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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6bc85e | why do fresh cut potatoes stick to an oven pan but prepackaged, frozen french fries do not? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bc85e/eli5_why_do_fresh_cut_potatoes_stick_to_an_oven/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhlfbhl",
"dhlfh98"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Prepackaged, frozen french fries have already been fried before freezing so they release oil when they are baked.\n\nThe oil provides a fluid layer on the pan that causes water in the food touching the hot oil to steam, providing a vapor layer that prevents the food from sticking.",
"I would think the starch content is highly different...fry potatoes are genetically modified for low starch content so they fry up nice and crisp, not soggy. Your basic tater is going to have much more starch perhaps increasing it's stickyness!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
cnsdlm | why is our spine so exposed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cnsdlm/eli5_why_is_our_spine_so_exposed/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewdfqy1",
"ewdi495"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"First of all, there are muscles around it. That's why there are machines at the gym for exercising your back, and why you b.c. an have back spasms. However, if the question is \"why not *moar*,\" the answer is because the more stuff you pack around a moving part, the less you can move it.\n\nSpines have to be bendy to work. They also have to be able to compress and decompress to work. Imagine you've got a pool noodle. You can bend it, stretch it, press it down, all sorts of stuff. Now imagine you wrap it in bubble wrap and a blanket. Can you feel how much harder it would be to manipulate the pool noodle?",
"Fat doesn’t provide very good mechanical protection anyways. Muscle is ok, but bone is by far the best armor we have in our bodies against mechanical trauma. As far as protection from infection and things like that, we’ve got a couple layers of tissue called meninges that provide a barrier between the spinal cord/brain and the rest of the body. There’s also a strong microscopic barrier around brain-supplying blood vessels that prevent a lot of stuff that could normally get to tissue through the blood from moving into the brain space. \n\nIf you think we should have more physical protection, realize that would come with a severe limitation on mobility and balance if we just had one big thick bone for the spinal column. The many vertebrae allow for small, almost unnoticeable adjustments that allow us to stay upright on two feet. And there are a ton of back muscles. Just look at a body builders back."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
298xvd | why do people snort coke off of mirrored surfaces? | we see it in movies and shows and my roommate has a little mirror that he uses, i just want to know why a mirror | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/298xvd/eli5_why_do_people_snort_coke_off_of_mirrored/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciijzg7",
"ciik828",
"ciil8w2",
"ciipe9a",
"ciiw3fn"
],
"score": [
58,
14,
24,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"so you don't lose any of it. ",
"1. You want a smooth surface to make nice lines, or smear it out with a creditcard to get rid of any clods, also nothing gets lost in creeks or pores (like in wood). 2. You want a clean surface, so you don't snort any breadcrumbs or nail clippings you might not detect on a table. ",
"It's just easier to see. You don't have to use a mirror, but it's easier to keep track of. \n\nCoke users will snort it off any hard surface, however. This is why my friend, who owns a bar, uses WD-40 on all the surfaces in the bathrooms, to discourage drug use in her place of business. Surprise! Your drug is now mush.",
"Because coke was huge in the 80s, and everything in the 80s had a mirrored surface.",
"Mirrors are just flat glass with a metal on the back- they have to be flat or else the image would be distorted. Because there's no bumps for stuff to get caught in, the glass doesn't soak up any of the coke. Also, mirrors are common enough that you don't have to explain why you have one."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4xbkkg | why is the west coast of canada and alaska so much more rugged compared to the rest of the west coast of north america? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xbkkg/eli5_why_is_the_west_coast_of_canada_and_alaska/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6e5e9b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Just a guess, but could it have to do with the type of rock?\n\nI've only seen northern and southern California coastlines, but they appear very different. Southern California has sandstone or some type of sedimentary rock, while I think northern California is granite."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5gftty | is it possible to transmit power in a form other than electricity? | We use power plants to generate electricity. Are there other forms of energy we can generate and transmit to homes to power our homes? Why is electricity the only form of energy used? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gftty/eli5_is_it_possible_to_transmit_power_in_a_form/ | {
"a_id": [
"darvdm8",
"dary8bp",
"daryorv",
"das3h67"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Electricity is by far the most convenient way to transmit power over long distances, and also useful because that's the form consumers usually need the power in. But there are other ways to transmit power.\n\nYou could pressurize a fluid in a closed circuit that the consumer is also connected to-- the consumer would the use the pressurized fluid to do work on their end. This method is used extensively to transmit power within hydraulic or pneumatic machines, but I've never heard of it being used to distribute power.\n\nYou could heat a fluid and pump it to the consumer, where they could use the heat. This latter method is actually used in universities (and I imagine other types of building complexes) in cold areas, where a central power plant generates hot steam and pumps it to all the radiators in the university. It is used in a smaller scale in e.g. apartment buildings, where a big boiler in the basement generates steam for all the radiators in the building.",
"The earliest power transmission was purely mechanical e.g. a water wheel would drive a large stone wheel for grinding wheat in to flour. Early in the Industrial Revolution, factories had steam-powered shafts running above the workers, from which belts drove individual machines such as drills and grinders Safety was not a high priority in those days. ",
"Actually Hydraulic power network was used in England in a number of cities. Here is an article on it\n_URL_0_\n[Hydraulic power network](Hydraulic power network)",
"In addition to electricity, many people also receive natural gas (used to power water heaters, ranges, ovens, and furnaces). In the past, you could get \"town gas\" (\"water gas\", \"coal gas\") for much the same use.\n\nAlso, the flow of pressurized water is a form of power. Some houses have sump pumps that can run either from electricity or from the pressurized water of the city water mains, so their basements don't flood during electrical outages.\n\nIn some rare places, you can get steam or hot water plumbed to your house for heating purposes.\n\nOld factories were often powered by \"line shafts\", spinning shafts that had pulleys placed along them, running the length of the factory. You could put a belt on a shaft pulley running to various pieces of equipment to power them. I don't think was ever practical to run to private houses, though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_power_network"
],
[]
]
|
|
4webdk | virtual machines, hypervisors, and docker | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4webdk/eli5virtual_machines_hypervisors_and_docker/ | {
"a_id": [
"d66gt8j"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"A virtual machine is a simulated computer running inside another computer. A hypervisor is the applicaiton that is doing the simulation. Traditionally you had to emulate an entire CPU but modern CPUs have support to do this for you. However you still need a BIOS, network, hard drives, memory and other devices on your virtual machine. The hypervisor is responsible for emulating these. To improve performance hypervisors can often run paravirtual machines where they have their own devices that is easier to implement in a virtual environment but require drivers in the guest operating system running in the virtual machine.\n\nDocker is a hypervisor using container virtualization. Containers is an old technology that have been used in Solaris and FreeBSD for a long time but now there is support in both Linux and Windows. With containers you do not have a full virtual machine. However you have a kernel that can run processes in different contexts. So one process might see and have access to your root disk, all network cards, the mouse and keyboard connected to the machine, etc. However another program might only be able to see a different disk and only a single virtual network card and will not see any connected keyboard or monitor. Using the same kernel will free up resources compared to a full virtual machine and allows you to have improved interactions between the containers. However all your containers have to use the same kernel version and you can not move containers between machines like you can with virtual machines."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6b85js | what is the best way to mow the lawn? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6b85js/eli5_what_is_the_best_way_to_mow_the_lawn/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhkl4ym"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've mowed some lawns for some well off folks, and they always want it mowed diagonally as opposed to the house."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3bwj0t | how does a single f-35 cost 100-250million depending on the version? | Does it cost that much for the materials? Or are you paying for the R & D? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bwj0t/eli5_how_does_a_single_f35_cost_100250million/ | {
"a_id": [
"csq6580",
"csq7kan",
"csq83tc"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"lockheed martin invested a great deal of money developing those fighters, so they wont sell them at manufacturing cost. they must earn profit, and where you invest huge deals of money in developing you must earn huge profits in manufacturing",
"It's not just materials, there's also a staggering amount of expense that goes into design and testing the aircraft, its systems, the hi-tech materials that it's made of, and the whole system together. Lockheed gas to be able to recoup all those costs plus profit to make the airplane worth building. \n\nIt's also worth noting that airplanes in general are ridiculously expensive. They're engineered to highly rigorous standards and are heavily overengineered in most cases. All that costs a lot of money. Even your cheap 50 seat commuter airliner costs north of ten million. Something like a 747 can run over a hundred million. ",
"Its much lower once you make more of them. Currently it costs 98-116m A-C versions. In 5 years it should be around 75m. \n\nThe technology in a plane like this is insane. First of its kind. The cost of materials like high grade titanium, aluminum, composites, etc. all the electronics. The fuel over a lifetime. Engineers (like myself) to design test and support staff to maintain them. Plus the company and ALL the subcontractors need to make a profit. \n\nAlso there was like 30 years worth of stealth research that went into this plane\n\nSource: I work at lockheed martin, though not on f35 atm"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
46fu12 | how can poisonous predators eat dead prey that still contains the predator's poison without getting hurt? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46fu12/eli5how_can_poisonous_predators_eat_dead_prey/ | {
"a_id": [
"d04p6rz",
"d04pm9k",
"d04pr56",
"d04rh8t"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Poison does hurt you when you ingest it. The term we want to use here is Venomous. Venom damages you when it is put into your bloodstream (like injected with fangs), and is usually not dangerous when you ingest it.",
"These are some really useless and pedantic explanations.\n\nGenerally venomous/poisonous predators have poison that denatures (That is, breaks down) in stomach acid, or is otherwise unable to pass into the blood from the digestive system.\n\nCurare, for example, the stuff poison dart frogs have, causes your muscles to lock up and stop working, including the ones working your lungs. This only happens if it can enter the bloodstream. If it gets into a cut it works in seconds, but if it's ingested the stomach acid will destroy it before it reaches the small intestine and gets absorbed.\n\nIf you have a cut in the inside of your mouth though, eating food that's been killed by curare can be dangerous.",
"presumably you're thinking venomous things like snakes yes?\n\nSnake venom tends to work in a very specific fashion In particular they fall into one of three categories, cytotoxins, neurotoxins and hemotoxins. Cytotoxins make your cells stop working (breaks down tissues), neurotoxins do stuff to your nervous system (paralyze muscles like say your heart), and hemotoxins mess up your blood ([Here have a video of what that looks like!](_URL_0_))\n\nThe chemicals that do that however tend to be rather fragile. In particular they don't stand up to stomach acid very well. \n\n\nAlso most species tend to have some (often high) resistance to their own venom",
"Good rule of animal toxicity to remember:\n\nIf you bite it, and you die: Poisonous.\n\nIf it bites you and you die: Venomous."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WvnjCkLbvY"
],
[]
]
|
||
am602g | why when i’m wearing a winter coat with headphones i get shocked through my ears? | When I wear my Colombia winter jacket with headphones whenever I take off the jacket I frequently get these jolts of electric shock I seem to be able to feel move through the headphones into my eyes. It’s really annoying but why does this happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/am602g/eli5_why_when_im_wearing_a_winter_coat_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"efjkyxg",
"efjqji8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Static electricity build-up is much greater in winter because the air is so dry. If your jacket is fleece and especially if it has any wool in it, it will tend to build up static electricity as you move. Your headphones, because of the wires, are creating a conduit from the static buildup. In my case, I get a shock almost every time when I get out of my car and touch the metal outside of the door.",
"Cheap headphones... Get some wireless. \n\nYour head is the next best ground, so the static electricity goes there.\n\nShopping carts can give you a real good ZAP!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
p1hfl | the popularity of star wars | As a teenager, I am baffled by the obsession and constant influx of additions to the Star Wars universe. I have of course seen all the movies, but I still don't understand. Even if Star Wars was a revolution in special effects / story-telling / style when it first came around, why does it have so many die-hard lifetime fans? Why is Star Wars still so popular? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p1hfl/the_popularity_of_star_wars/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3lqcc6",
"c3lqirk",
"c3lqkis",
"c3lsan2",
"c3lu02x",
"c3lurnl"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As a reddit *elder person*, who, by definition could have teenaged grandkids, I, too, am utterly baffled how Star Wars survives 35 years after it was initially a special effects tour de force. In it's day, it held a special place, but come on, surely it's old, lame and mostly irrelevant by now.",
"Think of it as a religion. Parents that where converted to it when it started will raise their children to like it and believe it the greatest. Some of those children will grow to be fanatics and be join groups of like minded people and push the ideals further. \nStar Wars came out at the right time and made a huge impact. It was very ground breaking. People didn't just let it go, and neither did Lucas et al, because it was great source of income. So every couple years the movies are re-released to remind people of their greatness and get new people invested in the series. \nStar Wars is great because Star Wars is great. That is the way it is because that is the way it has always been. In fact it is almost frowned upon when someone publicly says that they dislike Star Wars, unless they are referring to the newer 3 movies, which is cool to hate.\n\nI fucking love Star Wars. ",
"Did you know that Han shoots first? Maybe you just need to watch the right cut of Star Wars, before Lucas went back and fucked it all up.",
"The warm glow of nostalgia smooths over imperfections. To a kid, it is an enjoyable movie that serves as a good introduction to science fiction and a jumping off point for a lot of play. Who doesn't like pretending their back yard is the moon of Endor, or that on our bikes we're actually on land speeders?\n\nI recently watched it again as an adult, and, well, it suffers if you watch it with another adult who hasn't seen it. It's an overly-simplistic space opera at its core.\n\nDie-hard fans have often immersed themselves in the universe so far that it become a comfortable place to \"go\" mentally. It's not just the movies - it's the books, games, etc. - so the whole franchise is a form of wish-fulfillment.",
"Thats an impossible question, it would be like asking why Minecraft got so big, or why Star Trek conventions happen.\n\nIts all just luck, and for whatever reason Star Wars managed to capture that luck and rope in a huge following. ",
"It's samurai's with laser swords in space with a very black and white morality.\n\nWhat's not to like?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6bk5kp | what are the pros and cons of fasting the muslim month of ramadan, physically to the human body not the spiritual/religious part. | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bk5kp/eli5_what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_fasting_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhna7eh",
"dhnbac3"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Physically to the body? Not a whole lot really. It's more of a shift in eating habits than a genuine fast. In my family at least, once the sun goes down everyone starts gorging themselves on everything. In practice it becomes modified intermittent fasting or a warrior diet. \n\nThe biggest con I would imagine would be the general irritability a lot of people feel if they don't eat during the day. Could feel some fatigue if you're used to a regular eating schedule. Eating a lot at once at night could lead to lethargy/bloating in the morning as well. ",
"for citizens of saudi arabia, the pro is that your head stays connected to your body if you fast during ramadan. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
lz05x | what is the government trying to do to the internet. | And what does it mean for, my friend, who likes to occasionally download movies before they come out, New TV shows, software to try out, etc. And usenet. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lz05x/elif_what_is_the_government_trying_to_do_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2wq42l",
"c2wrike",
"c2wq42l",
"c2wrike"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Please be a lot more specific.",
"The US government wants to have a system in place similar to China, North Korea, and other totalitarian states, in which the decision of what you can and cannot do online is left to some government bureaucrat to decide. They are squawking about copyright protection because they figure that's the one sort of censorship people might acknowledge is lawful, but in the end they will be censoring any free speech online, reddit included. Welcome to Amerika.\n",
"Please be a lot more specific.",
"The US government wants to have a system in place similar to China, North Korea, and other totalitarian states, in which the decision of what you can and cannot do online is left to some government bureaucrat to decide. They are squawking about copyright protection because they figure that's the one sort of censorship people might acknowledge is lawful, but in the end they will be censoring any free speech online, reddit included. Welcome to Amerika.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
f9rv3p | what does ultrasound gel do? why is it necessary? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f9rv3p/eli5_what_does_ultrasound_gel_do_why_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"fite9o8",
"fithmue",
"fitkqq6",
"fitrawc",
"fitshh7",
"fiu1cv0",
"fiu2t06",
"fiu4e9v",
"fiu5msz",
"fiu96cp",
"fiua3d7",
"fiub1mz",
"fiud8wl"
],
"score": [
20,
7,
4365,
2,
34,
236,
4,
9,
10,
3,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It stops any extra air space between your skin and the probe so you have a clearer image of the fetus",
"Bc sound waves move better thru a medium than it does air. Kinda like whales/dolphins using sonar for miles under water but in air sound gets dispersed and doesnt travel as far",
"Sound waves get bent and/or reflected when they hit a boundary between materials of different densities. The ultrasound wand and the human body are of a similar density, both much higher than air, so the ultrasound struggles to get through the air gap between the wand and your body. The gel fills the air gap and is the same density as the body, so the ultrasound can pass through without getting bounced around.",
"It makes me think of this video, which kinda-sorta shows how it works. [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\nThe tape fills in the uneven surface of the frosted glass so it doesn't get refracted as much when leaving the medium. The tape is the gel in this example.",
"For what it’s worth ultra sound has industrial use. Gel used for coupling to steel is just Vaseline.",
"Try putting a straw in a glass of water. It looks funny, doesn't it? Like the straw is broken at the surface of the water. That's because light travels differently through water than through air. When it goes from one to the other, it gets bent.\n\nSound works sort of the same way, and if the sound had to go through the air, then through the tummy, the picture would get all messed up, like if you took a picture of the straw in the glass.\n\nThe gel is similar to your body, so by using the gel the sound doesn't go probe- > air- > body, it just goes probe- > body, and you get a pretty picture! Try filling the glass all the way with water, so the straw is completely underwater. It doesn't look broken anymore. It's kinda the same thing.",
"I don’t know what it does but when I was 16 I thought there was something wrong with my beautiful brown testicles. I went to the ER and the proceeded to wrap my chocolatey beauts in a pristine white towel and lather them up with the gel. 25 now and oddly into warm things on my jellybeans. Damn you American Health care for alienating me.",
"I know its not exactly ELI5, but this video by Steve Mould has an excellent explanation with demonstrations that most laypersons could understand.\n\n_URL_0_",
"You know when you are in a swimming pool with your friend and he makes noise underwater you hear him super loud if you are underwater too? It's because water transmit sound really well. So well that whales use it to sing to each other and it will work even at hundreds of kilometers apart.\n\nYou know also it's hard to see him when he is underwater but you watch from above, because the surface is hard to see through, it moves and reflect the sun. But if you go underwater with a mask it's super easy.\n\nUltrasound is sound that is so high pitch it is really precise (you can see with echolocation) but also really fragile (a piece of paper stop it).\n\nUltrasound had the problem that if there is air between the device and the skin then the sound will enter the air, get cushioned a little bit (so you lose some of the power), then bump into the skin and reflect (like at the surface of The water). So you get a really good image of the skin... But not great of what is below.\n\nIf you add gel you avoid the cushioning (gel transmit sound as good as water) and the device is \"under water\" and does not see the reflection.\n\nThe gel has to be the same indice of refraction (for ultrasound) as human flesh. Then it's as if the device was \"inside\".",
"Sonographer here: it is a medium so the sound waves can travel from the probe into your body and back again. Ultrasound waves don't travel through air/gas that well. Added bonus of being a lubricant too so you can slide the probe around easier",
"You can use water, ketchup, siracha as substitute if necessary. Some might say it’s not the same but considering how imperfect ultrasound is, you won’t notice a difference.",
"I tell patients it’s so that the sound waves that we use to make the picture of your insides (like sonar) move faster in squishy or liquid things. So if we didn’t use the jelly when they hit the air it slows them down A LOT and they aren’t strong enough to get back to my “camera” to make the picture. For some reason it’s always pediatric patients that ask about the gel, haha.",
"Ultrasound beams don't like air. When the beams hit air, they mostly just bounce back to the wand and make the image really unclear and difficult to see. When you use gel, it removes the air from between the ultrasound wand and your skin, and helps the image become clearer. Even when the wand is right up against your skin, there is still a very thing layer of air because skin is not completely smooth, it has little cracks and divets. The gel fills these cracks and divets and helps the beams pass through much easier, giving a better picture."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRoL2q-tU-Q"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzZ7DjS4ti4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6y2o1z | why do announcements from the emergency alert system sound like they were recorded underwater in the 1920s and look so shoddy with fuzzy white letters on grey backgrounds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y2o1z/eli5_why_do_announcements_from_the_emergency/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmk8ko1"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"Because the law required them to be back-ward compatible with anything and everything ever invented. And people expect them to look a certain way, so they keep it up. And because it's a lot of time from Very Important Useless People (congressmen) to change the law for something that's really not that important.\n\nAmerica has a lot of laws that only exist because changing them is too hard. Did you know it's a felony to own a migrating bird feather?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1nn1oq | why are some foods perfectly fine to eat with your hands and others not? ie pizza, pie, buffalo wings, ribs, steak, tacos... etc | IE Pizza, Pie, Buffalo wings, ribs, steak, tacos... etc.
You can eat Pizza with your hands, but not a piece of pie in a similar fashion. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nn1oq/eli5why_are_some_foods_perfectly_fine_to_eat_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cck3bht",
"cck3kzh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I've tried eating a piece of pie like a slice of pizza, it fell apart and made a mess. Some foods are better when eaten with forks and knives. ",
"I think that some things are just not practical to eat with a knife and fork. Try eating wings or tacos with a fork."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
75hvej | why is it so comforting when you pet animals? is there some sort of chemical thing or is it just physical contact? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75hvej/eli5_why_is_it_so_comforting_when_you_pet_animals/ | {
"a_id": [
"do6cs6z",
"do6dtn6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Indeed it is. Every conforting physical contact with other beings, be it hugging, peting releases serotonin. The hormone linked with well being and hapiness. In fact aodpting a pet is a good sugestion for depression treatment.",
"Oxytocin is a hormone that is released from physical touch, among other things. This hormone makes you feel happy, loved, and has a bonding effect."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5jfmeb | why is there sometimes no blood visible when someone is shot? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jfmeb/eli5_why_is_there_sometimes_no_blood_visible_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbfrcu1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The photos of the Russian ambassador were very soon after the gunshot, and he was wearing a dark suit. It's not at all like TV."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
bfn61q | when taming / domesticating an animal, how does it work, how does the animal see humans before and after taming and what does it do to the animals mindset? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bfn61q/eli5_when_taming_domesticating_an_animal_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"eleuyoi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"this is just a guess so anyone correct me if i’m wrong, but aren’t the majority of domesticated animals now born in captivity, and essentially born domesticated?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5uyg99 | why is there no security at train stations when there are so much security at airports? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uyg99/eli5_why_is_there_no_security_at_train_stations/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddxsq0m",
"ddxt0zl",
"ddxt3g8",
"ddxtpqm",
"ddxv2ym",
"ddxv3bk",
"ddxvd4r",
"ddxxpwj",
"ddxzyw9",
"ddy3vkt",
"ddy5mpw",
"ddy5t6j",
"ddy8vch",
"ddy8wvg",
"ddy9ufe",
"ddyaiv1",
"ddyaniu",
"ddybcs3",
"ddybngd",
"ddyc22j",
"ddyc7oa",
"ddycpf7",
"ddyd2q1",
"ddyd9kd",
"ddydhd2",
"ddydpuv",
"ddydzms",
"ddye5ft",
"ddye7jz",
"ddyet60",
"ddyfh69",
"ddyfk94",
"ddyfxvc",
"ddyfztm",
"ddyg85e",
"ddygiqx",
"ddyh9mp",
"ddyhkhl",
"ddyigi4",
"ddyjfb1",
"ddyjkig",
"ddykmxn",
"ddykngi",
"ddykp42",
"ddykrm8",
"ddyl714",
"ddym6tq",
"ddym7sz",
"ddymzqw",
"ddyonuj",
"ddypn2m",
"ddypp7m",
"ddypqqf",
"ddyptwi",
"ddyq2ln",
"ddyqtpx",
"ddyrmzz"
],
"score": [
61,
29,
23,
6,
4,
725,
9,
2,
13,
56,
215,
1407,
3,
3,
175,
5,
15,
5,
2,
115,
35,
9,
5,
3,
2,
82,
82,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
9,
2,
3,
2,
7,
3,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
102,
2,
5,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"security at airports is primarily there to make people feel safer, rather than to prevent any actual threat as far as I can see. I guess people aren't as fearful of taking trains",
"In Victoria, Australia a few years ago we brought in a security force for the trains. All bins have been replaced with ones with see through bags in case someone put a bomb in them. \n\nIt was controversial but I like the security. They have waited with me for a cab before when I have been getting home from the station. \n\nI think cost is a major factor in why security is not common at trains. ",
"It is much more difficult to sabotage a train. Can't hijack it and change course, or crash it very easily. ",
"1 There are fewer people riding trains than there are people flying on a plane.\n\n2 Train's are on a fixed path. No damger of someone crashing a train into a building.",
"Speaking for the USA.\n\n1) Train Stations (at least in the US) rarely cross international borders. Those few that do tend to be freight not passenger trains. \n\n2) Very few people ride passenger trains that connect cities in the US. So most of them have been shut down or converted into freight trains over the years. Most train use in the US is limited to monorail systems and subways within major cities. ",
"Hijacking was very common in the 60s and 70s. There were 130 hijackings in the US between '68 and '72, around 1 a week. Airport security became a thing after that.\n\nAfter 9/11, hijacking became seen a very dangerous instead of just annoying, so security got stepped up again.\n\nTrain hijacking in the USA isn't a thing, so no security. In France I did notice armed guards at the train stations.",
"I prefer it that way. The thought of having to go through an airport like security just to get a train seems crazy.",
"All of the above. And TSA is starting to make a presence at Amtrak and metrarail locations. They do dog sniff checks and random bag searches.",
"you should go to Spain and check out the officers with assault rifles guarding the train stations ",
"Not sure what you mean. Big-city train stations have lots of meaningless security theater, including an utterly pointless requirement to show photo ID when boarding an Amtrak train.\n\nAll this despite the fact that damage to a trainload of people would be done by sabotage somewhere along the hundreds of thousands of miles of track, not by forcing your way into the locomotive.",
"I haven't seen this answer yet, but trains can't be used as weapons like planes can. You can kill hundreds more than just the passengers with a plane hijacking, less so for trains. Airport security isn't to protect the fliers, it's to protect people from 9/11 like events (not saying it works but that's the idea)",
"A few reasons I see. \n\n- The same station are used for long-distance/international train and regional/suburban train. You do not want to deal with security checkpoints in your daily commute. You could imagine putting checkpoints only on long-distance train, but then why not the regional/suburban trains ? \n\n- A train can in a few minutes go to a *safe* position. Simply hit the breaks, usually the driving system implies a *dead man switch* and if the driver stop to hold it train will automatically send alarm to the regulation and stop. Even high-speed-trains pass trough backup station where they can stop if anything goes wrong (it's always easier to have an ambulance and the police coming to a station than having them walking 500m trough a muddy field. )\n\n- You don't have to deal with the difference of pressure, a bomb exploding in a train will cause serious damages an dozen of deads for sure but it won't fully destroy the train and most of the passenger will leave the train on their feet. The same in a plane and even a small blast will destroy the plane due to the difference of pressure (as punching a balloon with a niddle) killing everybody on-board. \n\n- Finally, in the commercial battle rail vs air. The fact that you can arrive at the station 5 minutes before your train, be on the platform 2 minutes later and catch your train on time is a serious asset that train companies will try to keep. \n\n- (At least in Europe, I saw this in France/Germany/Belgium). For international train it's not that uncommon to see the border police/custom patrolling the train, checking passengers ids and having their dog smelling the bags (especially in the train from Asterdam to Paris). In a train with 500 persons on board it's easy to fit 2 policemen and their dog inside. They don't even need a seat. \n\nThat said, after the failed attack in a Train between Brussels and Paris, I started to see metal detector and luggage-scanner for train too. I already told reddit the day I thought they where getting crazy on terrorism security until I saw the head of the European and his bodygards leaving the same train. \n\n\n\n\n",
"In short , a train crashes / explodes passengers die and probably a few bystanders. High speed Train usually are on the outskirts , underground.\n\nA plane crashes / explodes , passengers die , and pretty much which ever city under the plan gets a free gift of 300 ton metal falling out of the sky. Killing who ever is under it. \n",
"In an airport/airplane you can fairly easily create a secure zone. Past the checkpoint, everything has been vetted. In a railroad, once the train has left the station you've got thousands of miles of unsecure track. And it's very difficult to maintain the Airport-type security on those thousands of miles.",
"It's simple really...\n\nIt's because our law enforcement agencies are reactionary forces.\n\nAfter the first large scale terror attack on a train in the US, we will get ridiculous amounts of security that will inconvenience millions for decades to come! This will not bring back one life that was lost, nor will it prevent further attacks because they will just find other soft targets. \n\nBut people will see that \"Something was done about it\". ",
"Man I was thinking the exact same thing on the train the other day. Terrorists could use trains to bomb every single big city centre.",
"Cuz, you can't fly a train into a building? ",
"It depends which train stations you're talking about. Here in France there are regular 4-man patrols of armed soldiers at every train station.",
"Probably because after September 11 people were quite scared of air travel and s OK mthing visible needed to be done to restore confidence. It is pretty much a PR move on a very grand scale that just never faded into something more practicalical.",
"Because the security at airports is something called \"security theatre\" and is intended to assuage the fears of the public. When the public starts to fear terror threats at the rail system, lots of expensive machines and low skilled jobs get created.",
"You hijack a train.. where you gonna go!!??",
"Because the US government exploited 9/11 to make a power play in the form of TSA. Look at the pre-9/11 and post-9/11 stats on hijackings, and also the efficacy of the TSA when it gets tested.\n\nFor an in depth explanation of this as opposed to an ELI5, I recommend: _URL_0_",
"Cause you can't fly a train into a building??",
"There is security at train stations.\n\nIn fact, Amtrak police just shot and killed a man in Chicago. He was carrying drugs and refused to be searched. ",
"Shhhh. Don't say this too loud. It's nice to have one mode of travel that's still enjoyable.",
"Security on planes hasn't always been so tight either, my nan had a story she loved to tell about how she went on holiday to france in the 70's (I think) and couldn't find her passport at the airport so they just let her go on the plane and told her to make sure she had it out at the other side as they might not be happy if she didn't. At the other end they didn't ask her for it when getting off, or back on to go home. \n \nThey asked for it on return to england and she told them she thinks she left it at home, so they just let her go though anyway. \n \n",
"Most Chinese train stations have a security, airport style:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThey tend to be less strict than the airport though.\n\nEven subway stations have a scanner:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nThe lack of security checks at train stations is a regional thing, not universal.",
"Fun fact on this topic is that going by train in China is much like flying, apart from the half awake staff at the security counter you have several gates and only a specific window you are allowed to enter the platform on. ",
"Because it's really, really hard to drive a train into anything other than a train station, with a fair deal of warning if it doesn't slow down.",
"There's the question of alternatives. For long distance plane travel, demand is pretty inelastic, people still need to use the plane so you can pretty much put up whatever you want and people will take it.\n\nConversely with a train, it wouldn't take much to deter people and make them use other forms of transport. Putting up lots of additional security, increasing travel time and inconvenience, and people decide it's a lot less hassle to take the car or bus. Everyday commutes at peak hours (which are often when the network actually makes a decent income) are especially sensitive, as even a slight increase in time or inconvenience may be enough to persuade people to switch.",
"You cant use a train to crash into buildings that have thousands of people in them last time i checked. Have you heard of 9/11?",
"Short answer? Because no one has flown a train into a skyscraper yet ",
"Speaking from the experience of an ex-military guy (conscript) Where I come from the security is pretty tight even if you dont see many guards around. For example at one of our metro stations I counted 10 CCTVs Watching a one exit and its surroundings, and a lot more inside. Airport has a few guys patrolling. And so do the trains. They also do ride the train too to respond to any emergency in the train. I was personally involved in a coastal defence operation too. (cant say where and when cause, confidentiality) \n\nHonestly, it wasnt that long ago we didnt have to constantly watch out for some person quoting radical ideals, and people, the phrase \"Allahu Akbar\" may be funny to some of you, but remember that for some people, it was the last thing they heard. Or said. I have nothing against muslims, only people who teach twisted ideals under the pretense of religion. I personally dont believe the Quran teaches that. Even as a military conscript, I'd do anything to keep such ideals out of my country. \n\nSorry for rant, had to get it out. ",
"The TSA does have a prescience at major train hubs like chicago's union square, that services things like Amtrak as well. And the TSA does want to be all up in there if they had the funding. You nonetheless will sill TSA advisory boards at even the most remote amtrak stations. ",
"Pretty tough maneuvering a train off of its track and into a building full of people, no? ",
"I agree with other answers ITT but the other thing I've always kind of assumed is that hijacking a plane is much more dramatic. Nowadays most highjackings are some version of terrorism. To me personally having a train hijacked is much less freaky than a plain being hijacked. The goal is to terrorize. ",
"Security at train stations in Israel is stiffer than at US airports.. depends on your situation. ",
"A lot of people have reasonable responses, but have missed the main difference. The entire original point of the massive increase in airport security was to prevent a person from taking over the plane, since it can be used in an of itself as a weapon. \n\nA train can't be driven into the side of a building, while an airplane can be driven to anywhere it has enough fuel to reach. \n\nThe original point of airport security was not for individual safety, but rather to ensure the safety of the aircraft. That safety is not necessary on a train (or bus, or any other transportation mechanism) because they don't have the freedom of mobility of an aircraft, nor the devastating potential for destruction when taken over. ",
"A train can only be hijacked as much as a bus. You would need several people per wagon to hijack the whole train. Since there are several emergency breaks and many doors, people can stop the train and get out much easier than out of an airplane. Also, you cannot crash a train into a city. Even if you could, there is no explosive fuel on board for additional collateral damage.",
"But wa' if they like build the tracks right up to The White House yo?",
"because the tsa at the airport was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 to give the public the appearance of safety and waste a shitload of tax payer money...\n\nmuch like the lying orange muppet's wall will be.",
"You can't fly a train into an immensely populated building like you can with a train. Trains have very specific paths that they can't be deviated from without basically stopping the train(which will injure/kill a lot of people, but not like a plane flying into the Twin Towers/Pentagon did)",
"Because who gives a fuck about trains?",
"Trains can get backup support on the ground almost any time. They also cant get hijacked and made to go somewhere else, cause they're stuck on rails. ",
"In India we have tight security at all stations, in fact we even have a special dedicated police force for Railways.\n\nI guess it is just a situation of having your fingers burned once to find out a thing is dangerous.\n\nWe have had our train station be attacked by terrorists so we know they are just as important to secure as airport",
"All security of this type exists to make people feel safe. It doesn't actually improve safety in any appreciable way. Therefore, it's quite probable that society at large feels safer in trains than in planes. Remember, plane travel is exceptionally safe, but still has a higher rate of phobia than any other type of travel. ",
"This is more true in the US than in other countries, where train station security is also tight (or, at least, tighter) The reason is simply because we're not very smart about reality, we prefer to think we're invincible than deal with reality, we don't want to actually have to deal with anything that might be inconvenient (or impinge on our freedoms--whether than infringement is real, perceived, justified, or total bullshit). So far, our saving grace has been tht the US uses trains less because there are few cities with decent mass transit in the US.\n\nThe NY subway is a prime soft target. There's no reason it won't be hit, we just prefer not to inconvenience people daily (commuters) because there'd be push-back politicians don't want to deal with. It'll almost certainly happen here (though, this is one one of those cases in which I hope I am wrong), but we'd rather dog-and-pony show the security on planes than deal with the inconvenience of what it would actually take to mitigate the risks of softer targets like trains, airport waiting areas, stadiums, etc. ",
"One of the big reasons is hijacking. If you hijack a plane you can go anywhere in the world you want as long as you have enough fuel onboard. With a train you can not choose your destinations. You go where the rails go. Planes are also really fast compared to trains.\n\nOne other reason to hijack a plane is to use it as ammunition. A train obviously can not be used in such way. You can go at full speed and try to derail the train but that's it. You can't drive it into certain building. But you can fly a plane everywhere or AT anything.\n\nOther thing to remember is that train is much harder to hijack and control. A train can be really really long and have many passenger wagons. All it takes is one person to pull the emergency brake and the train stops. After that the doors open and everybody can run off. At most you are looking at a hostage situation in the middle of the forest. Pretty pointless hijacking unless hostage situation is the exact thing you want. For political reasons this could be an option.\n\nSo trains are simply far less useful for any kind of reason whereas planes are excellent for the exact same reasons. A train at most has to deal with bomb threats which in reality is not really good option for the bomber. If you want to inflict mass damages train is not good target. As such it is hard to justify spending tons of money on train security when there is no point even for anyone to make any kind of attack using a train as a target or tool for causing damage. \n\nPlanes also are very expensive and even if you don't lose the plane the downtime is super expensive if a hostage situation occurs for example. If you lose the plane and the passengers then it is a massive pr issue for you as a corporation. If a bomb attack happens in train you don't lose the whole train. Not only is the train and the wagons really robust but any kind of damage is limited only to the wagon where the bomb went off and the train wagons that derailed. Train tracks themselves can be fixed relatively quickly unless we are talking about really really big bombs.\n\ntl:dr. Trains are just really poor targets. Planes on the other hand is the best kind of target you can imagine. ",
"Because until you just gave the terrorists the idea of bombing trains we were safe. Thanks a lot.",
"A hijacked airplane is literally a guided missile. It went from \"New York to LA\" to national security risk in seconds. A hijacked train is not so much a national security risk.",
"If it makes you feel any better there really isn't any security at airports either, it's all an illusion.\n\n_URL_0_",
"because trains run on rails so you can't crash a train into a building. \n\nbecause the security for planes is largely security theater anyway, doesn't really make you safer it just makes you feel safe. \n\nbecause 9/11 used planes.\n\nbecause there hasn't been any major terrorist attack using a train in recent memory. ",
"There are actually transit police that patrol stations and trains in most metro systems. Not nearly the same level of security as an airport but it is there.",
"They did open up bags and invade peoples privacy for bus trips here in Canada. If you like security theater you will like it here.",
"I'm no expert, but one thing I would mention is the possibility of using each vehicle as a weapon. Trains are on rails, so you can't steer them into the pentagon. However, planes can go anywhere so you want to prevent turning a 747 into a cruise missile. ",
"I work in aviation security and the answer is quite logical. If even a small ied goes off on a pressurized aircraft, the entire plane more often than not comes down.\n\nThis was evidenced by two separate bombings in 2016. In the first one, a Somalian airliner was attacked with a laptop bomb in February 2016. The plane was only a few thousand feet up and hadn't pressurized yet. Even though the bomb blew a hole in the cabin, the pilot was able to land the plane and the only casualty was the bomber!\n\nIn summer of 16 an Egyptian Air flight met a different fate: a small can of Orange Crush made it on board which was actually a liquid explosive ied. It went off when the aircraft was pressurized and 360 people died.\n\nIt would be impossible to kill 300 people on a train with one ied.",
"There's only so much security at airports since 9/11. If there were a major devastating terrorist attack using trains, we would see a permanent increase in security in train stations too."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://hereticsmountain.com/archives/165"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20131216/8c89a590f56e1419003845.jpg",
"http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CBCWRD/security-gate-and-waiting-room-for-high-speed-trains-at-the-shanghai-CBCWRD.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/upshot/waiting-in-line-for-the-illusion-of-security.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4x2rfx | why do some people successfully live a vegan lifestyle while others hospitalize their children with it? | Hello reddit!
I've been following a few stories on the effects of a Vegan diet imposed on children, to terrible satisfaction. Though, I know plenty of healthy Vegans.
Please explain, now are these cases just improper practice? Or is there something more to youth development that requires a more Food Guide balanced diet?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x2rfx/eli5_why_do_some_people_successfully_live_a_vegan/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6bxe80",
"d6by1f7",
"d6bzz0v",
"d6c05ot"
],
"score": [
8,
15,
10,
8
],
"text": [
"Because you can just eat potato chips and be vegan. You need to ensure you're getting proper vitamins and nutrients, eating shitty is going to affect a growing kid worse. ",
"There are plenty of healthy vegan children. The stories of children dying from vegan diets are because they were on very restrictive ones - one child was fed only fruit, another soy milk and apple juice. \n\nIt is important to get nutrients for growing children no matter what kind of diet they're on.",
"Vegan =/= \"healthy\". \n\nPlenty of foods out there that are vegan that would cause you health problems down the line if you don't watch yourself. \n\nChildren are especially at risk since they need things like protein that are a bit harder to find in typical vegan foods. \n\nAny decent nutritionist should be able to work with a family with particular dietary wants and needs when it comes to raising children. And vegan friends of mine have made compromises when it comes to their own children (aka buying milk for them) and then the kid can make their own decisions when they're old enough. \n\nThe stories you hear about in the news usually involve:\n1. Someone who didn't seek any professional advice. And went with their own decisions or pseduoscience.\n2. A kid who may have had a special case beyond the range of what you usually see in babies (all babies are different). \n3. Refusal to back down even when authorities get involved. \n\nThe combo of that is what is lethal. ",
"There is wide scientific consensus that vegan diets are healthy for all stages of life. The cases of children becoming malnourished have been fed grossly inappropriate diets that lack any semblance of adequate nutrition. For every abusive vegan parent who only feeds their child apple juice, there are far more non-vegan parents who kill their children with diets exclusively of hot dogs. Unfortunately, one gets reported in the media as “Parents nearly kill child with vegan diet!” while the other is reported more appropriately as abusive parents who did not feed their child properly. \n\n**[American Dietetic Association](_URL_0_)**\n\n > It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864"
]
]
|
|
3ghbxs | how does a blind person clean up after their guide dogs in public areas such as stores, libraries, etc.? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ghbxs/eli5_how_does_a_blind_person_clean_up_after_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cty3ccc",
"cty6gjl",
"ctyl486"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A trained guide dog won't poop in stores and libraries, so, there's no cleanup for them to worry about.",
"The dog has been trained to go on command. The owner makes those sorts of decisions for the dog, instead of the dog making them itself.",
"Speaking from my experience of being blind for about 25 years and handling a service dog for more than 6:\n\nIdeally, the cleaning up doesn't actually take place INSIDE these locations :). At the school where I trained with my Seeing Eye dog, we learned to keep our dogs on a fairly strict feeding/watering schedule which allows us to generally predict when said food and water needs to come back out. That allows us to, more or less, choose the location, as well. I carry a roll of \"park bags\" with me at all times. There's one in my purse, my gym back, my backpack, my husband's car, in a coat pocket or two, and individual bags folded up in jeans pockets--they survive washing machines quite well :P. When i take my dog out to do her business, I unharness her but keep the leash on, let her find the perfect spot (because apparently that is very important...), then feel thorugh the leash, or by reaching out to touch her back, which direction the tail is pointing. I point my foot parallel to her, toe towards tail, then wait for her to finish, and use my foot as a direction from which to feel along the ground (with my hand inside an inverted bag) till I find the pile (I can usually feel the heat from it before I encounter the actual pile). Then, it's like cleaning up after any other dog. hand inside bag graps pile, flip the bag over to contain the pile, and the dog guides me to the nearest trash can.\n\nAny other questions I can answer for you about living on the dark side?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
87sffi | why is beer full of carbs and empty calories? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87sffi/eli5_why_is_beer_full_of_carbs_and_empty_calories/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwf5ifz",
"dwf6do2",
"dwf8h64"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because beer is made from cereal grains, water, and usually hops. So basically carbs, water, and more carbs.",
"The primary ingredient in beer (after water) is sugar. Some percentage of that sugar gets converted into alcohol and CO2 by the yeast, but most of it remains.\n\nTo give some sense of how much sugar we're talking about, if you're brewing a beer using five gallons (~40 pounds) of water, you'll be dissolving five to fifteen pounds of maltose (sometimes more, if you're making a really \"big\" beer, but those are outliers); the wort (that's the brew before it begins to ferment) is ~10%-40% sugar by weight before you start fermentation.",
"Most sugars left over from fermentation are not digestible and are more accurately described as 'dietary fibre'. That's why the yeast didn't ferment them.\n\nSome crappier beers have liquid sugar added back into them post fermentation to add body.\n\nThe biggest factor though is alcohol. Alcohol provides more calories weight for weight than fat or sugar.\n\nSource: I have been a commercial brewer for the last 7 years."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3xt1t6 | why do we swish mouthwash if it says it is poisonous to ingest? | I understand you spit it out, but there will always be particles you just can't spit out. Wouldn't this be harmful to your body after long enough use? Thank you for your time. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xt1t6/eli5_why_do_we_swish_mouthwash_if_it_says_it_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy7k1ch"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Things that are harmful in large doses are not necessarily harmful in small doses.\n\nWater and oxygen are both poisonous in large doses and you require both to survive."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6nevzd | why can't multiplayer games such as overwatch be cracked? | Thanks :) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nevzd/eli5_why_cant_multiplayer_games_such_as_overwatch/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk8z0go",
"dk8z17z"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because they are run by a company who's priority is to profit as much as possible, in this case blizzard. Blizzard can check if you have purchased the game or not when you are connecting online and since this is a multiplayer online game, to experience it, you need to be online.\nI'm sure you could crack it, but you would be playing by yourself so no one wastes their time.",
"Think of it like you and a friend both have phones but no phone company. You need the phone company to connect to each other. Blizzard is the phone company and they have the technology (the backend server code) to allow people to talk to one another.\n\nIf somehow the server code was leaked then you could play with others but only on private servers. However the person leaking it would be subject to massive damages (i.e $$$) so that won't happen. Pirates would only be able to play with pirates. Cheating would be rampant as exploits wouldn't be patched. Known bugs wouldn't be fixed. It's not a situation where it's even possible or worth it if the backend server code was leaked.\n\nThe reason older (and some newer) games can be cracked is the server code was released with the game because the company did not host its own servers."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3mcc76 | did the current adult generation really "ruin" the economy? | If yes, then how? If no, then how did the myth that they did get started? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mcc76/eli5_did_the_current_adult_generation_really_ruin/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvdsv3w",
"cvdt1zc"
],
"score": [
24,
16
],
"text": [
"Obviously not all of them took part in the ruining of the economy. The ruin of the economy was mainly a political thing. \n\nWhat happened is that politics of the last generation, in large part, shifted to what we known now as trickle down economics. Give more money and tax breaks to the wealthy, and they will create more jobs for us, and we can move up and become the wealthy ourselves.\n\nThe problem is, a middle class family might struggle to get by, even struggle to pay for groceries. A family might spend 200 a week on groceries. They buy weak ass shit for food. \nYou give them 50 dollars more a week, and they spend that shit. It goes right back into the economy, and that means more jobs, maybe pay raises become more viable for a company like walmart if their employees are spending more at walmart. \n\nNow, you have a millionaire. Maybe he spends 1000 a week on groceries. He buys the good shit. Ok great. Give him a tax break, so hes got 50,000 more a week to spend. The thing is, he just throws that into savings half the time. He doesnt spend that additional money at the grocery store. So no more jobs were created. Nobody got a pay raise because their employer was making more money. \n\nSo trickle down, in which wealthy get tax breaks, just isnt working. More jobs werent created, pay wages stagnated, and wealthy people just kept getting more money and throwing that in the bank, or even worse, offshore where they arent paying any taxes on it at all. \n\nThis is a case where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - because not only did their pay not get up and no new jobs were created, but more people were born and competing for the same old jobs, and inflation occurred, so the lack of pay raises means theyre essentially getting paid less\n\nso it wasnt that our parents ruined it for us, its that they supported lower taxes on the wealthy while they had some wealth. This was nice for them, but created a very bad situation for the next generation",
"There are presently three adult generations - the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. At present, all children are also millennials. First, a backgrounder.\n\nMillennial culture is internet culture. It's witty but dry, cynical but happy, and highly personalized, with being exotic or unusual being highly valued. Millennials are computer-savvy but generally underemployed - this year, a millennial is 33 or less - though culturally, many 28-33 year olds are still Gen Xers. We may start to see a new generation soon, but the highschool kids of today are not it. Likely children born on or after the 2008 crash - though they may turn out to just be more millennials. The common thread of the internet may make post-internet generations substantially more similar to each other than they are to pre-internet generations.\n\nGen X culture is protest culture. It's passionate but cynical, ambitious but paranoid, and is suffused with music and (at this point) nostalgia for better times. Gen Xers can be defined as people born anywhere from 1960 or so until 1982, with a little bit of leeway. They grew up watching Star Wars or MTV, seeing protests against the Vietnam war rage around them, and fought a lot of social justice movements.\n\nBaby Boomer culture is the cowboy culture. They grew up in boom times and are confident, outgoing people who believe in quick solutions for complex problems. They grew up in the hardest points of the cold war, and most of our problems seem trivial to them since when they were kids, there was a genuine chance the world might literally end at any minute. Anyone born between 1945 and 1960 (give or take) is likely to be a baby boomer.\n\nSo, **back to your question**. Did Baby Boomers ruin the economy?\n\nWell, the simple answer is yes, in so far as every member of the government and the financial elite that made all of the decisions leading up to the 08 crash were Baby Boomers. \n\nBut is that really fair? No, it isn't. While all the people responsible were baby boomers, not all baby boomers share responsibility. They don't have secret baby boomer meetings where they set anti-youth agendas. Everything good that happens in government is also because of baby boomers, by and large - that's just the nature of power.\n\nCertainly, mistakes were made. Arguably, mistakes are still being made. But it's not really correct to hold an entire generation of people culpable for them.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5320ja | why does scotland go by great britain in sporting events. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5320ja/eli5_why_does_scotland_go_by_great_britain_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7p825n",
"d7p8702",
"d7p919h",
"d7pei72"
],
"score": [
10,
18,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The UK is the international country. The countries that comprise it are not true countries. They are not fully sovereign and are in reality much closer in power to what a State is. \n\nGreat Britain is sometimes used a synonym for the UK, but it is more accurately used only for the 3 countries are the larger Island of the British Isles. Those countries are Scotland, Wales, and England. Theoretically any sporting team from those three could be called Great Britain in a sporting event, though I would think that would only be done it if was a team that represented all 3. ",
"They don't in many sports, like football, rugby etc. However, in athletics, they are governed by UK-wide organisations like UK Athletics and the British Olympic Association.\n\nTechnically there's no such country as Scotland in an international sense. The 'legal' international country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the athletes in 'Team GB' come from the nations covered by that entity: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.\n\nIn athletics, only at the Commonwealth Games do the component nations of the UK 'split' and compete against each other.",
"Thank you ! i didn't know they were not considered true countries.\n\nAs for followups, why in some sports they can be Wales or Scotland , etc and others not? \n\nAlso isn't this a huge advantage in big sporting events as Olympics? Seems almost unfair.",
"Seems to be some sort of confusion here w/ the comments. I'm Scottish and I'll try to explain as best as I can. \n \nScotland first of all is a country; it is a country essentially inside a sovereign state union (the UK). Internationally, because it is a union, it therefore referred to as the UK or GB. For example, on my passport it's not cited 'Scottish' (even although I am), I'm British. \n \nAs for sports: It entirely depends on the certain league etc. Of course there are Scottish teams, an official football team, rugby and many others. As for the Commonwealth Games we split into home nations for the same reason we do for most sports as stated, such as rugby etc. \n \nHowever, when it comes to the Olympics, Great Britain represents us, England, Wales & NI. The British Olympic Association (BOA) encompasses all 4 of these countries within the union. BOA selects Team GB's members to compete in all sports at the summer and winter Olympics, which is also a huge part of why someone Scottish would represent Team GB. Not only of course is that individual British, therefore representing their union, but they've been processed by BOA to represent Team GB. \n \nCurrently, the Olympic Charter defines an eligible \"country\" as an \"independent state recognised by the international community\" -- which would be first and foremost the UK before any of the individual countries within. \n \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
ezen45 | how does cooked rice have a volume greater than the dry rice and water combined? | I get that rice absorbs water as it cooks, but it seems to expand more than the total volume of the water it’s cooked in. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ezen45/eli5_how_does_cooked_rice_have_a_volume_greater/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgmw5w5"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Basically, a dry rice grain has a fairly neat (almost crystalline) structure. The starch molecules that make up this structure are neatly arrayed in granules atop each other, like blankets neatly folded.\n\nWhen you add water and cook it, the starches become soluble. The starch granules will absorb water and eventually break, and the neatly-folded blankets become a huge, messy pile. This pile takes up much more space than the neatly-folded semi-crystalline structure from before cooking."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
20lwd0 | why do most us history classes skim over the period from the end of the civil war to wwi? | Maybe it's just my school, but we never really went into depth about what happened during that time. Even the AP classes would gloss over it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20lwd0/eli5_why_do_most_us_history_classes_skim_over_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg4j4i5",
"cg4jjfs",
"cg4joxv"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Maybe it's just because of where I grew up, but we learned a lot about Reconstruction, industrialization, the Spanish-American War and the various political movements that happened between 1870 and 1910.\n\nThat being said, relative to the Civil War and WWI, there are more important periods in US history.",
"Actually a lot of schools go over reconstruction, I hate to give such a simplistic answer but there may have just been not enough time for your class to go over it. US History teachers have approximately 180 hrs. of class time to teach over 400 years of history. Some things are going to get swept aside.",
"Most events that took place in that period, or any other overlooked period really, are not crucial to an understanding of United States history or government. High School history courses are there too teach a broad and general overview of American History. They're not designed to nor have they been given the time to go into depth about every period."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3iqo78 | what is skewness in statistics? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iqo78/eli5_what_is_skewness_in_statistics/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuitwbs",
"cuitzb5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Skewness refers to the relative size of the left and right tails of a distribution. For example, suppose I look at the average time I surf reddit. Maybe I usually stay on for 10 minutes, but sometimes I stay on for an hour. But I never stay on for less than zero minutes, since that's impossible. There's a big positive tail, where I might be on for way longer than my mode, but there's no negative tail, since I can't possibly stay on for more than 10 minutes less than my mode. So we say it's positively skewed.",
"There are 3 averages one can use for data: The mean (normally referred to as just 'average'), the median (the middle value), and the mode (the most common value).\n\nPositive skew is where Mode < Median < Mean. So this means a low value is much more common, but there might be a few much larger values that 'skew' the mean to a greater value.\n\nNegative skew is the opposite of this (Mode > Median > Mean).\n\nI'll use an example as well. Let's take the number of pushups people can do. Most people are not that fit and can only do a few (if that) so we would have a low mode. However, there are some very athletic people (who are in the minority) who can do dozens of them. They 'skew' the data positively and increase the median a little, and the mean a lot.\n\nI hope this helps."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
91ia1p | how can pharmaceutical companies not cure diseases for profit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91ia1p/eli5_how_can_pharmaceutical_companies_not_cure/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2y66e2",
"e2y6sq4",
"e2y9hwa"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"many countries curb the monopoly that health care services have on life. America is pretty much alone as an outlier.",
"... what? It’s a company, the main goal is to make profits. If it doesn’t make a profit everybody is fired and you don’t get any medicines at all. The government can give subsidies to lower the cost of R & D so the drug becomes profitable and companies will make it. That’s why there are orphan drug programmes to focus on rare diseases.\n\nIf you mean that companies are withholding the magic cure for HIV/Cancer/Baldness/whatever, they aren’t. The cures haven’t been discovered yet. Most of the time new medicines are discovered in universities, then the companies buy the rights to it and try to make a drug. In this case no cures have been discovered.\n\nIf you mean things like the price jack up for the epipen, that’s because the guy was a horrible excuse of a human being. He could have invested in any Pharma company but decided to buy epipen and raise the price to break even.",
" > How is it possible for pharmaceutical companies to stop cures going through so they continue to make profits on medicine.\n\nYeah, this is conspiratorial nonsense. \n\nCompanies don't discover cures. Researchers discover cures and pharma companies move in to *profit* off of cures."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
60g86e | the concept of the dark web. i understand that you need certain software etc, but is it like the regular net? do you just type in wed adresses, and is there a dark google or something? [other] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60g86e/eli5_the_concept_of_the_dark_web_i_understand/ | {
"a_id": [
"df64dd5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The dark web refers to anything that can not be gotten to by any common web search engine. This includes a lot of networks that is not connected to the regular Internet such as banking networks, government networks, medical networks, military networks, private home networks, etc. There is also a lot of big sites with not much interesting in them that the search engines do not bother indexing. There are tons of wikipedia clones out there that is just skipped by the search indexers. And what about _URL_0_ with its huge data storage that itself contain more data then is available on the rest of the \"white\" web? And then there is private storage hosting services like Dropbox and Google Drive. Everything is available on the Internet but not in a public fashion. This also include your private facebook images and your reddit DM messages. So the dark web is huge and contains a lot of things that is not easily available for a good reason.\n\nThere is some sites that are hidden to avoid prosecution as their content would be illegal. Of course the common web search engines do not index these. One popular way to hide your identity is Tor Onion Router which is a project to help people stay anonymous online which is helping oppressed people around the world including in China, Libya and Russia. Of course they can not distinguish between people using the service for planning demonstrations against their oppressive governments and people who want to score some weed or even child prostitution. If you have a web site hosted on Tor you get a randomly chosen web address in the .onion domain. There is no search engine for it and it only composes a tiny portion of the dark web but this is where you usually find those websites that the creators do not want you to find."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"archive.org"
]
]
|
||
9vijgj | why are transition metal compounds constantly coloured? | I've learnt that they are coloured due to ligands splitting the d orbitals in the metal ion, and electrons will absorb wavelengths in the visible spectrum to transition between the orbitals, making the observed colour of the compound complementary to the wavelength absorbed.
but how is the colour constant? wouldn't you eventually run out of electrons to promote? and if electrons return to the lower d orbital, then wouldn't they release the energy that they absorbed, and change the colour of the compound? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vijgj/eli5_why_are_transition_metal_compounds/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9clvoh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First of all, let's assume that we are not working with very intense lasers or any high-tech equipment, but just use sunlight as our light source. Secondly, there is only one type of TM compound present in our solution. Under those conditions, ~99% of all the electrons will be in the ground state. Only a small percentage of electrons will absorb a photon with enough energy to reach a higher orbital, and then rapidly decay back to the ground state. \n\nLet's look at [this 'Jablonski diagram'](_URL_0_) as an example.) From the left, you see how an incoming photon excites an electron to a higher orbital AND to a higher vibrational state. Next, some energy is emitted in the form of heat as the electron relaxes back to a lower vibrational state. (I.e. the photons produced this way are so low in energy that they are in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum, instead of the visible part.) When it can't go any further it must make a large 'jump' back to go back into the ground state. This energy gap is usually so large that the photon emitted will be in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The size of this energy gap determines the color of the compound. \n\nSo, to answer your questions: \n\n > but how is the colour constant?\n\nthe reason that you observe only one constant color in a TM complex is that the energy difference between the excited state and the ground state is constant.\n\n > wouldn't you eventually run out of electrons to promote? \n\nThe excited states are usually very short-lived, meaning the excited electrons will rapidly decay back to the ground state. Unless you are working with some high-tech equipment, the lifetime of the excited states is usually short enough that most electrons will be in the ground state. \n\n > and if electrons return to the lower d orbital, then wouldn't they release the energy that they absorbed, and change the colour of the compound?\n\nThey do indeed release the energy they have absorbed, in the form of infrared photons for rotational and vibrational energy and in the form of visible light for the decay back to lower orbitals.\n\nFinal note: in the picture there was depicted only one orbital level. In reality, there are of course multiple orbital levels, determined by the quantum number *n*. Take [this picture](_URL_1_) for instance. Here they do not show the vibrational and rotational spectral lines. (Because this is an atomic, not a molecular spectrum.) But it is possible that an electron is excited from the ground state (n=1) to a higher state (e.g. n=4). The same principles apply here. The transitions that you observe most are the 4-- > 1 transitions, 4-- > 3 and 4-- > 3 transitions you see much less of. So the final color that you observe will be a mixture of mostly 2-- > 1, 3-- > 1 and 4-- > 1 transitions."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NokCiQml29s/maxresdefault.jpg",
"http://dev.physicslab.org/img/26fa1bbf-9942-4369-9b99-6d3d2b3cf8ef.gif"
]
]
|
|
5ntwn6 | where did the expression "paint the town red" come from? why the color red? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ntwn6/eli5_where_did_the_expression_paint_the_town_red/ | {
"a_id": [
"dce9x99"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The phrase “paint the town red” most likely owes its origin to one legendary night of drunkenness. In 1837, the Marquis of Waterford—a known lush and mischief maker—led a group of friends on a night of drinking through the English town of Melton Mowbray. The bender culminated in vandalism after Waterford and his fellow revelers knocked over flowerpots, pulled knockers off of doors and broke the windows of some of the town’s buildings. To top it all off, the mob literally painted a tollgate, the doors of several homes and a swan statue with red paint. The marquis and his pranksters later compensated Melton for the damages, but their drunken escapade is likely the reason that “paint the town red” became shorthand for a wild night out. Still yet another theory suggests the phrase was actually born out of the brothels of the American West, and referred to men behaving as though their whole town were a red-light district.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-common-sayings-with-historical-origins"
]
]
|
||
4g0m09 | the uber driver class-action settlement | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4g0m09/eli5the_uber_driver_classaction_settlement/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2do989"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I believe this is the class-action in [question](_URL_1_) (there are actually two and they are related). \n\nOne class action is in California's hometown of San Francisco, and the other is over in Massachusetts. \n\nUber just settled in both states for $100M, but Uber will only be paying $84M right now to 365,000 drivers represented in the class action suit. The remaining $16M will only be paid out if Uber can increase it's current valuation at [$62.5B ](_URL_0_) by 1.5 times post IPO (IPO means an Initial Public Offering aka Uber is planning to go public very soon). \n\nTo the ELI5:\n\nThe premise of Uber and Lyft (RIP Sidecar) is simple: People have cars and other people need rides. Let's build a peer-to-peer marketplace where the car-owner can give a ride to the ride-requester. We'll take a % of the peer-to-peer cash exchanged to pay for development and operations. \n\nMost ride-sharing, on-demand drivers are \"independent contractors.\" Just like you, they own their own car, pay for it's maintenance, insurance, gas, etc and use it to offer rides in exchange for money. Anybody with a car (okay there are guidelines) can become an Uber or Lyft driver. \n\nAs an independent contractor, you get to control your hours. I, Uber, set minimum guidelines to make sure my drivers are doing the right job. One of the things I can't do is tell you when to work. An independent contractor can drive as often (minimum amount of rides per month) and as long as they want. \n\nSo, Uber (let's ditch Lyft here) has scaled very fast and is very large. Uber still holds true to archaic practices, which at it's current size is somewhat inappropriate but worked when they were struggling for traction, most notably penalizing drivers who cancel rides. \n\nThis policy was likely a signification part of the settlement, because requiring drivers to accept a certain percentage of trips could be interpreted as a job requirement that would consider them employees and not independent contractors\n\nThere's a weird two-sided struggle happening here: \n\nUber drivers (independent contractors) want access to perks real operation employees get (yes, Uber has two very nice headquarters). These perks include a salary, benefits, access to HQ, and most importantly, comped gas and a real \"company vehicle\" to use. Uber drivers want to become employees.\n\nHowever, Uber drivers also want freedom. There is a lot of freedom that comes with being an independent contractor, and an employee would have to work a full \"shift.\"\n\nOn the other hand, Uber is pushing the envelop and trying to squeeze every penny and resource out of the driver. Uber wants to give zero benefits while enforcing \"employee-like\" guidelines and rules. \n\nThe courts found in favor of Uber: Driver's will remain independent contractors. \n\nThis is a huge find because Uber could not possibly employ close to half a million drivers nationwide, considering it's upcoming IPO. Speculation would rattle it's current valuation, only adding to the current VC/tech bubble. \n\nHere is Uber's latest press release:\n_URL_2_\n\nTake it as it is. I'm entirely impartial here, although I do work in tech and I have a tad bit more insight into how these companies work. \n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/business/dealbook/uber-nears-investment-at-a-62-5-billion-valuation.html?_r=0",
"http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/21/uber-strikes-100m-class-action-settlement-to-keep-drivers-independent-contractors/",
"https://newsroom.uber.com/growing-and-growing-up/"
]
]
|
||
29uurk | when two black holes merge who attracts who? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29uurk/eli5_when_two_black_holes_merge_who_attracts_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciop4r3",
"ciop50s",
"ciopg1y"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"They both gravitate towards each other in a hypothetical black hole collision.",
"When any two massively dense (or small) objects get near to each other they both attract one another.",
"The same as with a person and the Earth. We attract each other, but Earth is so massive that the tiny bit of attraction we make is negligible. "
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6S1ITzXPTQ"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1l43il | why is it that a failed lie detector test can be used against you in a court of law, yet that same test when passed can not be used to exonerate you? | I've always been curious about this, and have never received a satisfying answer, it's always just hearsay. Anyone who can break this down for me? In the U.S. the supreme court made a judgement that the results could not be admissible in court, but police departments routinely use them anyways, the results being accessible by the jury at trial.
EDIT: links added
[Convicted Kiler Filmed Passing Lie Detector Test](_URL_1_)
This one isn't directly related to using a polygraph as evidence, it's more to indicate how widespread the practice still is in other situations involving convicts too
[Lie Detector Tests to be Used to Monitor Sex Offenders](_URL_0_)
EDIT2: from the polygraph wikipedia page:
> In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[32] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies.
To everyone saying polygraph evidence is disallowed in the US, 18 states allow the introduction of polygraph evidence: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Federal courts disallow it in most cases but there are exceptions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l43il/eli5_why_is_it_that_a_failed_lie_detector_test/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbvkjtn",
"cbvku7j",
"cbvkxl5",
"cbvnj01",
"cbvo1u8",
"cbvpb3e",
"cbvpc1k",
"cbvq8qx",
"cbvs8dx",
"cbvsaj9",
"cbvu1nu",
"cbvus4z"
],
"score": [
17,
120,
16,
4,
9,
2,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This will probably vary from country to country, but it is my understanding that lie detector tests are not reliable and should not be used as evidence in a court of law, either to convict or exonerate.",
" > Why is it that a failed lie detector test can be used against you in a court of law, yet that same test when passed can not be used to exonerate you?\n\nIf the judge allows admitting polygraph results as evidence (it's left to the judge's discretion), the results can be used as evidence for either the prosecution or the defense.\n\nOf course, polygraph results cannot be used to directly exonerate, just like they can't be used to directly convict. They can only be used as a single piece of evidence out of many.",
"Second article says it's still not admissible, but based on statistics those that submitted to it were twice as likely to admit they violated the conditions of their release.",
"this will probably get buried ... but\n\nThe short answer is that the question itself is wrong ... a lie detector test cannot exonerate you , nor can it incriminate you.\n\nIt can be used in a court of law, yes, but it can be used against you or for you, depending on the result.\n\njust like with any type of evidence, it has its own internal value, like a witness . A witness that saw the crime can be used against you , if you did it , or for you , if you didnt do it. Same with a lie detector test.\n\nJust your declaration , on its own , even if it is backed by such a test is not enough , for instance , to convict you . Any and all evidence must corroborate with all the other evidence existing in the case.\n\nHowever , if you pass a test , lets say it says you are telling the truth when you say that you did not steal , and there are for instance recordings by a video camera when you stole , even if you are convinced you are telling the truth , it is useless because there is stronger evidence against you.\n\nIt can however help in some cases . but not in most , because if you are presented with the oportunity to do such a test , and you did it ... you should not take such a test. ",
"Polygraph tests have a single purpose in the American justice system. It is a tool 3rd party organizations use to extract money from clients required to submit to their services or face incarceration. Almost all defendants would rather pay 250 for a polygraph that cannot be used to convict you than say, \"no thanks I'd rather go to jail than take your irrelevant and ridiculous test\". \n\nHow do I know? I was required to take on by OnTrack in Medford, OR. I was asked whether I smoked marijuana in the last year and I said no (A lie). I was also asked if I had moved in the last year and I said no (The truth). \n\nThe polygraph reported that I was truthful about the pot, but that I had lied about moving in the last year, which I had not. So from that experience I realized for sure that polygraph test are useless.",
"Lie detector tests are not an exact science and aren't always 100% correct. I took a legit one and failed when I verified my name. \"Deceptive answer my ass\" unless I'm a sleeper agent and don't know it conciously",
"Just thought I would add one more bit of explanation to the thread. Most people are correct that in the United States a lie detector test's results are not admissible in a criminal trial (regardless of if you pass or fail). There are several cases that determine when technology/science can be used in trial and lie detector test results have routinely been found too inconsistent to be relied upon as evidence. \n\nThat being said, the second article you reference deals with monitoring individuals after they have been convicted of a crime. In these circumstances lie detector tests are commonly relied upon in court to determine whether or not a person has complied with the terms of their probation. The big reasoning behind this is that once a person is convicted they are legally perceived as having fewer constitutional protections while they fulfill their sentence. Additionally, while the burden of proof to find a person guilty at trial is \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" (a really high burden to meet), in many jurisdictions, the burden to prove someone violated the terms of their probation is usually \"a preponderance of the evidence\" (which means they more likely than not did something wrong). Because there is less of a standard of proof, less constitutional protections at this point, and relaxed evidentiary rules, then lie detector tests will be relied on. \n\nIf you are interested at all in the progression of technology in this field, you should check out [brain fingerprinting](_URL_0_). While this is not a lie detector test per se, it can determine whether or not a suspect has intimate details of a crime that only the perpetrator would know and because it measures involuntary brain reactions to stimuli the test cannot be manipulated by the test taker.",
"I think the federal government can use them in court. ",
"Here's what I have posted in the past about it:\n\nI wish I had the time while at the office to search for my sources, but the meta-analysis (as well as some of the bigger single studies) show that a trained polygrapher only stands about a 60% chance of detecting a lie. Now, let's remember, that's only 10% better than tossing a coin and being able to correctly guess heads or tails.\n\nWhat is being tested is simply stress. Let's say you are asked questions for a baseline about your name, address, etc. These questions are usually highly unlikely to provide an emotional or physiological response. Then, you are asked whether or not you recognize the dead woman in this crime scene photo, or asked if you've ever raped someone, etc. These types of questions are very likely to provide a fair amount of physiological response because of the nature of the questions. You can be called a liar because that picture disturbed you deeply or maybe because you were actually raped as a child and were recalling the troubling memories while answering that question.\n\nIn addition, there is a consistent running theme in polygraphy, that your body shows a response, even if you didn't lie, but actually didn't mention something because you had totally forgotten it happened! For instance, you're asked if you've ever taken illegal drugs. You say so, but the test shows an indication of lying. You struggle and think about it for days or weeks on end, and then finally come to the conclusion that, oh yeah, you did try marijuana in high school 35 years ago.\n\nAlso troubling is that, based on word games or technicalities, polygraphers feel that they can phrase a question to weed out these word games or technicalities. For instance, let's say you are on probation and are not allowed to drink alcohol. You've been on probation almost three weeks and the polygrapher tells you he's going to ask if you've imbibed alcohol since you started probation. You remember that you got drunk the day before you started probation and you tell him so. He then asks something to the effect of, \"other than what you've told me, have you had alcohol in the last three weeks?\" or, \"have you imbibed alcohol in the last 20 days?\" They feel that, because they added that tiny disclaimer or clarifying word(s), that now prevents them from getting any type of false positive.\n\nThe polygraph test is also highly likely to give false-positives. This, for the innocent and truthful, is not so great. Its use as a tool for interrogations can be great, but it's admissibility in a court setting isn't...depending on the jurisdiction. Some states/countries outright forbid it's use/admission as evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States has disallowed its use as evidence in their court, but allows the states to determine the usage at that level on their own.\n\nIn the most recent update to [Leonard v. Texas (Nov. 21, 2012)](_URL_0_), the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ruled that polygraphs are absolutely not allowed in all forms of criminal trials (including motions to adjudicate guilt in probationers and the like for parolees)",
"I thought I'd comment on how to beat a polygraph, found in one of William Poundstone's \"Secrets\" books:\n\n1) Don't believe them when the lie to you about how accurate the machine is. Sometimes they pull a trick where they say they want to \"calibrate\" the machine. They ask you to pull a card from a deck, then ask you questions about the card to determine what it is. It's a trick deck, all the cards are the same. Sufficiently awed by how accurate the machine is, it's now time to get to the test.\n\n2) There are two kinds of question, real questions and control questions. The trick is to show more stress under the control questions (have you ever failed to declare income on a tax return?) than the real questions (do you know why an audit found $10,000 missing from the books?) Not being fooled by the trick deck and knowing the limitations is a good start, Poundstone suggests concealing a tack in your shoe that you can step on during the control questions. \n\nThe idea is that someone whose innocent will get stressed out about thinking the control question might implicate him/her about being dishonest and thus might implicate them in the fraud, but doesn't have anything to fear from the real questions because they know they didn't do it. By contrast someone who's guilty has a lot more to fear from the real questions than fudging a tax return a few years back. \n\nTL;DR Beat a lie detector be being more stressed by the general questions than the specific questions about what happened. ",
"Because you can lie and make a polygraph appear to make you tell the truth, but it can also misread you and make you look like a liar.",
"A polygraph result cannot be used in Court, whether you pass or fail. This is because it does not have sufficient scientific validity to be accepted, unlike things like fingerprint ID, DNA markers, etc. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jul/01/lie-detector-tests-sex-offenders",
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/convicted-killer-filmed-passing-lie-detector-test-8449900.html"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting"
],
[],
[
"http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=23387"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cltu42 | why isn’t there nearly enough ads against littering as there are against smoking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cltu42/eli5_why_isnt_there_nearly_enough_ads_against/ | {
"a_id": [
"evxtjp4",
"evxualj",
"evxurj3",
"evy4bap"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Littering actually has a very minor impact on a global scale. In addition, littering is not physically addictive the way smoking is, nor is it detrimental to one's personal health. In addition.\n\nThese are just a few of the reasons why nobody - or very few - will fund such ad campaigns.",
"Well, depending on the country there are laws which forbid plastic bags, and certain types of packaging, and which set serious fines for littering.\n\nThat being said, littering doesn’t pose the health risks that smoking does, and cleaning up stray rubbish doesn’t cost nearly as much as public healthcare for smokers.",
"Back in the 70s there was an anti littering campaign in the US. Lots of service announcements and such. Today the US mostly relies on social and peer pressure to not litter. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The tobacco companies lost a major lawsuit in the late 1990s that compels them to continually pay the states to produce anti-smoking ads. There is no \"Big Litter\" to sue, so there's no continuing revenue to support those ads, and no one cares enough to pay for them otherwise."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/j7OHG7tHrNM"
],
[]
]
|
||
219gjl | why aren't cars made of softer material, or at least have soft padding around them to reduce the impact of a crash? | It seems to me that turning all cars into bumper-carts would be a lot safer than the cars we currently have. Since we haven't done that, I assume there's something wrong with my line of thinking but don't know what it is. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/219gjl/eli5_why_arent_cars_made_of_softer_material_or_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgawlzx",
"cgax5ql",
"cgb2aov"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"with the advancement of material science and alloys they have done a lot to lower the weight of cars along with increasing the survivability. It does have two different parts.\n\n1.) design of roads. Safety is the main issue in road design and new roads will always be safer but that is not specifically what you are asking\n\n2.) design of cars: They have engineered them to be as light but safe as possible. certain areas have crumple zones which absorb impact and direct the energy around the driver through the frame. Metal is the best material for this since it is considered a ductile material is will bend in failure and still providing some strength. With foam there really isn't a material yet that can by itself withstand the forces in a crash that is able to be mass produced, plus when it breaks or cracks it supplies no available forces for support what is left thus the car would practically disintegrate in a high energy collision.\n\nThere are lots of factors in crashes such as speed, momentum, angles, etc. and the forces in high energy crashes are huge. The engineers will always try and find that niche for the most efficient use of materials, safety, performance, and cost.",
"Cars are a lot heavier and are going a lot faster than bumper cars. The energy that they have is much much greater.\n\nImagine being punched in the face by a one-year-old.\n\nThen imagine being punched in the face by Mike Tyson in his prime.\n\nEven if he wears gloves, you are going to end up in a different room than you started in, and may experience future problems in being yourself.",
"Let's start at the center and work our way out.\n\nQuick definition first though, where I say \"metal\" I'm referring to structurally useful metals like steel alloys, aluminum, titanium, etc. A car made out of potassium, gold or mercury would not fare well.\n\nThe passenger compartment needs to be as rigid as possible so that the occupants are not crushed or dismembered. A strong metal structure is the easiest way to obtain this rigidity. While it's certainly true that a sudden stop can injure or kill, the odds of surviving are better than if you get physically crushed or torn apart. Plus it's easier to escape or be removed if you're not pinned in.\n\nThe chassis needs to be sturdy enough to support the passenger compartment, engine and drivetrain, torque forces exerted by the engine and drivetrain, braking force and steering force all at the same time without the car tearing itself apart. Metals are the natural choice for this since they perform well with both compressive and tensile forces. The elasticity of metal is also useful since under stress the chassis of your car will flex and then snap back without taking damage. Metals handle twisting, squeezing, shearing and pulling forces pretty well, even in rapid succession. Less structurally robust materials would need a lot more material and, consequently, mass in order to stand up to that kind of abuse without tearing, breaking or permanently deforming.\n\nThe best place to put the wheels is at the corners of the vehicle [as demonstrated by Jeremy Clarkson](_URL_0_). Having significant enough padding around the vehicle to absorb a highway speed crash would mean having mass extending for several feet beyond the rectangle drawn by the wheels (we would need much wider roads to accommodate this but we'll gloss over that part for this ELI5). When turning, the mass on the outside of the corner will dip while the mass inside raises and their combined momentum will make the car want to continue into a roll. Mass in front of and behind the car will also make under-steer and over-steer much harder to correct. You've basically ruined the car's ability to maintain control in a corner and losing control is the opposite of safe. You may have enough padding to bounce away but there's no guarantee that what you bounce into will be another equally padded car.\n\nSo basically having bumper cars capable of seating 5 adults and traveling at 80 mph would result in a very comical, heavy and unstable design.\n\nThe way cars do it now actually does integrate some soft padding, in the form of Styrofoam and one-time use gas shocks, in the front and rear bumpers so that a low speed collision does not transfer enough energy to the crumple zones to get them to crumple. The crumple zones themselves are carefully engineered structures designed to collapse in a controlled manner and provide continuous resistance as the collision force works through them. Soft materials like Styrofoam will explode and stop providing resistance after their compressive limit and materials like foam rubber will quickly compress to the point of being more solid than a brick wall which will rearrange your internal organs in a very unpleasant way.\n\nEdit: Finished a thought on the 4th paragraph."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/QQh56geU0X8"
]
]
|
|
3undrb | how does the crossfit training program work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3undrb/eli5_how_does_the_crossfit_training_program_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxgbx34",
"cxged77",
"cxglfz3"
],
"score": [
20,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"CrossFit is summed up as \"high intensity, constantly varied, functional fitness\". There's a lot of misinformation about it (see the comments below) but form is *incredibly* important. We do olympic and power lifting, gymnastics, long runs, sprints, swimming, etc. (constantly varied), and work on training all 3 metabolic pathways to be the best all around athlete. Any specific questions?",
"You pick things up and put things back down -- all sorts of different things in many different ways. Sometimes those things are heavy and sometimes they are light. One of those things might even be you. You pick things up a few times really fast or you pick them up a lot of times more slowly. You do it often enough that you get better at picking things up and putting them back down. \n\nEdit: there is also running. You can get better at it as well. ",
"You want to be better at running jumping and lifting heavy things. You want to become better at running jumping and lifting heavy things right now. \n\nTraditionally, you would become better at running, then jumping, then lifting heavy things separately throughout the year. \n\nCrossFit allows you to become better at all three in one shorter period of time by including all three in each and every workout. \n\nBut not all programs are created equal. A program such as CrossFit where you run jump and lift every workout may not make you a better lifter than your friend who only lifts, or a better runner than your friend who only runs, or a better jumper than your friend who only does gymnastics. \n\nHowever, you are satisfied because you are becoming a better runner jumper and lifter and that you don't have to choose one or the other and that you find this satisfying for various reasons. \n\n(Yes, I left a lot out, I know. This is purposeful. Can't answer a vague ELI5 with a specific response, but don't know if it's proper etiquette in this sub to spend time explaining why OP's question is vague.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
cs7nw2 | why do wifi signals fluctuate in a house when objects remain static? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cs7nw2/eli5_why_do_wifi_signals_fluctuate_in_a_house/ | {
"a_id": [
"exd6xlk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not very certain about that, so maybe wait until someone else can ELI5 that. But one reason might be that signals from other sources on the same frequency might be interfering."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3pk78z | how do rear view mirrors make things darker when you flip them down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pk78z/eli5_how_do_rear_view_mirrors_make_things_darker/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw701xj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The mirror is not ground flat -- the front glass surface is at an angle to the very good back-reflecting-surface. So if you looked at this mirror out of its casing, it would be wedge-shaped with the thicker part of the wedge at the top. In its [normal position (daytime use)](_URL_0_), the very good back-reflecting-surface is angled at your eyes. When you \"flip\" the mirror to the [night time setting](_URL_1_), the very good back-reflecting-surface gets angled toward the ceiling. As a result you don't see the reflection coming from the back reflecting surface. What you see instead is the image reflecting off the front of the glass, and this is much dimmer than the image coming from the back reflecting surface, so it does not hurt your eyes. This image is much dimmer because most of the light wave's energy transmits at this boundary (and ends up getting reflected off the very good back-reflecting-surface to the ceiling) and only a small amount of the incident energy is reflected to your eyes"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.edu.pe.ca/gray/class_pages/krcutcliffe/physics521/17reflection/definitions/rearview%20day.bmp",
"http://www.edu.pe.ca/gray/class_pages/krcutcliffe/physics521/17reflection/definitions/rearview.bmp"
]
]
|
||
5vr4fb | why does electricity heat things up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vr4fb/eli5_why_does_electricity_heat_things_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"de44ej2",
"de4cgk3",
"de4dvim",
"de4escj",
"de4qoo4"
],
"score": [
86,
5,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Due to the wires having electrical resistance, which means that they resist the motion of electrons, the electrons bump into atoms of the wire, and some of their kinetic energy is given to the atoms as thermal energy. This thermal energy causes the wire to heat up.",
"Things are made of atoms. Atoms have nuclei, positively charged clumps of protons and neutrons, and electrons which go around the outside. When electricity flows, electrons are actually moving from one atom to the next. As electrons flow, they can bump into the nuclei. Kind of like rubbing your hands together makes your hands warm from friction. Electrons rubbing along nuclei makes the nuclei warm.\n\n\nThere is a much more accurate and in depth explanation, called Quantum Free Electron Theory. I won't go into it here, because it's a recent topic in my lectures and I don't fully understand it enough myself to explain it to someone else. ",
"It would technically be more accurate to say *current* heats things up. Current refers to the *movement* of electrical charge carriers (electrons in most cases) however, this is probably what you meant when your said \"electricity\" anyway. So to answer your question:\n\nFriction.\n\nLike I said above, current is the movement of charged particles. Imagine a large vertical pipe filled with big rocks. Now imagine dumping a big bucket of sand through that pipe. Since the rocks are big and oddly shaped, there are a bunch of spaces between them that the sand can fall all the way through. Each grain of sand is like an electron flowing through a wire (pipe) while periodically bumping into copper atoms (rocks) along the way (although electrons typically move much slower than the sand would in this analogy, but I digress). This bumping is what's important. Each time an electron bumps into a copper atom, it loses a tiny fraction of its energy as heat due to friction. This is the same concept as why your hands heat up when you rub them together really fast. So if you imagine billions of these collisions happening every second in just a short section of wire, you can see how things would heat up pretty quickly.\n\nThere are of course many other factors at play here, one of the most prevalent being resistivity. Certain materials heat up more than other because they have a higher resistance. Imagine the pipe from earlier filled with even more, smaller rocks so that the sand can't flow as easily (note: this is not a proper analogy for resistance. Materials with a higher resistance do not necessarily have smaller atoms than a material with a lower resistance). \"But wait!\" You might say. \"What about rubber? It has a really really high resistance, but it doesn't heat up at all when I put my 9V battery on it! Doesn't that go against what you just said?!\" Well, yes and no. Rubber is an insulator, meaning it's resistance is so high, it usually will not conduct a *current.* Remember when I said current was the movement of electrons? Well if electrons aren't moving, they won't bump into anything. If there's no bumping, there's no friction. If there's no friction, there's no heat. Now, theoretically, with a large enough voltage it would be possible to get a current flowing in a sample of rubber. However, this voltage would be astronomical and you would almost certainly hurt yourself and others around you, if not with electricity then with the ensuing fire you just started. Be careful!\n\n**TL;DR**: friction.\n\nSource: Computer engineering student.",
"Hold a piece of rope in your hand, now pull on the rope starts to get warm right? Now hold it a little looser, not as warm. Now hold it tight, gets warm fast. Same thing happens in wires with how tight you hold the rope being an analogy to what's called resistance. The heat generated depends on how much resistance there is in the wire.",
"All the answers are good so far, but I'll just add one flavor to this. There are three kinds of kinetic energy you are probably familiar with. The first is translational, which is where (essentially) all the parts of a body are going from place to place in the same direction. The second is rotational. The third is thermal, which is like translational except the motions of the parts (e.g. molecules or electrons) are all in random directions. This turns out to be important, because there is a theorem by a guy named Carnot that tells you how much conversion you can get from thermal to, say, translational. \n\nSo what's happening with electric current is that electrons \"fall\" through a voltage difference (it's a voltage rise, but don't let that confuse you), which means that they lose potential energy. That potential energy would in principle turn into translational kinetic energy. Except the first thing that happens is the electrons get scattered by atoms and other electrons, and before long most of the kinetic energy is *thermal* kinetic energy. This is what we sense as a rise in temperature."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3fozfu | what causes the phenomenon of wind? | I didn't want to get too specific to limit answers, but I am wondering what is the physical cause of the atmospheric phenomenon of wind? A breeze, a gust, hurricane force winds, all should be similar if not the same correct? What causes them to occur?
Edit: Grammar. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fozfu/eli5what_causes_the_phenomenon_of_wind/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctqm7po",
"ctqmh52",
"ctqmp8b",
"ctqnsi6",
"ctqr2r3",
"ctqsai9",
"ctqsk92",
"ctqtiom",
"ctqtm3l",
"ctqutp1",
"ctqvnb3",
"ctqvp9v",
"ctqvxu3",
"ctqw0wv",
"ctqw767",
"ctqw7op",
"ctqwfal",
"ctqwvhz",
"ctqxdw6",
"ctqxlds",
"ctqxut4",
"ctqydqb",
"ctqypuq",
"ctqyxsn",
"ctqzk57",
"ctqzsfq",
"ctr085s",
"ctr0k2f",
"ctr0rt4",
"ctr10bn",
"ctr3fdi",
"ctr3mjn",
"ctr3mzb",
"ctr5564",
"ctr5aud",
"ctr64z4",
"ctr65k4",
"ctr6k8a",
"ctr6sy4",
"ctr8y6v",
"ctrchfg",
"ctrg5ir",
"ctrrh9h",
"ctuqm06"
],
"score": [
4606,
10,
370,
3,
3,
2,
14,
2,
29,
3,
3,
6,
4,
10,
3,
3,
2,
3,
4,
5,
3,
6,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
4,
5,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sorry for whoever thought they were cool for down voting your simple, straightforward, shameless question.\n\nAnyway, as you may know, warm air rises because it is less dense. So when a pocket of air gets heated up, it rises higher up in the sky. \n\nBut as you also may know, nature doesn't like a vacuum (empty space), so something needs to fill in the empty space that the warm air left. What can fill it? A rush of cooler, denser air. That rush to fill in the gap is wind.\n\n----------------------------------------\n\nEDIT: Wow, this blew up.\n\nGET IT?!\n\nSorry.\n\n-------------------------------------------\n\nEDIT 2: Thanks for the gold!",
"What actually causes a certain pocket to be heated more than the rest? ",
"OK! \n\nThe sun heats the Earth, but some parts of the Earth get hotter than other parts. Have you ever touched blacktop in the sun and noticed it's hotter than the grass around it? The blacktop is abosorbing more energy from the sunlight than the grass, so it is getting hotter. \n\nThis happens all over the Earth, some places absorb more sunlight than others for various reasons. As the ground gets hotter, the air above the ground also gets hotter. The air is a gas, and hot gasses expand, all the molecules of air get farther apart. In weather terms this is called a low pressure area. \n\nSo in the hotter area the molecules of air are far apart from one another and the colder area has air with molecules packed tightly together. Imagine there are 100 people in a room with a fence running down the middle, 90 people are on one side of the fence and 10 people are on the other. The side with 90 people is really crowded, this is like the air above the colder area of the Earth. If you were to suddenly remove the fence in the room, the crowded people would start to spread out into the other side of the room. The same thing happens with the molecules of air, they move from the crowded high pressure area toward the open low pressure area making wind.",
"As air in a given area warms, it rises. As it rises, the pressure over the area it is rising from decreases. The change in air pressure results in cooler air rushing in from the surrounding areas to fill the void, thus creating what we perceive as wind. \n\nThe same effect happens with storms in reverse; the falling cooler air pushes out warmer air, creating strong winds. ",
"The sun heats part of the earth more than the other parts. Wind is formed from the air equilibrating.",
"It's like a wave pool, except there's air instead of water. And instead of a machine that pushes water out to create waves, there's high pressure areas that push air to low pressure areas. What creates the high pressure? Warmth from the sun coming in waves between day and night (instead of a floater on a piston pushing up and down).",
"Basically, sun warms air more in some parts of the world than in others. Hot air rises, vacuum is created below and areas of normal pressure blow in to equalize the pressure.",
"How do these answers intensify when you're standing on a cliff, or in a mountainous valley where the wind is so strong it could almost blow you over? In some places it is very windy 100% of the time.",
"The Sun heats the Earth as it rotates, but it heats different parts differently. Some times of day the Sun is more directly over your head (like at noon rather than at sunset), and so you and the ground around you get heated up more than for someone standing somewhere else where the Sun is setting. This can also happen because of the seasons -- imagine you are on a Caribbean Island in the winter and your friend is in Alaska. You will feel more heat from the Sun.\n\nAnother important thing about how hot it is where you are standing is the stuff around you. If you are standing in a puddle, your feet won't get as hot in the middle of the day as if you are standing on pavement or a piece of metal.\n\nWhat does this heat have to do with wind though? When the ground is hot, the air nearby gets hot. And since the ground is different temperatures in different places, the air is different temperatures in different places too. But what happens when air gets hot? It expands, and just like in a hot air balloon, it wants to rise relative to colder air. This is where movement in our atmosphere begins. Air heats up, expands, and floats. Other air moves in to fill its place, and this movement of air is *wind*. \n\nSince some big parts of the world get heated up a lot more than others, some of this wind is very strong. If you live near the ocean, you might notice that during the day the winds often blow from the ocean onto the land. This is because the land is heating up faster than the ocean, so the air over the land heats up more and rises. Then, the air from the ocean flows in at the surface to take its place. Eventually this air is warmed up by the land too and floats upward, pulling in more cool air from the ocean. This is called a sea breeze. The opposite happens at night when the water is warmer than the land.\n\nAt even bigger scales, this happens too as the land around the equator heats up, rises, and brings in air from the tropics around it. As the Earth spins, it makes the wind seem to move not just North and South, but also East and West. If you live in New York and want to fly to San Francisco, it will usually take you about an hour longer to get there than to get back home again because the winds are almost always flowing from the West to the East there. These winds are called the Westerlies, and they show up nicely in a picture that /u/Altaeon8 posted [here](_URL_0_).",
"Transferring effects of hotter High pressure air to cooler Low pressure spaces. Fuelled by the heat of the sun hitting the planet with temperature differences created by fluctuating solar activity, varied geological landscape forms and the rotation of earth.",
"Pretty much the vast majority of weather phenomena can be explained by uneven heating of the Earth's surface. As the sun heats the Earth's surface, the surface air also gets hotter. That air rises up because it is less dense than the surrounding air, which may have not been heated as much. As that air rises, it creates a partial vacuum and the surrounding air, which is more dense, follows what's called the pressure gradient from an area of relatively high pressure to an area of relatively low pressure.\n\nBut since we're talking about pretty large areas of atmosphere, the [Coriolis effect](_URL_0_) is applicable. Instead of huge air masses going directly from high pressures to low pressures, they take a circular path. Just like a draining bathtub creates a spinning vortex of water despite it being a simple pressure gradient, air masses also form vortices. In the Northern Hemisphere air spins counterclockwise around an area of low pressure. In the Southern Hemisphere, air spins clockwise around an area of low pressure. [Here](_URL_1_) is a good image of one of these low pressure zones causing wind. There is an area of low pressure south west of Chicago, which influneces wind patterns for the entire Great Plains region of the US.\n\nAnd of course terrestrial formations can also influence wind patterns. Mountains, lakes and oceans can all effect how much heat is absorbed by the sun but also effect the path the wind can take to travel along the pressure gradient.",
"You know when it is hard to open a door in your house after running an air conditioner in one room and the air tries to escape into another room? This is because different temperatures create high and low pressure zones. These high and low pressure zones on earth are caused by the sun and effected by other hot and cold land and water. Wind is the result. Of air moving from hot areas towards cold areas.",
"The fact that the answer to this question isn't common knowledge is one of the reasons why explaining climate change is a pain in the ass.",
"BONUS MATHS:\n\nI haven't yet seen anyone talk about the Hairy Ball Theorem (_URL_0_).\n\nThis asks you to imagine a ball covered in fur, then try and comb all the fur in the same direction. You can't do it, there is always at least 2 'tufts' or 'crowns'.\n\nNow imagine the (ball-shaped) earth. The movement of air can be thought of like a strand of hair, given it has a direction and a strength, which is the same as the direction and length of the hair. So a hairy ball is (mathematically) similar to a snap shot of the wind.\n\nNow this doest tell us why we have wind, but it does show that at any one time there must be at least 2 storms. Because the storms are the swirling crowns or tufts of the hairy ball. Well either more than 2 storms or absoloutly no wind at all, which we would call the trivial case, and pretty much never happens.",
"Funny story. In 8th grade, we spent the whole first semester learning about wind and warm fronts and cold fronts and whatnot. Then second semester we learned about astronomy or whatever, and for one of the class discussions, I asked \"so how is wind created?\" Cause my idea my whole life was that it was created by the Earth spinning.\n\nMy teacher just facepalmed.",
"Some areas of the earth get more sun than others (like desserts or seas for example). This causes the air to be heated, adding energy to the air molecules. In these regions, the air expands, because the molecules are bouncing into each other a lot with the energy they have, it makes the air less dense. That expansion moves upwards, leaving a low pressure behind. Air likes to be in equilibrium (the pressure the same all over), so the air in areas which are higher in pressure move toward these lows. That travelling of air from high to low pressure is what we call wind.",
"It's not a phenomenon... warm air rises pulling in cooler air in it's place underneath causing wind.",
"It has been already mentioned by others that hot air rises and cold air descends. This is mostly what causes the vertical movement of air, however when you refer to wind I assume you talk about the horizontal movement of air.\n\nGenerally speaking the wind movement is generated by pressure systems. Without going into a really complex explanation pressure systems are areas of the atmosphere that have higher or lower pressure. Think of it as if you were going underwater, the deeper you go the more pressure you feel. Our atmosphere works the same way, and is not constant all throughout.\n\nThat said there are a lot more things that go into it, such as the fore mentioned temperature, humidity of the air, etc.\n\nAir, much like other things we know, moves from high to low, so high pressure systems and low pressure systems generate different types of air movements and weather.\n\nThere are several different types of wind movement which most of us don't care about on a day-to-day basis.\n\nI don't think you could properly explain wind to a 5 year old as it is a lot more complex than it seems. It requires at least basic knowledge of physics to be properly explained.\n\nSource: I am a pilot and had to study meteorology to obtain my license. - Chances are there is someone around here who is better qualified to explain this.\n\nEdit: some grammar and organization\n\nEdit2: just thought I'd add a bit of clarification why the cause isn't just temperature alone and by itself. If you look at [this](_URL_0_) image I took out of google displaying general wind movement you will notice that there's a band on both hemispheres where the wind movement is towards the poles, or the generally colder area. When you talk about wind movement it's hard to talk about one cause alone.",
"1. The heating of the earths surface (Land heats and cools faster than water). \n - A perfect example would be Sea Breeze and Land Breeze (Diurnal Effect). During the day, the land heats up faster than the water and creates a micro area of lower pressure. As a result, the warmer air rises and the colder water over the water will rush over land to fill that void of lower pressure. The opposite happens at night. The water is warmer than the land and it creates a micro area of lower pressure, the air rises (hence why you get thunderstorms over water at night) and the cooler air over land rushes in to fill that void. \n\n2. Coriolis Force - The earth's rotation affects the air flow by deflecting it to the right. This effect is called the Coriolis Effect. In the Northern Hemisphere, this causes air to flow clockwise around high pressure areas and counter-clockwise around low pressure areas.\n\n3. Differences in temperature (Temperature Gradient) - In areas where there are large differences in temperature (especially over small areas), you will, most of the time, get stronger wind. Think of a frontal boundary. A cold or warm front is, simply, a weather phenomena that separates two different air masses. If the air mass is very warm and moist (Think the SE U.S.) ahead of the cold front and the air mass behind it is really cold and dry, the more severe the weather will be as well as the stronger the wind ahead and behind that front.\n\n4. Differences in Pressure Gradient - Pressure Gradient has alot to do with temperature gradient and the tighter the pressure gradient, the stronger the wind.\n\nHere is a very good website from a meteorologist and professor. The whole website is awesome. If you have any questions, I am a retired military meteolorogist.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Please don't instantly hate on me for asking this, I'm genuinely curious, and not bashing OP: why is it better to ask this question here instead of a google search? I tried googling this, and I instantly got lots of good explanations with images and videos. Reddit is good for some questions, but it takes more time. So what's the deal?",
"TL;DR:The Sun.\n\nThe sun heats air and makes it expand. When air cools it contracts. \nExpanded air also rises. the combination of earth spinning, heating from the sun and heat re-released by the ocean causes the different types of wind.",
"This is going to sound really cheesy, but nature loves balance. It essentially comes down to a difference in pressure between two [or more; usually more] areas and wind is the result of nature trying to find an equilibrium.",
"Weather is caused by the uneven heating of the Earth's surface.\n\nWarm air expands and rises, cool air contracts and sinks.\n\nIn nature, things like to be balanced. when there are differences in pressure (caused by areas of warm and cold air next to each other) its the areas of pressure trying to balance themselves out.\n\nSource: [FAA AC 00-6A Aviation Weather](_URL_0_)",
"It is possible to simplify it even more by saying that ALL weather is caused by the unequal distribution of heat in the atmospere.",
"Warm air rises. Cold air falls. (Due to density). This is wind\n\nAir is like a liquid so if you want to see how wind is created; \n\nput an ice cold pan of water on the stove. Turn on the heat. Wait a minute and place a drop of dye in the water and watch how it cycles round. This is how wind is created in air \n\nSide note: I know most of this as I have a mild phobia of excessive wind and tried to learn and understand it. Seriously...\n\nSomething that you can't see or touch or stop can rip a home from it's moorings or RAM a fence post right through a cow. \n\nWhat could it do to me? \n\nIt's the \"terminator\" of the elemental world!",
"In a nutshell, differences in barometric pressure. An over simplification, but basically right. ",
"Fun fact, every wave in the ocean is created by wind, sometimes a very very very gentle breeze. Interesting when you think of it. Our planet, without us, would be a heavenly majestic place.",
"Meteorologist here!\n\nThere are three most common causes for your everyday puff of wind: convection, pressure gradients, and temperature gradients.\n\nConvection is what happens when the sun heats up air near the surface, causing to it rise. Surrounding air must rush in to fill its place. If you could visualize it, it would look a lot like a lava lamp. Convection is also what creates those white puffy clouds. If the day gets warm enough, it'll lift that bubble of air high enough where the moisture inside of it gets cold enough to condense (like when you see your breath in winter). \n\nPressure gradient is like visualizing the air as if it were a topographic map. There are mountains (high pressure) and valleys (low pressure). Air is a fluid that is subject to the force of gravity and will move from high to low. Coriolis force will cause the wind to shift along the gradient lines.\n\nTemperature gradient is similar to pressure gradient in that warmer air expands and cold air contracts. If the warm center and cold center are far apart, there won't be much wind. But if they are close (like during a cold front), it'll become very windy. \n\n",
"There are a lot of answers, and they are all pretty much spot on, but I don't see what I consider to be a more 'root cause' of the question.\n\nMovement in space is always caused by a gradient. A gradient is a difference in some measurement between two points in space.\n\nThis is the root cause of everything - \n\n- A pressure gradient causes wind\n- An electrostatic gradient will cause the movement of electrons\n- A force gradient on a soccer ball will cause it to hit the goal\n- A temperature gradient will cause heat to move between two areas\n\nSo, to answer your question in this context... The sun casts rays on the earth which causes the earth and air to heat. This causes a density gradient in the air, resulting in air movement due to buoyancy. This causes a low pressure pocket, which results in a gradient between the normal pressure air and the low pressure pocket. This causes wind, as the system attempts to resolve the gradient. ",
"Just because it's cool, and relevant to the question, [check out this wind map. ](_URL_0_) It really illustrates how terrain affects the wind in the mountainous West.",
"So there are 2 types of winds, solar winds and planetary winds. I assume you want to talk about planetary winds. Winds accour due to differences in pressure. So air molecules will move from high pressure to low pressure causing the phenomena of wind, this is called the pressure gradient force or pgf. Pgf interacts with a force called the coriolis force that is caused by the rotation of the earth. And make wind move perpendicular to the pressure gradient force once it reaches equilibrium. There is a difference between wind above 1km of the surface and below. As the one below will also be affected by friction. ",
"Pressure. Some places hot, some cold. Air moves from one to the other naturally. Thus wind. ",
"Invisible Giants on top of a mountain blowing.\n\nOr that's what me and a semi-drunk friend came to the conclusion of.",
"The best way i understood it is the change in pressure from high and low tempetures. During the day the air heats up and at night it cools down. So obviously as the ear rotates you have a constant cooling/heating going on. Hot air is expanding and take up more space. It moves to areas of lower pressure and cooler air is displaced. Movement due to pressure causes the wind. Thats at least how i understood it. ",
"Sun heats the earth, air enlarges and shrinks due to heat difference, earth spins and rotates, hence wind",
"My great grandma thought it was the trees \"moving their arms\" and that's why the wind dies down at dusk because the trees go to sleep. ",
"Heat transfer. Warm air rises, cool air falls. Extrapolate the temperature differentials caused by the day-night cycle and the earth's tilt towards the sun over the seasons across the entire earth and BAM! You get wind.",
"Wind is the result of uneven heating of the planet. There is an excess of heat at the lower latitudes (equator) and a deficit at the higher latitudes (north and south poles). This is due to the uneven heating that the planet receives, due to the tilt of the planet. The sun light warms the soil/ocean surface more at the equator than it does at the poles. As the surface warms, the air just above the surface in turn warms via conductive processes, and this warm surface air in turn rises due to convective processes (warm air is less dense than relatively cooler air, and thus rises, and vice versa). \n\nAs the air warms and rises, relatively cooler air moves in to take its place. This process causes a change in barometric pressure, with relatively lower pressure in the region of rising motion, surrounded by a region of relatively higher pressure. Air from the region of higher pressure flows toward the region of lower pressure as wind. This is referred to as the 'pressure gradient force' (PGF), and is the most basic explanation for why wind occurs. It occurs on all scales: from thermals over parking lots on hot days, to the rising motion inside thunderstorms, to hurricanes and ultimately the general circulation of the planet.\n\nAn interesting mental exercise to understand some of the basic atmospheric dynamics is to imagine a giant bonfire, several hundred miles in diameter. When lit, the heat of the fire warms the air, and causes rising motion, and low pressure in the region of convection. Around the fire, relatively cooler, higher pressure air begins to flow in towards the fire, as fluids (air is a fluid), like to move from high pressure to lower pressure. This is again, the pressure gradient force. However, Earth is a rotating body, and because the fire is so large, as second force comes into play: the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force is the tendency for a moving body to deflect to the right of the direction of motion in the Northern hemisphere. This applies to the air flowing down the pressure gradient towards the fire as well, and as the air blows towards the fire, it deflects right. Friction with the surface bends this flow slightly back to the left causing counter-clockwise, or 'cyclonic' flow. This is why wind around low pressure systems in the Northern hemisphere blows counter-clockwise, and similarly why hurricanes (essentially super-charged low pressure systems) always rotate in a cyclonic fashion. High pressure systems in the NH do the exact opposite: the air sinks and radiates outwards from the center of the system, again deflecting right causing clockwise or anti-cyclonic flow. Another fun thing you can do is if you stand outside with the wind at your back, relatively lower pressure will be to your left, and relatively higher pressure will be to your right.\n\nAlso, if you arent confused enough yet, all of this is reversed in the Southern hemisphere. Wee!",
"Before the time of man the world was a vast ocean of dirt; cold and worthless. As the Gods tore through the cosmos destroying everything in a Great War one God looked upon the tiny desolate orb and her heart sank. \"So much potential,\" she thought. \n\nShe took the smooth little stone in her hand and her heart melted. Water poured through the cracks and down the valleys. Life exploded into the new world. Her war had stopped. She named the new creation \"Earth\" after the son ripped from her belly. \n\nCreatures of the land and sea birthed forth covering Earth with life unimaginable. Giants roams the land and befriended the tiniest of creatures hiding behind the shadows of pebbles. This paradise was unequaled. \n\nThe Great War had passed by Earth, but its savior was weak. As the light in her eyes began to fade she kissed her child and with her last breath whispered \"love\". \n\nWind is her echo.",
"Well I can tell you one thing, it's not from clouds blowing on us as depicted in children books ",
"The heating and cooling of the earth's surface. that's why its often calmer in the mornings just before sunrise, as the earth/air have met some sort of an equilibrium, then after sunrise, things kick off again.",
"believed to know the name of all things \"Taborlin the Great said to the wind: \"BLOW!\" and the wind blew...\"\n―Folk tale about Taborlin the Great",
"Wind is mostly caused, as others have said, by uneven heating of the earth's surface. However, even if heating were the same everywhere, there would still be some wind, because the atmosphere is heated mostly from the bottom and cooled mostly from higher up. Warm air rises, and cooler air flows in underneath, forming cells of convection. So even if the surface were heated perfectly evenly, it would be *cooled* unevenly by the sinking air.",
"Tesla once conceived of giant tubes used to pump warm air to cold climates and cold air to warm climates. Then he realized he had invented wind. He used this as an example to explain why no idea is \"dumb\", and to let your mind freely explore ideas, since this could lead to other less-dumb ideas."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fozfu/eli5what_causes_the_phenomenon_of_wind/ctqrouq"
],
[],
[
"http://education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/",
"http://hint.fm/projects/wind/wind_west_to_east.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://ww2.odu.edu/~tmmathew/images/442images/windpatterns.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/85/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.aviationweather.ws"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://hint.fm/wind/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
aeuylw | what’s the scientific term for the tingling sensation (almost like a ground) that you feel when you say “gives me the chills”, and why does it happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aeuylw/eli5_whats_the_scientific_term_for_the_tingling/ | {
"a_id": [
"edsvxz0"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"It is technically called Piloerection! And it’s The same reason a dogs fur or spine-fur sticks out when it’s threatened, scared, or cold. The chills or goosebumps are typically a fear/excitement/body temp reaction. \n\nBack when humans used to be super hairy - when we’d be aroused, threatened, or cold, out hair follicles hardened, and continue to do so because of instinctual reaction to external stimuli. In fear or threatening situations - the hair follicles stiffen to make the hair stick and and appear bigger so that your enemy or threat will be more inclined to back off. In cold weather, your body does this to thicken the fur to disallow airflow and keep you warm. As far as excitement goes, like when you hear a good opera and you get chills - it’s because music that good can make you feel vulnerable, which circles back to fear. Your attention has become fixed on one thing for an extended amount of time, so now you’re aware or your surroundings suddenly and your hair puffs out to threaten other predators into thinking your bigger."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2tos8w | why is the 'enter' key called the return key? | As far as I'm aware it doesn't return anything or return me to anything?
Edit: Thanks for replies:) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tos8w/eli5_why_is_the_enter_key_called_the_return_key/ | {
"a_id": [
"co0y4al",
"co0y4xw",
"co0y5j7",
"co0y5on",
"co0y7i1",
"co18cqg"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
9,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"For typewriters it's the carriage return.\n\nKa-Chunk!",
"On typewriters it returned you to the start of the next line down, much as it does in word processors on a computer.",
"Ah but it does. The return key returns you to the start of a line of text. ",
"It goes back to the days of typewriters. That is the carriage return. On a manual typewriter, it required physically moving the text writer over to the left margin. On an electric typewriter, it sends the text writer back to the left margin.",
"It's a holdover from typewriters. It refers to \"carriage return\", a lever on a typewriter that returns the typing head to the beginning of the line and moves the paper up. On early electric typewriters, instead of a lever, there was a separate \"carriage return\" key. When computers came around, electric keyboards had an \"enter\" key in the same position as \"return\" to signify that a typed command can be entered. Then the distinctions between electric typewriters and computers started to blur, and the two concepts kind of merged, and the terminology from both hung around. ",
"To keep it simple, it returns you to the start of the line, one line down. This function also explains that little arrow on most return keys. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4bl13q | why all ancient art from specific geographies and time periods looks exactly the same (ex. egyptian art, etc)? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bl13q/eli5_why_all_ancient_art_from_specific/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1a36uj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't.\n\nAlthough you may not recognize the differences between ancient objects from similar locations and time periods I can assure you that there are differences.\n\nOne reason many objects may look *similar* is because in most ancient societies the artist class was extremely small. This was mostly due to the economics of supporting \"non-productive\" individuals."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3hegmg | why is it so hard to legally immigrate into the united states that so many are willing to do it illegally? or is it not that difficult, but just easier to do so illegally? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hegmg/eli5_why_is_it_so_hard_to_legally_immigrate_into/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu6oupd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's both difficult to immigrate legally and easy to immigrate here illegally. The naturalization process takes a long time, and has a very clogged up line of people waiting, not to mention there are many tests and background checks to pass. For people who may not be eligible or don't want to take the time to pass the tests, it's easier to just cross the border."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4w2brv | if i walked around with a blindfold on for an entire year, would my other senses become more powerful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w2brv/eli5_if_i_walked_around_with_a_blindfold_on_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d63fmr4"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"No. You would simply pay more attention to the information coming in from those senses. Blind people don't hear or smell better than anyone else, they just *notice* sounds and smells that the rest of us overlook. \n\nTell a blind person and a sighted person (I think that's the term) to walk towards an open bottle of perfume and tell me when you smell it, and on average they will perform equally well. Turn up a radio slowly and ask them to tell you when they hear it, and they'll perform the same. \n\nBut ask a blind person and sighted person from the same social group to identify their friends based on smell or the sounds of their footsteps, and the blind person will probably do better because the sighted person doesn't use these details to identify people."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3guxjz | how are hidden markov models used in speech synthesis? | I don't even know what a HMM is, so maybe that's a good place to start. I am 5 so I have no knowledge of statistics. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3guxjz/eli5_how_are_hidden_markov_models_used_in_speech/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu1pfnw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A Markov model is anything that changes over time based on random events. For example: most games. There are different types of Markov Models based on whether or not you know everything (Snakes and Ladders, where you know everything, vs. Poker, where you can't see the other person's cards); and whether or not you have any control in the matter (In Snakes and Ladders, you don't make any choices. In Monopoly, you do).\n\nA Hidden Markov Model is one in which you don't know everything; and aren't in control. For example, if you are watching a game of cards over one person's shoulder, and trying to predict what cards other people have. In this example, you are trying to use the cards you have already seen be played to predict what other cards are in each person's hand.\n\n\nFor speech recognition, what you have is a series of sounds, which you are trying to convert into words. Most of the time, this isn't that hard for humans, though occasionally there is ambiguity (anarrow flight: is that \"an arrow flight\" or \"a narrow flight\"). However, humans are really good at this: it's basically hardwired into our brains. We don't have computers to that point yet.\n\nWe use a Hidden Markov Model for this because there is some randomness, we don't know everything, and we aren't in control: there is randomness because not everyone pronounces words the same way, and even the same person saying the same word will say it differently; we don't know everything because we specifically don't know what words they are saying, only the sounds being made; and we aren't in control because there are no choices we can make to change how the words sound, only the speaker (which we aren't) controls that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3mtu3a | what a sinkhole is. i have seen them on the news lately. im scared. | pls help | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mtu3a/eli5_what_a_sinkhole_is_i_have_seen_them_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvi0wd4",
"cvi1fvt"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Water falls as rain, and seeps through the soil to the aquifer below. \n\nOn it's way down, it sometimes reacts with substances in the soil (like decaying plants) that makes it acidic and allows it to wear away at the rock layer separating the dirt above from the water below. When enough is worn away, the dirt can flow into the aquifer, leaving an opening, which eventually collapses as a sinkhole. It's also possible for sub-terranian streams and rivers to do this, but the process is always related to flowing water.\n\nCertain types of dirt/bedrock (like limestone), and certain conditions, make this more likely to happen. Some areas are prone to it, while in others it's unheard of.\n\nNo reason to be scared, they are relatively uncommon and it's even more uncommon for it to happen where there are people. It only makes the news because it's so infrequent. ",
"Sinkholes appear when there's a hollow space underground and it caves in. This can happen for a number of reasons. There could be a cave that someone builds on top of, not knowing it is there. Someone can cover wood and plant material with dirt and rock, only to have that material rot away. In some places, there are natural limestone deposits that slowly dissolve, leaving holes. A water pipe can break underground and wash away dirt and rock, or maybe an area has a fast-flowing underground stream.\n\nSinkholes aren't particularly common. Most people will never see one in their lifetime, and if they do it will probably be at the site of a water-main break and detected long before it's a hazard."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1tadij | how did einstein come to the conclusion that gravity is the bending of space and time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tadij/eli5_how_did_einstein_come_to_the_conclusion_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce5zy3r",
"ce67wym"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Hard time to really bring down as it came from multiple issues and debates. \n\nBasically before he made his claims the speed of light was known, it was also known that is does not change.\n\nIE; if you throw a ball forward from a car, the ball is traveling at the speed you threw it at plus the speed of the car. But the light from the headlights on the car goes the same speed if the car was moving or parked.\n\nSo Einstein thought about this and since the speed of light had to the same to someone moving and someone standing still, what changed? His answer was that space and time changed so that the speed of light didn't have to and this also made a limit on speed. That nothing could go faster then the speed of light.\n\nHowever this caused issues with Newton's laws of motion. In Newtons world if the sun suddenly disappeared the earth would instantly lose it's orbit even thou we could still look up into the sky and see the sun since the light was still traveling to earth. This makes gravity travel faster then the speed of light, which contradicts what Einstein said about the nothing traveling faster then light. \n\nThrew a lot of math and debating eventually it was said that space and time would bend not just with speed (this was for the light speed issues above) but also with gravity. This way if the sun was removed from the solar system the earth would still follow it's orbit until the the bending of space time reached the earth, which was found to also travel at the speed of light thus not breaking his first law.\n\n*Edit words",
"People are explaining how it *is that*, not how Einstein *decided it was*.\n\nHe had an aesthetic preference for geometrical explanations of physical phenomena, a temperamental belief/hope that shape is fundamental. In the case of gravity his prejudice turned out to be right, or at least justifiable—or at the very least more useful than earlier descriptions of gravity had been.\n\nEinstein was sort of a Pythagorean. He *had this idea*. Then he pulled it apart and made sure it really was something, because he wasn't really a Pythagorean."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
509xlw | if a brain transplant was successful, wouldn't you be saving the donor and not the recipient, because you are literally your brain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/509xlw/eli5if_a_brain_transplant_was_successful_wouldnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"d72cbpa",
"d72cx4w",
"d72dk1v",
"d72dn4r",
"d72fqiz",
"d72fwrq",
"d72g8h1",
"d72gbgo",
"d72gc0u",
"d72gelr",
"d72gio5",
"d72goz7",
"d72gqel",
"d72hbn2",
"d72hcbm",
"d72he00",
"d72hfs8",
"d72hgu7",
"d72hivq",
"d72hjji",
"d72hz7v",
"d72i1xx",
"d72i3zf",
"d72if9u",
"d72ifxb",
"d72ik0w",
"d72isaa",
"d72iwgv",
"d72j01n",
"d72jcnl"
],
"score": [
5,
93,
2,
447,
31,
644,
2,
8,
5,
11,
2,
2,
321,
4,
155,
9,
2,
5,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Is also be interested if memories get carried over? What do they assume their name to be?",
"Not fully, you'd more likely be saving neither. If a healthy human somehow came out of the surgery and recovered, it would probably be more accurate to consider them a third person as opposed to one of the original two. Yes the brain is the seat of a lot of who we are, but its not all of it. There is a lot that your body does to influence your brain, for instance you know that your brain is influenced when your body pumps out adrenaline, you know your brain is influenced when your body becomes sexually aroused. There is also a a great big connection between the digestive tract and brain the so called gut brain axis, and considerable intersection between food and mood. Serotonin which has influence on mood is also heavily related to nausea. \n\nIts quite likely that it would be most appropriate to say that both of the people died and donated parts of themselves to a third person that didn't exist up until then. ",
"I would think, based on crossedstaves comment, that the recipient would be one very confused, shocked and possibly horrified individual because he or she suddenly experiences different sensations and capabilities or limitations as the result of a new body. Assuming the brain was kept alive during the procedure, there may be some degree of memory and function loss. There may be situations where a new function or capability is forced into being such as a blind person being able to see. There may even be compatibility issues that require rehabilitation similar to a person who suffered a stroke.",
"It's not a stupid question but actually a very deep philosophical question that no one will really be able to answer 100% because we don't exactly know what the mind is. I like Bertrand Russells opinions on mind and self so to me, I would lean a little towards the donor assuming consciousness works like that.\n\nThen the problem becomes what you can call \"I\" or \"Self\". What is the defining piece of someone? Is it that 95% was recipient and 5% was donor so majority wins? That 5% controls the 95% so it's the donor?\n\nIs it a combination of both the recipient and donor in which they mutually change each other creating a 3rd new identity?\n\nMaybe someone else can answer better but I don't think there would be an answer let alone a ELI5",
"It's similar, I think, to the philosophical thought experiment known as the [Ship of Theseus.](_URL_0_) \n \nThe thought experiment describes a wooden ship, which has its planks replaced one at a time over many years, until every plank is replaced. Is this ship still the same ship? \nAlso, this wasn't a part of the original problem, but if you built a new ship with all of those old planks, would it be the original ship? \nTo apply it to a human, our cells decay, die, and are replaced many times over the course of our life. At some point in you life, it's possible that none of the cells in your body (excluding your brain, I think) would be the original ones you had when you were born, so are you still you? \n \nThe answer is more of a philosophical one than a medical one, since it's based on what \"the self\" truly is. How much of it is your brain and your consciousness? How much of it is your body, the muscles you've built and scars you've attained? If the human soul is a real thing, is it attributed to your body or your mind?",
"The question is fine, but the logic is a bit flawed, as you say, our consciousness is seated in our brain, so a brain transplant would not be done to save the recipient body, but to save the brain. \n",
"Heart transplant recipients and other large organ transplant recipients report behavioral changes after successful procedures. There are some well documented cases where recipients met the families of the donors, who confirmed that the behaviors ( a new and extremely specific good craving, for instance) were a trademark of the donor's behaviors or preferences. Science is only beginning to explore how memory and intelligence may be distributed on the body beyond the brain, but there is strong enough consensus that the personality is not fully defined or restricted to the brain to project that your proposed brain transplant would be altered by the host body. The location of a soul, or the essential self, or even the \"mind\" might be more difficult concepts to define in your scenario.",
"Using the usual logic it would be a body transplant rather than a brain transplant, but \"body\" doesn't imply that the only thing you're leaving behind is the brain so the reverse term makes more sense.",
"It would more accurately be a body transplant.. because you are right, you basically 'are' your brain.",
"the brain donor would be the survivor, with slight to massive personality changes due to different hormonal and sensoric input from the body. \n\nthis question is in no way philosophical as others in this thread suggest. to really touch the matter of personality and mind (which a brain transplant doesnt really touch) read inside split brain patients - that really exist - where you literally cut the brain in half, theoretically resulting in 2 personalities in one head. but the amazing thing is, these patients barely notice any changes, except for some recognition experiments.",
"Is a brain transplant not actually a body transplant?",
"This is actually being created (well a head transplant) but yeah, technically it is a body transplant not a head/brain transplant.",
"Frankly, I think this is just a semantic issue. Our consciousness resides in the brain, therefore, the brain is what is quintessentially \"you\". I think it would therefore be reasonable to say that the recipient of any \"transplant\" will always be the person whose brain will occupy the final \"body\". In other words, I wouldn't think of this as a brain transplant, so much as a body transplant- that is, you are not transferring a brain to a new body, but rather transferring a new body to a brain. The brain is the recipient of a body transplant. \n\nThis issue gets more muddled when you consider the fact that each half of the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that is responsible for consciousness) can, in theory, exist and function on its own, which opens up a pandora's box of questions about half-brain transplants, and who would be the donor/recipient of half of a brain. However, this is a different topic which is out of the scope of this question, so I will not elaborate on it. ",
"What might be an interesting thing to keep in mind regarding this issue is [the upcoming attempt at a head transplant.](_URL_0_)\n\nI really hope that if it succeeds the man in question volunteers to get his mind studied. Whether he will mentally struggle with having a new body or simply sees it as his body.",
"Have seen a variety of answers that seem to touch on different points, here are my two cents. Preface: I'm a resident physician studying stroke rehabilitation.\n\nThe brain is complex, surely, but we can identify structures within it that seem to correspond to almost every identifiable function, emotion, or action we take. The cortex is responsible for language, executive thought, motor initiation. The thalamus synthesizes our sensory modalities, the cerebellum regulates our coordination and may even process emotions, our hippocampus processes and encodes memories. Even more fascinating is recent work you may have seen with functional MRI, which is furthering our understanding of what parts of the brain \"light up\" with certain thoughts or movements.\n\nI doubt our sense of self lies outside of the brain, so that a brain transplant would effectively move our consciousness, soul, personality, past experiences, with full effect.\n\nWhere it gets really interesting is when we consider the brain's connection to the rest of the body. We receive almost innumerable sensory input from every part of our body: our visceral organs, proprioceptive position sense of our position in space, light touch, pressure, temperature. As mentioned there is also complex hormonal communication ultimately coordinated by our brain's hypothalamus and pituitary gland, but experienced all over the body. Not to mention our autonomic system and base level of activation of our sympathetic or parasympathetic wiring. \n\nThat is where I suspect the ultimate shock would be when emerging from a brain transplant. It wouldn't just be a subjective experience like \"wow I'm taller now.\" It would be a simultaneous explosion of millions of similar but differently expressed sensory inputs. I don't know how the mind would handle it. If there wasn't complete shut down there would be at least some kind of mental shock, if not physical.\n\n ",
"Hello, friendly neighborhood tranny here! Not sure how relevant this will be but maybe it will provide a bit of insight.\n\n2 years ago I started Hormone Replacement Therapy, otherwise known as HRT. Not a transplant I know but a body remodeling nonetheless. The changes have made a huge impact on my life i.e. I can feel things I use to not feel. I have emotions that I'm experiencing for the first time. I've gained a level of sexual sensitivity that I never knew possible and astoundingly, I'm actually less afraid of people now than ever before.\n\nTo provide some examples of what I'm talking about. There are areas on my body now that are sensitive enough to touch that a hand in the right place could send me into convulsive orgasms.\n\nMy emotions, while still pretty stable, are far more diverse. I actually cry during sad parts of movies now. I actually get excited about seeing people, though i am still quite the introvert. I experience happiness on a daily basis for hours on end. Even when there's probably nothing to happy about, I find something. I don't get as angry as I used to.\n\nThe weight loss I've experienced and the muscle restructuring that has been going on and is still going on has changed how look.\n\nDespite all of these changes I still feel like me but it's more of a Me 2.0 thing. I certainly feel like there's a stark difference between myself now and who I was 3 years ago but I haven't noticed much of the changes taking place just an after the fact sort of thing. \n\nI imagine if one were to undergo such an operation as brain transplant then the shock of instantly waking up in someone else's body might be enough to induce some level of disturbance but ultimately I think it would be just a different version of the same person.\n\nNot sure if this helps the conversation at all but fingers crossed. ",
"Here I will explain it like your 5....it isn't possible it's as real as Santa...closest \"claim\" is a head transpant of a monkey....still fake",
"What will happen when we have the technology to graft two different partially damaged brains together into one working brain? That's an AMA I would want to see... \"Yeah we were two people and now we're one person. It's not as confusing as you think, basically we respond to both names. John sees colors differently now and Mary can speak French...\"",
"a couple of teams worldwide may soon make this a reality, there's this guy in China: _URL_1_\n\nAnd another in Russia _URL_0_",
"That's a pretty big question in the philosophy of mind. It delves into the mind-body problem, which is the problem of explaining how exactly the mental processes of your mind and the physical processes of your body relate to each other, and also into the definition of \"self\", what makes you \"you\" and me \"me\". \n\nThere's a pretty interesting short story written by Daniel C. Dennett, an american philosopher and cognitive scientist, concerning those questions. It imagines a situation where Dennet himself has his brain removed from his body and placed in a tank, where he controls his body remotely, and explores the philosophical implications of that. It a pretty good read. Here's the link: _URL_0_",
"* There's the consideration of how our biological systems affect our brains. [Harvard Health](_URL_0_) found a correlation between our diets and our brain.\n\n* We also have to consider our endocrine system. The adrenal gland, pancreas, thymus, thyroid etc all produce varying degrees of hormones which will affect mood, perception and behavior. Our brain may house our consciousness, but our hormones will affect our perception of reality, tastes and desires. So... it's very likely our brain in a new body will become a different brain, especially over time.\n\n* Then you can take it to a new level... If a male brain is put in a female body, the ovaries produce progesterone, androstenedione, estrogens and inhibin. The effect on a male brain used to androgens, estradiol and testosterone could very well change the landscape of the brain.\n\n* Lastly, you'd have to consider psychologically how you'd deal with a new body. Sensory input may also be changed, so how you physically feel, see, hear, taste and smell the world would be different. You're now biting someone else's fingernails, picking someone else's nose, wiping someone else's butt, talking with someone else's voice, seeing someone else's face in the mirror. You're literally inhabiting the corpse of a dead brain. If you go out into the world, people won't see \"you\", they'll see \"them\". You'll have to forge a whole new identity. \n\nSo, while a LOT of your personality is in fact your brain, your brain is very much shaped by your body... I'd say you'd probably be you (the brain) to a large extent, but you'd be profoundly changed.",
"Basically everybody is giving the same answer so I'll just contribute some additional fun facts.\n\nYour gut is sometimes called 'your second brain' because of its complexity and ability to affect your behavior neurochemically. There are a lot of microbes in your gut. Their cells, combined, outnumber your cells. So in a way, you are mostly a host keeping these microbes alive. They affect your appetite so you'll eat what benefits them. They affect your mood so you'll act in ways that benefit them.\n\nIf you place a new brain into someone's body, its personality would remain. But it would change. The body's microbes would work their magic. For what they're concerned, their host is just 'acting up'.",
"Don't apologies. You are actually right. There was a great made-for-TV movie about this, sometime in the 80s. A beautiful blonde was in some sort of accident that that wrecked her body but left her brain intact. A plain brunette was on the opposite way. So they gave the brunette the blondes brain. Or they gave the blonde the brunettes body. They just transplanted the brain, not the head. \n \nSo interesting issues were raised. The blonde , now brunette, had to deal with the weirdness of looking in the mirror and seeing a different face and body, and a less attractive one at that. Her husband was weirded out because it didn't look like his wife, and he wasn't attracted to her anymore. The brunettes husband, meanwhile, sees this woman who looks like his wife, but isn't. His heart breaks when he sees her because he can't accept his wife (brain) is really gone. He begs her to come back to him but it's not really his wife there, just her likeness. \nAnyone who knows the name of this movie, please respond.",
"Its more of a body transprant. You're the brain, you're getting a new body. Same brain, same you, new body.",
"A brain transplant is done to save a person's brain when the rest of the body is damaged. There is no such thing as a brain donor in the context of saving a person who is brain dead. So yes I guess you would always be saving the donor of the brain because that's the point of a brain transplant. It's basically the opposite of a heart/liver/lung etc transplant.",
"There are a lot of people who have a problem with the term \"brain transplant\" and say that it would be more appropriate to call it a \"body transplant\".",
"Is it really a stupid question? [Let's find out.](_URL_0_) For science.",
"In case anyone wants to read about a case: _URL_0_",
"Say a man has an RV, that he lives in and spends all of his time in. This RV is now broken beyond repair. With the help of some friends they find him a new RV to live in. Now the reason the man's friends helped him find a new home wasn't because the home needed saving, but the man.",
"It is more likely that our brains do not hold conscioussness, but act as a receiver and transmitter of conscioussness interacting with the universe.\n\nConscioussness cannot be contained. Awareness is aware of awareness"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-man-volunteers-for-first-human-head-transplant/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.rt.com/news/248473-transplant-head-body-canavero/",
"http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/world/asia/china-body-transplant.html"
],
[
"https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/nutritional-psychiatry-your-brain-on-food-201511168626"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyaskscience/comments/50aysv/if_a_brain_transplant_was_successful_wouldnt_you/"
],
[
"http://newsexaminer.net/health/worlds-first-head-transplant-a-success/"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3wtvhh | in light of the ny attorney's announcement how is any internet speed test legit? isn't it easy enough for an isp to manufacture good better outcomes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wtvhh/eli5_in_light_of_the_ny_attorneys_announcement/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxz12dl",
"cxz17yc",
"cxz1cte",
"cxz1gfz"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're right - there's a lot of factors that determine how fast you'll be able to access a particular site. There's actually two parts to this issue - how fast is your personal internet connection, and how fast is your ISP able to route data to particular destinations in the outside world.\n\nA simple speed test like the one you specify is great for measuring that last-mile connection, especially so if the ISPs work to make sure you can access it as fast as you possibly can, but that only tells you about the connection your ISP has supplied you with.\n\nThe other side of the coin can't be tested as easily, which is how fast is your ISP able to get data out/in from various parts of the internet to you. What the netflix issue effectively boiled down to was congestion at the ISP, and that's something that this type of test will really struggle to show anything about. You'll probably get a closer answer by using another tester like _URL_0_ where you can choose between hundreds of servers from all over the internet, but it's not necessarily going to give you an accurate picture.",
"What, cheating on a test, you mean like Volkswagen??\n\nThere are five variables in any speed test, your machine, Your ISP, the peering point between your ISP and the target's ISP, The target's ISP, the target machine. You can only control 1, so all you measure is the sum of the other 4. You can use diverse versions of 4 and 5, but you've got no leverage on 2 and 3.\n",
"ELI5 is for explaining complex problems, not discussions. Try another sub.",
"Lawyer here:\n\nConspiracies are **super** rare, especially in the private sector where most people involved in a conspiracy would be under-motivated to take on such liability.\n\nSo for TWC to do what you are suggesting, they would have to create a pretty large paper trail and involve quite a few individuals... this may not seem like a big deal, but if a lawsuit is launched, then something called \"discovery\" happens where those e-mails talking about the conspiracy will be located and then people will be facing more serious charges.\n\nIn other words, the last thing you want to do, as a company, is start acting shady when a state's Attorney General explicitly states they are watching you. Not to say it can't happen -- but it is extremely difficult to pull it off."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"speedtest.net"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
20r9qo | how did hitler come to power? | I'm wondering mostly about the persuasive techniques/propaganda/psychology that was used to convince so many people of his ideas. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20r9qo/eli5_how_did_hitler_come_to_power/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg5zn4v",
"cg600uv",
"cg62hg1",
"cg62nqj",
"cg6ai20"
],
"score": [
20,
4,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Germany was broken after WW1. Their economy was in ruins, their people were looking for leadership, and they were looking for a reason to be proud of themselves again. A disparaged population is a moldable population.\n\nHitler came along and promised to restore Germany to it's former glory. He did it with compelling speeches, but more importantly, he did it by doing it. In less than 10 years, he turned Germany into an economic and manufacturing powerhouse.\n\nThe citizens gave him more and more power, until one day, he was a dictator.",
"Adolf Hitler came to power by legal means. His party, the National Socialist Party, won the most seats in the *Reichstag* but they did not have a majority. \n\nA majority was formed to create a government and on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was sworn in by the President, Paul von Hindenburg, as Chancellor. \n\nFrom that moment, his government acquired more and more power by legal means, until the government had a total dictatorship in the country. \n\nThe Enabling Act of 1933 was the main tool which was used to create the dictatorship in the country. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Watch his speeches with accurate English subtitles. It is not hard to see how he was so popular in a nation that was largely broken after WWI. \n\n_URL_0_\n",
"After the first world war Germany, and much of the world was in economic ruin. Germany was suffering more than most though due to the reparations enforced by the treaty of Versailles. The previous leader (I forget his name) decided to print more money to boost the economy. However this backfired and caused hyper inflation. It came to the point where it was more efficient to burn the money than it was to use it to buy wood for a fire. Germany was degraded and German pride was at an all time low. Interestingly in 1928, the year of the previous election Hitler and the Nazis party were pretty much laughed at, they received only 2.8% of the vote. The conditions at this time simply weren't right. But come 1930 the conditions were much more favourable. The Nazi party this time took around 20% of the seats. Now the Nazi party was openly opposed to democracy but the election results meant one of the democratic parties had to make a deal with the Nazis. Through a process of bullying and intimidating the opposition the Nazi party eventually took complete control, and by 1933 the dictatorship had fallen on Germany.\n\nWhat came next was, for the most part, a series of blunders on the part of the rest of Europe. Hitler began restoring German pride, he vowed to destroy the Treaty of Versailles, in part by rebuilding the German military, something banned under the Treaty. In hindsight Britain and France, the two countries charged with upholding the Treaty, should have intervened here. However the world was terrified of a repeat of the Great War and so Britain and France instead choose a policy of appeasement. They allowed Germany to do as they wished, most notably by allowing them to retake control of the Rhineland in 1936. Had they intervened at this point the resulting war would likely have been won in a few weeks. The German army was not ready for war. Unfortunately we did not know this, whilst we thought we were avoiding war we were actually allowing a man, hell bent on leading a German Empire, time to develop and strengthen. By the time 1939 came around Hitler was leading a powerful and highly dangerous Germany and now, finally, it was clear the allies had to intervene. \n\nI find this a really fascinating subject, Britain and France really did create the perfect storm...",
"So this got way longer than I thought it would, but Im a history major in Canada and recently took a course on this. Giving the TL:DR first\n\nTL:DR \nHindenburg thought he could control Hitler, he couldn't and Hitler took power for himself. From there it was just a matter of propaganda\n\n*****************************************************\n\n\n\n\n\nHitler came to power during an awkward time for Germany. After WW 1 Germany was hugely in debt from the Treaty of Versailles, and the reparations paid to France. This causes a huge drain on the German economy, and forced Germany to borrow money from the US. During this time there was also a general public sentiment that Germany had not lost the war but rather that the Kaiser (King) gave up. This left the German people with a bitter taste. Hitler was rising to power during the 1920s and early 30s with tons of propaganda, especially focusing on the betrayal of Germany in the war by the monarchy, as well as blaming the Jews and communists for most of the countries woes. This sets the context for his popularity. \n\nNext what was extremely significant was the Stock Market crash in 1929. This was a huge blow to Germany because the US cut off outside trade to try and revive their economy, leaving Germany in a poor economic position and unable to pay their debts. This totalled the German economy, and caused extreme hardship. Politically the German parliament was extremely weak with no party having a majority or power for more than a few months.\n\nFast forward to 1933 the Nazis are declining in power after having received only 40 ish % of the vote. The President of Germany at the time, Hindenburg, had the power to appoint politicians to the position of Chancellor for a short amount of time regardless of vote. Note: this was for special circumstances only, and relied on there being an election 2 months after someone was appointed. In 1933 Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the position of Chancellor briefly believing that he could be controlled and used to eliminate other undesirables such as the communist party. Hitler during his time as chancellor enacted a couple special laws to grant himself power. The first was to declare emergency power and grant himself special powers. He then dissolved the German parliament under article 25, and continued to pass laws with his emergency powers, including a law to make it so that he never had to give up his power. From here Hitler went on to use propaganda and his speeches to ensure public support, and miraculously fixed the German economy by militarization\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
365alc | why are "reality" shows so popular? do people really think they aren't scripted? | Just curious because it seems every channel is full of their versions of the same shows. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/365alc/eli5_why_are_reality_shows_so_popular_do_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"crauymz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Human beings crave conflict - it appeals to our sense of alpha dominance, male or female. But we don't like to experience the damage associated with conflict.\n\nMost western drama is based off of the model of the Illiad, with incredibly powerful people who can seemingly do whatever they want struggling to achieve what they truly desire, which is in the end impossible. Achilles rage could not resurrect Patroclus even though he's basically invincible, Cerce and Jamie will never be able to be together in a stable way even though they're the richest and most powerful people in the world, and so on.\n\nThis type of drama is larger than life and appeals to us in some ways, but in other ways the simple and believable dramas of human beings with our level of ability and influence bickering with each other strikes closer to home. It can be written explicitly to maximize that sense of conflict without needing to have a narrative structure, freeing it from the need for perpetual escalation to achieve tension.\n\nThe fact that it isn't real doesn't matter. Wrestling is fake too, but we are capable of suspending our disbelief and reveling in the conflict anyway."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6e9wxj | what prevents huge tech giants from just saying "no" when a foreign country says "do this, or be fined"? couldn't a company like google or facebook just laugh and say "try and make us pay. our user base native to your country would sure be upset if you blocked us for not paying."? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e9wxj/eli5_what_prevents_huge_tech_giants_from_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"di8pq1f",
"di8ptri",
"di8q1fz",
"di8seye",
"di8tzb1"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Countries can seize assets that are sovereign without issue. Outside of that we have very complex international laws, that allow for all kinds of things. The Hague is one of them",
"They could do that, but they do not have a monopoly on the market. Once it is blocked, another company will gain popularity and replace Google or Facebook.",
"Profit. They run a ruler over the request and meaure it against lost revenue and lost influence/market share. If it's some tinpot nation of a couple of million people they might refuse and take the consequence of not being allowed to operate. If it's someone like China, they will do everything they are told because of the potential to reach 1+ billion users.",
"They can and do. Google and Facebook didn't cater to China demands. So China banned general domestic users from accessing the site.\n\nNot alot of other countries have the power to do this. The internet is still somewhat open in other countries. \n",
"It happened in Ireland not too long ago with Apple. Turns out they had evaded about 13 billion euro's in tax over the past 15 years. Ireland is too afraid to ask for it because they are afraid Apple would leave Ireland and put their HQ somewhere else. Which would cause a lot of employees to be left without a job and lose them other tax money. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
clzjpu | why in low light do we lose the ability to see in colour? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/clzjpu/eli5_why_in_low_light_do_we_lose_the_ability_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"evyvutp",
"evywa1m",
"evyz05i",
"evyzhv6"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Color is a reflection of light. So less light means less colors being reflected back to you.",
"Our eyes have two types of light sensitive cells called rods and cones. Cones can detect color, but are less sensitive. Rods are more sensitive but see in black and white. In low light conditions the rods work better than the cones, so you don't see color.",
"We don't, strictly speaking. \n\nHowever, our colour sensing cone cells are far less sensitive to light than our \"all light is equal\" rod cells, partly because they're just built that way to keep them from being damaged by daylight and partly because *not* ignoring two thirds of the visible light hitting a given cell obviously triples how much light that cell can react to. \n\nSince we don't generally pick fruit at night, there was no benefit to coloured low light vision, and as mentioned it would never be as good as monochromatic low light vision at picking up what little light is available.",
"**Please read this entire message**\n\n---\n\nYour submission has been removed for the following reason(s):\n\n* ELI5 requires that you search the sub for your topic before posting.\n\nThere are absolutely no exceptions to this rule. \n\nUsers will either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7.\n\nPlease see this [wiki entry](_URL_1_) for more details (Rule 7).\n\n\n\n---\nIf you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](_URL_0_) first. If you still feel the removal should be reviewed, please [message the moderators.](_URL_2_?)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/how_to_search",
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Can%20you%20review%20my%20thread"
]
]
|
||
2000sl | what is the evolutionary advantage of having a dark skin in sunny places on earth (e.g. africa)? | To me it seems counter intuitive to think that a dark skin is an advantage when the sun shines a lot because it absorbs more of the heat (comparable to a white and black car in the sun, the black one will get way hotter) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2000sl/eli5_what_is_the_evolutionary_advantage_of_having/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfyilh3",
"cfyin1d",
"cfys7yd"
],
"score": [
6,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Skin tone is governed by melatonin. It protects people in the tropics and sub-tropics from ultra violet radiation from the sun. Black people rarely get skin cancer. It also blocks too much Vitamin D from developing from the sun.\n\nWe all originated in Africa. All of our ancestors were black. You too.",
" > because it absorbs more of the heat\n\nHeat isn't the problem, we can just sweat more. The issue is UV light penetrating into our cells and changing them chemically. We would prefer the light be turned into heat rather than causing DNA damage.",
"What everyone else in the thread has mentioned, and it also has to do with protecting folate, a necessary vitamin which is damaged by UV radiation/sunlight. There is a trade-off between having skin light enough that you can still absorb sunlight and make vitamin D, but dark enough that your folate stores are protected enough. One theory on why people of northwestern European descent have much lighter skin than other people in similar latitudes is due to the fact that they ate a lot of cereal grains, like wheat, which are high in folate and so it wasn't as big of a deal if some got damaged by the sun. And yeah, humans are evolved to cope well with heat (relatively little body hair, lots of sweat glands, extremities that increase surface area) so having darker skin in that case wouldn't be as much of an issue because your body is well adapted for that climate."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5d83ai | why is it that our neurons synapse in milliseconds but our reflexes and our day to day movements are much more slower (e.g. seconds)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d83ai/eli5_why_is_it_that_our_neurons_synapse_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"da2inr4",
"da2ip0o"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there are many neurons that process the information first before it reaches motor output. The information is processed at many levels, until a decision is made. Reflex actions are closer to the timescale you speak of. If you have a conditioned reflex, it bypasses many of those pathways, and you again see the millisecond timescale for your actions. ",
"I'm not 100% sure exactly what you are asking\n\nAutomatic reflexes (like the test they do when they hit your knee with that small hammer) are almost instantly - the occur in just a few milliseconds because there's only a new neurons that need to fire for the reflex to occur.\n\nBut other \"reflexes\" are slower because the information has to travel to your brain, which then processes what to do with that information, and then send instructions where they are required. The delay (I think) you are talking about is the cumulative effect of the number of neurons a process needs to travel through to happen. The more complex it is, the more neurons that are required, the longer it takes. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
e28r0f | why does mineral sunscreen say to “reapply at least every two hours” when it’s still visibly on the skin’s surface at the end of the day? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e28r0f/eli5_why_does_mineral_sunscreen_say_to_reapply_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8u9ptl"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Because they take the average amount of time people need to reapply based on perspiration. And just because there is still some visible on your skin doesn't mean the coverage is unaffected. You could have large patches missing or thinned considerably, thereby significantly reducing it's efficacy. Reapplying is precautionary."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2bo644 | what causes heart burn? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bo644/eli5_what_causes_heart_burn/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj8e1o3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've suffered at the hands of the evil that is heartburn for the last few years. I came to realise that eating late was my enemy's power source. Especially crisps and chocolate after 11pm. Which is tough when you get the munchies most nights. Eating junk food isn't a problem once a week, but a few days of poor diet and that shit will kick in for the next week. Zantac can't be that good for me, so I try and ride it out or take Rennie. The doctor said stuff with air in it is worse - bread, ice cream for instance. That makes me burp a lot. Also, not chewing your food enough. Eating fast is heartburn's dream. I stuck to those rules and now heartburn catches up once a month at most. I beat you heartburn, you bastard. Now leave these guys alone. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1viq8u | why do emergency services vehicles sometimes have their strobes on, but not their sirens? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1viq8u/eli5_why_do_emergency_services_vehicles_sometimes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cesnmsv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No reason to be a public nuisance unless it's strictly necessary to get through traffic quickly and safely. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2gwvme | how does the us gov connect to the internet? (in the white house, government offices, military bases, embassies, etc.) | I was wondering if the government has its own ISP as some of the things they do are extremely classified. Do they contract one out or did they build their own? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gwvme/eli5_how_does_the_us_gov_connect_to_the_internet/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckn9mrx",
"cknaaf1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"the gov doesn't use the INTERNET to do anything classified. the gov INTERNET stuff is like the white house website, the fbi website. there's no classified information on there at all.\n\nclassified networks are always behind the scenes are not available on the same lines. if a field office of the FBI needs to send classified information to the home office, it's done by highly encrypted secure lines seperate from any \"internet\" lines",
"Alright I can actually give you first hand knowledge here. \n\nFirst we need to get some terms straight... \n\nInternet: the network of networks interconnecting the world. The internet has several tiers of connectivity (the most widespread being tier 1 ISPs) \n\nISP: internet service provider. A company that provides to infrastructure to connect it's customers to other ISPs, including higher tier ISPs (for wider international connectivity) \n\nGovernments and militaries have different purposes for networks. \n\n-Some require internet (maybe for checking the weather)\n\n-some require only certain connectivity (emails from within need to reach the world somehow, but you don't want that same network being able to browse all corners of the internet as you and I know it). \n\n-Some networks are indeed classified and need to be connected to other sites that may be far away. \n\n-Some networks are classified and are standalone - not connected to the world at all. \n\nIn the first case, that's obvious, it's like your home internet connection (but at am enterprise level. I won't go into this further) \n\nIn the second case, the enterprise network is connected to the internet somewhere, but it is heavily firewalled, protected, filtered and physically blocked off at several layers. \n\nFor the third, this is where there are many options. Some include using their own infrastructure completely, not requiring an ISP at all. Maybe satellites, radio networks, or fiber optic cables. Other options include 'leased lines' which is a way of using a phone line for your own purpose from one point to another. The connection always remains up and bandwidth may be limited (as other users will also use the physical lines, but separated or multiplexed by the ISP) or bandwidth may be flexible and prioritised for government use. \n\nYou may be asking at this point \"but if they use the same infrastructure that I'm browsing reddit on now, how come 1337 haxx0rs don't break in?\", well, encryption. Not just your standard aes256 encryption either, something called \"type 1\" encryption which is very complex and regularly changes. It requires an actual key on either end so unless you steal that key, you ain't getting in. \n\nAlong with various other layers of security such as tunnels (VPNs) within tunnels within tunnels and very secure firewalls, that is how they remain safe from prying eyes. \n\n\nNow, you also asked if they have \"domains\" like _URL_0_, yes, they do, but they aren't registered with a website hosting service or DNS. They are simply a way of controlling who logs on to the domain with their username and password among other things. You can't access them because the domains aren't registered with any domain name servers (DNS) that you can access, because the domain name servers are **inside** the encryption that I mentioned before.\n\n When you go to \"_URL_1_\", your computer talks to a DNS, in order to turn those characters into an IP address. Everything on every network has an IP address, including those government networks. And if they're connected via leased lines, their IP address will be reachable - however the firewalls in use will prevent your IP from being able to request information from them. They don't have a \"www\" that you can reach because you're not connected to a DNS that knows about them. \n\nAnd yes, they use an ISP, but they use higher tier ISPs, similar to the ones massive commercial companies use, not your standard comcast shit. \n\nI hope that wasn't too technical. Ask away of you didn't get it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"www.blah.gov",
"www.google.com"
]
]
|
|
5hqgj6 | why is head-butting a commonly used attack? doesn't it hurt the person giving as much as the person receiving? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hqgj6/eli5_why_is_headbutting_a_commonly_used_attack/ | {
"a_id": [
"db240b1",
"db247j3"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"With a proper head butt, you're using the top of your head, which is very hard, to hit your opponent in the face which is made up of a lot of smaller bones and relatively soft by comparison.\n\nDoing it wrong would hurt you a lot, but it would probably still do more damage to the other guy than to you.",
"If you do it right, you are using the harder parts of your head (like the forehead) to hit the softer parts of theirs (the nose).\n\nAlso, there is the element of surprise...if you know it is coming, and they don't, they can be stunned, allowing you to act freely even if you are hurt too.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
64ev6h | why did older crt monitors for computers typically work in a black background with green text? | Why didn't they use white on black since that would give them a higher contrast? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64ev6h/eli5_why_did_older_crt_monitors_for_computers/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg1lw53",
"dg1lwpn",
"dg1r7go",
"dg25t5o"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Green was easy on the eyes and cheap to implement. The same applies to amber, the other popular color in the early days of CRTs.",
"Actually, human eyes are most sensitive to the green part of the spectrum. There were white CRT and Amber for a long time. Green was normal and did seem brighter.\n\nAlso, these monitors had a high degree of burn in, so that's why we have screen savers.",
"[Green P1 phosphors ](_URL_0_) had long persistence (decay time). Amber P3 was medium persistence. White P4 was faster. Longer persistence meant your video could be at a lower frame rate without flicker. Nobody was watching videos or playing fast games, so it didn't really matter. ",
"They are all lies. I was alive then and green was the only color we had. Black or white was, well black and white."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor"
],
[]
]
|
|
xbwwe | how do equations explain the universe around us? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xbwwe/eli5_how_do_equations_explain_the_universe_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5l0ko6",
"c5l2jul"
],
"score": [
17,
3
],
"text": [
"Long story short; we have equations for describing the universe because we can measure so many aspects of the universe. \n\nImagine you're going to the shop to get a pie or something. The shop is about one kilometer away (and you know that because someone measured it and put it on a map) and it takes you ten minutes to get there (and you know that because you checked your watch). That means it took you 600 seconds to travel 1000 meters. Work the math through and you get 10 meters every 6 seconds, 5 meters every 3 seconds or five thirds of a meter every second. \n\nHopefully that all makes intuitive sense. If you look back through that paragraph you'll see we took a measure of distance and divided it by a measure of time to get a measure of speed. In physics we measure speed in straight lines and call it velocity. We can describe the relationship like this: **velocity = distance / time** or **v = d / t**\n\nBy taking careful measurements of other observable things we can discover all kinds of similar equations that seem to be pretty accurate descriptions of how things actually happen. We can push weights around to discover the relationship between force, mass and acceleration. We can play with electricity until we discover the relationship between current, voltage and resistance. \n\nThe cool thing about these equations is not just that they help us understand relationships between things but we can use them to make predictions about what's going to happen in future. Understanding electricity allows us to plan computers. Understanding projectiles allows us to bomb the enemy. Understanding gravity allows us to plan trips to other planets. \n\nSo it's not that equations explain the universe so much as equations are an expression of our understanding of the universe that we've gleaned through careful observation and experiment. ",
"Bear with me here...\n\nThere is a type of equation called a *differential equation* that is very useful. In its simplest form, it compares the *rate of change* of something with the *amount* of that something.\n\nFor example, a physicist might 'guess' that the rate of heat loss from an object is proportional to how hot that object is compared to its surroundings. I.e., the hotter the object, the faster it loses heat. \n\nGiven some *initial conditions* the equation can be solved. For the heat loss example, the initial condition might be the initial temperature difference of the object and its surroundings. Solving the equation would give the temperature of the object over time; i.e., you could calculate the temperature of the object in 5 mins time, or an hour time, or a day later, etc.\n\nBut of course, the physicist could be wrong! Which is where experimental observation comes into it. One can compare the equation's predictions with real life observations. The equation could be completely wrong, be a crude match for reality, or be a near-perfect prediction. It is these near-perfect predictions that \"explain the universe around us\"."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
9ltjvr | how and why is flash a security threat on a computer, and what makes it different from other programs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ltjvr/eli5_how_and_why_is_flash_a_security_threat_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e79gslh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is a major difference and that is that the program was downloaded and executed automatically when you loaded a web page. You need to download and install regular programs so is it a lot harder to convince someone do that compare to be executed automatically. The page was not necessary one that that the hacker had controlled over as you could include flash i a advertisement on another site.\n\nBut compare to a program you download Flash was more secure. The program was not executed nativ but was run in a virtual machine with limitation. They can be relative secure like the one that java script in your browser. But flash could do more and was not developed with enough security in mind so there was may problems with it and many exploits was discovered. \n\nSo any exploit that was discovered could be used in a ad on another website. People did not update fals when there was a new version so know and patched exploits could be used for a long time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2715pt | what is happening in our brains when a song becomes "old" to us? | For instance, I will be listening to this one song I really like, but after overplaying it I lose my appeal and actually start to dislike it. Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2715pt/eli5_what_is_happening_in_our_brains_when_a_song/ | {
"a_id": [
"chwe2if",
"chwfc9p"
],
"score": [
70,
6
],
"text": [
"One theory of music is that the composer/performer is playing a sort of game with the audience. They provide patterns for the audience to try to anticipate. When the audience can't see any pattern at all, it just seems like boring noise. When the audience can follow the pattern perfectly, it is also boring. When they can follow some of the pattern, they are pleasantly surprised by the exceptions to it.\n\nThis means that when you've perfectly learned all the twists and turns of a song, it no longer surprises you, and becomes boring.\n\nI don't know if there is an objective \"right answer\" to this question, but this seems to fit.",
"When you experience the pleasure of hearing a good song, the song is creating neural channels in your brain and releasing happy chemicals in the process. When you hear the music again, you're revisiting those channels, which will not cause the same happy chemical release. You may learn more about the song a keep feeling good for a while but eventually the levels of opiates released will diminish and you won't feel the same. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
36kwtp | how do people grab your information through skype, kik, snapchat, etc? | As in, how do "hackers" 'dox' you? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36kwtp/eli5_how_do_people_grab_your_information_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"crevoo2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your device, whether it be your computer, phone, tablet, and so on, uses an IP address that is your connection to the outside 'Internet' world. In order for any website or Internet based application to send YOU packets, your IP address must be safely connected with said website or app. These 'hackers', (not really hackers, just kids who know how to download a program and copy and paste to click a button,) use an IP address grabber that automatically grabs any IP address that the user has a stabilized connection to. For instance, if I called you on Skype, we would have a stable connection with each other. Then, all it takes is a way to grab your information that you are sending to me, unknowing of the danger behind it. I run the program, grab your IP, and then overload your Internet connection with thousands and thousands of packets at once. Just like trying to run too many things at once on a computer, your router will stop running connections and must be reset in order to start functioning again. \n\nLong description, sorry, but I tried to make it as ELI5 as I could."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2jvh0t | why do live versions of songs sometimes sound drastically different than studio versions of the same song? | Hypothetically, if they could create the song on equipment in the studio, couldn't the same song be played on the same equipment in the same way live?
I've noticed in some songs that even the timing of the song changes live. Lyrics are sung faster, the instruments might play faster or slower, sometimes to the point that the song is barely recognizable. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jvh0t/eli5_why_do_live_versions_of_songs_sometimes/ | {
"a_id": [
"clffm3l",
"clfgj41",
"clfjmon"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Hypothetically, if they could create the song on equipment in the studio, couldn't the same song be played on the same equipment in the same way live?\n\nNo, because songs in the studio are heavily edited. You can't edit an audio track live.\n\nAnyway, there can be many reasons. The performers might just not be as good. In studio you can play a guitar riff for 2 seconds and put that on repeat and speed it up. If you mess up, re-record. Bands rarely come together and just record themselves playing anymore. Maybe they used instruments that they can't bring live. Maybe the vocals are recorded multiple times and double tracked, or there's just different layers of vocals going on that the singer obviously can't do live. Maybe not all of the performers on the studio version are present in the live concert. Maybe the band just likes to improvise and change stuff up for the live version. And as Poxmell said, the venue and instrument tuning isn't consistent live either. \n\nCan't really give a more specific answer unless you give specific examples.",
"Studio recordings are heavily edited and layered. Especially since the rise of digital recording that made editing a lot less time consuming. Editing tape in the most primitive circumstances consists of physically cutting the tape with a razor and gluing tape together vs being able to redo and undo with keyboard shortcuts and a few clicks of a mouse with digital recording. \n\nIt also depends on the intention of the band and producer. Are they trying to create a recording that sounds as close as possible to the live experience or are they going for a performance that is as close to formal virtuosity as possible. A lot of recording for the last 40 years (since the rise of multitrack recording.) is done part by part. Mostly starting with drums, then doing bass, then doing guitars and other instruments that provide chords to sing over, after that vocals and overdubs of lead parts are done. A brick by brick construction of a song.\nOther bands go for a live feel, trying to record as much parts at the same time and than adding overdubs of lead parts and vocals. This was the standard until the mid 60s. For example the Beatles' first album please please me was done mostly live in the span of a single day with very little overdubbing. Bands that want a rawer sound tend to record as much of the instruments live at the same time and then add overdubs. \n\nAs for the live part. Some bands want to give the audience a different experience from the albums by mixing up the songs. Others want to play the songs as they intended them, having used the recording process to express those ideas. The performance of a band on stage is among others influenced by the interaction with the audience. Say the audience is very responsive the band might react to their excitement by giving a more intense performance, playing faster, louder etc. \n\n",
" > Hypothetically, if they could create the song on equipment in the studio, couldn't the same song be played on the same equipment in the same way live? \n\nHypothetically, it's totally possible. But in a lot of cases it'd be the equivalent of just popping in the CD and playing over it. Probably the bulk of the performance would be coming straight off a hard drive. A lot of people would feel super cheated if they knew you were doing that. Might as well just play the CD and mime to it (though actually there are some big pop acts where that's almost exactly what they're doing). \n\nBut as other people have mentioned, there's a ton of reasons why a studio mix is going to sound different from a live performance. Like if your band has one guitar player, and the guitar mix on the album is like ten layers deep, you're going to have to either hire nine other guitar players (extremely cost prohibitive) and an amazing sound guy to run the mix at your live show, use prerecorded backing tracks, or do what most competent musicians who take pride in their art do: come up with a different arrangement of the song to play live. So that's one reason. \n\nAnother reason is that after you've played the same song the exact same way for the millionth time, it can get real fucking boring. Unless you're dead-set on keeping the song as faithful as possible to the album version, songs have a way of mutating over time, even if you don't mean for them to. Maybe you start changing up your fills a bit to keep things interesting, or maybe the five thousandth time through the song you play the chorus a little differently, and, holy crap, it's way better! Or maybe the album came out a few years ago, you've progressed as a musician, and you've come up with a new version, or arrangement, that you feel is better than the album track, and because the song is already recorded and out there, the only way for people to hear the newer, better, version is to play it live.\n\nThere are also reasons of plain wear and tear. Touring is hard. It's hard physically and emotionally. You're constantly on the move, not getting enough sleep, usually eating crappy food, and then playing your ass off most every night. Even if you're not partying it up every night, it takes a lot out of you, even under the best of circumstances. So maybe you're playing slower than normal for a couple of nights because the drummer's got the flu and is trying not to barf all over his snare drum; or it's your 14th show in 15 days and the singers voice is starting to get cooked, so you have to play in a different key so they can hit all their notes; or maybe the guitar player smashed a finger loading in gear, and has to figure out how to play around it on the fly; maybe you're having problems with your gear; or maybe someone (or everyone) just had too much to drink; or maybe everybody's been stuck in a van together for weeks, and you all absolutely want to murder each other, so maybe you're not clicking like you usually do on stage; or maybe the sound guy just sucks so, despite playing perfectly, you sound horrible and can't do anything about it. All that stuff happens. Sometimes tiny little things can affect a performance in big ways. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
d78856 | how do phone thieves sell a locked device? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d78856/eli5_how_do_phone_thieves_sell_a_locked_device/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0y85rx",
"f0yc27j"
],
"score": [
16,
7
],
"text": [
"Think like stolen cars. \n\nThey get scrapped for parts. An iPhone 10 or up has a screen that’s still worth more than a hundred if it’s in good condition. \n\nProtect your phones everyone!",
"At least on android phones, there is an option to hold one of the volume buttons on startup to bring up the recovery menu, which includes an option to reset the phone."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5ginmt | why is i [sqrt(-1)] the only kind of imaginary number. as all others are derived from it i.e 2+3i. | • why is 1/0 not considered an imaginary value?
• why is |x|=-1 not considered an imaginary value
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ginmt/eli5_why_is_i_sqrt1_the_only_kind_of_imaginary/ | {
"a_id": [
"dasjqco",
"dasnofe"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"That's like saying 1 is the only real number. All others are derived from it, i.e 5 = 5 *1.\n\n > Why is 1/0 not considered an imaginary value?\n\nBecause an imaginary number has a specific definition. In some extended complex planes 1/0 is defined, for example the Riemann Sphere, where it is equal to infinity. But in the reals, we choose not to give it a definition, because it causes some... problems. It's not a catchall.\n\n > why is |x|=-1 not considered an imaginary value\n\nAgain, because imaginary has a specific definition. Now, the great thing about math is that we dictate the rules. So you can say, what if we have a value that was equal to the the solution of |x| = -1? Evidently, given the lack of study, the results are nonsensical and not terrible useful or interesting.",
"The problem with real numbers is that not all polynomials have roots in it, that is for some polynomials P(x), the equation P(x) = 0 does not have solutions. For example, x^2 + 1 = 0 does not have solutions in the set of real numbers. Ideally, we would want a polynomial of degree n to have n solutions (including multiple occurrences of the same solution), but that does not happen with real numbers. It turns out that if we add an extra element to the real numbers that solves x^2 + 1 = 0, and generate all combinations of it, then the resulting set (the set of complex numbers) will have roots of all polynomials. The x^2 + 1 = 0 will have two (as the degree of the polynomial is 2): x = i and x = -i."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
10yry1 | why do people try to strive for maintaining eye contact while communicating? | I see this come up often enough as an issue online, people want to learn how to maintain eye contact during a conversation. Why bother? I consider a somewhat confident and well rounded person but rarely strive for this. It makes me feel a little uncomfortable so I just don't do it at length. What are the benefits of this "skill"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10yry1/eli5_why_do_people_try_to_strive_for_maintaining/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6hs8kp",
"c6ht858",
"c6huzbr",
"c6hvb74",
"c6hvgxh"
],
"score": [
6,
14,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Some people don't make eye contact at *all* while communicating, and that comes off as either rude or evasive. There's no particular reason to stare someone down while you talk.",
"Some people (not me) think that eye contact is a form of respect because it indicates that you are giving your full attention when talking.\n\nAlso, it helps when you're adding nonverbal cues to the conversation.",
"Personally, if I'm not looking at someone in the eyes when I talk to them I find in almost impossible to focus on what they are saying. ",
"Studies into the psychology of interaction have shown that eye contact is a key component of empathy and trust. Eye contact leads an audience (even just one) to believe the speaker is more confident, this confidence then translates to the audience into believing the speaker. \n\nOther psychological studies show that when a speaker is being honest they are more likely to keep eye contact (or at least maintain it longer). This does not mean that people who do not keep eye contact are pathological liars. Many/most people feel slightly awkward to keep or force eye contact when it is not desired.\n\nBottom line is if you want to appear confident and have others listen to what you have to say, eye contact is they key to getting people to believe that you are confident before you truly are. ",
"I don't feel comfortable with constant eye contact either on my part or the other, however I do feel the need to continuously go back to eye contact occasionally, especially while emphasizing points. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4i1fqt | we all know how destructive nuclear weapons are at the blast radius, however, how terrible would life be for those who were not in immediate harm's way? | Let's say I saw a plane drop what I thought looked like a bomb that was being slowed by a parachute, so I instinctively dove into a culvert and waited out the explosion (would I still be dead if I was inside the blast radius?). How long should I wait for the fallout to settle, and then is there any possible way I could attempt to pick up the pieces of my life if I just really wanted to stay on my spot of ground? How long would it take (in terms of years, I'm sure) for life to return to normal if a nuke hit a populated city? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i1fqt/eli5_we_all_know_how_destructive_nuclear_weapons/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2u6cf7",
"d2ueiqy"
],
"score": [
4,
25
],
"text": [
"Nukes vary greatly in power and there isn't a set blast radius between \"dead\" and \"not dead\", especially for the radiation. They roughly set out areas where \"this is where you have ~a 90% chance of dying from radiation with treatment\" etc.\n\nNukemap give a fairly good estimate on how dead you will be a certain distance from a nuclear blast: _URL_0_\n\nYes the site is terrifying.",
"Firstly I will say that your scenario of anticipating the bombing by seeing it is a bit unrealistic. Since the currently \"popular\" delivery method is a missile, you won't really have a chance to see it coming. Plus, even if air-dropped, there would be no parachute and no slow fall time. Even the first bombs (like Little Boy) would be impossible for the unaided eye to see: a dull object about the size of a small car, freefalling. Would you notice it from kilometers away on a blue sky background? Unlikely.\n\nA nuke has four main effects that it can be broken down into:\n\n**Thermal radiation**. This is simply because of the temperature of the fireball. Like any object with a high enough temperature, it emits blackbody radiation. You have a fireball hundreds of meters in diameter at 7000K+. At that temperature, most of the emission will be in visible light. And this emission is enough to cause third degree burns on exposed skin from kilometers away.\n\nThe effect is essentially instant when the explosion happens, and has no \"travel time\" to speak of (speed of light), but there may be a split second needed for the emission intensity to reach the point where it does much damage; it will however happen much faster than ordinary human reaction time.\n\nDefense: There's not much you can do. If you do anticipate the explosion, just place anything between line of sight of you and the explosion. But most people would probably be surprised by this. This is actually why the \"duck and cover\" tactic was attempted as propaganda during the cold war: anything opaque between your skin and the nuke will protect you. Clothes don't really help because... well... they ignite and still burn you. However, I find the \"duck and cover\" tactic questionable due to the aforementioned reaction time issue. As a whole it boils down to luck: will you be in line of sight of the explosion when it happens or not. In a city with tight, tall buildings your chances are greater.\n\nNote: For nukes above a few kilotons (meaning practically all current tactical/strategic warheads qualify), this effect is by far the largest in radius. You will have people getting burns at a much greater distance than buildings collapsing from the nuke.\n\nBut, again, it's a purely line of sight effect. Anything blocking it, and you're safe, as long as you aren't within range of the other effects down below.\n\nI will also add that this effect is greatly affected by humidity. Air at 100% humidity can reduce the effective range of this effect to nearly half, compared to dry air.\n\n**Shockwave**. This is the city-destroyer. Just like any other bomb, a front of sudden overpressure that severely damages buildings and causes most to collapse out to a great radius. Direct effect on humans is rather little: your body is surprisingly good at surviving overpressure that will collapse a building. Unfortunately, you're much less likely to survive that building collapsing on you.\n\nThis effect has a delay based roughly on the speed of sound. To maximize it, nukes are detonated in an *airburst*, high above the target (at least a kilometer typically, depends on yield). This creates a combined front of the shockwave as it hits the ground below and is deflected, making it stronger. It also has the added benefit of not creating any significant fallout as I will detail further down. As another side effect, an airburst also means much greater thermal radiation effect, because since the fireball is high up, it's less likely for there to be something blocking line of sight.\n\nDefense: If you survived the thermal radiation part, and are anticipating the shockwave, run away from any tall structure. You want to be in the open. Line of sight doesn't concern you anymore. Your chances of surviving this, though, are very little if close to the explosion and in a tight urban city (though, if it wasn't a tight urban city, you'd have lower chances of surviving the thermal radiation). Again, it's hugely down to luck, but your actual immediate choices can mean the difference between life or death, in contrast with the previous effect where you couldn't really do anything about it.\n\n**Prompt ionizing radiation**. This is in the form of gammas and fast neutrons from the chain reaction. It lasts even less than the thermal radiation part, so once again there's nothing you can do about it during/after the explosion.\n\nThankfully, for any yield over a few kilotons, this effect is so short in radius compared to the two previous ones that it really takes a rare situation to survive those two but be exposed to this. A likely scenario is being in a flimsy structure, a small hut made out of wood or paneling, with nothing else nearby to fall on it. You are protected from the thermal effect, and the hut collapsing on you probably won't kill you.\n\nDefense: Nothing, really. It's good to have as much solid material between you and the explosion, but if you're close enough to be affected by this, then the shockwave will probably end up killing you through falling debris. Especially if you're between/inside buildings that screen the radiation.\n\nIf you do get exposed but survive the other effects, depending on the dose (which is a function of proximity to the epicenter and how much material there was in the way to absorb it), you'll get radiation poisoning. It's a very miserable condition, but if you survive it (takes a few weeks), your body should bounce back to health. The only lasting side effect should be an increased future risk of cancer, as a function of the dose.\n\n**Fallout**. I guess this is what you were mostly concerned with in the first place.\n\nDisclaimer: Fallout is a highly misunderstood and overdramatized popular culture trope.\n\nFallout is a lingering effect created when the prompt neutron radiation from the explosion activates nearby matter, turning random available atoms into highly radioactive isotopes. For this, there must be enough material in the immediate vicinity of the explosion (as in, *inside* the fireball). This means that this material will also get vaporized and turned into fine dust laden with radioactive particles that can later rain down.\n\nI explained above how a nuke used against a city would be detonated as an airburst. In this case, the fireball won't be touching the ground. There's no material nearby for the explosion to activate. The bomb material itself is moot: a few kilograms of fission byproducts spread across the countryside would be detectable by instruments, but not even close to a health risk.\n\n*Airbursts create essentially no fallout.* If you survived the explosion, you don't have to worry about this aspect. A ground detonation, on the other hand...\n\nSupposing we have that, then there is significant fallout being generated and sucked up. Part of it will be picked up by whatever predominant wind there is and be deposited downwind dozens of miles away. For this, it is crucial to know the wind direction in such a scenario, to know if you're affected or not. Best to just travel out of the way of the plume.\n\nA lot of it will, however, fall back right around the blast area. In a lot of cases, if you survived within the blast area, you're likely blocked and cannot easily leave. This is okay, it's best to not attempt to leave a bombed city unless you are sure you can leave it within less than about 30 minutes after the explosion. Otherwise you will be exposed to fallout.\n\nWhat you want to do is:\n\n* Fill some container with water immediately. If you have bottled water, use that, but if you don't you will need 1-2 days worth of water, more if possible. You can probably use the main waterworks safely for this if it's just after the explosion and it still works.\n\n* Close everything in the house you're in, as airtight as possible. That is, assuming your house survived. If not, you will have to find some place that is at least an intact room with no openings. You probably won't have the luxury to choose (in case you're wondering, the middle storeys of a multi-storey building are best).\n\n* With furniture and objects, barricade the entrance as tightly as possible. Your aim is to prevent any dust from being able to easily get inside. If it does pass the door you want it to get stuck on furniture.\n\n* With leftover furniture, build a fort in the furthest corner from the entrance, or if in a larger house, preferably a room without windows. Hide in there with your water.\n\nThat's about it. Wait about 2 days inside your fort. That's when the fallout is dangerous and can give you lethal doses in less than an hour spent outside. Remember, fallout is just neutron-activated atoms riding dust particles. They have very high radioactivity, but that also means they decay very fast, with half lives measured in hours or less. Within a day the radiation level will have fallen dramatically and you can safely spend much more time outside.\n\nAfter another day or so, it's time to leave your shelter and attempt to leave the city. You can now take your time. Leave and find whatever help you can outside the city, there will almost surely be some relief effort.\n\nYou could just stay in the same spot if you really wanted to, but you still have to ensure food and water somehow. The water in pipes is probably no longer fit for long-term consumption. Packaged food should be fine, though.\n\nUltimately:\n\n > How long would it take (in terms of years, I'm sure) for life to return to normal if a nuke hit a populated city?\n\nIt would take years, for sure, but not because of anything related to radiation. It would take years because the city is now in complete ruins and needs to be rebuilt."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/"
],
[]
]
|
|
1vi2he | why i do some things left handed and some thing right handed | Typically I do gross motor actions (batting, golfing etc.) left handed while I do fine motor actions (writing, scissors etc.) right handed. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vi2he/eli5_why_i_do_some_things_left_handed_and_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"cesjl8o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Try an [eye dominance test.](_URL_0_)\n\nI am right handed, but left eye dominant, so I throw a frisbee and shoot leftie, but bat and write rightie. I think eye dominance has something to do with these gross and fine motor skills."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://m.wikihow.com/Determine-Your-Dominant-Eye"
]
]
|
|
2ki7n2 | what would happen if someone, after receiving a "not guilty" verdict, would yell: "i knew i was gonna get away with it"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ki7n2/eli5what_would_happen_if_someone_after_receiving/ | {
"a_id": [
"clljck8",
"clljmsd",
"clljn0w",
"cllju86",
"cllk5ev",
"cllqqfo",
"cllvibw",
"cllw4wk",
"clm2s80",
"clm84ts"
],
"score": [
213,
4,
40,
6,
15,
4,
3,
5,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Nothing... double jeopardy. Purple have literally written books about how they killed someone. ",
"Depends on where you are. Some states allow for post-judgement motions to reconsider the verdict in light of new evidence, if they're made within a certain time span of the judgement.",
"In the United States, he or she would be free from prosecution for that particular crime, according to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States...sort of. While that person could not be tried (or subjected to \"Double Jeopardy\" as stated in the Amendment) they could be tried for a variety of other offenses in other courts and jurisdictions. They could be tried for perjury, for example, if they testified in court or gave a sworn statement. There could be other charges related to the crime as well as other, more nebulous charges.\n\nHere's a good example: In 1991, the so-called \"Rodney King\" beating trial verdict found officers not guilty of excessive force and were essentially acquitted. Federal prosecutors then filed charges against the defendants for crimes against King's civil liberties. Though the officers maintained their innocence, the tape and the community reactions prompted a second trial.",
"Keep in mind that double jeopardy only applies to prosecution by the same state. You can be tried for the same offense by a state and the federal government. That's what happened to the cops in the Rodney King case - they were acquitted in Los Angeles, but found guilty of federal charges.",
"They are going to sue you in the civil courts for every penny you are worth.",
"There's some movie about a woman who it charged for killing her husband, when she went to court and took the jail time. She found out her husband framed her and was living with another woman, sooo she killed him.",
"Nothing. As sick as it is, it's to prevent double jeopardy, which is also very bad.",
"Isaac Turnbaugh killed his friend in Virginia in 2004. He was acquitted and later confessed. He is free and can't be charged again for the murder.\n\nMichael Lane murdered his girlfriend's two year old son. He was acquitted by a jury. He confessed years later to the crime. He also can not be charged for this murder again. This took place in Utah.\n\nTwo examples I found in a quick search. Im sure there are more. \n\n",
"Let me phrase your question another way \"If I do something really horrible, get national attention for it (if you did this it would be first page news), and rub it in everyone's face that i got away with it, whats the worst that could happen?\"\n\nFirst they might change the laws specifically for you. Seriously they do this all the time when people do something really unexpected like this.\n\nSecondly all the branches and parts of government are going to know you and be a bit pissed. I would expect to be audited, every year, for the rest of my life. I would expect every building permit application I submitted to be rejected. I would expect my mail to go missing. I would expect to be sitting in a cafe in my home town and a guy recognize me, walk over and say \"hey your that murderer who got away with it. I'm the fire chief - I sure hope you don't have a fire cause me and my guys ain't going into no burning building for you.\"\n\nThen I would expect the people to do something about it. I would expect your house to be regularly vandalized (and the cops to laugh in your face when you call to file a report). I would expect your car tires to be slashed on a regular basis. I would expect your employer to fire you and not be able to get another job.\n\nAnd then things could get weird... For example lets say your neighbor punches you in the face and breaks your nose. You call the cops and they get their, see what happened, and ask your neighbor \"did that murderer (or whatever) headbut you? he did didn't he?\" then arrest you for assault and make you spend the weekend in jail and hire a lawyer and go through that whole process.\n\nBasically if society decides to take an interest in seeing you miserable they will find a way in spades.",
"You get a ridiculous sentence after you raid a Las Vegas hotel room in an effort to get your sports memorabilia back..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3kdtd6 | reddit has seemed to change their algorithm for how often the front page updated. why? | I know Reddit must have had a reason. That being said: The front page used to change for everyone much more often. Now the same stories stick for much longer. Why did they do this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kdtd6/eli5_reddit_has_seemed_to_change_their_algorithm/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuwmp1s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Tinfoil hat on. It's an easy way to guarantee advertisers time on the front page and therefore a wider viewing audience. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1y2eud | how is the oxidation process of aluminum different than that of steel? | Why do people refrain from calling the process of aluminum oxidation 'rust'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y2eud/eli5_how_is_the_oxidation_process_of_aluminum/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfgqsoy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"because \"rust\" is a specific name for iron oxide. you can't get iron oxide out of aluminum...you get aluminum oxide. In one of its forms it's called corundum. This oxidized material is actually stronger than regular aluminum and everytime you see aluminum you're actually seeing aluminum encased in a layer of aluminum oxide of its own creation. This is what makes it so strong! Anondized aluminum is the result of a chemical process that encourages the aluminum to create an extra thick layer of this oxidized version of itself. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1mbm8o | why are some words in comics written in bold? | It has always bugged me since I was a little kid. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mbm8o/eli5why_are_some_words_in_comics_written_in_bold/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc7muak",
"cc7mvf5",
"cc7r0o6"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Without specific examples, it's hard to be sure, but **probably** for emphasis.",
"I've always assumed it is so that you can tell which words are stressed.",
"Text makes it difficult to express tone and emphasis. The bolded words are the ones to be emphasized.\n\nLook at [this Seinfeld scene](_URL_0_). \nIt plays with the idea of misunderstanding emphasis. This scene in a comic would be impossible without bold words."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0zvGVYva8M"
]
]
|
|
3w43kz | why does maintenance medication expire? i.e. why can't a doctor prescribe a lifetime supply of insulin to a diabetic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w43kz/eli5_why_does_maintenance_medication_expire_ie/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxt5wt6",
"cxt60x4",
"cxt84b0"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Are you talking about the prescription or the chemical? The chemical expires because natural processes break it down, and you need to use fresh supplies. The prescription has a fixed time period because conditions change and the right medication today might not be the right choice in the future. So, patients have to go back every year so that the doctor can discuss new research and change medication as required.",
"Because medication is assigned based on factors beyond just a simple condition; Doctors assign these based on age, weight, severity, necessity, and overall benefit, and a blanket life time prescription without reassessment could end up damaging to someone. ",
"There have been moves in Canada (and possibly other places) to give pharmacists the legal power to renew prescriptions of a certain kind (like the kind you're talking about). So, you would need to see a doctor as normal to get a prescription for insulin, but you could go straight to your pharmacist to get it refilled. This should cut down on any abuse possible from these medications (which isn't very much anyway, as far as I know) because pharmacists have a deal of medical training as well. As it is now, certain medications can be renewed over the phone, so you can go to your pharmacist and he'll call your doctor to get a new prescription.\n\nThis is in response to the big problem in Canadian medical care right now.. there aren't enough doctors. Family doctors with established practices are mostly at their capacity and won't generally accept any new patients except the children of their current patients. So, it's a bit of a family gamble whether you have access to a single doctor or if you have to rely on clinics that may but probably don't have any of your medical records to see a doctor you've probably never met before.\n\nThe short answer is that there's an established way of doing things that aren't ideal. It takes a lot of effort from a lot of people to fix it, but people are working on it. We can't just \"try things\" and see how they work because there can be disastrous side effects when you're talking about how people access medical care. Unfortunately, there are also disastrous problems right now so we have to do *something* (not just in terms of this question, but the wider socio-political implications).\n\nThe reason we have this problem right now is an old medical ideal (I believe this goes back to Hypocrites) that doctors should not sell the drugs they prescribe. This is codified in Canadian law: A doctor can't own a pharmacy. This is to prevent a doctor from profiting off the sale of unnecessary drugs ([Jon Oliver explains how that's going...](_URL_0_)). So, of course, pharmacists aren't allowed to prescribe any medications, because they will profit of its sale (even though Canada has this oh-so-great social medical system, pharmacies and family doctors are private businesses!)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I"
]
]
|
||
4oug5k | why didn't most people ride bikes before cars were invented? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4oug5k/eli5_why_didnt_most_people_ride_bikes_before_cars/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4flv8n",
"d4fm20q"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Bikes - or [bone shakers](_URL_1_) as they were referred to back in the day, were not comfortable like the modern day bikes we are used to riding.\n\n\nThat said, there have been [bike booms](_URL_2_), but it wasn't until the introduction of the [safety bicycle](_URL_0_) that it became a commonly used 'commuting' tool.",
"* the road systems wasn't good enough in most places\n* early bicycles were a primitive...they lacked things like inflatable tires, chain drives, and multiple gears, and were little more than a novelty"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#Boneshaker",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_boom"
],
[]
]
|
||
4xi5sb | why is there so much unknown about sleep paralysis while it isn't very rare? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xi5sb/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_unknown_about_sleep/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6fp3h8",
"d6fp8c6"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"There's been some pretty interesting research [link](_URL_0_) on the subject. Modern advancements of EEG technology and better understanding of the sleep phases has thrown up some added light, but afaik there's still very little in the form of reliable solutions for sufferers.\n\nI used to get the \"wake up and it's very painful to breathe, can take shallow breaths only\" kind now and then but this post just made me realise I've not had it in many years; definitely not since I moved house and to a less stressful job. \nSo anecdotally for me the theories of it being linked to your mental state show to be true.",
"I have moderate sleep paralysis, including old hag. It's was getting better as I get older. These are some observations from my experience that might help but probably won't...\n\n1) You can't predict when it's going to happen. Well, for me it's always in the morning/when I wake but I can't predict if it will happen on a given day. Sometimes not for a weeks or two. Makes it hard to hold onto patients and observes them, though I suppose there are those who suffer it practically every night.\n\n2) For a very long time it was seen as a spiritual ailment and was thereby never observed though a scientific lens. Even now neuroscience is very new and dreams (sleep paralysis [by my understanding] is basically a dream that leaks into waking) are not greatly understood.\n\n3) This might not always be the case, but it runs in my family and, for all of us, it has diminished in severity as we've grown up. When I used to get it as a child it was just incomprehensible nonsense and fear. \n\n4) It's very complicated and not very important, albeit fascinating. No-one is dying of sleep paralysis (as far as I know!) and it would take a lot of work to fully understand. I imagine it hasn't been top priority for research yet. Might happen in the near future, especially as the kind of equipment used to monitor a brain develops and become more affordable."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.thesleepparalysisproject.org/about-sleep-paralysis/neurobiology/"
],
[]
]
|
||
3dkswd | how long could we live? | If we had perfect diets, did the perfect amount of exercise, weren't susceptible to diseases and did everything we could to lengthen our lives except for replacing body parts. [No self inflicted injuries or injuries inflicted by others or anything else either]
How long could we possibly live and what would be the cause of our death?
Also, would males and females or people of different ethnicities have different lifespans? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dkswd/eli5_how_long_could_we_live/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct648t1"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"biologists have found that human cells can only devide 51 times sucessfully on average with a standard deviation of about 3. \n if we start with 2 cells, the total number of cells we can have is 2^50 (1,125,899,906,842,624). if we take the absolute maximum average cell life (10 years) and the number of cells in the human body (16 trillion cells). From that we can conclude that we replace 1,600,000,000,000 cells in a year. 1.6TCells/Year. \nFrom that we can conclude [this](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://i.imgur.com/MARm09Q.gif"
]
]
|
|
88h0y1 | how does a computer program talk to someone over a phone call? | you know the automatic calling system that says "Press 1 to confirm" or "Press 9 for main menu" . How does that read the input I give , over a phone call ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88h0y1/eli5how_does_a_computer_program_talk_to_someone/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwkjkp2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Every button you press causes a different combination of tones (beeps) to be sent over the phone line to whoever, or whatever, is listening on the other end.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-tone_multi-frequency_signaling"
]
]
|
|
560eg6 | why does alcohol sink to the bottom of my drink? | So I am trying to determine why when you set a cocktail down for a while the alcohol settles to the bottom and you have to stir it. I can't make sense of it. Based on different liquids and their densities (shown below) I would think all the alcohol would start to layer on top. However, whenever I I get to the bottom of a drink I let settle, I get a huge swig of what tastes like mostly just whatever booze is in it. Does anyone know why this happens?
Apple Juice - 1.04 g/ml Cranberry Juice - 1.06 g/ml Orange Juice - 1.038 g/ml Soda - 0.988 g/ml Gatorade/Powerade - 1.03 g/ml Tonic Water - 1.02 g/ml Water - 0.9982 g/ml Southern Comfort - 0.97 g/ml Vodka (40%) - 0.916 g/ml Absinthe - 0.89 g/ml Everclear (75%) - 0.84 g/ml Everclear (95%) - 0.80 g/ml Alcohol, pure (ethanol) - 0.789 g/ml
Sources for densities: _URL_0_ _URL_1_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/560eg6/eli5_why_does_alcohol_sink_to_the_bottom_of_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8f7g2w",
"d8f7rhx"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This doesn't make sense. Alcohol is a bigger molecule than water, but highly missable. Once the two liquids are mixed entropy should dictate them remaining mixed.\n\nIs it possible another phenomenon is causing the effect?",
"You're looking at it as a density problem, when in fact it's a lack of turbulence. These densities describe what would happen if a mixed up drink were allowed to sit and slowly separate. All the densities are almost identical, so it's going to take a long time for them to separate. You can set a bottle of 80 proof scotch on the shelf for a long time and not see the 40% of the alcohol molecules float to the top of the bottle. Internal thermal circulation keeps the scotch mixed up.\n\nSimilarly, when the bartender pours liquids into the glass in a specific order, it will take time for them to mix through diffusion. Sometimes this is on purpose, like Floaters or Grenadine in a Tequila Sunrise. Sometimes it's just \"measure liquor fill mixer\" bartender order."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap815e/ap815e.pdf",
"http://www.the-bartender.org/tips-tricks/alcohol-density-chart/"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5tpcbt | why do nearly all religions involve praying on one'a knees? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tpcbt/eli5why_do_nearly_all_religions_involve_praying/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddo0v5m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its a sign of submission. Which is something every religion relies on, as logic would blow any religion apart."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7iqr4a | if your body repairs it's self better while you sleep, then why not put people to sleep for a few days after surgery or treatment after a disease? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7iqr4a/eli5_if_your_body_repairs_its_self_better_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr0p0if"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"would it be the same thing as a medically induced coma?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1jz2fi | why can humans regen skin and some organ parts, but not teeth and other parts? | googled it, but cant find an answer that I understand | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jz2fi/eli5why_can_humans_regen_skin_and_some_organ/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbjosyp",
"cbju301"
],
"score": [
24,
4
],
"text": [
"Simply put: we didn't evolve a way to do it. Some tissues are just special and our body doesn't have the necessary genetic code to replace them. \n\nConsidering that for most of human history something like losing an arm was pretty fatal most the time it makes sense we can't regrow arms - there's no point in being able to if the vast majority of the time you'll bleed out or get an infection anyway. Surviving amputations is a fairly recent medical breakthrough overall. ",
"In addition to what the others have said, in reality skin and other organs don't \"regenerate\" in the way you're thinking of if you wanted to replace other organs or limbs. Sorry if this is tedious or not helping answer your question!\n\n**Skin:**\nIt is basically comprised of two layers, one which is the \"permanent\" base (dermis) contains all the collagen and basic underlying connective tissue of the skin. The other bigger/thicker outer layer (epidermis) is mainly comprised of cells caused Keritinocytes; at the deepest layer these cells are constantly dividing by mitosis (i.e. dividing into exact copies of themselves). Most of these daughter cells then gradually migrate outwards towards the surface, gradually changing and forming an interconnecting meshwork as they move outwards. But some of the daughter cells are always at the deepest level of the epidermis, dividing again to supply the next generation.\n\nSkin is essentially an organ where the cells are constantly dividing, migrating outward and dying off. It's not \"regenerating\" in the sense of growing a complex new limb with different tissues and structure. Instead it is an organ that is \"designed\" to have a constant turn over of cells, so that it can stay about the overall same thickness.\n\n**The liver:**\nThe liver is a bit of a special case; it CAN \"regenerate\". But again you have to be careful what you mean by regenerate. Basically what the liver can do is grow more cells to restore its function to a normal *functional* level. The normal liver has a specific shape and layout. If you chop off one half of the liver, that bit won't regrow as it was before, it won't \"regenerate\" as you'd want if you wanted to grow a new arm. \n\nInstead the cells (hepatocytes) in the remaining liver have the ability to start dividing again and forming new cells, including the structure and layout of those cells into tissue. The blood supply will also grow to accommodate this new tissue, and the liver can grow back to a level where it's function (and the blood test markers of this function) are back to normal. But it certainly doesn't regain it's original shape or layout. The original shape of the liver is not just about it's function, but also about what else was happening while the body was developing as a foetus (e.g. other organs moving around and developing will have had an impact on the shape and configuration of the normal liver); that non-essential anatomical layout cannot be restored.\n\n**Regenerating a limb:**\nAs the others have said, regenerating an arm is a very different prospect. A limb is not really one single organ like the liver, or the skin; instead it's an extremely complex collection of tissues - bone, muscle, nerves, blood supply, immune system, skin covering and so on. All those tissues could be replaced individually. But the truly difficult step is restoring the anatomical *layout* of the arm or leg - the position of the muscles and bones in relation to each other (the anatomical layout) are absolutely key to giving an arm or leg it's function. When these limbs are grown for the first time as an embryo it's a very complex process that mixes elements of position within the embryo itself, a whole host of signalling mechanisms (including hormones, cell-cell signals, and so on) and very likely a large element of timing and more. Then, after you're born, there is further development of limbs based on use and movement (for example, walking is an important part of the normal shaping and mineralisation of the leg bones).\n\nWe are not evolved to do this, and I must admit from my own understanding of the structure and function of the human body I find the concept of regrowing a whole limb difficult to imagine becoming a reality any time soon. I think it's potentially highly complex and I personally don't believe there is any \"magic switch\" to make the human body do this. However, the Salamander apparently can do this, and seems to do a pretty good job of it - perhaps we can learn much from these animals, though I suspect what we learn will be applied to a complex medical technological process of limb and organ replacement in the future rather than any salamander-style natural regrowth.\n\n**TL;DR:** Skin doesn't really regenerate, liver does kind of regenerate, but otherwise apart from healing what organs we're born with the human body doesn't seem to have much natural ability to regenerate. But maybe in the future medical science will be able to do that?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1q8bjr | how come we don't fortify junk food (e.g. candy, soda, fast food) with vitamins/nutrients? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q8bjr/eli5_how_come_we_dont_fortify_junk_food_eg_candy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cda7opg",
"cda85jt"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Junk food is characterized by more than just that it's not very good for you. It's also *cheap*.\n\nThose two things go hand-and-hand really: This country subsidizes corn production so much that high fructose corn syrup is cheaper than water. Fortifying it with vitamins and nutrients would make it more expensive.",
"I think in most cases where informed people are talking about a lack of nutrition in junk food, they are talking about a severe imbalance in **macro** nutrients like sugar and trans fats compared to what the body needs, not a lack of vitamins and that type of thing. So in order to correct this, you would have to fundamentally change the food. \n\nYou could get the same effect as you propose by chewing a multi vitamin before your bag of Doritos, but it is nowhere near as effective as getting nutrients from foods they naturally occur in, and it does nothing about the huge amount of carbs and fat in them. It's too much for the amount of food you are eating and promotes over eating. A theater box sized candy contains the calories of a meal, yet it is thought of as a large snack. A family sized bag of chips is a whole says worth of calories yet would never fill a person up for a day. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
avwang | why do gears multiply forces ? | I saw a video with lego and gears, with a gear ratio. The more gears that was used, the more weight the mechanism could carry. Why is that ?
Ps sorry for my english, tried my best, it s not my native tongue | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/avwang/eli5_why_do_gears_multiply_forces/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehiy1i2",
"ehi7cax",
"ehi87lr",
"ehi88bl",
"ehi9cme",
"ehic9zr",
"ehigk3o"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Energy is force * distance. So, if you have the same amount of energy being transferred, you can increase the force and decrease the distance, or vice versa.\n\nWhen motion is converted via any method, whether it be pulleys, gears, or levers, and energy is not lost in the middle, you can do this kind of conversion - conspire to have your last gear move through a smaller distance, and as a result it is capable of applying a larger force.\n\nThat's all gears are doing. I constantly mix up the mathematics of which ratio produces which forces, but all you have to think about is: are the teeth of the final gear moving faster or slower than the initial gear? If slower, it can apply a larger force before the resistance is too much, and if faster a smaller force.",
"I took exactly one physics class, so I might be completely wrong on this - but I think it has to do with leverage. Have you ever tried to loosen a nut with a short driver and had no luck, then switched to something with a longer handle and got it with ease? That's leverage (I think). The same principal applies to gears pushing on other gears, and every additional gear adds to the total amount of leverage applied to the circuit of gears. I'm sure there's a lot of nuance I'm missing and maybe some incorrect terminology, but I'm not willing to look anything up right now.",
"I don't know about a series of gears of the same size, but can say that going from a larger to smaller or other way around will make it seems like more force but converting between speed and torque (I think? I haven't taken any class or anything on this yet, but I think work is speed*torque) it reduces it by reducing/increasing the amount of turns one gear has to go to turn the other. I have no idea if that's what you were even asking though.",
"I don't know about a series of gears of the same size, but can say that going from a larger to smaller or other way around will make it seems like more force but converting between speed and torque (I think? I haven't taken any class or anything on this yet, but I think work is speed*torque) it reduces it by reducing/increasing the amount of turns one gear has to go to turn the other. I have no idea if that's what you were even asking though.",
"Its because of two things.\n\nfirst, you can apply force with zero energy. This isn't intuitive. Humans mostly use energy to apply forces. If you push on a wall or hold yourself up on a chin up bar, you will start to fatigue. Your muscles usually expend energy to apply a force. But this is a limitation of human anatomy. Its not physics.\n\nIf you attached a rope to your belt and tied the rope a chin-up bar, you could hang forever. The rope will never get tired. From the bars perspective nothing has changed. it still have 150-whatever pounds of force applied to it. If you compress a spring, you can use it to apply a force to a wall forever. The spring will never get tired.\n\nEven laying on the ground, you apply a force to the ground, and that takes no energy.\n\ngears work for the same reasons that levers work.\n\nA lever has 2 ends: left and right. Two levers tied together perpendicularly would have 4 ends: Left, right, top and bottom. Enough levers tied together is a gear.\n\nI can't explain more without pictures, but i hope this helps.\n",
"Gears (and levers) convert between force and distance.\n\nYou can see this with [pulleys](_URL_0_), which function just like gears. If you want to lift 1 ton, to about 1 meter height (to load it in a car), you can use a pulley system and apply 50 N (kg) of force, but you have to pull a long distance, 20 meters of rope, to lift that ton by 1 meter.\n\nYou're trading effort over distance for force over a short distance.\n\nGears do the same, they're trading the high speed of the motor (500 - 2000 rotations per minute) for a huge force at the wheels but slow rotation (30 - 300 rotations per minute).",
"It's the same principle as on a bicycle with gears. If you've seen the transmission on a bike, you'll understand what I describe here : \n\nImagine you have the same number of teeth at the front and at the back. You turn one time the pedals, it turns one time the wheel. Now you change gears, the gear at the front is two times bigger. Now you pull two times as much teeth, so it makes the wheel turn twice while you turn the pedals once. When you use the bike, you start with the smaller gear, then go up, because the bigger gear allows you to go faster, eventhough you need to have momentum first. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Ru1zZjvug"
],
[]
]
|
|
8oltss | why is dryer lint so flammable? | What it says on the ~~tin~~ title.
& nbsp;
Per rule 7, performed a search and found a 4 month old post with two replies and no real good answers, and a few comments in related threads about lint that touched on the suspect but didn’t really answer it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8oltss/eli5_why_is_dryer_lint_so_flammable/ | {
"a_id": [
"e04bj06",
"e04bj3w",
"e04bjiq",
"e04dazd",
"e04i2sn",
"e04murk",
"e04njsy",
"e04oqbw",
"e04snel",
"e04zhvv",
"e053e7m",
"e053fud"
],
"score": [
18,
255,
3183,
87,
4,
7,
72,
2,
3,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's made up of a mat of small flammable threads. Lots of oxygen can get between the threads, and because it's not dense, ignition is easy.\n\nDepending on what fabrics you put in the dryer, it'll be more or less flammable. Plastics (rayon, dacron, nylon, etc.) will be the most flammable, wool lint will be one of the least flammable. Cotton and Lycra will be somewhere in the middle. But mix them all together, and you've got something that will ignite quickly, gain temperature, and then burn hot for a while once the less flammable fibers start to burn.",
"it's something dry that has a lot of surface area. it's like why dry thistle is also flammable and huge forest fires have been started from just cigarette butts. the flash point of dryer lint is about 250-350C and since the dryer vents really hot air, if it gets clogged, it can get hot enough for the lint to ignite. ",
"Things ignite easier if there is maximum surface area between the air and flammable material.\n\nIt's the same reason why grain silos filled with grain dust can spontaneously combust if they get hot enough.\n\nLint is made up of lots of tiny fine particles stuck together.\n\nSo there is a LOT of surface area between air (oxygen) and the combustible material, lint.\n\nConversely, it's hard to ignite a large log from just a match, because there is not enough relative surface area between the wood and the air to sustain the combustion.",
"Surface area - more contact with oxygen in the air, makes a lot of things flammable. Here is [steel wool burning](_URL_0_) - basically, steel, which is not something that you'd imagine burns like wood, burning like wood.",
"An extremely larger than average ratio of surface area to mass is the first part of the story.\n\nThe second and equally important part is mass/volume. \n\nThe amount of energy needed to heat the lint past the point of ignition is much smaller because of the low total mass. The flame spreads through the lint quickly due to the high amount of surface area. The oxygen in between the thin pieces of cotton strands fuel the resulting explosion.\n\nThat's why a log takes a high energy source like gas to ignite but lint can ignite from too much static electricity. Static electricity is the real culprit in laundry fires. The heat and rotating fabrics generate a lot of friction. \n\nThe fun you get from rubbing your socks on a rug and then shocking someone on the neck is more than enough energy to burn your house down.",
"In simple terms: Most lint is made of cotton fibers. When cotton fibers get heated up, some of them start to break down. \n\nWeirdly, cotton fibers release heat when they decompose. Normally, the heat is dissipated pretty easily but when lint gets clumped up (or if you take a stack of towels that are still hot and smoosh em together) that heat has nowhere to go. So the heat from the decomposing fibers causes other fibers to break down, and THEY release heat. \n\nThis cycle continues until the whole mess reaches a special temperature at which it will ignite, called the critical surface temperature. \n\nThis can happen because of a wad of lint in the lint trap, or in the duct work, or even just by stacking too many hot towels too close together. This is why commercial dryers have a cooldown built into their cycles.",
"The reason dryer lint catches fire isn't because it is so flammable \\(which it is\\), but because of \\*where\\* it is. When a dryer duct hasn't been cleaned in awhile, it can become clogged, causing a back\\-pressure effect. When that happens, the lint is forced out of the duct it is supposed to be exiting, and gets sucked into the dryer's intake, which can cause the lint to coat the heating elements. Check out [_URL_0_](_URL_0_). It has some pictures that show this happening. Full disclosure: I took those pictures on the web page. I co\\-own the business which cleans dryers and dryer ducts. ",
"In addition to everything said about surface area, keep in mind that smaller particles can't dissipate heat like larger pieces of material can. So for a given amount of heat exposure, it's easier for the material to reach the temperature at which it burns. (An example of this is small sticks and twigs catching fire much much easier than logs. But the fine material that makes up lint is an even more extreme example.)",
"The fibers are very thin and there’s a lot of them = high surface area. Additionally they are obviously dry and made of cotton. All good factors when seeking combustion",
"It has to do with particle size. Basically the smaller particles, the more surface area is in contact with the air. This has two aspects, 1) it will maximize friction from any movement, friction causes heat which leads us to 2) there's an ample supply of oxygen due to the previously mentioned surface are in contact with air.\n\nHeat + oxygen = fire!\n\nYou can see examples of this by googling *cinnamon self combustion*. ",
"Thing others neglect in their answers: heat dissipation volume.\n\nYes, contact area with oxygen is important, but if you touch a match to a wooden log, you'll barely make its surface warm - heat is quickly conducted inside, drawn from the surface and dissipated over the large volume. The surface doesn't reach combustion temperature, or if it does, it drops so quickly after removing the match the little heat from the small own fire can't keep up with the losses - it's self-extinguishing.\n\nBut leave the volume small enough - say, cross-section of a hair in the lint - and the heat has nowhere to dissipate to. The lint immediately achieves combustion temperature and keeps burning.",
"It's light and fluffy and not very compact, meaning that as the material burns, air (i.e. oxygen) will be easily accessible. It's also, y'know, dry."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MDH92VxPEQ"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.pfepro.com/album03.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
ouh2c | the significance of mitt romney's tax returns | I have never paid taxes before so I was wondering how they compare to an average American, why he paid as much as he did, why people care, etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ouh2c/eli5_the_significance_of_mitt_romneys_tax_returns/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3k4oie",
"c3k7bl1",
"c3k9cui",
"c3kanf3"
],
"score": [
20,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Hokay, questions in order:\n\nHow they compare to an average American - they're much lower. ~~Total tax rates can be in the mid 30s. Most people probably end up with a few deductions and probably pay somewhere in the low 30s, high 20s if they're just filling out a 'normal' tax return.~~ Nevermind, shouldn't have even tried. The US tax code is far too complex for ELI'm not the person who wrote it, let alone ELI5. Suffice it to say, Romney is not 'average' and pays 'below average', particularly when compared to other 'ridiculously above average' folks.\n\nWhy he paid as much as he did - He paid 14% because that's the rate for capital gains and things like that. The difference is this; most Americans work, get a paycheck, and have that income taxed. It's called, strangely enough, income tax. Any money people save is put somewhere else that gets interest. However, most of Romney's money doesn't come from a paycheck. It comes from the fact that he's got a giant pile of money invested, and that money makes him a profit. That profit is taxed differently that paycheck income. It's called capital gains, and the capital gains rate is much lower.\n\nWhy people care - folks care because a guy with $200 million dollars is paying less tax on the money he makes in a year than people with much less money. People think it doesn't seem right that someone making $50,000 a year loses x% of their money in taxes, but someone who makes more than that in a year (and has a whole lot more than that in the bank / market) loses less than 1/2 of x% in taxes.\n\nEdit: Fixed \"income tax rates\" when I shoulda been talking about overall taxes. Also, grammaaaargh!",
"Ok... Romney pays about a 13% tax rate. Capital gains are taxed at about 15% and income somewhat higher than that, depending on how much you make.\n\nDon't worry about the income part. In fact, don't worry about the fact that capital gains are taxed at such a low rate. Romney didn't write that law and he's only complying with it.\n\nInstead, worry about the fact that Romney is taxed at about 13% but capital gains are taxed at 15%. Worry about that 2% gap.\n\nIt turns out that the US tax code is riddled with loopholes and dodges that allow people to shuffle their money around and avoid paying taxes. The dodges are all legal but they're a result of corruption in our system. They're written into the tax law by people who stand to make a lot of money off of them and Congressmen are only too happy to let them do so in exchange for a small portion of the windfall.\n\nNow Romney had a choice to participate in that KIND of tax preparation. He **could** have told his accountants that he wanted everything to be above board and that he wouldn't attempt to exploit the rules in order to minimize what he owed to the government; that he would pay his taxes like the rest of us. \n\nHe chose not to do that. \n\nThat doesn't mean that Romney broke the law, but it does mean that he deliberately chose to benefit from a system which most Americans see as corrupt and unfair and that he is financially beholden to that system already.\n\nFurther, Romney's returns show that he has or had accounts in well known off-shore tax havens like Switzerland and Grand Cayman, places which pretty much exist so that people can hide money from their government. Romney insists that's not why he had those accounts, but to a lot of folks that rings hollow... like someone who buys an exotic Italian supercar claiming to always drive exactly the speed limit.",
"It's the leftist version of the \"show us your birth certificate\" tactic that was previously used against Obama. ",
"To directly answer your first question: At least half of Americans effective tax rates are *lower* than Romney's.\n\nThe CBO did an absolutely wonderful job on this one, calculating effective tax rates, lumping all federal taxes together, and properly adjusting for all various sources of income and tax breaks. [Here's what the effective tax rates were in 2007](_URL_0_):\n\n* Bottom 0-20% of Americans: 4% rate\n\n* 20-40 quintile: 10.6% rate\n\n* 40-60 quintile: 14.3% rate (Note: Romney's effective tax rates match this.)\n\n* 60-80 quintile: 17.4% rate\n\n* 80-100 quintile: 25.1% rate\n\n* Top 10% group: 26.7% rate\n\n* Top 5% group: 27.9% rate\n\n* Top 1% group 29.5% rate\n\n\n\nAnd this was in 2007. Taxes have gone down for the bottom 4 quintiles considerably since then. \n\nTo answer your second question: People are upset because in essence, he is rich enough that he could invest his money, not work, and make millions, and then pay 15% tax on it. They feel that America should be progressive enough so that it doesn't matter how you earn your money, you should pay around 25-30% on it. Part of the reason why it is 15% is that there is a debate over taxes that need to be paid on investment income. Capital gains (which Romney profited from) are double taxed. The company pays taxes on the profits, and Romney again has to pay taxes he gets his allotted share. Many folks feel that kind of double taxation is simply wrong. For example, Newt Gingrich wants that rate to be 0%.\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf"
]
]
|
|
2au57m | why do nightmares stop? | I remember having very vivid nightmares when I was a little kid. I was either overwhelmed by spiders, chased by monsters, or some other horrible thing. Now that I'm older, I never have those sort of dreams anymore. What causes this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2au57m/eli5_why_do_nightmares_stop/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciyt76k",
"ciyt98m"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Some people do have them. ",
"Personally I think it's because your irrational fears change as you grow older and so do your nightmares. For example, I'll still have dreams of humanoid monsters but I won't get freaked out because at this point even my subconscious knows that it isn't real. However I'll have a dream about my gf cheating on me. Although it may be an irrational fear it's still a real thing that can actually happen. Just like when you were younger and still believed that monsters were real\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
28jq23 | how can you survive getting a limb like your leg getting cut off? | If the blood works in a closed system as it does in humans, wouldn't all the blood leave through the leg? Also, I know some blood goes upwards towards the head but still. How can you survive? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28jq23/eli5how_can_you_survive_getting_a_limb_like_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"cibk7fs"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"There are no vital organs in your limbs. If the flow of blood is cut off quickly enough, you won't bleed out. Your veins are not entirely a \"closed\" system - there are smaller connector veins in your limbs, so if you lose the leg below the knee, for example, and you survive the immediate trauma and infection, your body will redirect the blood through these connectors. This is why people (very) occasionally survived traumatic amputation even in pre-industrial societies. \n\nThese veins are however just above the joints in the arms and legs, so that's why even if you lost a foot, they'd take the leg off until the knee, to prevent necrosis (tissue death, which can spread into healthy parts of your body and kill you).\n\n[Look at all these overlapping veins.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/2-human-circulatory-system-pasieka.jpg"
]
]
|
|
3ki5a9 | how are accident and crime scenes cleaned up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ki5a9/eli5_how_are_accident_and_crime_scenes_cleaned_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuxm8n8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are companies that specialize in cleaning up crime scenes. The city or the property owner hires them; they show up with those disposable white jumpsuits (or even hazmat if appropriate) and use specialized cleaning equipment, such as steam cleaners, and enzyme mixes that rapidly break down organic matter, such as bloodstains."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4wx8w9 | if tolkien's work isn't in the public domain, how have other fantasy worlds been able to get away with borrowing so heavily from him? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wx8w9/eli5if_tolkiens_work_isnt_in_the_public_domain/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6almg8",
"d6alvjg",
"d6alztw",
"d6am32u"
],
"score": [
20,
3,
11,
5
],
"text": [
"They haven't! Why do you think that Dungeons and Dragons has \"Halflings\" instead of \"Hobbits\". The Tolkein estate beat them up over that one!\n\nBut otherwise - because nothing that Tolkein built is entirely his outside of Hobbits. You can't copyright a large journey with a macguffin... nor elves, dwarfs, humans, swords, horses, magic, wizards... or basically anything else notable.\n\n",
"Most of Middle-Earth is taken from Norse Mythology, it's not stuff he created. No one else can use \"hobbits\" or \"Gandalf\" but it's not like he invented wizards and dragons.",
"Tolkien's work is itself cobbled together from all sorts of European mythologies that are public domain. He made that kind of high fantasty a more refined and popular product, but it has always existed.\n\nSpecific names, locations, and races that he created for his universe are covered by copyright, but you can't claim to have invented wzards or warring kingdoms or dwarves.",
"Elves, orcs, dragons, wizards, all those things come from legend, folklore, and other older stories. \n\nYou can't write a book about the adventures of Elrond or directly lift text and phrases and songs from Tolkien's writing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6feeju | why (or how) did many castles in england and across europe become ruins or are left in disarray? what happened in history that lead these buildings to be abandoned? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6feeju/eli5why_or_how_did_many_castles_in_england_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dihkd4y",
"dihoajm",
"dihtd9l"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Castles like all large buildings take a lot of time, effort and money to maintain. Once there was no longer a need to have a fortification to resist attack from your neighboring Lord in they started to fall out of use because the cost of maintaining them was no longer worth it. ",
"Apart from the cost of upkeep meaning lack of maintenance, there was also deliberate destruction.\n\nIn 1645, during the English Civil War, Parliament decided that a lot of castles under their control should be \"slighted\". That is that they should be rendered useless as defensive fortifications in case the Royalist side came into possesion of them. Costal fortresses were an exception as these had continuing use. The process may have conntinued after the restoration of Charles II to places held against the Royalists during the war, although evidence is unclear.\n\nIn addition, the traditional high-walled castle was more or less obsolete in the gunpowder age. Many structures damaged during the Civil War were not thought worth rebuilding afterwards, so that contributed to a number becoming ruined as weather and removal of material for other buildings took their toll.",
"Technology and politics moved on.\n\nOnce warfare changed and peace broke out castles turned from a wise investment into a big useless expense at best and a big unguarded supply of building material at worst.\n\nOriginally you might want to set up some sort of fortification on a hill or similarly easily defensible location that overlooked some road or pass or ford where you could collect taxes from those passing by and be secure enough to defend yourself against anyone violently opposed to taxation.\n\nIn other places you just wanted to be safe from large groups of armed men who wanted your valuables such as your life. So you build something that would be easy to defend and could withstand a siege\n\nOver time those might eventually grow into something we could call a castle.\n\nYou had castles in towns growing in a symbiotic relationship with them and other on hilltops growing in a more parasitic relationship with the countryside around them.\n\nThose castles were constantly changing. People kept maintaining them adding to them and rebuilding them all the time and of course others tried to tear them down, which required more rebuilding.\n\nEventually the whole place started unifying. Instead of each valley by itself all the local valley got united under a ruler and eventually larger and larger areas were united.\n\nThere was less reason to maintain castles to defend against each other when both belonged to the same ruler.\n\nMaintaining a castle cost money and there was no reason to spend money on protecting borders or resources that no longer existed with a fortress that was centuries behind the state of the art of current military technology.\n\nInside cities you had the problem that people kept dismantling old city walls and fortifications that seemed obsolete to harvest them for building materials. Outside cities some fortifications were destroyed on purpose to prevent any undesirables from moving in while others just simply were left to rot by themselves.\n\nSome were preserved or rebuild as status symbols, but there is a big difference between a castle built for military purposes and a palace meant to impress the public. The difference between the two could be fairly fluid though.\n\nAs technology moved on older types of castles simply weren't up to the task even if they were in the right place to be useful.\n\nInstead of the type of castles meant to defend against people with lances and bows you got the type of starforts that were primarily concerned with overlapping field of fire and being able to train your big guns on anyone trying to get close.\n\nThe architecture changed to adapt to the weapons that they were supposed to defend themselves against.\n\nA big tower that your archers could shoot from is of little value against artillery that can shoot you from beyond the horizon.\n\nWalls got thicker and thicker and fortifications moved more and more underground.\n\nUnderground bunkers may be seen as modern day evolutions of the whole castle concept, but there are question about how useful any sort of fortification could possibly be in this day and age.\n\nSo for the most part castle ruins come from them no longer being maintained and rebuild by their owners because they had become useless."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
b15rdb | how are people able to become contortionists? | Meaning could anyone be able to learn how by
Instructed technique and tons of practice? Or is there always an orthopedic or joint hypermobility component to it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b15rdb/eli5_how_are_people_able_to_become_contortionists/ | {
"a_id": [
"eijn3jt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As with most things it is a bit of both. Certainly with practice and technique people can become extremely flexible but only the genetically gifted can become the best. Basically it is just continually stretching until you gain a greater than normal range of motion."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
32bhuw | how are internet sites allowed to possibly provide adult content that minors could watch by simply placing a button on their site that says "yes, i am over 18?" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32bhuw/eli5_how_are_internet_sites_allowed_to_possibly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq9nvcz",
"cq9o1hq",
"cq9o2ka",
"cq9o43j",
"cq9okc6",
"cq9orvl",
"cq9p7cl",
"cq9pxf0",
"cq9rvh2",
"cq9s0oo",
"cq9uats"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
7,
101,
25,
5,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They simply don't care who visits. It's up to you whether to lie or not.",
"It's the internet. There is way too much content to police and even if you could it would be replaced faster than you could take it down. ",
"Can you think of a good way for them to do it? I've seen sites ask for your date of birth, but all you have to do is lie about that so it really is just a few wasted seconds. That's what I did before I was 18. I think it comes down to being the parent's responsibility to monitor what their children do on the internet.",
"The laws (obviously this varies by country) require that there be some barrier to entry. They don't specify what the barrier should be, so naturally many business choose to go with the bare minimum to obey the law. Remember the harder you make the test, the more effort your legitimate customers have to go through to get in too. That could cost you business, plus more complex solutions cost time (and therefor money), also bad.\n\nPractically, its virtually impossible to get anything more effective than what we currently have. When you try to walk into a bar you get carded, the guy at the door checks your ID, he can see you, the ID, decide if its fake, or not your ID. Online, what are they going to check? What could they possibly ask for that couldn't be faked? \n\nEdit: specific=/=specify",
"It's not their job to raise you kids. Your kid could just walk out in the street and get hit by a car. But it's your job to make sure they don't. It's not anyone else's job to build walls around every street to keep your kid safe.\n\nBefore you let your kid out on the internet, make sure you teach them how to use it in a good way. And if you want to make sure they don't go on site you don't want them on, use some parental control program to restrict what they can do.",
"Because it's not the site's responsibility to monitor who accesses it. What you're asking for is a police/nanny state. It's not the job of the website to raise your kids, it's your job as a parent to block/filter their internet use. ",
"Because porn never hurt anyone, whereas the comparison you're making (relating it to alcohol, etc) are substance that can be abused.",
"It is an easy step for parental monitoring software to recognize and block. \nEasier than trying to maintain a list of every page that should be blocked.\n",
"Can it be done? Yes. Would there be any benefit to doing it? Not really. And all the negatives that would come with being more restrictive about access would FAR outweigh any minuscule positives.\n\nStopping minors from viewing porn is comically low on the list of things a country should care about. If you don't want *your* kids watching, that's your job.\n\nTL;DR Not every law is worth all costs it would take to prevent people from breaking it. ",
"Porn websites could hardly care less about whether you are 15 or 40, as long as you're visiting their site and generating revenue for them, either through ads or paid porn (seriously who the hell pays for porn). They do however want to avoid getting their asses into trouble with the law, so essentially they choose the lowest effort possible (which may vary from countries) \"barrier\" just for show, just so they can say *\"yo, we got this button here and we warned them, but they chose to enter still. ain't our fault feds.\"* and push the blame to the customer.\n\nAnd if you really want to go deeper, it could be argued that the government could be taking a similar \"hands-off, just for show\" approach towards making the laws of this issue. Remember that the porn industry is no doubt worth billions, and while they definitely could make stricter laws about this - would they really want to hinder and interfere with the porn industry as long as they are churning in profits? Whether or not the \"secretly under 18\" category of consumers really generates significant profit, implementing more rigorous ways of checking age would still stand to affect of age customers *and* profits.",
"Simply speaking, adult sites probably couldn't give a shit if a 4 year old wanted to patronize their material.\n\nThey just put that pointless barrier there to be able to legally say \"we gave you a choice and you made the decision to ignore it so this is on you\"."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.