. is used to give examples\n\nExample:\n\nI'm doing something this Friday, i.e. tomorrow.\n\nI do things on some days, e.g. Fridays.\n\nOr at least, that's what I learnt!\n\nOh and ex. or f.ex are just shorthand for \"for example\" and are used just as you would use \"for example\" in a sentence.",
"\"I.e.\" stands for \"id est\" which is Latin for \"that is.\" It is used when you want to immediately reword a given phrase, usually to provide clarity or reach a broader audience. \n\n\"E.g.\" stands for \"exempli gratia\" which is Latin for \"for example.\" It is used when immediately providing an example.\n\nI don't think \"ex\" is a thing, in a proper sense, and should probably be avoided. I could be mistaken.\n\nI tend to avoid all of these and use a second sentence. For instance, I've just used a second sentence starting with \"for instance.\" I prefer this method to confusing initializations. \n\nA good rule of thumb is stick to what you're comfortable with and what you know. If you don't know what \"etc.\" means you should probably avoid using it, especially if you're going to bastardize it as \"ect\". Just say, \"and so on\" or similar.\n\nThe goal is to avoid giving the impression that you're trying to sound intelligent or educated. Think of the lead vampire kid from South Park, who randomly throws \"per se\" into his speech. Sounds like a doof. The worst is when it's written \"per say\" or \"persay.\" Just awful. ",
"Use i.e. when you want to restate/specify something, use e.g. for a list of examples.\n\n* When I go on Reddit, I only visit certain subreddits (i.e. r/nba, r/worldnews).\n\nversus\n\n* When I go on Reddit, I only visit certain subreddits (e.g. r/ELI5, r/AskReddit).\n\nThe first statement would imply that you only go on reddit specifically to go on r/nba and r/worldnews, while the second is more open ended and implies that you visit subreddits *such as* the ones with community sourced answers.\n\nHope this helps."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
12zlob | ; why do macintosh screens produce more vivid color? how is it that their colors pop so much? | I'm a PC fan, but I can't help but notice how smooth and "poppy" everything looks on a newer mac. What do they do different computationally to make everything look so nice and smooth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12zlob/eli5_why_do_macintosh_screens_produce_more_vivid/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6zhsiv",
"c6zhsyl",
"c6zjpag",
"c6zn7h1"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You're probably comparing run of the mill PC monitors with the more expensive apples ones. I'm sure you can find PC monitors of a similar color quality if you look around.",
"One (but not the only) reason: unlike the rest of the PC industry, Apple moved away from anti-glare screens, because the matte anti-glare texture on many LCD screens dulls the colors (I believe Apple has been applying anti-reflective films instead). If the end user wants to attach an anti-glare film and mute the colors, that's their problem.",
" > why do macintosh screens produce more vivid color\n\nThey don't. They use exactly the same screens you can get in non-apple monitors, they're just expensive.",
"Because Mac are only sold with expensive, high end display, where PC customers have the option of saving $500 by getting a slightly less fancy display.\n\nIf you compare I high end PC to a Mac, their screens will have a similar poppiness."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2dm8uk | how people can get so connected to an actor (or other pop culture figure that they have not met and do not truly know) that they cry or feel deep despair upon death. | I am not trying to be disrespectful, I just truly do not understand it. Of course the loss of life, especially the case of suicide, is a sad occasion. But with Robin Williams, Paul Walker, Michael Jackson, etc. I see people write online how a particular death has just crushed their life and how they have been so emotional and crying over it. How do we allow people that we have never met, probably will never meet, and who we do not know outside of characters affect our emotions to such a degree? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dm8uk/eli5_how_people_can_get_so_connected_to_an_actor/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjqudbw",
"cjquetc",
"cjqut5q",
"cjqv2s0",
"cjqv3ey",
"cjqv3lu"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Actors are easy for people for form imaginary bounds with because you see the world through their eyes, and get to know their friends and acquaintances, which in turn makes you think you're friends with the actor since you have the same friends.",
"It's because they do affect our emotions. Let's use Robin Williams as an example. How many fond memories do you have of his work? How many times in your life did he make you laugh? Every time he did he made you happy and that's a deep emotion. He is someone who literally made you happy and may have done it throughout your entire life.\n \nNow compare that to the girl who sat two seats away from you in a math class - you might know her name and have talked to her a few times but she never made you laugh, and maybe the only emotion she ever gave you was annoyance when she asked to borrow a pencil. \n \nOne of those people is someone you never met but they brought joy into your life, and the other is a person you knew but was little more than a generic human being to you. Which one's death will move you more? It's an easy choice (unless you want to be argumentative). We care about people who make us laugh, or people who create literary characters we love, or who write and perform music that makes us want to dance -- and that is perfectly normal. When those people die we feel the loss in our own lives and that is perfectly normal, too. It isn't something we \"allow\", it is plain old human nature. ",
"I feel Robin Williams carried his personality with him in every character he played. I grew up watching his films. They would cheer me up when I was feeling down. In a way watching films with actors that manage to touch our hearts allows them to become a part of our lives, almost family. Robin's voice is more comforting and familiar to me then most my family. ",
"Hey looks like I can finally put that philosophy degree of mine to some good use!\n\nI took a course called the philosophy of emotion my senior year. In that course, emotions were understood as a type of evaluative judgment of objects in relation to our conception of a well lived life. For example, the presence of a friend makes us happy because we view the friendship as a valuable part of us living the life that we want to live. \n\nGrief is a little more complicated, but follows the same principles. In grieving, we are acknowledging a loss of a person (or pet, thing, etc.) that had significant value in how we view ourselves and our conception of a well lived life. This ties to Robin Williams, (and other celebs), because many people experience them through their work, getting to know an aspect of who they are which fits really well with their view of what should be valued in life. Though I'll never know Robin Williams as well as I know my family, through his work I can come to some understanding of what he valued: laughter, friendship, etc. What Robin Williams represents is so integral to some peoples lives that they see the loss of the actor as the loss to a source of things that they find valuable within their own lives.\n\nOne of the books we read also stated that there are ways that we can make evaluative judgments that are off the mark, too. This can lead to emotional reactions that don't quite seem to fit the situation. If you've ever gotten *really* angry over something small, like lost keys, it can be an indicator that you've judged the keys as far more important to your conception of a well lived life than they actually are (because, to some level, you know you'll find them eventually). Some people are likely doing this with celebrity deaths as well. Whether they are doing it because the given celeb truly did have a huge impact on them, or they are merely blowing things out of proportion subconsciously depends on the person, but the effect is the same either way.\n\ntl;dr We get sad because well lost someone who represented something that we value as good in our own lives.",
"As an actor, we learn that the best actors are the ones who take down their defenses and expose their vulnerabilities to the world. That creates an intense connection between performer and audience member. It makes the viewer find something in the character that they see in themselves, whether it be funny, sad, scary etc etc. And because of it, you feel like you know the person. All of these characters that Robin Williams played are obviously not entirely who he is. But in order to connect to that vulnerability, he needed to bring out aspects of his real being. \n\nI have spent my life watching Williams and really connecting to all the stories he wanted to tell, from the intensely dramatic to the ridiculously funny. Having seen just how easily he could reach the heartstrings and affect a human being on a deep an emotional level, you can't help but shed a tear for him. What he has done is no easy feat, and for that he deserves his label as a legend. ",
"I've never cared really because people die every day. That being said, when I read a couple accounts of people who did know Robin, I felt very sad. Not for my loss, but theirs.\n\nI've never felt any sadness for a celebrity death before this, and this is probably because he seems to have touched so many in his life."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
28kx6r | why do soldiers in corrupt dictatorships support those in charge? | In places like North Korea and many African nations, the people are suffering on a daily basis because of poverty, crime, and by being screwed over by the government. Why do the soldiers who protect those in charge allow it to, and even make it happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28kx6r/eli5_why_do_soldiers_in_corrupt_dictatorships/ | {
"a_id": [
"cibvzv8",
"cibw0a3",
"cibw0wy"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The military in those areas is often supportive of the regime because the military either *is* the regime, or receives significant support from it. This is a big part of North Korea, for instance -- the military gets a bit better food, money, etc. than the average person.",
"Soldiers of these nations typically stay loyal to those in charge because soldiers are treated better than normal citizens, with regular food, good/decent equipment (including clothing), medical care, etc.\n\nPeople have the sad tendency, in general, to look out for Number One, especially when that includes their family unit and their families are better off than the norm because they work as a soldier. It's not an easy choice to make, or even no choice at all, when the options are \"you and your family are starving dirt farmers\" and \"you get to eat every single day.\"",
"Well lets look at this from a soldiers view.\n\n\"Me and my family are some of the few people in this country getting fed well and if I just do what I'm told I can work my way up the ladder and live really well. If I turn against my leader I'll be branded a traitor and executed and my family will either be imprisoned or become pariahs and likely starve to death. So my choices are live well by propping up a corrupt government I could never fight, or try to fight them and die, likely getting my family killed as well....\"\n\nIt's not a hard choice."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
299h0t | why are bluetooth speakers so expensive? | I don't really understand why they're so expensive after all this time...
An example would be the Beats Pill speaker that's like $200 currently. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/299h0t/eli5_why_are_bluetooth_speakers_so_expensive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciipq1u",
"ciipsqv",
"ciiq1ha",
"ciir0bn",
"ciixe4x"
],
"score": [
4,
13,
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because people are willing to pay the premium for the technology. Just like why people pay so much for Apple products.",
"Beats are known for being overpriced. You can easily find cheaper bluetooth speakers of higher quality. ",
"Bluetooth speakers $40. Stamp Dr. Dre on speakers. $200",
"Beats are very overpriced Brand Name items. Most items in the Beats lineup use a single driver, or speaker, when similarly priced systems from Bose or Sony would use two, or even three drivers. Even on their Pill system, they don't disclose any info about why type of drivers they are using, their Hz range, or any other useful date. ",
"You can get small ones on ebay for [$20 or less](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_sop=15&LH_FS=1&LH_BIN=1&_nkw=bluetooth%20speaker&_pgn=3&_skc=100&rt=nc&_udlo=10&_udhi=20"
]
]
|
|
31ig7d | why is the sun orange when it's low on the horizon (dawn/dusk), then turn a more blinding white color the higher it moves into the sky? | Just driving from work this morning and realized I've never thought about that. My guess: the angle the light travels through the atmosphere, relative to the viewers point-of-view? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31ig7d/eli5_why_is_the_sun_orange_when_its_low_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq1um0q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"you are correct\nWhen the Sun is close to the horizon, you’re seeing it distorted by more of the Earth’s atmosphere, scattering away the bluer photons and making it appear red.\nWhen there’s smoke and pollution in the air, it enhances the effect and it will look even redder.\n\nIf the Sun is high in the sky, where it has the least amount of atmospheric interference, it will appear more blue.\n\nsource: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.universetoday.com/18689/color-of-the-sun/"
]
]
|
|
ayq7x7 | why is it that smartphone batteries are said to deteriorate if used while charging, but the same is not true for laptop batteries and laptops are encouraged to be plugged in most of the time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayq7x7/eli5_why_is_it_that_smartphone_batteries_are_said/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei2g7z0",
"ei2j5po",
"ei2mtlz",
"ei34utc",
"ei3ez82",
"ei5e6j2"
],
"score": [
28,
4,
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have not heard this specific phrase often, but this mainly has to do with heat generation.\n\nSmartphones, as they are so small, develop quite some heat during charging ánd during use. Because of the compact formfactor the heat from using the phone will also enter the battery, unlike in laptops where this component is usually thermally quite well isolated.\n\nModern batteries (lithium-ion) do not like heat a lot, and will deteriorate if heated often/long/much.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nA lot of phones even work on lower clockspeed while charging, and are therefore slower while charging, to prevent too much heat build-up.",
"if the batteries use the same lithium technology they degrade the same way: by number of charge cycles, and amount of heat exposed to. the difference is that most laptops have their batteries on a separate circuit so they can be powered from the socket even when the battery is removed. this also means that the battery can stop charging when it's full, and only starts discharging when the cable is pulled\n\nthe same is not true for phones. the battery is part of the main circuit, if you remove it the phone turns off even if it's plugged in. that means it has to charge and discharge at the same time",
"Charging a lithium battery to maximum voltage damages the cells over time. Phone manufacturers try to squeeze every last bit of capacity out of the battery so charge it to the maximum safe voltage.\n\nSince laptops are often left plugged in all the time, to help slow down degradation of the cells they are typically charged to a slightly lower voltage. But leaving them plugged in all the time will still degrade the cells faster than storing the laptop at say 60%.\n\nSqueezing that 5-10% extra charge into a battery can cut its life 10 fold. However modern chemistries are much better than they used to be in this regard.",
"Because it’s bad advise, at least for lithium ion batteries. The charging circuit will keep the battery at 100% while plugged in which is not ideal but still better than constantly discharging and charging it.\n\nIf you are not going to use a battery it’s best to store it cool and dry and at around 60% charge. Be aware that it will lose charge slowly over time which can be harmful when it reaches 0%.\n\nSome devices allow you to configure how far the charging controller is going to charge the battery. This also shows that there is some trade-off for the manufacturer to be made: Squeeze the last bit of capacity out of the battery or set a lower limit for improved life time. This is often done for electric cars, where they are advertised with a higher capacity than what is actually available.",
"I understand it like this. In a smart phone space is limited. The phone always operates from the battery. When charging, the phone can't use the incoming electricity directly. So you have the heat of the phone use plus the heat of charging. Your car can operate directly off the alternator so it's different. I believe the laptop can also use the electricity from the power adaptor so you do not get this doubling of heat either.",
"Others have already mentioned the heat issue, but I want to highlight a problem with wireless charging. See, with wireless charging, your battery is being charged *and* used to power your phone, so that puts far more stress than either charging or being discharged (used to power your phone) separately. When you charge your phone using a wire, it provides enough power to not only charge the phone battery, but also to power the rest of the phone so your battery isn't being discharged. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1sa2uk | the number system of graphics cards | tried google and only got charts - couldn't find an explanation to the system.
repost from two years ago
cheers | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sa2uk/eli5_the_number_system_of_graphics_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdvg6w5"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There essentially isn't one. Within an individual product line from a given manufacturer the numbers may mean something, but mostly they are just the name the manufacturer gave to that video card. It's all about marketing.\n\nThe first number in most cards indicates the \"generation\" of video card they belong to, but this is still just marketing. A higher number doesn't necessarily mean more performance. A high-end GTX 6xx card might outperform a low-end GTX 7xx card, for instance.\n\nBasically, you have to look at the charts. The numbers are made up to sell more video cards, not to be informative in any way."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2qnfic | why did so many men volunteer to join ww1/2? | Was just reading here, _URL_0_ and it seems a lot of men volunteered to fight, despite many probably having no experience /previous training, would mean the almost certain demise of them? Did people value their lives less than today or was just too determined to fight?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qnfic/eli5why_did_so_many_men_volunteer_to_join_ww12/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn7plmp",
"cn7plni",
"cn7qd3r"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"when your country and your entire way of life is threatened it tends to spur you to action. you could join, or you could sit around until you became a subject of a foreign government.",
"Today, our image of war is influenced by photographs and film of the horrors of the World Wars, Vietnam, etc. In 1914, people wouldn't have that image of war. Their image of war would be influenced by grand romantic paintings of the Napoleonic Wars and such.",
"Basically this happened:\n\nAt the start of the war everybody thought that the war would be over by Christmas 1914, but it kept on with no signs of stopping. So guys would sign up believing they'd be back home with 'business as usual' just a few months later.\n\nSome guys were fed up with their crappy jobs such as in the filthy coal mines and felt that being in the fresh air in the army was like some kind of holiday. Or young men with boring lives would sign up while expecting some kind of brave adventure.\n\nBefore conscription was introduced young men could refuse to sign up in the army, but some were pressured to volunteer for example when women's rights activists handed out white feathers to men not in army uniform as a sign of cowardice.\n\nThere are many other reasons such as propaganda urging men that their children and grandchildren would admire them or glorifying the whole 'honourable fight for king and country' thing.\nAnd the government showed the enemies in a really bad light and as basically fucking evil, going as far as to heavily exaggerate or downright fabricate accounts of German soldiers 'bayonetting babies' and 'mass rape of village women'.\n\nEven after everyone realised that the end of the war could be way further off then first thought, guys still signed up. Why?\nThe horrible trenches and mass casualties were heavily censored in the press. Newspaper articles would replace words like massacre with 'baptism of fire', and no one knows what that means.\n\nSo everyone was unaware of the truth that soldiers were being killed in huge numbers and in horrific ways, and men would sign up thinking it would be fine.\n\nIn conclusion, war sucks."
]
} | []
| [
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment_to_the_British_Army_during_the_First_World_War"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3i4gee | why are there us military bases in different countries like japan. is there japanese military bases in the us? | Text (optional) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i4gee/eli5_why_are_there_us_military_bases_in_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"cud7p9m",
"cud80gb",
"cud8bcu",
"cud8lia",
"cuddxvq",
"cudlk78",
"cudpg0q"
],
"score": [
42,
20,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The US does not allow it. In instances like Japan and Germany part of the agreement at the end of ww2 was that we would maintain a military presence there to assist in their national defense. Much is the same with South Korea and various other countries, to assist in our allies defense. We (the US) on the other hand feel there is not enough for us to gain, to much risk versus reward, from a country by letting them have a base on our soil. ",
"The main reason is for political and military stability. Post WW2, acUnited States maintain many of their forward operating bases that they had built up. Many countries enjoy the protection of having US military bases on their so loyal as it was a deterrent to foreign enemy action. For some countries, japan and Germany for example, initially it was not optional. These were used in the occupation and verification of the terms of surrender while transitioning to new governments.\n\nMost countries greatly benefited from not having to spend the money maintaining its larger military will under United States umbrella protection. They also benefit greatly from the economic side by having many soldiers who tend to be young with high income to expense ratios. This allows them to spend a lot of money in the local areas and bring in foreign money and interest of the area as well.\n\nThere will always be those do not wish to participate in these arrangements and may even protest against the government's continuation. But overall the majority of citizens benefit greatly from having US military presence in the area. Military bases are set up well to deal with emergencies I can provide FEMA like aide following a national disaster.\n\nWhile there are no formal foreign military bases on US soil we do host many foreign soldiers during training exercises. This is due to the United States large military presence in country has is few countries willing to foot the bill to have their own soldier stationed overseas permanently",
"That's part of the reason US spends more on military stuff than the next 7 countries combined. _URL_0_ ",
"For major bases, it's because the US has mutual defense treaties with those countries. The presence of a US base is considered a deterrent to any would-be aggressor. In the event of crisis, the US already has assets in place, and can reinforce those assets easier. It also helps US and the host country integrate their warplans and to train together. In other cases, the US leases bases in strategic locations around the world to get airfields or ports.\n\nIn Japan's case, after WW2 ended, the US occupation transitioned to a mutual defense arrangement against Soviet and/or Chinese moves in the Pacific. US bases in Japan were used in the Korean War. Japan has never actually signed a peace treaty with the USSR or Russia, and they still dispute the Soviet/Russian occupation of several islands.\n\nThere are no Japanese or other foreign bases in the US, but there are foreign contingents on a number of US bases. Not for mutual defense, but for training. Foreign troops rotate through US training schools pretty regularly.",
"Surprised that no one mention that after ww2 Japan wasnt allowed to have military, and protection of Japan was put on US shoulders. Even now there isnt actual army in Japan, but something similar to National Guard. And only few months ago they were approved to participate in operations outside of Japan. ",
"Mostly because of WWII. The US won that war and the losers like Italy, Japan and Germany weren't really in any position to say no to these bases.\n\nThere are no real foreign military bases in the US like the ones the US has in the former Axis countries, but there are some smaller institutions.\n\nfro example Holloman Air Force Base houses a German Air Force Tactical Training Center with a few hundreds German service personal and a number of German jet-fighters.\n\nThese 'bases' however have a vastly different status than the US bases elsewhere.",
"for japan, it's part of a treaty that had to do with them losing during WW2.\n\nin europe, the US was the only one in a position to oppose russia, since most of them had to rebuild so much infrastructure. you can still see a general outline of where the USSR border was from where US military bases are. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
20puoj | igmp, how does it actually work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20puoj/eli5_igmp_how_does_it_actually_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg5li3v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is a local version of the currently unused multicasting protocol. If you understand multicasting, you'll do fine."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
45dh5s | why are there more carnivores and herbivores than omnivores? | Since omnivores could hunt animals and eat local plants, wouldn't they have a huge advantage in survival and reproduction? Weren't able to kill any animals? Just dig up this plant and eat it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45dh5s/eli5_why_are_there_more_carnivores_and_herbivores/ | {
"a_id": [
"czx1ug7",
"czx27qf"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Omnivores get to eat anything, but they do it way less efficiently. Herbivores like cows wind up extracting a ton of the energy from their food and can actually digest cellulose. Humans can't do that. Carnivores like wolves can eat just about anything without getting sick. Humans can't do that. We can't digest most of the energy in plants and eating raw meat makes us sick, so our only advantage is being able to eat both inefficiently.",
"Specializing helps with optimization. Cows can't eat meat, but their teeth and multiple stomachs are ideal for eating grass. Humans have to have sharp teeth for meat and grinding teeth for plants and our digestive system is inefficient at processing plant matter. Versatility is obviously useful, but there are trade-offs. A spork isn't as good as a fork in stabbing or as good as a spoon at scooping."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
261q6n | when i drink water, does my body still try to digest it as if it were food? | Taking biochem right now and this thought occurred to me as we got into the molecular pathways | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/261q6n/eli5_when_i_drink_water_does_my_body_still_try_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"chmssx6",
"chmsu17"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Water goes through your digestive tract with the food. Whereas food is digested and vitamins/nutrients are absorbed in the small intestine, water isn't absorbed until the large intestine, leaving behind solid waste (feces).",
"Yes and no. It goes down the same path and is absorbed in a similar way. But your body doesn't \"try\" things on various chemicals ingested, it just sort of happens when exposed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5729je | why are people so excited about ken bone? | When I first saw everyone talking about him, I mistook him for Karl Becker. I understand that Ken Bone asked a great question, but I don't understand why he is the one questioner who stands out among all the others. Why do people love him so much, and why all the media attention?
I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't get the significance here. Please help!
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5729je/eli5_why_are_people_so_excited_about_ken_bone/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8p42tr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"He looks kind of frumpy but he has a name fit for an action movie star. So people think that is funny and they run with it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8l4skf | if you poke your toe with a needle, how does your brain know exactly where you poked after receiving the signal from the spinal column? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l4skf/eli5_if_you_poke_your_toe_with_a_needle_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzczyfa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Signals from different parts of the body each have their own nerves. When travelling up the spinal cord, they are grouped into general tracts, but each part of the body occupies a certain corner/section of the tract. When the nerve reaches the brain, it stimulates a specific part of the brain that corresponds to the body part. That's how the brain differentiate the signals."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1wce0c | why do veins sometimes start pulsing uncontrollably? | Sometimes you will feel a vein start to pulse as if it were being blocked or more blood than usual is rushing through, can anyone explain this simply? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wce0c/eli5_why_do_veins_sometimes_start_pulsing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf0nv2k"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Are you sure it's a vein? It could be a muscle spasm.. unless you visibly see the vessel pulsate."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
aj8npn | why do our phones get hot/warm when they're charging but the cords/wires themselves don't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aj8npn/eli5_why_do_our_phones_get_hotwarm_when_theyre/ | {
"a_id": [
"eetl0x9"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"What you are feeling is the chemicals of the battery changing due to the electrical current running through it. As it is absorbing the electricity it is heating up because of these changes. The battery is actually changing size as well, but it's so small you probably won't notice it. Likewise, since your cord isn't storing anything (only moving the electricity) it doesn't heat up at all."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3ooawm | why doesn't a store/company hold a black wednesday and let their employees have thursday and friday off? | They'd get all the customers first AND look better for allowing their employees to spend time with family. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ooawm/eli5_why_doesnt_a_storecompany_hold_a_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvz0lhx",
"cvz0pk6",
"cvz1gem",
"cvz25z5",
"cvz607h",
"cvz6f7w"
],
"score": [
30,
8,
3,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving. Everyone has big sales because *shitfucktons* of people have the day off and can go shopping. Most customers would have to work on Wednesday so there's no point in having a big sale.",
"Prepping the standard thanksgiving meal takes a lot of time. Turkey, fixings, ham, sides, bread. Wednesday is also a travel day for a lot of people who have to go a long distance to get back to where ever the distance is held. Lastly in places like grocery/department stores the Wednesday before is basically one of the biggest day in food sales of the year. Imagine trying to fill a store with people fighting for a TV at the same time someone is fighting for the last can of fried Onions. ",
"Friday is the end of the workweek for non-minimum wage workers and it is the most convenient time for the vast majority of people. when a sale happens on a day that would already have higher than average volumes of people those volumes get larger. sales tend to be the most successful on weekends and Friday. black Wednesday is the worst time for a sale because it falls right in the middle of the workweek. the reason black Friday is called black Friday at all and is held the day it is is because most people are off work, were most likely recently paid and it is close to Christmas time and are activity with their families who want to go shopping. the idea of the whole thing is that after that day, your business should be in the \"black\" and the rest of the business year should be profitable. it is the perfect storm for a business and doing it earlier or later would net you much less than any other business. ",
"Thanksgiving is the last micro season before Christmas. Which is why the go all out on sales and advertising to get you to come in and make impulse buys, to have it before thanksgiving would interrupt these sales like a blizzard in the middle of December.",
"If you have one shoe shop you'll get a steady flow of traffic. If another one, or more, opens up and you have a shoe shop district. If you want shoes, that's where you're going to go. Not to the place with one shoe shop. \n\n\nNow apply this to sales and days of the week. ",
"Black Friday is a paid day off for many companies, like mine. Wednesday is not. The big retailers know this, and know people are more likely to shop if they don't have to take off, and if they've already had a day to spend with family. Additionally, many people that do take the Wednesday off before Thanksgiving spend that day traveling, and don't have time to go shopping."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
d7twuq | how does the live translation in forums like the un and other rallies work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d7twuq/eli5_how_does_the_live_translation_in_forums_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"f14jt9h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a handful of languages which are official and in which conversations will take place. Then there are translators of which there is at least one that can speak a language of any given delegate, and one of the official languages of the forum.\n\nThen it is just a matter of all those translators converting between two languages. If for example a delegate to the UN spoke Swahili and a listener spoke only Nepali then the process would go like this:\n\nThe speaker is translated from Swahili into one of the six official languages of the UN (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, or Spanish). Let us imagine it was translated into Spanish. Other translators would then be converting Spanish into all the other official languages, one of which the translator capable of speaking Nepali can also speak. That translator would listen to whatever of the six languages they can understand and convert it into Nepali for the listener."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5fa3us | why do video game graphics, animation, world size, and gameplay options advance in leaps and bounds, while ai seems to have barely advanced at all? | Title is self explanatory. Games keep getting prettier, bigger, faster, and vaster. But it seems there has been little to no improvement on the AI front.
Is there something fundamentally different about programming AI that renders it unable to improve at the same pace? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fa3us/eli5_why_do_video_game_graphics_animation_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"daioo5u",
"daiopjb",
"daiqoln",
"dair4oh",
"dajcnp0"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Programming an AI is much more difficult than graphics.\nGraphics are just shapes and figures although it is difficult to get proper reflections and fluid motions all these effects can be described mathematically and thus implemented much easier. Then its just a matter of raw power from the graphics card and processor to be able to do all calculations and create the images quick enough.\n\n AI how ever is far more advanced mathematically. Its incredibly difficult to get a computer to \"think outside the box\" and improvise and do things that are not scripted. Basically because everything a computer does is based on algorithms and there simply arent any algorithms that can describe \"free thinking\" and innovation.",
"*Game AI* is stagnant because it's not seen as a big deal by most gamers so very little development resources (time = money) are allocated to it.\n\nThere's tons of work going on in the real world about AI but very little of that ends up in the game industry.",
"Graphics, animations, world size, etc is mainly limited by current hardware limitations. As hardware continues to grow by Moore's Law, software, and thereby video games, take advantage of this. \n\nAI is limited by our understanding (or lack of) consciousness. In order to produce novel AI, the AI system would have to be capable of \"thinking\" for itself. Currently, algorithms (Behaviour trees for instance) encompass all that the AI will ever do, and it constructs the rules for how the AI can behave.",
"The problem is that game AI is not supposed to be intelligent or capable. The primary function of game AI is an **entertaining target**. You could write a counter strike bot that always shots perfectly across the map, or a chess robot that always wins, but that isn't fun. It requires much more effort to add those human flaws and behaviours. \n\nAnd then you reach a point where many people don't notice all the calculations going on inside an AI. How can you know if you play against a meh player, or a pretty good AI? And how would you know if that AI was suddenly twice as \"realistic\"? It wouldn't be harder to beat per se, it'd just make some different decisions, but you'd have to play hours with it just to notice the pattern. \n\nAI does advance, it's just hard to tell. And of it's good enough for your game, why improve it? ",
"AI has advanced quite a bit. It wasn't all that long ago that AI was \"move left until you hit something, then move right.\" Now we have AI that can track down a target or work together as a group.\n\nThat said, you're right that AI programming is a bit different. One of the problems is that AI programming is harder to reuse. If someone makes a 3D rendering engine, they can use it for any 3D game, from a princess themed puzzle game for kids to a violent sci-fi first person shooter. However, the brilliant AI you craft for one of those games won't help the other. You'll need very different AI for a first person shooter compared to what you'd need for a strategy game or a racing game.\n\nEven within a specific genre, AI has to account for unique aspects of the game. A \"realistic\" racing game would require very different AI than a racing game that has jumps and power ups. A small scale action game requires different AI than an action game with squads or large armies. You might be able to reuse some aspects of AI across multiple games, if they are similar, but for the most part AI can't be reused as much as other assets."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2zda5v | why is assisted suicide illegal but dnr's are legal? | They are both to end potential suffering and both require you to be mentally capable to choose that option. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zda5v/eli5_why_is_assisted_suicide_illegal_but_dnrs_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cphtp51",
"cphtqbg",
"cphtshv",
"cphttmd",
"cphwufn",
"cphy4vb",
"cphya47",
"cphybu6",
"cpi0t1m",
"cpi0ymw",
"cpi16x8",
"cpi1r67",
"cpi2n52",
"cpi2wzs",
"cpi38if",
"cpifq5o",
"cpiza2t"
],
"score": [
47,
11,
213,
7,
12,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
5,
5,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because in the instance of a DNR you would be presumed dead and would remain so without intervention, assisted suicide involves actually assisting death. ",
"Assisted suicide involves actively ending a persons life while DNR is simply withholding treatment.\nIn any medical procedure a person can refuse treatment a DNR is simply stating this in advance.",
"The first is a request for someone to harm you and kill you. The second is a request for people to not give you medical treatment.\n\nIn general we acknowledge adults have a right to refuse medical treatment. \n\nIn the first example the action is taken by a doctor (or otherwise) and it leads to your death. In the second **in**action happens, the law generally considers action and inaction differently, that's the main point.",
"My go-to answer whenever someone asks a \"why is *x* legal/illegal\" is that laws are not a series of hyper logical algorithms, but instead largely just a way of codifying public opinion. \n\nSo say that public opinion on assisted suicide changes dramatically and we all largely think it's an okay thing: then the law would change and allow it to be legal. \n\nAs it is, while these two things have things in common, people think of them very differently. So, they are treated differently.",
"Due to common misconception and just so we're clear:\n\n**DNR (DO NOT RESUSCITATE)** or **DNI (DO NOT INTUBATE)** is *NOT withholding treatment* but ceasing any attempt at resuscitation/intubation when the Patient stops breathing or their heart were to stop beating. \n\nTreatment of other kind is still allowed but NEVER DO ANY CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) or ACLS (Advance Cardiac Life Support) per Patient's or the Patient's Healthcare Power of Attorney's request.\n\nAs a Medical Professional, it's very important to know this fact. \n\n*In short, mending a Patient's health is a GO but doing any CPR/ACLS intervention is a NO GO when it comes to DNR Patients.* ",
"In the UK at least, CPR is considered a medical treatment. And like other medical treatments, patients can refuse treatment but they cannot demand treatment. We, as doctors, are not under any obligation to give patients treatment that is considered futile. It's like giving antibiotics for a viral infection. \nThus, if CPR is considered to be a futile treatment or to be of more harm than good, then we will issue a DNACPR order. \nAssisted suicide is helping someone die - actively, knowingly causing the death of one of our patients. ",
"I'm going to make this relatively simple without getting too deeply into medical ethics. In regards to medical treatment, your dichotomous options are:\n\n1) Accept a treatment that has been offered to you by the caregiver. You CANNOT request other forms of treatment not offered as this would be considered malpractice (treatment not in accordance with best medical interests. It gets pretty deep, and I don't wanna complicate this all unless somebody is additionally curious)\n\n2) Refuse treatment\n\nA DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) is a form of refusing treatment, whereas many people would consider Physician Assisted Suicide/Dying a form of malpractice and therefore can neither be given nor even requested.",
"Even though assisted suicide is illegal in most states, most doctors (actually the hospice nurses) will not hesitate to give a high dose of an opioid to relieve pain even if it causes respiratory failure in the appropriate circumstances. ",
"*Primum non nocere* - First, do no harm.\n\nThis is a portion of the Hippocratic Oath. It is enshrined in medical oaths, laws, and professional organizations throughout the world. \n\nDNRs are a written instrument that explains the patient's refusal of care. Patients always have the right to refuse treatment.",
"What i fear the most is not death it's becoming paralysed and then being kept alive for 40 years while still being conscious and not capable of ending it.",
"Firstly, there are places where assisted suicide is legal under careful restrictions. The State of Oregon, in the US for example has had physician assisted suicide for some time.\n\nThe reason a DNR is accepted is that it is refusing medical care. People who are conscious always have the right to refuse treatment, a DNR order, or the much more encompassing [POLST](_URL_0_) program extend those wishes officially even if the patient is unable to respond.",
"Why? Because of religion and the philosophical incoherence it burdens western civilization with.\n\nIt's all goodie good to deny euthanasia, since most of us never have to face people with extreme pain from multiple tumors in the bone, for example. \n\nSource: I am a surgeon.",
"This reminds me of one of my first days in nursing assistant school. The teacher said, \"A patient is choking, but you see that they are wearing a DNR bracelet. What, if anything, do you do?\" Most of the class thought that you're supposed to sit there and watch them die. Wrong! DNR means do not resuscitate, meaning that if a person is already dead, you are not to take any measures to bring them back. It does NOT mean that you don't help a living person.",
"One is passive. The other requires action--thus constitutes murder. However, one can argue the intention of either is still the same :the intentional death of the person. So there is the conundrum.",
"Because pushing you off a cliff is a crime, but not catching you before you fall off a cliff is legit.",
"One is active and the other is passive, and we have this terrible thing built into our morality that lets us think that letting something happen is different from causing it to happen. It's like the trolley problem. If there is a train headed for three people and you can pull a switch to divert the train and kill only one person (who would have been unharmed otherwise) then what is the moral thing to do? What if you have to push that person in front of the train to divert it from killing the other three? What if you are a doctor, the three people are people who need organ donations, and the one person is someone who has just come in for a check-up but has perfectly healthy organs, should you kill them to save three people? A lot of people would say yes to the first question and no to the last ones, but the outcome is essentially the same. Likewise, we find assisted suicide to be different from a DNR without rational basis.",
"ICU Nurse here. Very good question, OldLasagne. Thanks for bringing it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.polst.org"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
8m103t | google's project treble | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8m103t/eli5_googles_project_treble/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzjx1hg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Project Treble is all about faster updates for Android devices. [Their page explains it pretty well](_URL_0_) but i'll expand upon it here\n\nCurrently, when you get a phone it is not running just basic unmodified Android. If you get a Samsung Galaxy from Verizon it is running Android that has been fairly heavily modified by Samsung and further modified by Verizon. Whenever Google pushes out a new version of Android it has to be modified by Samsung then Verizon before it will be loaded onto the phone, this can take weeks or even months depending on the diligence of the companies involved.\n\nThe goal of Treble is to make it so they aren't modifying the core of Android, but are instead just modifying the top layer and using hooks into the bottom layer which will always be the same. This would mean that when Google pushes a new Android version out then neither Samsung nor Verizon has to do anything to it, they just push it along to all the phones which keeps more devices more up to date\n\nGoogle wants to keep devices up to date as it reduces the security risk. If someone finds an exploit that lets them gain full control over a phone remotely and reports it to google, then google fixes it and pushes the patch out, then they publish their paper on the issue, then 6 months later Verizon finally pushes their patch out then you have been exposed to a *public vulnerability* for 6 months. If your phone gets hacked due to an Android bug and your information gets stolen, it looks bad on Google even though they fixed the issue before it was public and its really Verizon's fault"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/treble"
]
]
|
||
ajz5m6 | why was aristotle's successor, theophrastus, not renowned as his predecessors? aristotle was taught by plato, who learned from socrates | There are major courses for philosophy of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but few people can name the works of Theophrastus. Why were his works not as intellectually powerful or influential? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ajz5m6/eli5_why_was_aristotles_successor_theophrastus/ | {
"a_id": [
"ef00q7e",
"ef04lqz",
"ef0uusu"
],
"score": [
2,
17,
3
],
"text": [
"Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are so popular because their ideas piggyback off of each other, I think. Also, they're ideas, methods of learning and sharing ideas have been some of the most effective and are mostly timeless.",
"Aristotle et al. are famous because the books they wrote survived for thousands of years. Long after they died, copies of their books were made in libraries in the Middle East and studied by academics in Europe. This allowed their work to be shared widely, translated into many languages, and most importantly, preserved from destruction.\n\nBy contrast, we know very little about Theophrastus. According to [Diogenes](_URL_0_), he was a very influential philosopher in his time, and he wrote a massive amount of books on all kinds of topics. However, almost none of Theophrastus's books have survived to the current day. This means we don't know about most of his ideas, and most of the things we do know about him are from other people mentioning his work.\n\n > How far Theophrastus attached himself to the Aristotelic doctrines... can be determined but very partially owing to the scantiness of the statements which we have, and what belongs to this subject can be merely indicated in this place. \n > \n > [\\-Dictionary of Greek and Roman Mythology](_URL_2_)\n\nThat being said, we do remember Theophrastus for his contribution in certain fields. He is considered the \"father of botany\" for his botanical books, *Enquiry into Plants* and *On the Causes of Plants,* which survived to the 15th century and were highly influential in the European Renaissance.\n\nWikipedia article for further reading: [_URL_1_](_URL_1_)",
"Aristotle's [other student](_URL_0_) is really famous though"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Philosophers/Book_V#Theophrastus",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophrastus",
"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Biography_and_Mythology/Theophrastus"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great"
]
]
|
|
6k6bn5 | what is the puff of air for during eye exams? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6k6bn5/eli5_what_is_the_puff_of_air_for_during_eye_exams/ | {
"a_id": [
"djjokpn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's an air puff tonometer, the machine measures how much your cornea bends in response to the pressure from the air puff to estimate the fluid pressure inside the eye to check for potential glaucoma."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5447dq | why does the groove in the palm of our hands continue onto the next one; and how does it form? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5447dq/eli5_why_does_the_groove_in_the_palm_of_our_hands/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7yqesp"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"the palm is patterned to increase its grip, like the fingertips. the pattern is based in genetics, and more-or-less symetrical (one hand is the mirror of the other)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4v47rx | what is a white noise machine and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4v47rx/eli5_what_is_a_white_noise_machine_and_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5vbppn",
"d5vbrg3",
"d5vgruf"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's literally just an electronic device that produces [white noise](_URL_0_) - random sounds that don't have any particular high or low points. The sound of a fan or radio static is a slightly \"softer\" version of white noise.\n\nThey're sometimes used because they help cover up background noises - very useful if you live in an apartment with noisy neighbors.",
"White noise has a specific, technical definition in signal processing, but the term more loosely refers to random sound across a wide range of the audio spectrum.\n\nWhite noise works by drowning out ambient noise, but at the same time not providing audio details your brain can latch on to and try to process. It can often seem to be quieter than near silence, because you no longer distracted discrete sounds like your breathing and heartbeat, it all gets lost in an audio haze.\n\nWhite noise machine work through a number of techniques. Some are mechanical...fans produce sounds similar to white noise. Others are electronically generated and some are just audio recordings of other white noise machines set in a loop.",
"People who have hearing issues often use white noise to sleep so that they don't hear \"ringing\". When it's completely silent sometimes our brain will stimulate itself by making up things to hear. By playing white noise the brain receives stimulation and therefore doesn't make up \"ringing\" to hear. Just an interesting side note. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1drtkc | why don't commercials just say what their product is and what's special about it in a clear and concise manner? | Honestly, no one gives a shit about the "witty" banter (and the people who make commericals should know that by now) and the shorter a commercial break is the more people will actually watch commercial television. Seems like a win-win to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1drtkc/why_dont_commercials_just_say_what_their_product/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9t86ke",
"c9t8p6k"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They do it to make them memorable. If you see a commercial that is witty or funny, you are more likely to talk to your friends or coworkers about it and spread the name of the product around. \n\nArt & Copy is a great documentary about advertising and I think they address your question (I may be wrong, I haven't watched it in a while).",
"People *think* they don't give a shit about the \"witty\" banter. But they do; people are just extremely bad at determining what does and does not affect their thought processes. (For instance, you can affect any kind of numerical estimate simply by making people think about a random number beforehand.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
795pdv | how is the crocodile dentist mechanically random? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/795pdv/eli5_how_is_the_crocodile_dentist_mechanically/ | {
"a_id": [
"dozciwf"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Imagine a disk with holes under the teeth. The teeth aligned with holes go down. The tooth that doesnt align with a hole triggers the mechanism. Resetting the jaw spins the disc (randomly landing on a new sore tooth)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2rqnro | how much electrical power do airplanes have to power all the main pilot systems and passer entertaintment systems? | Every time I'm on a plane, I wonder how much energy the plane needs to power the whole thing with 100~300 ish passengers all using those in flight passenger entertainment systems. Do planes have like a hybrid system to gather energy from engines? How often do they get recharged? How big is the capacity of the battery(s)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rqnro/eli5how_much_electrical_power_do_airplanes_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnibv1c",
"cnibvu1"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Just like your car, the electrics on an aircraft are normally powered by the generators, which run off the engines - not by batteries. Batteries are used for starting, and are then recharged by the generators.\n\nAccording to [this site](_URL_0_), the B747 classic has 4 AC generators (one per engine), each of which is rated at 60 KVA (57KW), 115V, 400Hz.\n\nAs well as supplying some AC electrical services, these generators also power six transformer-rectifiers, which convert the AC power into 24V DC power that is used to power some DC services. There are also 2 batteries, both rated at 24V.\n\nThe galley power busses, which are what supply power to all the entertainment systems, are supplied by the AC power system.\n\nI would assume (but it is just an assumption) that this is fairly typical of other airliners too.",
"why do you think it's \"hybrid\"? in your definition every car is \"hybrid\" car, because cars produce electricity via alternator.\n\nbefore the main engines are running they just use [APU](_URL_0_), in flight they use generators."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.b747classic.co.uk/electrical"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit"
]
]
|
|
39erid | do you get tan while wearing sunscreen or do you only start getting tan once the sunscreen wears off? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39erid/eli5_do_you_get_tan_while_wearing_sunscreen_or_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs2rpys"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sunscreen has an SPF number, which is short for sun protection factor. It blocks out most of the UV, but not all. And how much it blocks out depends on its SPF number. So you are still getting tanned when you have the sunblock on, just more slowly. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3u6chr | how in the hell were pidgeons trained to fly hundreds of miles and deliver a message? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u6chr/eli5_how_in_the_hell_were_pidgeons_trained_to_fly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxc9yn0",
"cxc9yx8"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Pidgeons were trained to return to their training facility from miles away. You put them in a cage, carry them to where you want to send a message, but the message on them, and turn them loose.",
"They were raised at their destination point (point a), learned it was home. Then they were taken to other places that would want to send that destination a message (point b). When the pigeon was needed to send a message it was released from point b and instinctively flew back home to point a. \n\nBirds fly hundreds of miles to migrate every year, it's very normal for them. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
kol5t | tool-assisted speedruns | The wiki article was too confusing for me! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kol5t/eli5_toolassisted_speedruns/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2lxg6w",
"c2lzlah",
"c2lxg6w",
"c2lzlah"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A speedrun is an attempt to finish a game as quickly as possible. A famous example is [Quake done Quick](_URL_0_). Each of the maps is completed as quickly as possible, under several different criteria (regular vs 100% completion, for instance). Similar things can be done, for instance, with tracks in racing games.\n\nA tool-assisted speedrun is any speedrun that uses computer tools beyond what the original game allowed. Using emulators, games can be slowed down so that the player can play each individual frame of the game with perfect inputs. The player can rewind the game, slow it down, or speed it up as needed; the controller inputs are recorded for each frame. The inputs are then played back at normal speed. In nearly every case, the tool-assisted speedrun is faster than the unassisted speedrun, as real humans can't possible have frame-perfect accuracy of inputs.",
"Tool-assisted speedrun is a quite misleading term, in that it is in essence a description of an evolved process. It started with people doing \"speedruns\", playing through a game as fast as humanly possible. Then, they started using available tools such as savestating and slowdown in order to break down a \"run\" into smaller chunks that could be replayed over and over in slow motion so as to get the required precision for a \"perfect\" result recorded before moving on to the next chunk. As time went on, the tools became better and better and the chunks smaller and smaller, down to individual frames, and at this point savestating and slow motion kind of merged into what basically amounts to creating, or \"programming\" a \"perfect\" sequence of inputs to be played. Kind of like a self-playing piano, that plays a piece of music from a roll of paper with holes punched in it to mark when to play a note and which note to play.\n\nOf course, the fastest way to play even a simple game (such as Super Mario) isn't always apparent, and especially not so for a more complex game like an RPG, where you have many options and need to plan quite far ahead, so there is still challenge involved, just not the kind of challenge requiring human reflexes.\n\nOne of the best examples of using advanced tools for sequencing a series of (literally) inhumanly advanced inputs for a game to \"play itself\" is a TAS of R-Type for the NES. It's not so much a speedrun as a show off run.",
"A speedrun is an attempt to finish a game as quickly as possible. A famous example is [Quake done Quick](_URL_0_). Each of the maps is completed as quickly as possible, under several different criteria (regular vs 100% completion, for instance). Similar things can be done, for instance, with tracks in racing games.\n\nA tool-assisted speedrun is any speedrun that uses computer tools beyond what the original game allowed. Using emulators, games can be slowed down so that the player can play each individual frame of the game with perfect inputs. The player can rewind the game, slow it down, or speed it up as needed; the controller inputs are recorded for each frame. The inputs are then played back at normal speed. In nearly every case, the tool-assisted speedrun is faster than the unassisted speedrun, as real humans can't possible have frame-perfect accuracy of inputs.",
"Tool-assisted speedrun is a quite misleading term, in that it is in essence a description of an evolved process. It started with people doing \"speedruns\", playing through a game as fast as humanly possible. Then, they started using available tools such as savestating and slowdown in order to break down a \"run\" into smaller chunks that could be replayed over and over in slow motion so as to get the required precision for a \"perfect\" result recorded before moving on to the next chunk. As time went on, the tools became better and better and the chunks smaller and smaller, down to individual frames, and at this point savestating and slow motion kind of merged into what basically amounts to creating, or \"programming\" a \"perfect\" sequence of inputs to be played. Kind of like a self-playing piano, that plays a piece of music from a roll of paper with holes punched in it to mark when to play a note and which note to play.\n\nOf course, the fastest way to play even a simple game (such as Super Mario) isn't always apparent, and especially not so for a more complex game like an RPG, where you have many options and need to plan quite far ahead, so there is still challenge involved, just not the kind of challenge requiring human reflexes.\n\nOne of the best examples of using advanced tools for sequencing a series of (literally) inhumanly advanced inputs for a game to \"play itself\" is a TAS of R-Type for the NES. It's not so much a speedrun as a show off run."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/qdq/"
],
[],
[
"http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/qdq/"
],
[]
]
|
|
3nztc0 | why does ibm watson still sound robotic when it speaks even though it can process natural language? | I just find it very odd that IBM watson still has the typical text to speech type voice that doesn't really fluctuate except for the obvious parts such as questions and pausing for commas/periods. Shouldn't it be able to sound more natural given the amount of computing power it has or was this an intentional choice by the team behind it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nztc0/eli5_why_does_ibm_watson_still_sound_robotic_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvsovq8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"its an intentional choice. Watson's \"voice\" is just a voice program reading whatever text the supercomputer Watson makes. they didn't make a new speech software since its largely unnecessary."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2o8smj | why can't i take a photo of a particularly haunting-looking moon? inversely, why can some people do just that? | Yeah, I didn't really do too well in high school science. I have heard that it has something to do with light and distance and such, but why is it that some photographers photograph the moon, but my cell phone can't do it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o8smj/eli5_why_cant_i_take_a_photo_of_a_particularly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmksqcs",
"cmkv0xf"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"cell phone camera has digital zoom, not actual (optical) zoom. so your picture looks like crap zoomed in and most likely tiny looking either way, zoomed in or not.\n\nDigital zoom take the center of whatever you are looking at and blows it up. Optical zoom actually uses lenses to focus and bring the object closer.",
"The moon is very difficult to photograph because it is so much brighter than the background and its apparent size is an [illusion](_URL_0_). Most good pictures of the moon are either double exposures or taken with a hugely long lens. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion"
]
]
|
|
2sro31 | how do astronauts deal with celibacy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sro31/eli5_how_do_astronauts_deal_with_celibacy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cns7yai",
"cns83j6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Some people have been celibate for far longer than the 6 months astronauts usually spend up in space. It really isn't that big of a problem.\n\nHowever some probably do masturbate sometimes, they just do it privately and wipe it off with a towel.",
"It seems your question is only focused on male astronauts and the physiological \"issues\" of celibacy, so I will deal with that:\n\n1) It's not dangerous in any way not to ejaculate with a certain frequency. However, if a man with sexual drive never masturbates most will occasionally have orgasms and ejaculations while sleeping/dreaming. This is a well known fact for example from questioning male monks. \n2) It would be easy to capture the sperm with a tissue, even in weightlessness. Perhaps they could also do it while \"showering\"? "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1k6ybs | what an amp does when i plug in my dvd player or laptop or ipod | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k6ybs/eli5_what_an_amp_does_when_i_plug_in_my_dvd/ | {
"a_id": [
"cblzrlb",
"cblzuau",
"cbm0fya"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Takes a very small signal from the audio output of your dvd player or your iPod, and cranks it full of energy, and sends it out the other side of the amplifier in an even stronger version of the audio which would then be plugged into a speaker.\n\nThe speaker which would need the amplified signal is too large for it function solely on the weaker non-amplfied signal, so it requires an extra boost of energy. The amplifier is what provides that energy. Things such as headphones however, are able to run off of that weak signal.\n\nThe audio leaves your ipod in a very weak electrical signal, and goes into the amplfier, the amplifier takes energy off of regular power source, such as a wall socket and **combines** the audio signal with a large amount of power, thus *amplifying* it. This new stronger current leaves the amplfier and goes directly into the speaker.\n\niPod -- > audio cables -- > amplifier -- > heavy duty audio cables -- > speaker.",
"the amp (amplifier) does what it says, it amplifies the signal from the audio device to the speakers. as a purely physical thing, it takes a certain amount of energy to cause big speakers to vibrate, they have to push a certain amount of air. so, power is pumped into the signal along the way to give it the energy to move the speakers. the louder you want it, the more power needed. \n\nthis is also why headphones don't generally use amplifiers, because they are tiny little speakers that rely on being mashed right up against your ear drums to transmit sound.\n\nimagine an electric guitar, it doesn't have any power source in it, the only signal coming out through the lead is the tiny little electrical energy from the strings moving near the magnets in the pickups. the amplifier takes this little tiny bit of energy and boosts it up to sound LOUD.\n\nas a side note: depending on what you want to use it for, the main feature of an amplifier is to increase the energy of the signal without changing its characteristics in any way. ",
"I want to thank you guys for answering so swiftly and helpfully."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
a41twv | why does pulmonary fibrosis and other lung diseases show up on a chest x-ray? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a41twv/eli5_why_does_pulmonary_fibrosis_and_other_lung/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebatskd",
"ebaul6c",
"ebaus8w"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Due to thickening/destruction of certain lung structures that deviates from the norm of how a healthy lung should look like.",
"In an X-ray, the greater the density of something, the greater the opacity meaning the more white it is. Generally lungs are lucent (black) with the Hilum (where the lung begins) of the lung showing some opacity (White). \n\nDuring diseases, cells and fluid enter the air spaces, or the tubes (bronchi/bronchioles) forming the lungs themselves thicken or both happen. This displaces the air, increasing the density of the lungs and making it show up more white. ",
"The rays from the test are absorbed better by things that are more dense. That’s why bones show up so well. So with these kinds of diseases tissue becomes more dense and it is easier for the rays to absorb to see it on the X-ray film at that point. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5hpicv | what are the white bubbles forming whenever i cook something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hpicv/eli5_what_are_the_white_bubbles_forming_whenever/ | {
"a_id": [
"db1xuh4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The water you're boiling the pasta in leaches some of the starches out of the pasta. That's what makes it cloudy and why it forms bubbles."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4h6ssu | why is confiscated ivory burned, and not auctioned off to legitimate artists/organizations/museums? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h6ssu/eli5_why_is_confiscated_ivory_burned_and_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2nv1ct",
"d2nv32v",
"d2nv46g",
"d2nv4os",
"d2nv8i8",
"d2nvhi7",
"d2nvpr7",
"d2nwm7y",
"d2ny9hv"
],
"score": [
5,
20,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you sell confiscated narcotics? Same logic applies.",
"You're still allowing a market to exist when the product is there. By destroying the product, you know for a fact that it won't fall into wrong hands.\n\nHorrible analogy but... I own a few sandwich shops. I don't let my employees take/eat mistake sandwiches. They have to toss them out because otherwise, mistakes magically start happening. ",
"Making products from it just increases the demand. If no products are legally available, the demand decreases. It requires the cooperation of almost all countries to work. ",
"It is not about the money. Its about sending a message. Would it be okay for the DEA to legalize just a bit of heroin and sell that in order to fund their organization? ",
"I don't get this either. Doesn't destroying a large amount of a very limited product drive up the price of the remaining product? This would then increase the temptation and reward for future poachers. What am I missing?",
"Who legitimately buys new ivory? It's useless.",
"Auctioning them off provides a legitimacy to the act of poaching and encourages it. By destroying it they leave no room for the act to be acceptable or potentially profitable for those involved in stopping poaching. ",
"If some people can get it legitimately, then you never know if a piece you have was poached or not. Destroying it means that any recent ivory piece you find was obtained illegally. ",
"If someone, anyone, profits from the sale, then that someone has an incentive to allow the poaching to continue."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
21lu6h | what reason would a former employer have for not wanting you to go on unemployment after they terminate you? are there negative repercussions for the company? | I have heard stories of past employers threatening people when they try out claim unemployment, this seems strange to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21lu6h/eli5_what_reason_would_a_former_employer_have_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cge9u80",
"cge9x12",
"cgea31k"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They have to pay for your unemployment. This is one of the reasons that it's sometimes cheaper for them to keep an employee with poor productivity than to fire them.",
"My understanding (i am not an HR person), is that all companies pay into unemployment insurance similar to individuals. (social security).\n\nHowever, the AMOUNT of former workers filing for unemployment affects the employers base score, and dependant on their base score, is how much they pay in that type of tax. in other words, more you lay off/fire, the more you pay back to the state in social services taxes. ",
"I own a business and pay a state-based unemployment insurance. When I opened, it was 1.1% of wages. After 6 months, it went to 1%. Don't know how far down it would go, nor do I have the experience of knowing how much a claim would send it up.\nI am battling a claim. Not so much about the $$ at this point, but I will not have someone flat out lie so they can work the system to their desire - or just to 'stick it to me'. I will throw them under the bus and charge with fraud, if needed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3605tm | why do older people in general listen to classic rock or oldies stations, which are just songs they've been listening to for decades? | Obviously, this doesn't include everyone. These days my dad listens some Radiohead and Coldplay but growing up it was always classic rock and a tinge of country. My mom on the other hand put on Merle Haggard, Hank Jr., but also contemporary chrsitan music and my Damian Marley and Nas record when she heard it along with the classic rock with my dad.
My grandma won't listen to anything past the 70's if I were to guess and I know a lot of elderly listen to older stations (and TV Land and such). Is it more for the nostalgic effect or that they just stop listening to grunge/hip-hop when it came out or rock and roll for the generations before them? I know this is ELI5 but I could read a thesis paper on this, it's terribly interesting to me, it was hard enough to keep this text box this short. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3605tm/eli5why_do_older_people_in_general_listen_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr9gqg7",
"cr9gu69"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the sentimental comfort zone of songs...familiarity as opposed to trying to keep current. Generally, MOST people will stay with whatever was popular in their preferred genre, when they were in their teens and 20's, and prefer to listen to those songs way into their old age. ",
"Most people slow down their intake of new music as they get older (I know I did). You tend to re-listen to music from when you were in school, especially if it reminds you of certain events. Even if it's new music from bands I listened to then, meh. No thanks."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
bbotkf | why do women need to be awake during childbirth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbotkf/eli5_why_do_women_need_to_be_awake_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekkb527",
"ekkbavz"
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text": [
"Anesthesiologist here. \n\n1) The pushing for a vaginal delivery, as mentioned previously. \n\n2) Any systemic sedation or anesthetic that the mom gets, the baby gets too. A sedated baby has a higher risk of respiratory complications.\n\n3) It's safer. Less women die in childbirth (vaginal or cesarean section) receiving spinal or epidural anesthetic, than a general anesthetic.",
"If she's awake, she can push when doctors tell her to. Pulling on a baby's head is not good, so the force has to come from the other end. \n\nThere's also some benefits to assessing mom's health. If she passes out, throws a stroke, or starts feeling pain somewhere she shouldn't, they can deal with the complication instead of hoping some nurse or doctor spots it.\n\nAnesthesia also takes some time to wear off, but babies are programmed to want Mom right away. Having her awake means she can hold the baby and start being a mom without waiting for the drugs to wear off."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
fjjn43 | how are coloured shadows formed? | As straight forward as that, how and why are coloured shadows formed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fjjn43/eli5_how_are_coloured_shadows_formed/ | {
"a_id": [
"fknalei",
"fknaz4q",
"fknb3ij"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"All shadows are coloured, but that depends on the lighting source.\n\nNatural shadows appear blueish in tone because the natural light is blocked from the shadow area, leaving only indirect light (refracted) and blue light from other parts of the sky.\n\nBy playing around in a controlled setting with different coloured light sources will create different coloured shadows.",
"* Colored light is just light that has been filtered in some way.\n* Most of the filtered light we are used to is light that is reflected off a surface.\n* The surface absorbs some of the light and reflects the rest. This effectively filters it.\n* The other way we see filtered light is when light passes through a substance.\n* The substance absorbs some of it and lets the rest pass through again acting as a filter. \n* This creates what OP is calling \"colored shadows\".\n* For example a red stained glass window. \n* White light hits the glass and all the colors except red are absorbed by the glass.\n* So some red light reflects off the glass but also some red light passes through the back of it. \n* It looks like it casts a shadow because it's the same shape and position that an actual shadow would have but it's not a shadow because it's made of light instead of the absence of light.",
"When you shine white light (which is made up off all colours) through an object that is only transparent to one colour, all light except this one gets blocked. So the shadow now is not the area where direct light doesnt hit at all. Its just the area where inly the light of that colour reaches"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
fwvdd1 | what connects intestines to the rest of the body? do they just float around in there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fwvdd1/eli5_what_connects_intestines_to_the_rest_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmqstv3",
"fmr26jy",
"fmqnj0s",
"fmqo005"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
13,
87
],
"text": [
"So... on top of what everyone else said. You can have doctors take it out, operate on it, and put it back in - bunching it up as they see fit. Then when you heal your stomach feels different forever. Why do they do this? To remove intestinal cancer... it's basically super horrible to have to have your guts on a table beside ya. Appreciate your health!",
"At one point, the developing human organism is a ball of cells with a few layers. OK with that?\n\nThe intestines form from folds in one of those layers, kind of like making folds in a sheet. The very ends of the folds, where the cloth of a sheet actually bends, become tubes. These tubes become intestines.\n\nThe rest of the cloth that folded is still there, flat against itself, and provides a support scaffold called mesentery.",
"Your digestive system is a big tube. One end is your mouth, the other end is your anus. In between there is your esophagus, stomach, small intestine and large intestine. It's all connected in one line.\n\nEdit, since I think I misunderstood your question: In order to keep your intestines from twisting around each other, there's some connective tissue called mesentery that has blood vessels and what not in them and keeps them all from floating around. It connects them to the inside of your abdomen and some of the other internal organs.",
"Intestines are connected to the rest of the body by the peritoneum, which is like a bag that covers all abdominal organs in order to prevent chafing. They are also connected to the mesentery, a kind of connective tissue, which anchors the intestinal loops to the back of the abdominal cavity, and through which arteries and veins pass to feed the intestines. \n\nHere's a diagram: _URL_1_\n\nAnd another: \n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://images.app.goo.gl/tyncRUd3tRW5QfEY8",
"https://images.app.goo.gl/9rYxUUHAV9THknkz8"
]
]
|
||
9r5rh8 | if my phone, tv, and pc are all sent the correct time from an accurate central location, how come they don't show the same time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9r5rh8/eli5_if_my_phone_tv_and_pc_are_all_sent_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8eg6y8",
"e8egz3c"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Those 'time update' messages are only sent periodically. In the meantime, the device must keep track of time on its own.\n\nTo do that, some sort of oscillator (device that makes a signal at a steady rate) is used. Oscillators drift over time; some more than others. They are also affected by things like temperature and vibration. \n\nSince each device uses different oscillators, with a different internal environment, they will all inevitably fall out of sync.",
"As others have said, your TV might not be getting time updates, your computer probably is, and your phone almost certainly is. However, they can have different sources. Verizon's time server is different than Microsoft's or Apple's for example. Those companies might get their time from the same source, like a US government source or something, but they might not. Even if these companies do ultimately pull their time from the same source, drift is still possible between periodic updates."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
eruky8 | why is the chinese coronavirus such big news with six people dead, when the flu has killed over 6,000 people this season in the us alone? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eruky8/eli5_why_is_the_chinese_coronavirus_such_big_news/ | {
"a_id": [
"ff5xrni",
"ff5y1vs",
"ff61ntg"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, first off this is a new strain of a coronavirus, and this is an outbreak happening, meaning that number is not accurate and will surely climb. \n\nIt's a big deal because authorities want this outbreak contained to avoid it spreading and infecting hundreds of thousands. \n\nComparing the flu to this is kind of a bad comparison: we don't know how far this virus has spread yet in the last couple of weeks and we don't have accurate numbers yet on infected and casualties.",
"It's a new virus that we hardly know how it works, how it transmits, and what it does. It causes multiple diseases that we dont completely know. The 290 people that have gotten it, 6 have died. We know how the flu transmits. Airborne. We have a pretty effective defense and treatment. Flu vaccine and tamiflu. We dont know how to treat this, only to medically manage until the body fixes itself, where it really came from, and it's so new that we dont even know the very mechanics of how it works. And there is plenty of news on the flu every year. From the vaccine not being effective to people fighting for their right to not vaccinate (which I'm all for mandating vaccinations if people want to be an active member of modern society. You need to vaccinate to enter the US, why not vaccinate those inside or those that want to travel)",
"The real number is estimated to be over 1200 at this point, and China is controlling that information to not effect the billions of travelers for the lunar new year. Have you noticed the disclosed deaths are just one in each strategic region for plausible deniability?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
51m78s | why can't you buy a domain directly? | I've never saw the need to learn about domains but something recently crossed my mind. Why do you need to use websites like GoDaddy to buy domains but you can't get them directly? How do websites that sell domains get their own domain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51m78s/eli5_why_cant_you_buy_a_domain_directly/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7czm0a",
"d7czx7d"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Only certain companies are authorized to host domain servers. Trust me - this a good thing. When you register a domain, you're paying for them to keep running DNS servers.\n\nAnyone could make up a new top-level domain & set up servers if they wanted. The problem is getting everyone to trust your servers & go to them to look things up in the first place.",
"There is no one to buy it \"from\" directly; the system of domain names is artificial. What's important is that everyone agrees to use the same system. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number regulates the system that the world has agreed to use, and authorizes companies to act as registrars for domain names if they agree to follow the ICANN procedure. The companies are allowed to charge a fee for that service.\n\nWhat you really pay for when you register a domain name through a registrar is the trust other people have in that ICANN-approved registrar. You can set up your own system of domain names with your own servers, but no one will want to go to your servers to look up domain names; they want to use the agreed-upon standard."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4l7sdz | why does one chromosome change genetics so much? | How does one single chromosome have such a huge impact on our genetic makeup? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4l7sdz/eli5_why_does_one_chromosome_change_genetics_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3l1e74"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"We each have 23 pairs of chromosomes. All of the instructions to construct a human body from scratch is contained in those. So \"one single chromosome\" is 1/23 of what makes you human!\n\nSuppose you bought a car kit and you had a 23-volume set of instructions on how to build a car.\n\nIf you're missing any ones of those books, it's pretty unlikely you're going to get a car that actually drives.\n\nIf one of those books gets partially damaged, you might get lucky and you might end up with a car that mostly works but has a defect.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6ek5sj | how can we split an atom of atoms technically never touch? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ek5sj/eli5_how_can_we_split_an_atom_of_atoms/ | {
"a_id": [
"diax0lt",
"diaxsel",
"dibj61q"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Even if atoms (or even the components of atoms) don't physically touch in a strict sense (as in, their spaces directly tangent) they still are connected to each other via forces.\n\nSplitting an atom evolves breaking the nucleus - an arrangement of protons and neutrons bonded together with the strong nuclear force - into two different arrangements of protons and neutrons that are each bonded together with a different amount of strong nuclear force which means some of the original bonding energy is no longer present so would be released from the atom.",
"Touching is a weird concept. When you think about touching from the perspective of the sense of touch, what you are sensing is pressure, or force. Do atoms exert forces on each other? Certainly yes, via electrostatic repulsion and the pauli exclusion principle. Do atoms have hard surfaces that can directly come into contact with each other? No, at an atomic scale, is doesn't make sense to think about subatomic particles at hard objects with some defined surface that can touch another hard object with a defined surface.",
"Most of the time when we're talking about \"splitting the atom,\" we're actually talking about atoms more-or-less spontaneously going through the process of [radioactive decay](_URL_0_). Some atoms are inherently unstable and will eventually fall apart on their own. Exactly how long that takes depends on the element we're talking about. A carbon-10 atom has a 50% chance of decaying within about 20 seconds. A hydrogen-3 atom (sometimes called \"tritium\") has a 50% chance of decaying in a bit more than 12 *years*. But the point is that atoms splitting in this manner doesn't involve \"touching\" atoms. They'll fall apart all on their own.\n\nThat said, when atoms do decay, they can throw off sub-atomic particles in addition to two smaller, complete atoms. These particles can collide with other atoms, though most of the time they don't. If it does, the affected atom will most likely immediately split. As the number of unstable atoms in a small area goes up, the odds that one of these particles will hit another unstable atom goes op. Get enough of these atoms close enough together and it can reach \"critical mass,\" leading to a chain reaction of atomic decay and particle collisions such that a significant percentage of the mass will very rapidly decay almost all at once, releasing a potentially *enormous* amount of radiation. Controlled critical masses are what drive nuclear power plants. *Un*controlled critical masses are what drive nuclear weapons. \n\nSometimes though, we really are talking about what amounts to physically hammering an atom apart. This happens in particle accelerators, where a stream of particles (atomic or sub-atomic) is magnetically accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light before being directed to slam into a target. Most of these particles will miss, but a few will connect, sometimes leading to atoms splitting apart. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay"
]
]
|
||
qfbsr | - what are both sides of this birth control debate and congress? i've only heard the rush limbaugh stuff so i'm confused and would like as unbiased an explanation as possible | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qfbsr/eli5_what_are_both_sides_of_this_birth_control/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3x5nz6"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"So Obama thought that religious affiliated institutions should provide healthcare through their insurance companies to their employees. \n\nThese religious institutions didn't think they should have to provide healthcare options that provided birth control because they morally object to birth control. \n\nRepublicans jumped on and said that forcing these organization to provide birth control violated their 1st Amendment rights. \n\nCongress called a bunch of people to testify before a committee about the matter. \n\nThe committee refused to let any women testify, but heard from a number of priests and rabbis. \n\nLimbaugh then called one of the women meant to testify a slut for wanting birth control. \n\nDemocrats have argued that if you let employers opt out of insurance options on \"moral\" grounds, then employers could essentially opt out of providing any sort of insurance. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
aansol | how is water ( h2o ) able to dissapate heat so quickly and efficiently? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aansol/eli5_how_is_water_h2o_able_to_dissapate_heat_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ectjgzd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Heat is quickly transferred through contact, water is a liquid and gets in small spaces that solids otherwise wouldn’t.\n\nIt then evaporates away from the heated object which works in the same way as sweat, and takes heat with it, cooling the object."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
37zvuy | what caused the switch from doctors doing home visits to the modern doctors office? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37zvuy/eli5_what_caused_the_switch_from_doctors_doing/ | {
"a_id": [
"crr4u5o",
"crr6qhh",
"crr7ndq",
"crrfkgs"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you keep the doctor in one place, he can spend more of his valuable time actually seeing patients rather than driving between potentially distant patient houses. Having patients drive to the doctor means the doctor gets to see more patients.\n\nSome countries (like France) still do paid doctor housecalls, but that isn't what most of their citizens do.",
"Well, first of all doctors still do home visits. \n\nI can talk about Italy, here a GP works on a two \"shifts\" system, one in the morning and one in the noon, and one of them is in office and the other is for home visits. I mean, their schedule is like \"Monday 8-12 office visits - 13 -18 home visits\" The next day the switch it and it's like \"8-12 home visits - 13-18 office visits\".\n\nIt's just doing office visits is more pratical, you can see more patient and you are less stressed (and you do not want a stressed doctor). ",
"In U.S.A. I'm pretty sure it was because of population expansion. It was more time-efficient and patient service ability that made doctors take offices and receive clients. Centralized services such as in-house labs, nursing and billing to insurance surely played a role. But There are also doctors now who do mobile services, visiting the elderly or immobile patients by coming to them. Seems like we've got the best of both worlds in communities where this is practiced. ",
"There's a few reasons:\n1. It saves time to have patients come to a surgery as the doctor doesn't have to spent time travelling. \n2. Liability and safety of the doctor. Some people live in unsafe conditions (hoarding, dangerous animals present etc ) and a doctor isn't necessarily safe walking into people houses.\n3. Equipment. It's alot easier to have people come to you than to take every piece of equipment you might need to a patient.\n4. Convenience for patients. I might wake up in the morning and feel unwell. It will be alot easier to go to the doctors surgery and wait for him to find time to see me than it would be for him to add me to a list of locations he has to fit into one day.\n\nReally, its just a better system for all involved. You can still get home visits in most places, usually by special arrangement or after hours."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1wv4hw | why are the coldest days in the winter when there is no cloud cover? | I think it's something to do with clouds being able to reflect heat, but I can't be sure. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wv4hw/eli5_why_are_the_coldest_days_in_the_winter_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf5nnzl",
"cf5oqb5"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Clouds are like a blanket, trapping heat. When there are no clouds, the heat from the earth has a freer path to space.",
"That's pretty much it. It's because heat radiates from everything on Earth. When it's a clear night sky it can only radiate into space. It's known as a black body. All of the heat given off from radiation is absorbed. If there are clouds overhead, those clouds aren't a black body. They will reflect radiation back down to Earth and in turn keep it warm.\n\nThink of heat like a flashlight. If you go into your room, turn out the lights, and shine your flashlight at the ceiling, then the white ceiling will reflect light back down and all over the room, lighting it up. Now go outside on a clear night and shine your flashlight into the sky. None of the light is reflected back down. It's gone forever into space."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
acmhwr | is person mind really divided to conscious and subconscious or is this division made for convenience to discrube some psychological phenomena ?is there other psychologicsl model which does not make this division? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/acmhwr/eli5is_person_mind_really_divided_to_conscious/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed945b3"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Part of your mind controls your heart beat. But your are not consciously aware of it.\n\nPart of you mind also controls your breathing. You probably were not consciously aware of your breathing, although reading this you might be now. In 10 minutes you won't be conscious of your breathing.\n\nAs I am typing now, I am consciously aware of the message I am trying to communicate. but I am NOT consciously aware of the individual movements that each one of my fingers is making. I can watch my fingers and be amazed at how they are jumping around and dancing like crazy.\n\nSo there definitely are conscious and unconscious thoughts. Sometimes these different processes are isolated to different physical places in the brain. I think we can find the part of the brain that controls your hear rate.\n\nbut generally there isn't a physical part that is conscious and a physical part that is sub conscious. The division there is a logical one. Its not about physical parts of the brain but a logical grouping.\n\nwe also are not sure how serious the sub conscious really was. Freud thought it was nearly magical. But lots of his work has been dis-proven by more modern developments. It might be that besides basic functions like your heart, any though can become a conscious though.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
35fnh7 | if going limp increases your odds of survival from an impact such as a fall or a car crash, then why is it instinct to go rigid instead? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35fnh7/eli5if_going_limp_increases_your_odds_of_survival/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr3yiwc",
"cr3yws7",
"cr3z5td"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because your instincts aren't honed for car crashes or falls. Humans evolved in the plains of Africa and didn't drive cars until pretty recently :P",
"The human body and reflexes are designed to improve durability and lessen impacts from animals or other attackers or aggresors.\n\nOur bodies see impact or assault coming, and tense the muscles, moving to intercept the blow and reduce the impact.\n\nIn a car, you are having MANY more forces act on you aside from being hit with a fist or a stick. The same as with falling from a tree, which you so described below.\n\nFalling from a tree isn't a common everyday occurance for humans. So the instinct to defend one's self from harm is based on being hit, not minimizing gravity's impact on the body from a falling height.",
"Going prone and rigid when faced with sudden danger was the best course of action for our ancestors, in order to be best prepared to attempt to fight or run away from it. Going limp when being chased down by saber-toothed tiger is a behavioural response that would have be eaten out of the gene pool pretty quickly. And now marooned in the modern age where there are no saber-toothed tigers were stuck with an outdated limbic system which is still shit scared of them and as a result won't think rationally when sudden danger takes the form of a lump of plastic and steel hurtling towards you at 45mph instead. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1rzvay | in tv/movies we always see stand-offs between guys with guns. in reality shouldn't you just shoot as soon as possible? | **Scenario:** two men, each with guns, are standing roughly five feet from each other. Each gun is aimed at the other person's head. From this distance we are assuming neither person would miss. They sit and talk until they agree to not shoot, or they both winding up shooting at the same time.
**Reality:** Shouldn't you just immediately pull the trigger? Because we are assuming you won't miss, at this distance a head-shot should kill the person before they know you pulled the trigger. Are we just worried that in death their muscles will contract, causing them to pull the trigger? Is this a reasonable thing to fear?
Or, is it a simply psychological thing, not wanting to pull the trigger?
**EDIT:** Can anyone answer the science side? If two people are standing close to each other, guns aimed at heads, and one person shoots first, what are the odds of 1) the second person being able to fire as well, intentionally or from involuntary death spasms, and 2) actually hitting the first person in the head (remember, that's where the gun was originally being aimed). | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rzvay/eli5_in_tvmovies_we_always_see_standoffs_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdsj7lc",
"cdsjy29"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"If both of you have the trigger, there is an equal chance either person might squeeze off a shot. Furthermore, if you don't get a killing shot (and sometimes even if you do), the opponent might still be able to pull the trigger enough to get a shot off.\n\nOn the other hand, since both parties have equal opportunity at death, there is a possibility for a mutual stand-down, assuming neither side wants to die and/or values life more than getting shot.\n\nMore importantly, its TV, so a long drawn out standoff is good for ratings.",
"Bullets do not kill instantly and most people value keeping their own life more then taking yours. So If I pulled the trigger right away chances are you would immediately fire back and I'm dead. If I talk you down first then I can either walk away or shoot you once your guard is down and I am not in risk of you immediately shooting back."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1vojve | why does cereal have double packaging? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vojve/eli5why_does_cereal_have_double_packaging/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceua5fa",
"ceuarhy"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Advertisement, the cardboard box has all the information, it also protects the cereal from being crushed and allows for it to be packed neatly and efficiently in the square container.\n\nThe plastic bag inside ensures freshness and increases the life of the cereal, and therefore letting it be stored for longer, as this isn't displayed, only a clear plastic is necessary.\n\nSource : I like cereal and eat with my eyes first.",
"Two-fold purpose.\n\n* the box is a solid protection and information repository as well as advertisement.\n\nBut the box offer limited protection from weather and vermin.\n\n* the plastic cover offers protection from vermin (not rats) and it keeps the product fresh. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3uhycp | serving "25-to-life" in prison | Does that mean they have to serve a minimum of 25 years, but whoever is capable of making the decision can extend it to life for whatever reason?
What reasons would extend it to a life sentence if they just finished 25 years for that crime? Do they just say "You need to serve more time." so they extend it without other reasoning?
Or is it based on behaviour in the prison for those 25 years?
What does it mean exactly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uhycp/eli5_serving_25tolife_in_prison/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxeyxs7",
"cxez6im"
],
"score": [
16,
9
],
"text": [
"Parole available at 25. If not paroled, serve life in prison.\n\nA parole board determines if a prisoner has reformed enough to re-enter society.",
"Usually if someone is facing a sentence with a range like \"25 to life\" it would mean the minimum sentence, if found guilty, is 25 years, but the judge reserves the discretion to impose a harsher sentence of more than 25 years up to life (either life imprisonment, or where applicable, the death penalty). \n\nSomeone who has been sentenced to X number of years or even life may, however, be eligible for parole and be released from prison well before their sentence is complete (there may also be a minimum number of years [e.g. 25] before an offender can become eligible for parole depending on the crime and total sentence length). Also note that, depending on the country/jurisdiction, the offender may still be heavily monitored (possibly under house arrest) while on parole until the full sentence term is completed (which could be for the rest of the offender's life).\n\n > What reasons would extend it to a life sentence if they just finished 25 years for that crime? Do they just say \"You need to serve more time.\" so they extend it without other reasoning?\n\nIn general, you can't just extend someone's sentence later on. There are exceptions though. For example, if the inmate committed another crime within the prison, it's possible the sentence may be extended or a new sentence may be added for the new offense. \n\nAlso, some countries/jurisdictions recognize extensions for so-called 'dangerous offenders'. These offenders have been classified as such because they have shown no signs of rehabilitation and the parole board has concluded the offender is wholly unfit for re-entry into the community and that they are very likely to commit violent criminal acts again if released. In some countries/jurisdictions, the offender must be officially declared as dangerous from the beginning (e.g. at the time of the initial sentence) otherwise the sentence cannot be extended even if the offender is found to still be dangerous at the end of their prison term."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
554l4n | why do police, firefighters, and ambulence not have different sirens? | Is it for convenience?
Edit: I live in America. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/554l4n/eli5_why_do_police_firefighters_and_ambulence_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d87h4x7",
"d87hzt3",
"d87iozk"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"I suppose it depends on where you live but I can tell the difference between the 3 when I hear them from afar. I also grew up with a firefighter, paramedic, LEO father and spent a lot of time at the fire department, so I may have more of a keen sense for it. Around here fire engines tend to have a slower siren, ambulances have more tone changes and squad cars have several different sirens and noises.",
"Why would they need to? An emergency vehicle is an emergency vehicle. The siren is to warn people that there's one coming your way.",
"Umm, in my experience, they do, at least in the cities I've lived in.\n\nFire trucks have a lower pitched siren with a longer cycle (i.e. the amount of time they take to go from higher to lower); they're easy to distinguish to me.\n\nAmbulances and police cars can have similar sirens to my ears, but ambulances often have different modes they switch through, rapidly alternating sirens with sharp buzzing or pulsing high-pitched sounds. Police cars often have simpler sirens."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
au9lc8 | what happens to my data if google went under/stopped existing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/au9lc8/eli5_what_happens_to_my_data_if_google_went/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh6kg6h"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"**If everything catastrophically failed at the infrastructure level (like a majority of their hardware just totally buggered off):** You'd likely lose everything, or most of everything you had on Google.\n\n**If the company went under (like a liquidation bankruptcy):** Ideally, they would have an exit plan for the \"end of life\" for Google, and mechanisms to extract all of your data through a service (for example, Google Takeout - [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)) that would stay available for a little while so you can download all the data associated with your account."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://takeout.google.com/"
]
]
|
||
3ocg9r | when a new word evolves (eg iphone, google, autotune) how are its properties in other languages decided? | For example, in languages like French or Italian, who decides whether it is masculine or feminine? Or whether or not to alter it to make it fit in better with existing words?
Is there a council that makes an executive decision or do they just let it develop organically? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ocg9r/eli5_when_a_new_word_evolves_eg_iphone_google/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvvxdng",
"cvvxr9e",
"cvvy3w7",
"cvvynmm",
"cvvzqnn",
"cvw25jn",
"cvw5lw9",
"cvw5tlf",
"cvw68fk",
"cvwa3e3",
"cvwesnx",
"cvwfgez",
"cvwhqd4",
"cvwoabj",
"cvwoaq3",
"cvwocjm",
"cvwpijw",
"cvwqmf8",
"cvwtuss",
"cvwxm32",
"cvwzg8p",
"cvxig7x"
],
"score": [
20,
32,
4,
568,
12,
18,
12,
2,
3,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is probably going to depend on each language. I can answer things for dutch however.\n\nAround here, words are generally allowed to develop organically, and then after a while collected in the new updated spelling guide that comes out every few years. There are a few rules though that makes things easier.\n\nIn Dutch we have two definite articles (de en het, masculine and feminine). All words borrowed from English get the article 'de' (masculine) unless there are other rules/exceptions. One exception is, for example, is if the word is a form of a verb, it gets 'het'. So it would be 'de race' (The race) but 'het racen' (the act of racing). People don't really think about the rules though. It is so natural for us to put 'de' in front of an English word that we don't even think about what rules to use. ",
"I can give the example on spanish\n\nA iPhone is a cellphone, a cellphone is masculine so iPhone is also masculine.\nGoogle sounds like masculine so its used like that.\nGenerally it depends on how they speak it, and general consensus",
"It varies. In France, they have the [Académie Française](_URL_0_) which decides what new words will be when translated. \n\nThis is because France is very conservative about their language, and want to prevent \"Franglais\" becoming a big thing (when French speakers use English phrases such as OK)",
"With most languages, it is a fairly organic process. People decide on its usage simply by using it, and once it appears in print it is considered notable enough to be introduced to a national dictionary, similar to the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster for British and American English.\n\nFrench is a notable exception, though. [L'Académie française](_URL_0_) is a council which dictates the usage (including gender) of new words entering the French language. For example, when the iPhone was released they decided whether the word 'iPhone' was masculine or feminine. They wield such power that the release of the iPhone was delayed in France while they deliberated, even though \"the iPhone\" would be \"l'iPhone\" in French, whether it's masculine or feminine. They went with masculine, in case you're wondering.\n\nGoogle and Auto-Tune are both trademarks (Auto-Tune is owned by a pro-audio company called [Antares](_URL_1_)), and so l'Académie doesn't get to say how they're used. Even though both terms are close to becoming generic, trademarked terms are not in l'Académie's remit.\n\nBut to take a word like 'download', l'Académie français are very against \"franglais,\" the taking of an English word, saying it in a French accent and calling it a French word. They were too slow-acting to come up with a word for \"internet,\" before the Franglais (\"l'Internet\") became widely used, so they jumped on \"download.\" \n\nThe French word for 'load' as a verb is 'charger', e.g \"I'm loading a box with cats\" would be \"Je charge une boîte des chats.\" So 'charger' is fine, you're loading your computer with stuff.\n\nBut do we really mean 'down' in English? The internet isn't higher up than your computer. It doesn't come down a hierarchy to get to you, all computers are equal on the internet. And the French don't like hierarchy all that much anyway, see also The French Revolution. But you can be sure that the 'load' is being carried over some distance, the same as telegraphs, telephone calls and television broadcasts. And so they went with \"télécharger\" for the verb \"to download\", and following the rules of French grammar, \"Téléchargements\" for your \"Downloads\" folder, i.e. stuff you have downloaded. So l'Académie actually came up with a better word, from an etymological point of view, than the English equivalent.",
"I can speak for eastern slavic languages. \n\nSo in Ukrainian or Russian they have masculine, feminine and neuter.\n\nThe words are taken from Englishin correct form, but also often are read simpler. So for instance letter \"a\" is often translated as sound [a]. There is the same letter a in cyrillic and it never read as [e].\n\nSo in those languages, most people would say ai-pud, not ai-pad. Sum-soong, whar-kraft, hull-o (halo).\n\nThe genus is usually determined organically. You can tell from the sounding of the word whether it is masculine or femenine or neuter. \n\niphone, android, google for instance are \"he\"\n\nmotorola is \"she\" (notice letter -a at the end)",
"Others have already chimed in that it's going to depend on the language. I can help for ASL (American Sign Language).\n\nTypically, one of 3 things happens:\n\n1. A \"glossed\" sign is given to the word. It's not exactly conceptually accurate, but it's what a similar English would would have as a sign. Example is \"server\" (as in internet, not restaurant) signed as SERVE (as in serving at a restaurant).\n\n2. The word is spelled or given a loan-sign (condensed spelling). Examples include \"software\" spelled out or left at S-W (if in a technical field). The same is true with \"database\" (spelled or D-B).\n\n3. A sign is created. This is where it gets neat, because ASL sort of has a physical center at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC. More often than not, new signs come from that campus as a result of over 1500 Deaf people interacting on a daily basis. Examples include \"Barack Obama\" signed as B--- > O with the palm inward and the hand pulled from the center of the body outwards. With the explosion of the internet/mobile technology/inexpensive video recording, forums like Facebook and Youtube also act as avenues for sharing regional signs or discussing new signs. Unlike many languages where usage \"just happens,\" this process actually includes discussion and debate. Examples of this process that I've seen include the sign for Glide, a video messaging app, as well as culturally/internationally-based signs like country names or religious vocabulary.",
"German here. We have three gender, male, female and neuter, that are distributed over the nouns quite randomly, i.e. not dependent on the word ending or so. Why and how new words are assigned a gender is quite interesting, not fully understood and probably dependent on the sound of the word or what it means. iPhone is neuter (\"das iPhone\"), probably because telephone is neuter too (\"das Telefon\"). E-mail is female (\"die E-mail\", maybe because it stands for \"die Nachricht\", but it's \"das E-Mail\" in Austria for some reason), download is male (\"der Download\", maybe because it describes a process, \"der Vorgang\"). But once a gender has been generally accepted everything else sounds pretty wrong. For example, modem is a normal german word by now and is neuter, \"das Modem\". However, it is a combination of modulator/demodulator and \"der Modulator\" is definitely male. So in technical texts the modem is referred to as \"der Modem\", which is technically correct, and in common speech it is \"das Modem\" and if someone uses \"der Modem\" colloquially you can safely assume that that person is a weird and/or pedantic nerd. \n\nGooge doesn't have a gender, we just say \"Google\". You wouldn't say \"the google\" in english too. When used as a verb it becomes quite cumbersome however. Because google is pronounced \"googel\" verb inflections are unusally germanized like this, so \"I googled this\" becomes \"Ich habe das gegoogelt\" instead of \"gegoogled\". \"I downloaded this\" would become \"Ich habe es gedownloadet\" or \"downgeloadet\", which is both utterly terrible and only used as a joke, we use a german word then, [\"herunterladen\"](_URL_0_), which is just a literal translation. ",
"Swedish has two articles and a number (7-ish) of different ways to form plural. Any native speaker has a feeling for it and can tell what's \"correct\", especially re. the articles. Rules for new words are formed informally and organically. For example: ett modem, en router. \n\nWe also have Språkrådet and Datatermgruppen; councils giving recommendations for things like spelling of borrowed words, translations of terms or what to call the @ sign. ",
"That (still) happens here in Spain with the word \"tablet\". Some people say EL tablet (masculine) and some say LA tablet (feminine). I do use the feminine form.",
"Unofficially, in Latvian, everyone just uses the original version pronounced in local accent/style plus any local grammar rules. Mostly these are borrowed English words. Doubly true with brand names. Usually that means mispronouncing it plus adding Latvian suffix. Basically, the base is preserved and usually pronounced as if local rules apply, which is that letters are almost always pronounced as written in Latvian. Most words get altered liberally to fit sentences as if they had local language rules. I notice most words become masculine, probably because most English words either end with consonants or silent vowels and feminine words in Latvian predominantly end in pronounced vowels.\n\nOfficially, the council/ministry (don't know their official name) generally suggests/creates new \"pure\" Latvian words for common borrowed words and then nobody uses them because they are just confusing and often stupid-sounding. Latvian language \"experts\" are notorious for trying to make their own versions. I guess they are proud of the language and want their identity, but it's mostly younger generation using them and they don't care. Imagine you were told instead of \"autotune\" to use \"tonal knobbing\".",
"In Spanish, gender gets decided a bit arbitrarily; it's mostly phonetics but sometimes etymology plays a part. Take \"Internet\", for instance. The word for \"net\" in Spanish is \"red\", which is feminine, therefore some people say \"la internet\". But the words ending in \"-net\" we've borrowed from French (i.e. carnet, bidet, spelled in Spanish without the silent \"t\" - carné, bidé) are masculine, so \"el internet\" is also used. From etymology, \"email\" is \"correo electrónico\" (masc.), so \"el/un email\". Most English words tend to be masculine for some reason, like \"el selfie\" even though it's a photo and photos are feminine... anyway... New verbs are all regular and go in the first conjugation (\"-ar\"), so \"goglear\", \"tuitear\", \"faxear\". ",
"Very interesting topic OP. I know that English has many borrowed words, but I wasn't aware of too many borrowed words from English, especially new ones, and commenters have enlightened me.",
"Japanese is a phonetic language. They have 2 alphabets (not counting chinese symbols for already established words). The alphabets are identical except drawn differently. One alphabet is mainly for foreign words. Foreign words usually become a phonetic version in the Japanese alphabet and then used as such. It's also very common to just see the english named word too for companies or brands. like iPhone will be written as iPhone.\n\nSometimes long foreign words will be shortened to a few syllable word. Personal Computer (PC) will become pasokon.\n\nExample of difference in between 2 alphabets as such: Pasokon in the alphabets are\nぱそこん or パソコン",
"I studied Italian for years and what I came to understand was this most borrowed words were masculine. Il computer, un iPhone, etc.",
"In South Africa, if it's Zulu it's easy, iGoogle, iAutotune, iMp3. \"i\" is pronounced as 'e'. \n\n:P",
"This process of figuring out what sounds correct is going on right now in German for Bitcoin. In English, Bitcoin is genderless (you wouldn't say \"the price of the Bitcoin is x\", you say \"the price of Bitcoin is x\").\n\nMost German speaking tech circles use it the same way. With the exception of Switzerlands biggest radio station SRF, which insist on giving it the male gender, which imho sounds super stupid. Their journalists clearly have never interacted with the german culture already talking about bitcoin, they've just read english news and invented themselves how to use the word in german, teaching thousands of people a wrong word. This has been going on for 3 years now, and there is not end in sight.",
"If i may add just one more opinion: It kind of all boils down to the difference in linguistics between descriptivists and prescriptivists. Of the former, they are generally people who try to look at a language as it is actually used by everyday people in everyday life. (I am not referring to specialist terms). Prescriptivists, I divide into two general classes: first, those who genuinely look at the research of descriptivists and attempt to define rules in grammar and spelling (at least for the historical moment), and second, the hide-bound (look it up) pricks who essentially say \"my way or the highway\" and refuse to accept that language is a living, changing thing. I applaud the post by Earhacker. My own field is sociolinguistics; my life-long hobby is etymology.",
"I'm a native English speaker studying Arabic and living in an Arabic speaking country, but who is far from fluent. So take what I say with a grain of salt.\n\nIn the local dialects of Arabic (the everyday language which people speak), it seems to be an organic process; there is no council which decides. But what I find fascinating, is how foreign words are then used in the language. The foreign word is taken and then plugged into the root system of Arabic.\n\nFor example, here in Tunisia there are lots of loan words from French, such as \"قلاس / glaas\" for ice cream, from the French \"crème glacée.\" The G L S from the word is then taken and put into the verbal root system so that you get يقلّس / ee-gal-lis for he freezes (_URL_0_.) or نقلّس / n-gal-lis for I freeze (_URL_0_.). Or in the completed form, قلّسَت / gal-la-sat for she froze (_URL_0_.). I'm sure there are better examples, but it was the first one that popped into my head.\n\nAlso, they will use the Arabic system for making plurals. FYI, as a foreigner learning Arabic, plurals are the bane of my existence as there isn't just one way to do it, but many; more so in written Arabic.\n\nSo here in Tunisia, there seems to be two main ways of pluralizing a foreign loan word. One is by adding a long aa sound in the middle, such as :\n\nCenter: سنتر / cen-ter -- > سناتر / ce-naa-ter\nDriver (chauffeur): شفور / shufuur -- > شوافر / shu-waa-fur\n\nAnother way is by adding a \"aat\" at the end of the word, which corresponds to the way Arabic pluralizes a feminine word.\n\nPermit (permis): برمي / per-mii -- > برميات / per-miy-yaat\n\nAnyway, there are ton of other examples. Arabic is a fascinating language, especially how all the words derive from a very logical root system. It's interesting too then to see how foreign loan words are integrated into that root system.",
"Lithuanian. Language comitee are nazis here, so the word will have to be used for quite a while to be accepted by them. Generaly people tend to use it by familiarizing with what already are used, or by synonimising stuff, like iPhone - is a phone, thus as a phone is masculne, so is an iPhone. With google it's different though. I've probably heard every kind of a conscruction used in lithuanian there could be... if commitee weren't snail conservators, could be easier to just adjust the word usage by some existing language rule.",
"First of all, the word might be modified in the language: it might be translated (as a calque), turned into a completely different word, or, in the case of languages that use a different script, transliterated (converted into the script used by that language). Typically, brand names are left unchanged.\n\nAs for genders, various languages do one of the following:\n\n* Use the gender of the object as the gender of the brand name. For example, \"Google\" is a search engine, and in French, that is *un moteur de recherche*, which is masculine, and so \"Google\" is masculine in French. Similarly, the brand names of cars are feminine in French, as the word for car (*voiture*) is feminine: *une Peugeot*, *une Rolls-Royce*\n* Use the default gender, which might be neuter, or, if there is no neuter gender, masculine\n\nEDIT: grammar",
"I can speak about some newer words in Chinese. For things that are general use/ defining words, there is usually organic adoption for a Chinese phrase that kind of represents the meaning of the word, for example, computer is translated literally as electric mind/head (電腦) and password is translated as secret (密碼). More specific cases like companies and brands that become ubiquitous with the services they offer often get pronounced according to their latin spelling/ an approximation of their English pronunciation.",
"Sometimes a language may reanalyze parts of words to determine these things. For instance, when Swahili borrowed the Arabic word *kitab* (as *kitabu*), the [ki] portion as the Class 7 marker (Swahili classes are like grammatical gender, each noun gets one class in singular and another in plural, and this triggers agreement) -- and suddenly in plural it is class 8 *vitabu*! "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Académie_française",
"http://www.antarestech.com"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dict.cc/?s=herunterladen"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"s.th"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
ef3bhr | why does choosing the frequency band of wifi (2.4 ghz and 5 ghz) affect the speed of wifi, but for mobile frequencies (e.g. 3g and 4g), it doesn't matter? | From the articles I've read (and from personal experience), I understand that a 2.4GHz Wi-Fi signal provides internet to a larger area but sacrifices speed, while the 5GHz band provides faster speeds to a smaller area.
However, when I look at the frequency bands used in 3G mobile (_URL_0_) and 4G mobile (_URL_1_), the frequencies don't seem all that different?
There are frequencies used in 3G which are higher than 4G but yet 4G is so much faster than 3G. Why is this different from WiFi? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ef3bhr/eli5_why_does_choosing_the_frequency_band_of_wifi/ | {
"a_id": [
"fby0gda"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The band you see (like 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz) is the carrier frequency, it determines how well the wave travels and what it can go through/around\n\nThe carrier frequency doesn't determine how much data you can fit into it, that is determined by the *bandwidth* and *encoding*. 5 GHz WiFi supports channels up to 160 MHz wide with the newest version while 2.4 GHz only supports 40 MHz channels. This means that with the same encoding(and the same environment noise/loss) that you could get 4x the data through the 5 GHz WiFi channel but that's only because its got 4x the bandwidth not because its 2x the carrier frequency\n\nIf you follow your UTMS link through to the UMTS-FDD page you'll see that it used 5 MHz uplink and a 5 MHz downlink channel which means your max download bandwidth is restricted by that 5 MHz channel. Meanwhile there are a whole bunch of LTE frequency bands that support 20 MHz channels giving a peak download speed 4x higher if they were using the encoding.\n\n4G also improved the encoding to make better usage of the bandwidth which resulted in even higher speeds."
]
} | []
| [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
c7j5jm | why does back pain, especially lower back, hurt more than other common strains/sprains? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c7j5jm/elif_why_does_back_pain_especially_lower_back/ | {
"a_id": [
"esfkuk4",
"esfos48",
"esfwgci"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that there are more major nerve clusters involved, so more pain to be had.\nFor example, I have a bulging disc (L5) and it pushes on nerves, causing sciatic pain and generalised local pain. If it's a bad day, it hurts to breathe. My physio tells me this extreme pain is partly caused by the muscles around the affected area seizing.\n\nIn more general cases, I think the pain is worse because your lower back bears a lot of your body weight and handles a lot of movement.",
"You have no idea how much your lower back does for you until you hurt it. It is tied to the muscles in your core body, which manages your balance, sitting down, standing up, getting in and out of bed, on and off the toilet, everything. I thought people with lower back injuries were weak until I had one.",
"I always thought people complaining of low back pain were weak, then I got into a car accident where I now have 2 bulging discs L3-L5 and on a bad day I wouldn't wish it on anyone."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1g5mb7 | latour's actor network theory | Hi ELI5! I'm wondering if any of you could explain Bruno Latour's Actor Network theory to me in simple terms.
Thanks in advance! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g5mb7/eli5_latours_actor_network_theory/ | {
"a_id": [
"cah5j64"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Actor-Network Theory, or ANT for short, treats objects as if they were active participants in a social network. One way of thinking about this would be your apartment. Yes you live with your two roommates and might think there were three people in your social network, or more if you include your loud neighbors. But you'd be leaving out the smoke alarm which is an active participant to your network in that it wakes the whole apartment up at 6 in the morning when Roommate #2 is making toast before work at the ER. The smoke alarm is part of your social network and its actions, or failure to work, drastically affect your social network. ANT claims the smoke detector is \"performing\", and though the range of actions available to it are limited, it's still fundamentally not too different from how other roommates act and affect the network. furthermore, when your smoke alarm fails to perform, you might not be conscious of it until that lack of performance affects the entire structure of the social network, like as in the moment when you stop thinking about your apartment as a place where you live so much as a lot of rooms full of fire. \n\nThis probably seems self-evident, but now try to imagine the microscope in a lab and how its performance or lack of performance can affect the outcomes of scientific research. Luckily I think that Latour overextends himself here and we can trust the validity of the scientific process because it repeats its experiments again and again in slightly different conditions until we get a pretty good idea what the \"crucial\" things are. Nevertheless, it's a useful reminder that simple objects can have a profound ability to speak to us in really subtle ways to the point where we might not want to draw a strong distinction between a person and a smoke alarm."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
83ysyk | how do doctors/scientists determine if a tumor is benign or malignant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83ysyk/eli5_how_do_doctorsscientists_determine_if_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvli897",
"dvlie2d",
"dvlzzgs"
],
"score": [
17,
26,
2
],
"text": [
"A malignant tumor's cells are actively trying to escape the tumor and spread throughout the body, growing new tumors elsewhere. A benign tumor's cells are content to stay where they are, and aren't threatening other parts of the body. When a benign tumor turns malignant, it's because the benign tumor's cells have started to spread. \n\nThis spreading is called \"metastasis\". ",
"By its behavior, location, cellular markers, and/or appearance. It really depends on the cancer. \n\nJust to frame, the difference between a benign and malignant tumor can look like this:\n\nFirst, a cluster of cells arises that will now divide outside the normal pattern (e.g. keeping one side of the environment in one direction, etc.) Oh, but it can't form a cancer because it still responds to the immune system.\n\nNext, it develops a mutation that expresses an immune-inactivating surface ligand. Now it can both divide in the wrong orientation, and it can deactivate the immune response to itself. Oh, but it runs out of blood supply quickly as the tumor grows. \n\nNext, it develops a mutation that lets it release molecules that signal new vascularizaiton (e.g. veins). Now it has a fresh blood supply and plenty of nutrients to continue growing. Oh, but it still only knows how to divide within this specific tissue environment in contact with other like cells.\n\nNext, it develops a mutation that allows it to divide without any contact. It is now a metastasizing tumor, and can spread to many different tissue types (this is usually where the host dies). \n\nThe path from normal tissue -- > benign tumor -- > malignancy is a spectrum. Some cells have to go through ~8 major mutations, others only have to go through ~2. There are a wide variety of tumor-promoting mutations in skin cells, for example, that are benign unless you go through a long list like above. ",
"In my case the MRI shows a tumour with clear edges, much like a large rice. The specialists could tell just from the shape that it is benign. I hope they are right."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1nb6o9 | why does the smell of someone's skin become attractive to us the more we spend time with them/like them? | ... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nb6o9/why_does_the_smell_of_someones_skin_become/ | {
"a_id": [
"cch154f",
"cch91sa"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"You start to become familiar with their scent, and associate it with them. It's more psychological than anything else. ",
"If it's someone you're sexually attracted to, it could be hormonal. Pheromones, specifically. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1oh0c0 | of what consequence would it be to mcdonalds as a company if they began paying their american workers $15 an hour? | I assume that only a small fraction of their income goes towards covering their lowest-paid workers' salary. So how bad for the company as a whole would this be? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oh0c0/eli5_of_what_consequence_would_it_be_to_mcdonalds/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccruu5u",
"ccruw4p",
"ccruyvd",
"ccrv38m",
"ccrvc6h",
"ccrvyn3",
"ccryajb",
"ccryod7",
"ccrzi4d",
"ccrzk31",
"ccrzy02"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
10,
20,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"People with bachelors degrees would start applying. And they would discriminate heavily on who they would hire. So no more teenagers looking for their first job.\n",
"The cost of a big mac and everything else would go up. That would most likely severely hurt business unless every fast food franchise followed suit and raised their minimum wage. ",
"That's a starting salary of over 31k. Allot of people with a college degree don't start making that. The difficulty of the job does not warrant that kind of pay. ",
"It would begin massive automation of all processes. As soon as human labor becomes more expensive then automated robotic labor, bam, pink slips. ",
"The question really is, would the shareholders and franchise owners tolerate the lowered profits from such a raise?\n\nFive minutes on the internet gives you the answer. MCD's could very well pay $15 an hour, but it would cut their profits in roughly half. They'd still be profitable, but just not VERY profitable.\n\nThe answer? They wouldn't. You'd see them develop or deploy already developed automation. One wonders what the wage tipping point would be for that to happen. People would lose jobs at that point. \n\nNow, if they wanted to maintain that same profitability, they'd have to raise prices, something like 70 cents per big mac, for example.\n\nI think people would pay this, largely.\n\nHowever, franchised stores in small towns would go under because they don't sell enough volume to sustain the wages. And bigger stores would certainly not want to subsidize the smaller ones, would they?\n\nPersonally I don't think fast food is worth $15 an hour. It's ridiculous. Imagine what that would do to the labor market. I do think minimum wage should have been tracking inflation all along, but then again, wages have been flat for almost all of us except the very wealthy for the last 30 years or so.\n\n\n\n\n",
"Many, many more processes would be automated mechanically.\n\nCustomers ordering via touch screens, with much less human interaction.\n\nHamburger Making machines.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nAs labor gets more expensive, you would see them employ fewer people.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nBased on this article, the typical McDonald's Franchisee spends about 30-35% of their money on wages. Doubling their pay\n\n\"The institute estimates that small-business owners who run McDonald's franchises spend about a third of their income on wages, which would mean the price of a Big Mac would go up by $1.28 to $5.27. [If worker pay was doubled]\"",
"An average company with employes that do production work spends about 65% of income on payroll. Now look at your single largest monthly expense and multiply it by 1.8 (an 80% increase); how does that affect your monthly cash flow or ability to pay your bills?",
"I know a community mental health center that pays the therapists about $15.25 an hour. They spent all that time and money to get a grad degree and now they are making only $0.25 more than a high school dropout. I'm sure some of the more burnout ones would say fuck it and apply at McDonalds.",
"McDonald's doesn't say how many American hourly-workers they have. They also don't say what percentage of their employee-expenses go to hourly-workers. That info is required to generate any useful answer to your question. If you want to watch some people bullshit their way to your answer, here's a link: _URL_0_",
"I haven't seen anyone else mention this but corporate McDonald's only pays a handful of workers at corporate sites. The vast majority of McDonald's are franchises which makes this an extremely difficult question to answer because the franchise are autonomous for the most part, except for the dues they pay and the \"how to act like a MckyD's rules\" they do what they want. Hypothetically speaking (which is the only way to answer your question and anyone who says different is lying) it could be disastrous. Now the question has been raised before and if you google this you will find a huff post article that is WRONG. It's not even a scientific study and the guy who did it completely left out the franchise thing. The true answer is you could expect price increases of 25% across the board, which doesn't sound like much because hey that just means its $1.25 instead of a $1, no bid deal right? Well when you get up to the corporate level you are talking about millions of dollars being lost. Hey take it out of the CEO's pay check! Say, hypothetically prices go up 25% and they loose 10% in revenue (extremely conservative, best case scenario, hail Mary). So they cut some money out of the top guy's salary, actualy they have to get rid of him completely and they can't affoard to hire anyone to run MckyD's anymore. Do your really think the Owner and officers get paid 10% of total revenue? No not even close. The CEO of McDonald's got paid $1.79 million dollars while the company took in $24 BILLION and net of $4.9billion equaling .036530612% of their revenue. 10% loss in revenue and even if you took out the highest paid guy you wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface of the loss. Too tired to source, check math... lemme know if you find any errors or want me to source it",
"The bosses can afford one \"elephant-horn-scratcher\" less"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-machine/25159/",
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/mcdonalds-salaries_n_3672006.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/15-hour-wage-mean-mcdonald-170436977.html"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3nwvlw | why does shaking a liquid mix everything together and not separate it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nwvlw/eli5_why_does_shaking_a_liquid_mix_everything/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvrz3x8",
"cvs9i73",
"cvshi85"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's called agitation if you were to spin it with screens finer and finer toward the outside you would then separate it,but thats only part of it the lighter material will go to the top so you could actually just stack screens one on top of another and separate elements that way ",
"From a theory standpoint, it's the law of entropy. Chaos in a closed system must always increase. \n\nFrom a practical standpoint, contemplate pouring a salt shaker and a pepper shaker in a glass, and shaking it. The salt and pepper mix, right? Liquids are doing the same thing, just with smaller bits. \n\nTo really make your head spin, try to find out how a centrifuge separates liquids. Pun absolutely intended. ",
"when you shake the bottle you give the atoms energy, this energy creates creates movement, movement creates chaos, chaos becometh the mixture.\n\nwhen you spin, for example in a centrifuge, the heavier atoms fall and displace the lighter ones. you can also see this without a centrifuge if you put oil and water in a container and shake it, it will emulsify and then it will settle, with the water displacing the oil and pushing it to the top.\n\nHope this cleared it up a little"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
48zn1x | the concept of 'hyperreality' | Met this concept in photography and philosophy as well. I just don't happen to wrap my face around it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48zn1x/eli5_the_concept_of_hyperreality/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0nx8k1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In art it usually refers more to paintings than photography. Hyperrealist painters seek to paint pictures that are so accurate to real life that they could be mistaken for photographs. [Chuck Close](_URL_0_) is a famous example.\n\nIn postmodernist theory, hyperreality refers to the inability to distinguish reality from virtual reality, simulacrum, or simulation. The famous example postmodernists use is Disneyland, where the buildings are simultaneously real (in that they exist, and are designed to look like actual buildings) and imaginary (in that they serve no actual purpose but to simulate reality)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://s3.amazonaws.com/vice_asset_uploader/files/1413992853Self_Portrait__with_Cigarette_______Chuck_Close__hi_res___250_000.jpg"
]
]
|
|
4jsuhb | why would president obama want to veto the bill that would give u.s. citizens the ability to sue the saudi government for damages relating to the 9/11 attacks? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jsuhb/eli5_why_would_president_obama_want_to_veto_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d39akxz",
"d39bnyg",
"d39cko1",
"d39gd0y"
],
"score": [
10,
46,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The right to sue is not the right to win. There is no chance that the burden of proof could be met for such a suit. However, there would be real public relations damage done. That's why such suits are generally not allowed. Allowing it in this one narrow case is political pandering by folks who want to hurt a prior secretary of state because she's running for President.",
"Because it would open up pandora's box for other countries suing the U.S. For all the unethical shit the U.S. Has done to them.",
"[Like some reputable sources](_URL_0_) already mention, there are credible hints that some Saudi officials may have been involved in financing Al-Qaida, but Obama may veto the bill largely because of what is called realpolitik - Obama just doesn't want America, Israel (and NATO) to suffer economic and geo-strategic setbacks caused by losing Saudis as allies. These would range from various economic sanctions and obstacles, to being denied of usage of their airbases, airspace and military ports, and could even lead to Saudi Arabia becoming a very active financier of terrorism.\n\nThe question now is, is the US prepared to suffer a possible prolonged stand-off with a well-armed and circumstantially useful \"partner\" in exchange of serving justice in the 9/11 case, or will it back down, and potentially let the responsible walk free?",
"Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the Middle East. Most of the movers and shakers in the Saudi government are part of the Saudi royal family. Being able to sue them would create a lot of friction with an important ally. On top of all that, with the world oil market in the dumps, causing trouble with a major oil supplier could have bad implications."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obama-veto-saudi-terrorism/479112/"
],
[]
]
|
||
6can8h | why are humans and other animals' feet angled instead of parallel when naturally walking or standing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6can8h/eli5_why_are_humans_and_other_animals_feet_angled/ | {
"a_id": [
"dht7s5k"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"For humans, it's a result of bipedalism. Locked ankles and loose wrists also were a result. The slight angle you mention is more that the muscles that support walking, are weaker in some places. If you, or anyone else, force their feet a bit more parallel, you will feel sore in places you didn't think existed and it will probably effect the muscles all the way up to your back. \n\nThis weakness in certain muscles pull on your knees and hips, which can eventually lead to knee and hip pain and even surgery. \n\nI don't however, have an answer for animals. It could be a similar issue, but I found that when most really start running they straighten out. \n\nAnyway, that's the best summery I got from when I looked up the answer. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2t3dn4 | if the body's immune system is geared to cleanse foreign bodies that invade, how do tattoos stay in the skin and not get flushed out? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t3dn4/eli5if_the_bodys_immune_system_is_geared_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnvbmii",
"cnvd834",
"cnvdo8p"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"They do over time. That is why old tattoos are faded and blurred. You might find this interested _URL_0_",
"I believe the ELI5 version is that the ink particles from the tattoo are larger than what can be broken down by the body's defense mechanisms. \n\nSo, basically when tattoos are \"laser removed\" the laser just breaks the ink into smaller particles and the body goes through it's natural defense cycle to remove the ink. ",
"When you look at a person's tattoo, you're seeing the ink through the epidermis, or the outer layer of skin. The ink is actually in the dermis, which is the second layer of the skin. The cells of the dermis are far more stable than the cells of the epidermis, so the tattoo's ink will stay in place, with minor fading and dispersion, for a person's entire life. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0B7F5UbTOQ"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
l6807 | why are egrets white? | As in, what evolutionary advantage does being white give them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l6807/eli5_why_are_egrets_white/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2q62y9",
"c2q62y9"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Egrets are fishing birds. When the sky is viewed from underwater it appears to take on a very bright white. You will have noticed this if you have ever looked up while swimming underwater. Egrets get an advantage from being white because it acts to camouflage them from the fish that view them from below. This is the same reason that many fish are light coloured on bottom and a darker colour on top. (When viewed from below, they blend into the sky, and when viewed from above they blend into the water bottom.) Killer whales are another great example of this.",
"Egrets are fishing birds. When the sky is viewed from underwater it appears to take on a very bright white. You will have noticed this if you have ever looked up while swimming underwater. Egrets get an advantage from being white because it acts to camouflage them from the fish that view them from below. This is the same reason that many fish are light coloured on bottom and a darker colour on top. (When viewed from below, they blend into the sky, and when viewed from above they blend into the water bottom.) Killer whales are another great example of this."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.