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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26mdyh | why can we give dogs a mosquito repellent pill, but they don't make one for people? | I'm sitting here scratching all over while my dog looks at me like "what's wrong with my human?" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26mdyh/eli5why_can_we_give_dogs_a_mosquito_repellent/ | {
"a_id": [
"chsdgyy"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"I'm not aware of any mosquito repellent pills. Are you perhaps thinking of *heartworm* pills? Mosquitoes can transmit heartworm, and it's common to give dogs a pill that will kill the larvae if they become infected. Note that this doesn't actually repel mosquitoes."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5tdtu4 | how is music digitally stored and played? | I've been wondering about this for quite some time now, but can anyone explain it without sounding overly complicated?
There are no musical instruments inside a speaker, so how is it able to play recorded music? And relatedly, how is a recording instrument able to store sounds/music? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tdtu4/eli5_how_is_music_digitally_stored_and_played/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddm1l3n"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Every single sound is just a combination of waves in the air. Instruments and the like are designed to create certain specific combinations, which is why (for example) a trumpet sounds like a trumpet: it vibrates the air in a attern that is (more or less) unique.\n\nSpeakers are cool in that they are capable of producing any sound wave. They do this simply by vibrating a plate back and forth very carefully to create the exact same wave that was recorded. (This vibration is caused by an electric current creating a magnetic field that can push or pull the metal plate)\n\nRecording sounds works in very much the same way. If you play loud sounds at a speaker, the plate inside it will vibrate, and then produce a current which can be stored as data."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1akqb2 | the sentencing chantges and controversy to do with the ohio rape case | I mostly don't understand the events and victim shaming happening?
EDIT: charges* | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1akqb2/eli5_the_sentencing_chantges_and_controversy_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8yb45x"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"People are angry because the reporting on the case has been focusing on the pain experienced by the men who were just convicted of rape - how it will hurt *their* futures, how going to prison will hurt *them*.\n\nWhat hasn't been spoken of is what *they* did to the victim - how *their* actions might have hurt *her* and *her future*.\n\nIn addition to this, a lot of people have been assuming that she was falsely accusing them of rape because she \"changed her mind\" about having sex. \n\nIn the US justice system, people are supposed to be ~~guilty until proven innocent~~ innocent until proven guilty. However, the treatment of the girl accusing her attackers suggests that for the accuser, she is guilty until proven innocent - the assumption that she is lying isn't based on hard evidence, but on conjecture. Conjecture does not make for proof of guilt, but the assumption that she is lying is enough to make people say things like \"I guess if you regret being a slut, you can just say you were raped.\"\n\nIf I were to say \"you stole my Legos!\" and everyone said \"he's a liar, I bet he gave his Legos away and now he regrets it,\" you would be very upset, right? Everyone would be dismissing you without taking you seriously at all, and you'd be helpless. \n\nThere are a whole bunch of other factors that contribute to it, but at least with the case of the reporting on this story, it's the way people are assuming innocence on the part of the accused, and guilt on the part of the accuser (based only on assumptions), that has people so angry."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3u3izg | why does the company logos after tv shows usually have a funny or absurd saying in them? | I started to wonder this after watching Rick And Morty & Brooklyn Nine-Nine - all these producers/production companies and whatnot that come right after ending credits have the weirdest [quote](_URL_0_) . I'm assuming that this was started by some company and everyone started copying it but to me it's such a weird thing to actually be a... thing | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u3izg/eli5why_does_the_company_logos_after_tv_shows/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxbjlps"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"These companies don't get prime placement (at the beginning of the show) By having something quirky, it makes them more memorable.\n\nI find myself saying their slogans in time after my favorite shows on Netflix. It's marketing/branding."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOW-uciQvaA"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
5f2evm | what role do photosynthesis and cellular respiration play in the carbon cycle? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f2evm/eli5_what_role_do_photosynthesis_and_cellular/ | {
"a_id": [
"dagy9s4",
"dah7dur"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide from the air, uses energy from the sun to strip off the oxygen, and uses the carbon to make organic molecules like sugar.\n\nRespiration takes organic molecules like sugar, combines them with oxygen, releasing energy and forming carbon dioxide.",
"photosynthesis produces carbon compounds, cellulose mostly. The structure of the plant is mostly cellulose which is a polysaccharide that we can't digest. But plants produces fruits that we can digest. This process requires light and CO2\n \nCellular respiration is what happens in any organism when they take a sugar along with oxygen and convert it into the universal sources of energy in the body ATP via the citric acid cycle. As a result CO2 is produced."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4an4tv | why do we invest in space exploration? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4an4tv/eli5_why_do_we_invest_in_space_exploration/ | {
"a_id": [
"d11szmt",
"d11tu9q",
"d11v11v",
"d11v7zv",
"d11wdnt",
"d120qw4",
"d121u9x",
"d1222kp",
"d122win",
"d124g49",
"d125n51",
"d1263s4",
"d126isl",
"d1270sp",
"d1277n9",
"d127aks",
"d12ad86",
"d12c17q",
"d12d9sm"
],
"score": [
1776,
5,
7,
87,
15,
7,
2,
2,
2,
4,
7,
5,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on if you are asking why originally or why we continue? Also how short/long term you are asking? \n \nThe original reason: The technology to send a man to the moon is identical to the one that can send a 100 megaton warhead to Moscow. This allowed everyone to wave phallic objects at each other while not starting a war.\n \nImmediate term: Our satellites do a lot of things for us. Our solar observatories also tell us if the sun is about do something bad to us or our satellites. \n \nShort Term: Most of the iridium we use comes from bits scattered from the asteroid that helped kill the dinosaurs. We can skip the middleman and just snag one for ourselves. \n \nLong Term: Speaking of dinosaurs, they got wiped out because they didn't have a space program to redirect asteroids. We could avert one with or without Bruce Willis. \n \nReally Long Term: Having humanity all on earth is like putting every single egg that has been and ever will be in one planet sized basket. One big event could wipe it out, best if we're in a bunch of planets all over the place or it's all over once that big thing happens.\n\nUnimaginably long term: Our sun is dying, it has only a few billion years left to live, best we start our moving plans early",
"Studying technologies needed for space exploration has given us many invaluable technologies for life here on Earth. See [_URL_0_](https://_URL_0_/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html#bctop). So as well as funding things like space travel that might be a necessity in the future, we are also investing in technological reasearch that benefits everyday life.",
"To gather vital information for science. Are you interested in things like whether life exists on other planets?\n\nHow about knowing the make up of other planets or solar systems? Their atmospheres, orbitals, geological features, etc? \n\nWhat about things like the big bang, black holes, cosmic background radiation, etc?\n\nAll of these pieces of data we collect is essential in studying things like geology, climate science and even physics.\n\nAnd in doing this we put a whole ton of research and development into things like robotics, rocketry, communication systems, and etc. As someone already pointed out, this research itself has had ton of practical impact on our economy and our daily lives.",
"It's not so much space exploration but investing in fundamental science.\n\nScience needs to test it's theories. Most theories can explain the \"average\" or \"normal\" stuff even if they're wrong. To really test our scientific theories (that all modern technology is based on) then we need to find the extreme environments that these theories can be further investigated.\n\nSince we have two major scientific theories in physics (dealing with the small, Quantum Mechanics (QM), and dealing with the big, General Relativity (GR)) then to test these theories and see where they breakdown, and hopefully inspire the next suite of ideas to surpass them, then you are only going to do it by looking at the very small (for testing QM) or the very large (for testing GR). The first means we need to invest in things like the LHC and the latter means we need to investigate the universe - hence space exploration.\n\nNow the even more interesting thing is that trying to understand the big (the big bang, event horizons and black holes and their singularities) also requires us to understand the very small world too and vice versa. So we need space exploration to push the limits of our scientific understanding since any new insights will revolutionize the world.\n\nThere is also a second part: History shows us that if we invest in fundamental science we eventually get our investment back plus a couple of thousand fold return.\n\nThink about how long it took from electricity being discovered (17th century) to taking it for granted after it's universal use (20th century). When people were being dazzled by their first look at electric lighting (early 20th century) in their cities most physicists were puzzling about the strange world of Quantum Mechanics. This world of strangeness gives us little insight to the common world we interact with but it eventually gave us the transistor and we don't need to go into how that story unfolds.\n\nHistory also shows us that any attempt to predict where we should spend money for a better return on investment is usually doomed to failure. Instead, it shows us that people following their curiosity and their need to understand the natural world are the biggest influences in new science (and hence new technology and hence new jobs). Space exploration is one area where curiosity and the scientific endeavor naturally leads us to want to explore further.",
"If you need to ask why, you probably wouldn't understand anyway. It's the same reason people climbed everest, the same reason our ancestors built boats out of logs and sailed uncharted oceans, same reason we went to the poles and explored the ocean depths. \n\nBecause it's there. It's ours to reach out and take. It challenges us.\n\nHuman curiosity and need to explore are what makes us human. Our drive for exploration and conquering new lands is a huge part of what has made us so successful as a species. It's in our blood and our bones. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.",
"As an engineering student, who took it up due to a life long LOVE for asking the \"why's\" behind everything, I can tell you why I personally believe space exploration is good for humanity. \n\nIt's as simple as suggesting that we need to constantly be pushing ourselves further and further. Humanity never achieved its current successes simply by \"doing what needed to be done\" at a given moment in time. \n\nUnfortunately, the real reason was clearly stated in the top comment. Our territorial human instincts ultimately led us to where we are. Wars happened, and nations required technological superiority. \n\nBut... that doesn't undermine the human desire to go further. At the end of the day, we are humans, and we do question things. Why is the sky blue, why did the apple fall from the tree, how do we communicate between continents, how do we communicate between worlds!?\n\nSo I guess the practical answer to your question is that GOVERNMENTS invest in space exploration as a means of imperialism. The Roman empire did the same thing with Europe, perhaps America will continue on to Mars - whether or not America eventually dissolves. \n\nThe engineers answer to your question is because we owe it... to the founding fathers of calculus and physics, for the love of engineering and to just look at a celestial body one day and say \"we did it\". To the explorers of the renaissance era. We owe it to those guys. They didn't end the chain of human curiosity, so why should we? \nSo our minds lead us further and further into the unknown. ",
"Space exploration gives us so much more than the physical exploration of the space around us (Earth). So many things we use, day-to-day, were spawned from space exploration, from baby formula to solar panels (no, not Velcro). Even if nothing ever comes of our space program (or at least in a timeframe meaningful to you or your descendants), the technological advances made in the pursuit of space exploration are invaluable.",
"The government uses those developments to catch us crossing the speed limits, for example by using the doppler-effect. Thank you space exploration! Kappa\n",
"Better question: Why do we invest in *manned* space exploration?",
"Did you by any chance post this using a phone, which relies on satellites on a network level?",
"As a literal investment, we see a $7-14 ROI for every $1 we spend.\n\n_URL_0_",
"This is going to be buried, but I honestly think this answer is answered pretty thoroughly by Robert Zubrin in his answer to why we should be going to Mars: \n\n > As I see it, there are three reasons why Mars should be the goal of our space program: and in short, it’s because Mars is where the science is, it’s where the challenge is, and it’s where the future is. It’s where the science is because Mars was once a warm and wet planet, it had liquid water on its surface for more than a billion years, which was about 5 times as long as it took life to appear on Earth after there was liquid water on here, so if the theory is correct that life is a natural development from chemistry, where if you have liquid water, various elements and enough time, life should have appeared on Mars even if it subsequently went extinct, and if we can go to Mars and find fossils of past life, we would have proven that the development of life is a general phenomenon in the universe. Or if go to Mars and find plenty of evidence of past bodies of water but no evidence of fossils or the development of life, then we can say that the development of life from chemistry is not sort of a natural process that occurs with high probability but includes some freak chance and we could be alone in the universe. Furthermore if we can go to Mars and drill, because there’s liquid water underground on Mars, reach the ground water, there could be life there now. And if we can get hold of that and look at it and examine its biological structure and biochemistry we could find out if life as it exists on Mars is the same as Earth life because all Earth life at the biochemical level is the same—we all use the same amino acids, the same method of replicating and transmitting information, RNA and DNA, all that---is that what life has to be, or could life be very different from that? Are we what life is, or are we just one example drawn from a much vaster tapestry of possibilities? This is real science, this is fundamental questions that thinking men and women wondered about for thousands of years, the role of life in the universe. This is very different from going to the moon and dating craters in order to produce enough data to get a credible paper to publish in the journal of geophysical research and get tenure, okay? This is, you know, hypothesis driven, critical science. This is the real thing. \n\n > Second, the challenge. I think societies are like individuals, we grow when we challenge ourselves, we stagnate when we do not. A humans to Mars program would be tremendously bracing challenge for our society, it would be tremendously productive particularly amoung youth. Humans to Mars program would say to every kid in school today, “Learn your science and you could be an explorer of a new world.” We’d get millions of scientists, engineers, and inventors, technological entrepreneurs, doctors, medical researchers out of that, and the intellectual capital from that would enormously benefit us. It would dwarf the cost of the program. \n\n > And then finally, it’s the future. Mars is the closest planet that has on it all the resources needed to support life and therefore civilization. If we do what we can do in our time—we establish that little Plymouth rock settlement on Mars—then 500 years from now, there’ll be new branches of human civilization on Mars and I believe throughout nearby interstellar space, but you know, look: I ask any American what happened in 1492? They’ll tell me, “Well Columbus sailed in 1492,” and that is correct, he did. But that is not the only thing that happened in 1492. In 1492, England and France signed a peace treaty. In 1492, the Borgias took over the papacy. In 1492, Lorenzo De’Medici, the richest man in the world, died. Okay? A lot of things happened, if there had been newspapers in 1492, which there weren’t, but if there had, those would have been the headlines, not this Italian weaver’s son taking a bunch of ships and sailing off to nowhere, okay? But Columbus is what we remember, not the Borgias taking over the papacy. Well, 500 years from now, people are not going to remember which faction came out on top in Iraq, or Syria, or whatever, and who was in and who was out and you know….but they will remember what we do to make their civilization possible, okay? \n\n > So this is the most important thing we could do, the most important thing we could do in this time, and if you have it in your power to do something great and important and wonderful, then you should. \n",
"Space? Why did we leave the cave? It was warm in the cave, safe in the cave. There was room for the tribe and our stuff? Going new places is scary. Stay here, stay with me... in the cave.",
"I hijack this Eli5 to ask the opposit question : Why don't we put more money into space exploration ? Why do we have to wait for people like Elon Musk to put his own money to make the thing moving toward ?",
"Ever explore your neighborhood to find out what unique and interesting things you might be living near? It's a little like that. Only bigger. ",
"I can only answer this question with a question.\n\nWhy would we not want to go to space? Why would we want to stay here spinning our wheels in the mud just recycling our old history and culture? Why dont the birds stay in the nest?\n\nFrankly, anything thats not contributing in even some small way to getting us as a species into space, is a waste of time!",
"One reason is knowledge. The Mars missions, for example. We don't really know how or why life began on Earth. It could be that life in any form is just really, really, REALLY rare and we're the only ones out there. Discovery of life on Mars could help answer questions about the likelihood of life developing on planets. If life existed on two planets just in our solar system alone, that kindof eliminates the \"rare Earth\" theory.\n\nAnother reason is technological advancement. Every space mission requires us to develop and implement new technology from scratch. We have NASA to thank for all kinds of things - memory foam, LED lights, smoke detectors, solar cells - all of these were invented/developed by NASA for use in space missions.\n\n",
"Native American saying: \"We do not inherite the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children\".\n\nSame can be said about technology. If we do not ensure that our children have the best opportunities to leave earth, if some asteroid hits or a mega volcano goes off, then the blood of our children will be on our hands, cause we did not do our very best.",
"Because aliens. We want to know whether or not we are alone in the darkness.\n\nBut seriously, there are actions we could, and should, take to make this planet more sustainable because we're just going to end up draining the resources of wherever we go to next as well, if we even last long enough to get to that point. Theres no evidence that we would have everything on a new planet conducive to our life anyway, which equates to more resources that have to be acquired elsewhere, namely earth(unless we take them from \"resource\" planets). But that would still entail getting there and bringing the resources back. What would we drink? Eat? Breathe? What would we build with? How would we sustain a society?\nThat is unless we miraculously found a \"perfect\" planet equivalent to earth with atmosphere, water, and things we could use as food(Which is about as mind boggling as us being on earth in the first place).\nAlso, without some significant advances in physics and spacetime travel or cryogenic/stasis technology, even if we find somewhere out there habitable by the human race, we arent currently capable of getting a mass number of people very far from our galaxy. I understand the desire to seek and explore, i just dont think its feasible to expect colonization with our current technology. The best adaptation of space travel presently, to me at least, seems to be the exploration of the laws and theories of physics and spacetime, to see if theres the possibility of bending, or breaking them, to get us further out into space. Like black holes, terrifying and fascinating at the same time. Because even if we find a perfect doppleganger planet for earth, we still have to get there..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"spinoff.nasa.gov",
"https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html#bctop"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.21stcentech.com/money-spent-nasa-waste/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
dlw7pd | what is the difference between renting and "sharing"? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dlw7pd/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_renting_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4urple",
"f4uvvyo",
"f4vn1eb"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Its more about advertising than a real difference however, i will try to give some examples what some differences could be. \n\nBluesg is also a rental service but they call it ''sharing''. people tend to like sharing because it makes them feel good, so the marketing department names it sharing, but their actual website shows quote'' The rental ends when you have plugged in the car'' \n\nas to airbnb: the original sales pitch was about the feeling to be able to ''share'' your place with someone else and that feels good, + you make some money. But in the end it is a rental. \n\noften rental flats or housing is an agreement for a ''longer'' period of time, think of months/years whereas airbnb and other website often rent for a few days/weeks. This has also to do with the law. for example: in my country, the netherlands, we cannot ''rent'' out our place more than x days a year and x days straight. \n\nTL:DR: it is more about the phrasing/wording than there is an actual difference.",
"There's no legal/functional difference. It's almost all PR. \n\nThe cultural difference is that \"sharing\" is from (presumably) normal people renting out their rooms/cars/etc. as opposed to an actual entity buying rooms/cars/etc for the express purpose of renting it out. Building a hotel = renting; renting out a room in your house that was already built = sharing. Since lots of people are now explicitly building rooms for rent in AirBnB, this distinction doesn't mean much.",
"When many of the tech start-ups like AirBnB, Uber, etc. started up, they used the \"share\" terminology to try and emphasize that they were just facilitating a connection between people and not operating a business directly.\n\nHotels have all sorts of rules, regulations, etc. to abide by. Taxi and limo services had all sorts of licensing and regulations to follow. AirBnB, Uber, etc. were trying to skirt those... sure, it's illegal to drive a taxi without a medallion and driver with proper commercial license, but it's perfectly OK to ask a friend for a ride someplace with no requirements. No, you can't operate a hotel with a license, but it's not an issue to have your buddy crash in your spare room while in town. And so these tech companies were trying to sell the idea that they were just introducing new friends, so to speak, who perhaps exchange money for the favor. Obviously, over time they've spent a lot of time and effort to get explicit approvals to operate and become more legit and up front as to how their business models work, but a lot of the \"share\" terminology has remained."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7utmqy | why did audio dvds never become a thing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7utmqy/eli5_why_did_audio_dvds_never_become_a_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtn15sy",
"dtn19dm"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"By the time DVDs really started getting popular, CDs were becoming far from the only option of storing and transmitting audio. Some companies tried to create devices around a new standard (such as Super Audio CD), but the potential customer base for new expensive CD-like players was essentially dead. \n\nMany modern car and portable CD players also supported reading mp3 files from a burned CD, which was another way to massively increase runtime, and didn't involve any new disc standards. Digital media was also becoming affordable and common ",
"Well we basically did with MP3 CDs. Those could hold a ton more songs. Also, the rise of the MP3 player basically killed the need for a disc based system. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3xvo1c | how do snow plows stay on the road when operating in low visibility conditions? | And how do they carve such an accurate path through the snow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xvo1c/eli5_how_do_snow_plows_stay_on_the_road_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy86xoi",
"cy872wf",
"cy8gyvw"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They try their best. They do go off, they do hit curbs, they do get into accidents. Typically, the drivers are well versed in the area, their vehicle, and driving in those conditions.\n\nThe accurate path is thanks to the plow design and steady driving. It's a skill, like painting straight lines on the side of the road.",
"There are also many guides to help them on habitually snowy roads. Snow poles at the start/end of guard rails, around fire hydrants, etc. help guide them. \n\nPlus, it really has to be bad before you can't even see the side of the road. ",
"How does the guy who drives the snow plough get to work???"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2joxp5 | why do we still wear warm clothes, like sweatshirts and jeans, and get under large numbers of blankets in the winter even if our homes are a comfortable temperature? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2joxp5/eli5_why_do_we_still_wear_warm_clothes_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cldthzv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For one, you still spend time outside going to and from work or scooping snow. This cools your body off to a certain degree, and so you get below normal and feel cold even after you've come inside. \n\nPlus, if you've lived in some \"wonderful\" homes like I have, then there are plenty of little nooks and crannies (or giant holes) that let small air current through. Alternatively, sitting close to a window allows you to feel the heat radiating away. \n\nTo top it all off, humans are good at imagining things and planning. So when you look outside and see a bunch of white stuff, the trees blowing in the wind, you know it's cold and your brain, being smart like it is, says \"we should bundle up while we have the chance.\" "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
48zkyn | why did large wwii battleships require around 1,000 men to operate? | Could you break it down? Like, it took x amount to do this job, x amount to do that job? I just can't wrap my head around why it took a small city to operate it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48zkyn/eli5why_did_large_wwii_battleships_require_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0nvygx",
"d0nw4dz"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Not only WWII, but today we have ships that have 5000+ crew. It takes a small city to operate because it's essentially a small city! On top of the crew that is required to operate the guns, missiles, propulsion, sensors, planes, mechanics, etc, you have all the crew that is there to support the first group: Janitorial services, food prep, dentist, gym, barbershop...When the ship leaves the dock, It can be gone for months and has to meet all the needs it's crew may have during that time. ",
"It took a lot of labor to operate even small tasks because electronics and automation wasn't to the same level it is today. Today, missiles are the norm for naval combat, they're self contained units with their own fuel, own guidance system, etc.\n\nOn a battleship, almost everything was manual. A dozen or so guys loading rounds from storage into the gun elevators, to the guys loading the powder, the officers in charge of aiming, etc. \n\nThis old navy video showing just the crew of 79 sailors just to operate the guns. _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OmOQs0ziSU"
]
]
|
|
ayv9lx | i don't really understand how squaring numbers and square roots relate to the real world. | I have a hard time visualizing how it's used. So as an example, I understand how π relates to the surface of a circle. It just happens to be a ratio that relates to diameter. I can see how that is useful and funtional. I can see how Fibonacci manifests in nature and how the numbers can build on each other. I can see how there will always be 180° in a triangle, no matter the angles. I guess I just have a hard time imagining how squared and rooted numbers relate to anything. I mean I can plug numbers into equations.
Like for instance how does taking a radius, multiplying it by itself, then taking that value and multiplying it by π (πr^2) somehow magically give you the area of a circle? Maybe I'm saying it to much, I just don't understand what the exponent actually does. I usually just have a hard time understanding things fully unless I can visualize it. I can accept that that's just how it is, but it never quite feels as absorbed unless I can visualize it. Square roots for some reason have an even harder time visualizing but obviously it relates to squaring. It just always feels like when someone is doing it it's almost just like "ya I mean it's just 'a thing' you can do".
On the same train of thought, I don't get what the big deal with prime numbers are? It almost just feels like a mathematical meme, like do they actually correlate to anything? Is there something special that manifests, or lack of manifestation that, signifies why they are cool? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayv9lx/eli5_i_dont_really_understand_how_squaring/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei3hv67",
"ei3i6tv",
"ei3ia50",
"ei3jwux"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Well, the inverse square law is a good representation on how exponents exist in the real\nworld. The inverse square law can be used to describe how light spreads from its origin. It’s used extensively in physics and astronomy. \n\nExponential numbers are also used to model radioactive decay.",
"What interesting about a circle is that not only does the diameter relate to the circumference by pi, but the area does as well. The reason is most properly explained by calculus, but since you asked for a visual: picture a circle that fits perfectly in a square such that they touch at four points. Draw lines across those points to divide the square into four quadrants. See how each quadrant has a length of the radius r? And thus an area of r^(2)? The area of the whole square (that the circle fits within) is 4r^(2) to represent all four quadrants. But the circle, to account for the bits in the corners that they don’t share, is not 4 but 3.14159r^(2) or pi r(2).",
"One very significant use of squaring in normal life is for dealing with higher dimensional objects. Geometrically, squaring a line makes a square (thus the name) and cubing it makes a cube. This is very useful with units. You can measure the distance between the door and window in meters, but it's not useful at all for the area of the room. For an area, you need to square the meter, which represents a 2d surface. Then when you want to measure how much water is in a container, you need to go up to cubic meters, which represent a volume. Square rooting goes the other way. Distance in our world is also measured by adding together the squares of displacement in each direction and then square rooting it. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnother big place you'll see it is probability. The probability of flipping a coin and 5 times and getting all heads is equal to the probability of it happening once, to the power of how many times you do it. Thus (0.5\\^5).",
"Let's play with some square tiles. The tiles are one inch on a side. If you make a square that is one inch on each side, you just need one tile. If you make a square that is two inches on a side, how many tiles do you need?\n\n [][]\n [][]\n\nLook at that. Two inches on each side, it uses four tiles. How about three inches on a side.\n\n [][][]\n [][][]\n [][][]\n\nIt takes nine tiles.\n\nI think you see where this is going. The number of tiles it takes increases as the square of the edge. If the edge is *n*, the area is *n^2*\n\nIt turns out, if you do this with other shapes, you find the exact same relationship. Let's say you have triangular tiles that are one inch on a side. To make a one inch triangle, you use one triangle. As you play with it, you will see that a triangle with two inch sides use four tiles, three inches uses nine tiles, etc.\n\nThis works for all two dimensional shapes, including circles. The \"squared\" in the formula for the area of a circle is there because the radius of the circle is a length, and what you're calculating is an area. To go from length to area, there's going to be a \"squared\" somewhere in the mix.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1t55uv | when websites that illegally stream movies can easily be found on google, why are they not immediately shut down for copyright violations? | Why are websites that offer free movie streaming, like PutLocker, not shut down by authorities for violating copyright laws? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t55uv/eli5_when_websites_that_illegally_stream_movies/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4fezw",
"ce4ffrg"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ is hosted in Tonga and it's difficult for a US company to get a foreign host to shut down a site.",
"Laws in one country don't apply in another country"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"Putlocker.to"
],
[]
]
|
|
2bped5 | why cant we choose what are tax money is used for? | As far as I understand it, taxes are a way for government to make its money and then is supposed to use that money for the betterment of a nation. but why can we (the tax payers) choose what are money is used for rather than blindly giving it to the government so they can do what they want with it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bped5/eli5_why_cant_we_choose_what_are_tax_money_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj7kpzo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"1. Because the particular type of democracy practiced by most countries is not direct democracy. You don't get to vote on whether or not your tax dollars are used to buy a tank or buy a new public bus, you vote in a representative that you hope will agree with you on whether the tank or the bus is a better use of public funds.\n\n2. Because it is implicitly understood (\"the social contract\") that we as private individuals are not supposed to have direct and personal control over where our tax dollars go towards, as it would undoubtedly boil down to simply allocating towards initiatives and activities that would only directly benefit us."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
60djzk | why do we feel like we have no emotion when we're depressed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60djzk/eli5_why_do_we_feel_like_we_have_no_emotion_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"df5kb8o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of times a person can \"go numb\" because they haven't developed proper coping mechanisms to help handle their emotions. By going numb they are able to avoid the pain while also avoiding the problem. Trust me though, numb is far worse than pain, at least in my situation. I'd rather hurt than feel nothing. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
35ue4p | why do americans hate "socialism" when aspects of it have led to other developed nations becoming much more prosperous? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35ue4p/eli5_why_do_americans_hate_socialism_when_aspects/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr7vggk",
"cr7vmiz",
"cr7vp43",
"cr7vstt",
"cr7vzfz",
"cr7w25a",
"cr7wfe8",
"cr7wk0h",
"cr7wp62",
"cr7wrhj",
"cr7wxhd",
"cr7xkt4",
"cr7y1lq",
"cr7ya5v",
"cr7ynd8",
"cr7zffh",
"cr7zq27",
"cr7zxnq",
"cr804z6",
"cr80a1o",
"cr80axa",
"cr80mun",
"cr80o6b",
"cr80vrp",
"cr81jj8",
"cr821ey",
"cr82dic",
"cr82i2y",
"cr82itr",
"cr82mri",
"cr830hd",
"cr83apk",
"cr83kr8",
"cr83nct",
"cr83o64",
"cr84fy6",
"cr863jf",
"cr86zfb",
"cr877fh",
"cr87jtj",
"cr87wng",
"cr880oz",
"cr88lri",
"cr88qq6",
"cr89cpd",
"cr8aidh"
],
"score": [
69,
93,
99,
2,
2,
38,
2,
3,
446,
22,
4,
2,
54,
15,
6,
18,
16,
12,
2,
2,
3,
48,
2,
5,
13,
2,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
9,
3,
6,
3,
3,
2,
5,
3,
3,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Americans are not enthusiastic about central, state-run, systems because they are concerned that when everyone gets the same benefits there will be no motivation to advance oneself or the society. Their history shows that capitalistic motivators have produced great advances, and the unfortunate outcomes of capitalism place an acceptable cost on society (to provide a safety-net level of services).",
"Considering that France's unemployment rate is twice that of the United State's, I'm not sure you want to use France as an example of socialism that works. Cuba has great healthcare too. Doesn't mean you'd want to live there.",
"Much of the general opposition to socialism comes from two lines of reasoning that are usually found together:\n\n* It will necessitate higher taxes.\n\n* Socialism is un-American.\n\nThe first one is fairly obvious, but the second one may require some explanation. For the second half of the twentieth century, the United States (a Capitalist democratic republic) was rivals with the Soviet Union (a Communist, totalitarian state). One consequence of this was a frenzy among the American people to be everything the Soviets were *not*.\n\nWe tacked \"Under God\" on our paper money and our Pledge of Allegiance because the Soviets were too secular. We pretended to be peaceful negotiators because the Soviets were conquerors. We embraced the free market because the Soviets embraced state control. And most relevant here...we celebrated rugged individualism because the Soviets had socialism.\n\nMany Americans still alive today remember the Soviet Union, and as such still get a bad taste in their mouths when socialism is mentioned. They still see it as embracing something that America isn't.",
"Americans spent 50+ years being told that communism is evil. They also see socialism as a type of \"gateway communism\"\n\nBasically, we're taught that America is the greatest country on earth, and it's all thanks to capitalism. We're also taught that socialism is the enemy of capitalism. ",
"Quick follow up question: How is banning drugs like marijuana not considered to be socialist/authoritarian? Not saying no one considers it that, it's just that I don't hear anyone criticizing these policies for being socialist.",
"In one word, motivation. France has massive unemployment and stagnant growth, so it's a tough example. And as I understand it, when Canadians with money have serious medical issues, they venture South for the best care. America is about being the best at everything, even if the best is only accessible by a few.\n\nThe stuff America is not best at (e.g., internet access, public transportation) tends to be highly regulated or government-run...which reinforces this concept. It's part of the DNA of the culture. ",
"There are multiple ways of measuring success and efficiency. I am sure France would not want to measure success by level of advancement in the healthcare field, although they get to benefit from medical advancements regardless of much less they contribute than the US.",
"Is it really fair to say that universal health care is really a true socialist idea, though? You can have universal health care without the government being directly involved.\n\nThe thing is, most Americans don't hate the concept of universal health care, but do not like the idea of the federal government controlling every aspect of it and society.\n\nThe prime example would be the Affordable Care Act, which *is not* universal healthcare but still a government-mandated act. It mandates that Americans must have health insurance but it does nothing to address the real problem of health care.\n\n > France has the best healthcare system in the world, it is almost entirely run by the state.\n\nIt also has some of the highest taxes in the world, is dealing with an immigration and cultural issue, very high unemployment and a stagnant economy.",
"I'm not sure France has the *best* health care system in the world, but it's certainly a good one. And their health outcomes are demonstrably better than ours.\n\nBut a few observations that help answer your question.\n\n1. First of all, the United States is much more center-right than center-left, politically. There are a huge number of reasons that might be the case, but it's undoubtedly true. We are, politically, significantly to the right of almost any part of Europe.\n\n2. Second, the word \"socialism\" in the US has a historical stigma. When Americans think of socialism, they don't think of Sweden or Norway, they think of Stalin.\n\n3. With respect to health care specifically, most Americans who have insurance are actually *extremely* satisfied with the quality of the care itself. The availability of care is the problem.\n\n4. We're seldom satisfied with the quality of service we receive from government agencies. Take the Post Office vs. FedEx. Walk into any Post Office and you see long lines, metal countertops, no working pens. Walk into a FedEx Kinkos and there's seldom a line, service is better, there's wifi, etc. Same applies, we at least imagine, to health care. There's a world of difference between the leather couches and complimentary bottled mineral water at my fiance's OBGYN and the amenities and service you find at a free clinic run by the government. I'm not a fan of our health care system, but for those who do get care and don't have to fight with their insurance companies, care isn't just good; it's often luxurious.\n\n[typo]",
"A country like France is more like a State in America. France has a small population that is fairly homogeneous and tends to agree more with themselves than the whole US does with itself. Healthcare handled by the States in America would be much closer to what France has. Forcing every American to have socialized health care would be risky because it introduces many ways for people to exploit the system. That, and half the country does not want such a thing in the first place. Let states where the majority of people want it try it out and let the other states follow their example if they so choose. That's what states are for, experimentation. The Federal government is set up in such a way that its powers are limited by the Constitution so we don't put all our eggs in one basket and risk systemic collapse.\n\nIf one state gets in trouble for a poor decision other states can choose to help out and the whole country is not damaged to a point where self defense is jeopardized.",
"The simplest explanation for me is that most people associate socialism with communism (to the point they think it's the same thing). And communism = Russia, China, Cuba which is not something anybody wants.",
"For some 150 years, there has been an ongoing smear campaign in America against socialism, and now many Americans just automatically associate it with evil.\n\nBack in the 19th century, socialism became quite popular among people fighting for social justice and decent working conditions and pay. Socialism almost caught on as a major political force, there were several socialist political candidates that did well.\n\nBut the robber barons of the time mounted an enormous smear campaign against it, equating it with anarchy, bomb-throwing lunatics, etc.\n\nWhen Stalin shot whoever was standing in front of him and seized control of Russia, that made things a whole lot easier for the smear campaign, because now it was easy to confuse people by conflating Stalinism with socialism (made easier by Russia loudly proclaiming it was socialist. It really wasn't very).\n\nAlso in the early 20th century, the government finally got off its ass and started passing health and safety laws, and unions gained significant power in dealing with workplace atrocities, so socialism began to fall out of favor among the general public.\n\nBy the time of the Cold War, the decades of propaganda finally paid off, and socialism acquired the permanent taint of dictatorship and evil some still associate with it today. Indeed, the conservatives managed to shoot down the nascent universal healthcare movement by branding it as \"socialized medicine.\" A B-movie actor named Ronald Reagan even recorded a speech detailing the HORRORS of socialized medicine, and it was released on a record album that got played at a lot of country club luncheons. Decades later, long after the collapse of the Soviet system, when the ACA was being debated, conservatives even trotted out the old term like it was some dusty, moldy, old cardboard Frankenstein statue at a carny funhouse. And people still swallowed it.\n\n",
"For generations, we have believed that you make your own way; tenacity and hard work are their own rewards but with them and luck comes success. Socialism has been viewed as an unhealthy reliance on a government likely, maybe even guaranteed to become too big and too overbearing. Assistance was given to those in need through sundry private venues, although many of those even were too proud to take help and would rather die in the struggle than rely on anyone else. \"Liberty or Death,\" truly. This attitude seems to be changing, for better and worse.\n\nMany people also rightly understand that we can not directly compare our situations with any of the 'favorite' socialized nations, e.g. Sweden; solutions for our friends across the water or across the border are not necessarily good solutions for us.",
"Because the vast majority of socialist programs and policies would fail horribly in the United States as its gigantic compared to the small countries that have implemented it successfully.\n\nAlso we have the largest immigrant population by far both illegal/legal and this is just the kind of thing that completely screws up the system as you're having an influx of usually poor, non-English speaking, people who ruin the system if that's your largest portion of population growth (which it is by far) \n\nThis is already screwing up countries like the aforementioned France and Sweden as more and more North Africans immigrate to their countries. you can find a multitude of articles talking about how Sweden [is in crisis](_URL_0_) because of this and that population pales in comparison to even most U.S. States lol.\n\nIn short, the infrastructure of a socialist system is highly improbable due to these factors and many more mostly based on such a high population with low-relative density across the continental states. In fact we are already seeing significantly smaller socialist countries face a multitude of problems and even the best ones you used as an example are coming to terms with how to combat immigration.",
"This explanation is based on my fallible memory of my political ideologies class which was taught by a professor who is a reputable educator: Dr. Celoza from Arizona State University.\n\nEvery political ideology has 3 parts to it. There is the population the ideology is for, the ultimate goal for that ideology (freedom), and the obstacle to that goal.\n\nEvery society says it's working towards freedom. Many societies say they are working towards democracy. These are both contested concepts. For example, the US' perspective of democracy is clearly different than that of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea. It's like arguing over the best flavor of ice cream, dictionary definitions aside. Dictionaries from different societies are not written by the same people.\n\nSo basically political ideologies are like leap-frog (the game where the kid hops over the hunched over kid in front of them). \n\nIn the United States, a country founded on the idea of being free from an oppressive government, the ideology (known as classical liberalism but is the opposite of today's definition of liberal) is for the individual. The obstacle to the individual's freedom is government, and freedom is defined as basically getting to do what you want. Freedom is making sure you can get your own slice of pizza to ensure you get the kind you want.\n\nIn other parts of the world (for example Canada, the UK, etc.) the ideology serves the community. The obstacle to freedom is not government. The definition of freedom in a community-based society is to ensure everyone has access to resources. So freedom is making sure everyone gets a slice of pizza.\n\nThere's a lot of history behind this which I briefly mentioned earlier. I want to recognize my very strong leaning in my personal politics towards very, very liberal or socialist policy. \n\nThe United States as we know it was created by people who were running away from something or someone. It was founded on the notion of distrust but also trauma. It was certainly not an easy journey (even more difficult for the indigenous they later met). They were running away to get what they wanted. The settlers from Britain specifically were upset about they saw as unfair taxes. Later in US history, this led to the Boston tea party, a protest on tea taxes imposed by the king. The colonists (specifically a small group called the Sons of Liberty which was led by Samuel Adams - like the beer) were pissed off about \"taxation without representation.\" It's like when a journalist writes an article about someone without interviewing them. So they were like \"wtf? you guys didn't even ask how we felt about this.\" In today's society, one could argue that the lack of the poor and/or people of color in Congress is a form of taxation without representation. Basically, your voice as a group is not heard when laws are made that affect you.\n\nThis leads to the revolution blah blah, which leads to the Declaration of Independence. This document, and the beliefs of the people who wrote it, is based on a lot of political philosophers' ideas. The most notable guy they were fanboys of is John Locke. John Locke argued that the purpose of government was to protect the people's right to \"life, liberty, and property.\" When writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson changed it to \"the pursuit of happiness,\" a subjective idea that many cultures and subcultures have argued over. For example, if you ask a homophobic person about it, they will often say that gay rights interferes with their right to pursue happiness if the LGBT community becomes a protected class (meaning it's illegal to discriminate against them). An even better example is that these men owned slaves whose right to pursue happiness did not matter. The point is changing a phrase in a document does not change its inspiration or the fact that ideas were seen as valuable enough to base government off of.\n\nThe United States runs off of the pursuit of property more than the pursuit of happiness. For example, many cities outlaw feeding the homeless in parks because it may devalue the property of the park for the owner.\n\nOkay so moving on, there's also the idea of \"Manifest Destiny,\" another way of saying \"we get what we want.\" It refers to the colonists moving farther and farther west on the continent in order to find what they wanted, things like gold, land, work, etc. \n\nLater on we come to the Civil War, where the South was upset by the idea that they might not be able to do or have what they want. While freedom from slavery was part of it, it was definitely not the core issue. It was the financial value of using slaves for the businesses in the South. In short, the war was about who deserves to have what - who gets what they want. \n\nGoing back to the colonists who originally came here, they came out of fear of religious and economic persecution. Many of the immigrant populations who later came also come from places of fear. When people make decisions from fear, the results are not always logical. Based on my family, good example of this are the once younger but now old Cuban refugees who fled during the revolution. Before the revolution was a fascist dictatorship led by Batista. The United States liked that government, because they got what they wanted from it. Anyway, many of the immigrants who left in this decade are very conservative now and the reason is fear. They are so afraid of what they saw/felt/experienced during the revolution that anything that comes anywhere near reminding them of it is inherently bad due to the revolution being a traumatic experience. They see it as touching a hot stove more than once.\n\nThe truth is most Americans don't know what socialism actually is. Most Americans are not involved in government at all. They are extremely skeptical of government due to fearing being oppressed by it to the point that they don't exercise their right to vote. People argue about whether or not it makes a difference. The value of a vote changes from the local level to the national level. That's beside the point though. \n\nAs mentioned in the other comments, World War II came around and with it came the \"Red Scare.\" It is exactly what it sounds like. It was a witch hunt, except the witches were socialists. The American government became what it feared and people began to rat each other out as socialists, communists, as people who don't want you to get what you want as an individual. Getting what a group wants means you may not get what you want in the end. If no one is telling you what to do, then you can do whatever the fuck you want. \n\nWhen we fight a war against people, even if it isn't about their government's set up, it becomes us versus them. It becomes much easier to kill people if everything about them is bad and wrong. Being a socialist became inherently unAmerican as someone else noted.\n\nAfter WWII, this idea called American Exceptionalism became a big deal. It can be summarized as \"'Murica, fuck yeah!\" When the war ended, the international community came together to discuss human rights and war crimes. The definition of war crimes came to be if the US did it, it's not a war crime. The US got what it wanted. This is sometimes good and sometimes bad. It's good the WWII was won, not so good that we became impossible to try for a long time afterward (if not still). To this day, the UN is very heavily swayed by what the US wants. \n\nAmerican Exceptionalism is why many immigrants see this as the land of opportunity - why many Americans see this as the land of opportunity despite growing economic inequality and decreasing class mobility. We're just like a company who puts out ads saying how awesome we are. We do it around the world and within our own borders. Critiquing our own country within government is considered being a traitor. Talking shit about the government if you are not in it is called being a patriot. This is slowly changing.\n\nBasically, Americans have NEVER liked government, taxes, or things that generally get in the way of their desires. Freedom here is define as doing/getting what you want, even if it means someone else can't. \n\nIn today's world, these ideas are supported by several groups. The Republicans, the Tea Party, Libertarians, and channels like Fox News are usually the ones blame, because they are the most obvious. However, Democrats are not the most socialist in nature either. They are becoming a little bit but nowhere near as much as their equivalents in other countries' political parties. Based on all of the above, being marked as a socialist is a big insult, even to those who consider themselves more level-headed. The only people who tend to not be insulted by it are the people who actually know what it means and don't use Nazi, fascist, socialist, communist in the same sentence as if they mean the same thing. \n\nIn the end, power is not a renewable resource. The more others gain power, the less power the people who currently hold it can have. The less power they have, the less they get whatever they want. Americans, even the ones who have nothing, see this as freedom. Anything that gets in the way of that inhibits freedom and who would ever do such a thing as inhibit one's ability to be free?!",
"Socialism only works in small countries with not a lot of immigrants and the whole populace contributes in some way to the economy, like Denmark.\nAmerica has a large population and lots of people who do not contribute to anything.",
"In France we are close to \"running out of other people's money\"\nMy generation will most likely not get any retirement pensions, the Ponzi scheme won't last 50 more years",
"I'm curious why you think other nations are more 'prosperous' than the US? Per capita GDP the US is in the top 10, France doesn't crack the top 20. I also think France is a very poor example since they don't technically have socialized medicine. They actually have a similar situation to the US in many ways, although a bit more centralized.\n\nThe US health care system also has quite a few extra challenges due to the vastly divergent population densities of the US vs the European counterparts.",
"Ignorance, and having that ignorance reenforced mercilessly by the right wing media.\n\nHell, I could name a good many programs in the US that ARE already socialism. Programs that help poor people by the thousands daily.\n\nBut the FYIGM attitude endemic in the GOP at this point doesn't care about anybody who doesn't contribute millions to their campaigns.\n\n(Note: Democrats aren't a ton better in general, but with regards to socialism, they are streets ahead.)",
"It's largely about the strong belief in individual freedoms. An individual should get to decide what to do with his money rather than the government choosing 'winners' and 'losers'.",
"American's have always had a sense of \"Rugged Individualism\". From the first settlers to modernity. \n\nWhen settlers first arrived there was ample land to dole out and people depending on their merits and work ethics could realistically make a living for oneself or even become wealthy. This mentality although not as popular as it once was, has been indoctrinated in the culture, and the idea that you can pull yourself up by the boot straps and become what ever you want has persisted. \n\nEurope on the other hand has been settled for millennia and it is often more important who your family in determining your outcome, and not so much your effort due to the limits of resources. While you state other countries have become much more prosperous that is wrong. The United States is the greatest wealth/economic/military complex that has ever existed even after being adjusted for inflation. Many of the European countires were able to institute socialism only after several hundred years of taking advantage of other countries and building up considerable state wealth. (Belgium - Congo, Germany - West Africa, France - East Africa, Spain - The Americas, Portugal - The Americas, Netherlands - West Indies, United Kingdom - The Entire World)\n\nThe idea of Socialism as it was sold to the people of the United States is in direct contradiction to this rugged individualism ideal, and thus has been limited in its adoption. \n\ni.e. Europe has had many hundreds of years of people being limited to their abilities and thus the idea of socialism was more appealing and more easily adopted. While the United States had the resources to allow generations of citizens the opportunity to make their own destiny. ",
"There's a huge number of reasons why. The first thing to keep in mind is that describing countries that use \"socialism\" as \"much more prosperous\" isn't just misleading, it's wrong.\n\n[GDP Per Capita 2013](_URL_0_)\n\n-**United States $53,042**\n\n-France $42,560\n\n-Germany $46,251\n\n-Italy $35,685\n\n-Netherlands $50,792\n\n-Portugal $21,738\n\n-UK $41,781\n\n-Finland $49,150\n\n(Sweden and Norway have higher GDP per capita, although in Norway's case I'd suspect oil as the main reason why.)\n\nThe biggest cultural reason why is that US citizenry has a long history of distrust of central government organizations that runs right back to the Founders. Add to this the idea that socialism and the Russians basically go hand in hand and you're behind the 8 ball right away. For many (but not all) Americans, socialism is just a prettier way of saying communism. \n\nThen consider that European countries spend a considerably smaller amount of money on defense. The US is, for all intents and purposes, the army of Western and Central Europe these days. Countries like Italy, Spain, & Greece are bankrupting themselves without having to spend a considerable amount on defense. Imagine adding defense to the mix, and the amount spent on the social net starts to look unworkable.\n\nThen consider that nearly every interaction in the US where you can compare a private company with a public company (schools, delivery services, etc.) the private company ALWAYS outperforms the government. Whenever possible, people tend to choose to send their kids to private schools. Whenever possible, I avoid the post office due to long lines, surly workers, and even pens that don't work, but use FedEx Office for a lot of my printing and shipping needs. \n\nIf all you ever read is /r/politics and its comment sections, I can see why it'd be hard to understand why people think they way they do. Just understand that everyone in this world has a set of beliefs that they have acquired for reasons that are probably just as good as the beliefs you hold. If you keep this in mind, you'll do fine.",
"As a libertarian, I'm skeptical of socialist concepts simply because of its idealism (and yes, I also realize that libertarianism is also idealist in nature. I think there's a Pirates of the Caribbean quote somewhere in there).\n\nBack to my point: the government machine can work fine in theory, but the fact of the matter is that humans are imperfect. Humans are the ones put in charge of initiatives. Humans are corruptible. Governments are corruptible. The anti-socialist sentiment in America can be tied to an individualistic streak, not because individualism is \"the American way\" so to speak, but because there is a desire to limit government's power. Just look at how our three branches are structured. The Founder's wrote skepticism into the very fabric of our government.",
"This is an honest question - how many medical breakthroughs are the product of American capitalism, proportionally? My guess would be pretty high, and if that's the case it seems unfair that citizens from 'socialist' countries point the finger and laugh at our system when they're reaping massive benefits from it. Can anybody with knowledge chime in here? Thanks",
"I'm sorry, but this is a terrible question. It already presupposes a conclusion that I am sure many would like to argue against. Not here on Reddit of course, this kind of question will very quickly be overlooked as the conclusion it presents is a popular sentiment here.",
"Most resistance I've encountered is coupled with a remarkable degree of ignorance as to what the term means, as well as the odd notion that it's application is \"all or nothing\", meaning to embrace socialism in practice in any way is to advocate for a purely socialist government (which is of course ridiculous). Some of this is not at all by accident, as many in conservative politics in the US are quick to link socialism with communism (whether deliberate or yet more ignorance is debatable) or else believe the two to actually be the same thing - a sort of paranoid holdover all the way back to the McCarthy days that we in this nation seem to have a hard time shaking. Well, some of us anyway.",
"_URL_0_\n\nFrance has a good one, but no where near the best.",
"This question has many factors that weigh in on the outcome of what happened. America actually had a growing socialist party around the turn of the century until it was demonized by the republican and democratic parties. A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn should be required reading for every American. Most Americans probably don't even know what socialism actually is, they equate it with fascism and dictatorships. Americans have been force fed that anything other than capitalism and democracy is evil and should be feared and hated and if you don't then you hate freedom and the troops.",
"This is more of a soapbox than an ELI5. France may do a good job of delivering healthcare to a large quantity of people (hence raising average patient outcomes), but the quality for those who can afford it can't be touched by the U.S. When billionaire sheiks get cancer, do they go to France for treatment? No, they go to the U.S. Why do you think that is? Places like MD Anderson and John Hopkins consistently crush the rest of the world in hospital rankings. The US culture is one that wants the best, even if that comes at a price, and that's not an idea that's consistent with socialism. ",
"The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and since their tyrannical government was founded on the principles of Karl Marx, whose writings were also the basis of socialism, Americans do not want to associate themselves with a totalitarian Soviet-Style government.\n\nBeing rivals with the USSR for so long, and since many are not old enough to remember the totalitarian regime of Stalin, Americans inherently hate their style of Government because of what they read in history textbooks telling them that how bad the Soviets were and how great of rivals they were with America. \n\nBecause America hates the Communism of the Soviets, and because communism and socialism are different interpretations of the same body of work by Karl Marx, Americans hate socialism because they fear our government could become a totalitarian one. However, Americans believe that our government could become totalitarian just like the USSR because they simply do not understand the circumstances that need to be around for a totalitarian regime to take power. Hardly any Americans are aware what of how much turmoil a country must be in for a totalitarian regime to take over, because hardly any remember Stalin's reign from 1929-1953. But still, none want to have America be socialist because they do not want them to look anything like the \"commie\" states of the Cold War.",
"The US Government already spends a LOT of money on health care. About 25% of its budget & actual spending goes to health care programs alone. Nearly a trillion dollars. \n\nPeople have said a bunch of reasons to answer your question - I'll just add one more than I didn't see much of. The US has a lot of really good doctors, but the only reason they're really good is because they get paid a lot. You might look at that statement and very quickly disagree, saying people who don't get paid a lot can be just as good. Fine, it's true, they can be. But let me ask you this - assuming money was no issue to you, would you rather be seen by a doctor who charges $1,000,000 for a procedure, or one who charges $10,000. Personally, I would put much more faith in the person who's charging more. Most likely, that person has much better credentials/experience.\n\nThe best doctors (and most professional professions) will, generally, go to places where they get paid the most. In order to get paid the most, the prices for their services have to remain high. The prices would not remain high if the government intervened to a high degree. \n\nAccording to a single doctor I've spoken with (not many doctor contacts unfortunately, so I'm not an authority on the issue, just restating what I've seen/heard), the new Obamacare has already cost him some money. It may be different with other doctors. If the US Government took more control, and everybody had the same health insurance, and whatever else happens in France, you can bet that prices would go down, doctors would get paid less, and go somewhere else to get more. Or they would just stop accepting insurance, which would force people to pay even more for good doctors - some good doctors already do this.\n\nEh, just my opinions, I have no idea if what I'm saying is right - but it makes sense to me!",
"Because logistics and bureaucratic costs are higher when you raise the population. If you want people to have equality and fairness the bigger problem is money in our political system. America's government has become more of a business than a representation of the people. The problem isn't capitalism the problem is letting capitalism affect our government. We said there should be a separation of church and state and to some extent we need more of that with business too. I didn't elect companies to rule my government, so I don't want my politicians to have their policies bought just so that they can continue their careers and be reelected. \n\n\nMy other, more radical idea, is that America is simply too damn big, it causes ideological differences that are understandable, but unfortunately unresolvable. NY and Alabama, for example, are ideologically different, always have and always will be, therefore it will be impossible to have government that makes both equally happy; unless it is making both groups equally upset. Why don't we separate and have the government and law the way we want it? Smaller countries make ideas like socialism, that you claim is \"much more prosperous\" more feasible.\n\n\nTL:DR Can't because USA is too big, bigger problem is money's corruption on government.",
"I just want to point out that not all Americans hate socialism. I understand that your argument is more focused on asking why socialism isn't taken well in America compared to other countries. However, we have some socialist aspects in our country. ",
"Socialism is defined by the passing of laws AKA the installation of additional rules to life. These laws are sold to the people in a neat package of 'helping people', and because we are all good somewhere inside they are not stopped. The reality is all the 'helping people' is done at a HUGE profit, and often the help is virtually non-existant to the corruption. This is especially true in the long run. Additionally, all laws are merely the wants of a select few being imposed on the masses.\n\nTo sum it up additional laws and controls on life is bad, but great for business interests in bed with the government.",
"I saw a report on healthcare in various countries. It looked at the survival rates of the top 10 diseases. The US has the highest survival rates in all categories. The idea that the US has bad health care is a myth. The poorest people may have problems affording it, but when your life is on the line, you're more likely to survive at an American hospital. \n\nNow as far as the general socialism argument goes... The government does a piss poor job in most things, so why would we want to expand that? I heard a comedian the other night talking about this and how horrible it would be if we had to trade Starbucks for the Dept. of Caffeinated Beverages. \n\nThe U.S. has had the world's largest economy for a long time. And other countries have always looked up to the US for technical innovation. We aren't in as bad of shape as many people want to make us out to be. ",
"\"Socialism\" to most Americans means that we won't be able to make our own decisions, rather, the government will make decisions for us. Those decisions may or may not be the best because somebody in an office hundreds of miles away doesn't know anything about me. \n\nDo I need to buy full health insurance, or do I need to get coverage that I can tailor to my life and my needs? Socialized medicine won't let me decide, and I will have to pitch in for the coverage of other people I don't know, and to whom I didn't give birth. \n\nIf I am 20 years old, active with a good diet, and no health issues, why should I be required to pay for health insurance that costs as much as a 65 year old, 350 pound person who smokes 2 packs a day, and opts to do nothing for himself as far as being healthy? I know that if I have to pay as much as this other person, he will benefit from the money I earned, not me.\n\nWhen it comes to resistance to universal health care, I think it comes down to surrendering one's rights to think and make decisions for one's self. \"If I earn my money, why can't I decide how I use it in my own life?\" is pretty much what it means. \n\nFor the record, the individuals in this post are hypothetical, and may or may not represent the actual thoughts, feelings, or physical description of actual people.",
"I can't speak for every American, but I can certainly speak for myself. I've lived in other countries and I always enjoyed discussions of politics with those outside of the US. It's amazing that we can share many of the same experiences, yet have completely different outlooks.\n\nThe United States was founded on the premise that government is a necessary evil. I think that people living outside the US, and many actually living here, don't realize that the Bill of Rights do not give us rights. It recognizes that those rights are unalienable and are not given by the government.\n\nThe Constitution grants only very specific powers to the Federal Government. If it's not in the Constitution, the power lies with the states and the people. That is a very powerful concept--to know that the Federal Government does not have the power, the people do. It only gains that power when we give it up to them.\n\nI grew up in a rural setting and we were very self-sufficient. My family was very charitable, but we looked down at help that came from the government. There were many lean times for us, but my parents always managed to make it work without any kind of help.\n\nAs a middle school student, I can remember feeling very conflicted that some kids in school received free lunches, their athletic dues were paid by \"scholarships,\" they never had to pay for art supplies, etc. At that age I didn't understand exactly what was going on, but I knew that someone else had to be paying for it.\n\nAs an adult, it still bothers me to see people take handouts from the government. I still feel strongly that people should be as self-sufficient as possible and that charity should come from the people, not the government. Socialistic ideals run counter to this.\n\n",
"France does not have the best healthcare system in the world. Also not more prosperous by any metric. ",
"As an anti-socialist american, my reasons are severalfold:\n\nFirst, America is different than Europe in many non-trivial ways, higher rural population, more space between major cities, different demographics and different economic base. I think this means that you can't directly apply successful European solutions to America.\n\nSecondly, we've seen some massive failures of European economies that indicate socialist systems are not necessarily better off and when they fail recovery is much more difficult.\n\nThird, because of the diversity of american life, any one-size-fits-all government solution is doomed to fit poorly for a good chunk of the country. What works for a New York schoolteacher may not for an Iowan farmer, an Indianan factory worker, Californian bus driver and a Hawaiian web developer. \nA government health care solution that works for big cities may fail in rural Montana and an economic policy that is best for Oklahoma may be disaster for Oregon.\n\nFourth, I don't trust politicians to run anything well, especially american politicians.",
"When you build a model of a bridge in engineering class, it doesn't just scale up perfectly. A toy plane isn't built the same way a full sized plane is built. \n\nNow, remember, Sweden hasn't been perfectly successful either. They have had a huge addiction and depression problems and once had a 110% taxation rate. These problems increase exponentially as population goes up. \n\nNot to mention it's just flat out un-American ",
"*Well* . . . Some of this is going to be difficult to explain to non-Americans but I'll give it a try.\n\nFirstly, some of that opposition comes from marketing by groups who definitely would not benefit from paying higher taxes. If you are guessing that means the ultra wealthy then give yourself a hand.\n\nAnother reason has to deal with McCarthyism. During the mid-20th Century there was a politician who rose high preaching paranoia of Communists anywhere you look. There's a communist in the woodpile, there's a communist next door, better not trust the mailman as he might be a communist.\n\nIt caused such a stir that it ruined careers. People in Hollywood got blacklisted and college professors were fired if people suspected they were a communist.\n\nWe still feel some of the impact of that today with institutions or practices that were meant to protect you from the rampant paranoia. Ideas like \"we can't fire this professor because he has tenure\" grew legs. So tenure is still a big thing in academic circles even though the scare of communism has died off.\n\nSocialism and Communism aren't the same thing, no. But since any left leaning tendencies were suspect there was habitual reluctance to associate with anything anything that far to the left.\n\nOrganization is another weird one. How so?\n\nLiberals tend to somewhat outnumber the Conservatives in the USA. But the Conservatives are much, much better organized. Conservatives tend to have more unified goals and plans. Getting liberals to work together is like herding cats. So while there are some groups who see nothing wrong with Socialism there are others who are really Conservatives in Liberal clothing who have goals that are just slightly off from the Republican Party Line.\n\nSo the side that would be the greatest champions of Socialist thinking tend to have enough internal conflict that Socialism is rarely even a talking point. \n\nWhich means the group that is the furthest removed from Socialism tends to focus more of their time vilifying it than you find anyone willing to speak up for it.\n\nThere are some other weird factors that go into it as well. The Cold War is a factor (Communist and Socialist countries often were on the other side) and even the so called \"American Dream\" (i.e.: Work hard and you too will be rich). Too many to go into. But, interestingly enough, Americans can often be fine with Socialistic ideas as long as you don't call it that.\n\nUniversal Health Care has been a big issue in the USA. No state run medical plans for us.\n\nAlmost no one mentions we've had that for years. It's the largest health plan in the United States. I'm talking about Social Security. The health care plan all our retirees use. \n\nRetirees make up a large voting block and a lot of them can be conservatives. So, no joke, you can have people collecting state benefits and state medical plans shouting about the evils of both and trying to vote them down.\n\nSo . . . just take it as a touchy subject that has a lot of bad history with that word if it helps. ",
"Because I like keeping what I earn. I don't trust others will work as hard as I will for my income, thus the system will slow me down, or drag me down with it.",
"In my opinion the answer does not have to go much farther than u/CanisImperium's #1. The more interesting conversation may be about why we are more to the right. Because a lot of that puts the other relevant answers on this thread into perspective. \n\nFor example, why are we so displeased with government agencies? Why are we so biased against socialism (regardless of your opinion on \"American political philosophy\", socialism is indeed antithetical to the values behind our deceleration of independence and constitution)?\n\nI think part of understanding why, as a country, we are more far right is going to require an exploration of what socialism is, especially what it stands for in Europe, the birthplace of the philosophies that inspired the American political system. It will also require we get into the divide between modern day Republicanism and Democracy. Both sides have their foot in the door of American political values but both have managed to distort those values into almost two separate schools of thought entirely. \n\nTo put it plainly (and not I'm not a libertarian) in America we think we are intrinsically free. We view all the laws we have and bureaucracy as just concessions we've made to the government that we begrudgingly cooperate because we need them. But some of us are more willing to make concessions in some areas over others. And we have taken those slight shifts in opinion and turned them into two separate philosophies. Which leads to pradicals on both sides infecting the pool with ideas that are UN american.\n\nOur government was constructed with the specific purpose to be resented and contained. Somewhere along the line, for better or worse/ or both in different respects, the world began to view government differently, some countries were never like us, and others (France for example) were very similar, and began to socialize as time progressed. In fact \"progressivism\" was essentially a reaction to the ills of the philosophy behind America's founding. Much of FDR's new deal for example was not just aimed at fighting corruption in the financial word, it was aimed at literally altering the fabric of American politics. John Adams would not have liked FDR.\n\nAnd so in America we are more like FDR then John Adams, but even FDR was more like Adams than any other European person. \n\nTLDR/ coherent thought: \n\nIts part of our political culture, and we even though we have grown past the confines of our original philosophical ideology, we still feel somewhat bound to it. Socialism is *completely*, unapologetically, different from that ideology. \n\nLife, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. turns into Life and Happiness. Maybe its not so bad, but I don't want that, and I think many Americans also don't. ",
"Why don't you just save everyone time and make your political posts on /r/politics?",
"Because most people that think that are stuck in a Cold War mentality. Because they are lazy thinkers and don't realize American socialism surrounds them and they unwittingly love it. \n\n[_URL_0_]\n",
"You seem to already have some understanding of the topic, and are posting to discuss this with others. That doesn't mean it's a bad question! /r/changemyview, /r/askreddit, /r/askhistorians (maybe), an ecomonics subreddit, or another subreddit for debate/discussion would be a much better place to put this, since ELI5 is for people to have a concept explained to them that they know nothing about. We encourage users to keep as much of their personal opinions out of it as possible. This post has been removed.\n\nIf anyone has any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us](_URL_0_). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5108/sweden-failed-state"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9542817.ece/alternates/w1024/Davis_Mirror_2014_ES1_for_web.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef017742efed55970d-popup"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive"
]
]
|
||
8wv6gw | why can the tv get signal more easily and more reliably while internet can hardly upload/download stuff in comparison? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wv6gw/eli5why_can_the_tv_get_signal_more_easily_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1ymoo0",
"e1ymzss"
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text": [
" > Why is TV so much powerful on getting data compared to the internet?\n\nTelevision is one-way while the internet is communication in both directions. It is like the difference between using a loudspeaker to communicate to 100 people vs. holding 100 separate conversations simultaneously.\n\nIf you are relaying the first instance you only need to pass on one string of words, but if you are trying to relay the second you need 100 different streams. Plus they can respond so each person actually needs two streams, one down and one up. This means broadcast television is one signal and internet can be millions.",
"HD TV is a pretty recent thing. Lesser resolutions were common up until this decade, especially with older TV setups.\n\nTV is broadcast, and the format of the arriving data is known, so your TV doesn't really have to calculate anything. It's just a stream that your TV displays.\n\nInternet is a conversation from point to point, and there are middlemen, and the content format varies depending on what you're doing, and the signal might need to be routed around traffic problems, and you get the picture. The flexibility of the internet requires a more complicated signal along with computers to decipher it.\n\nImagine the kind of massive water cannon you'd need to put 1 gallon of water on every house in your town. Massive but simple. Now imagine the difficulty in delivering exactly 1 gallon of water to 100 houses in your town while avoiding all the others. Much more complicated, especially when which houses want water changes by the second."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2qbzjc | why isn't paypal regulated like a bank? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qbzjc/eli5_why_isnt_paypal_regulated_like_a_bank/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn4pptx",
"cn4pqrn",
"cn4ryr5"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Paypal must follow FINCEN regulations just as any other money changer does.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It does not actually hold funds, and when it does that money is not directly passed to you (i.e. you can't \"withdraw\" from PayPal) but circulated onto banks first; it basically operates most of the time as something like an escrow service, so it's seen as a typical business.",
"They must follow all the same rules as any money changer, but they are not a bank. They do not hold funds. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Crimes_Enforcement_Network"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4euvz8 | when a woman has a prolonged period/irregular bleeding for several weeks or longer, how does she not "run out of" uterine lining? | I'm female, but I've never understood this. To my understanding, the bleeding during your period is the shedding of uterine lining, right? It makes sense that you'd build up enough lining over three weeks to shed it during the fourth week. But for those of us who have irregular periods that sometimes last a *full month*, how do we still even have any lining to shed after a certain point? Do the cells just replicate that fast? Also curious as to how this applies to changes in birth control - for instance, I had an IUD placed a month ago and was told I would be bleeding daily for three to six months. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4euvz8/eli5_when_a_woman_has_a_prolonged_periodirregular/ | {
"a_id": [
"d23p28c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Generally if you're bleeding for very long periods of time, there is a constant building up and sloughing off of the uterine lining. It's likely not as heavy as a regular period is, either."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7loxm3 | why does gas mileage take a nose dive during cold temperature? is there an agreed upon temp where warming up the car is required? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7loxm3/eli5why_does_gas_mileage_take_a_nose_dive_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"drntelb",
"drntr1a"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Due to the oil and other fluids getting goopy in the cold.\n\nYer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: Why do cars have significantly worse gas mileage when it's cold? ](_URL_1_) ^(_16 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How does the changing temperature outside affect my car's gas mileage? ](_URL_0_) ^(_5 comments_)\n",
"There are a few things.\n\n\n1) the above \n2) The engine has an optimal temperature below that temperature it runs rich to warm up faster.\n3) cold air has a higher oxygen content so you need more fuel to create a good burn. More fuel means worse mileage. This only really translate to 5-10 percent difference but it all adds up."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2koaya/eli5_how_does_the_changing_temperature_outside/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m9dxx/eli5_why_do_cars_have_significantly_worse_gas/"
],
[]
]
|
||
37392v | why does the dmv collect organ donor information and not family practitioners? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37392v/eli5_why_does_the_dmv_collect_organ_donor/ | {
"a_id": [
"crjatjs",
"crjbfu9"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"There is a very short window of time in which organs are vital for transplant following a life-threatening accident. It is much easier to be able to identify someone's organ donor status by looking at their driver's license than it is to locate and contact their family practitioner to find out if they're an organ donor. ",
"When someone is in a fatal accident, the odds of them having a driver's license or state ID on them are far higher than the odds of them having the name and number of their doctor."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1zhdq0 | the differences between the ussr, the soviet union, and russia. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zhdq0/eli5_the_differences_between_the_ussr_the_soviet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cftnx7h",
"cftpgrv"
],
"score": [
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Russia was a state of the USSR. The USSR was also known as the Soviet Union.\n\nThe Soviet Union came into existence in the early 1920s after the communists won the civil war in Russia. A number of other states also joined, or were forced to join. Russia was the largest state of the USSR followed by Ukraine. ",
"The Soviet Union and the USSR are the same things. USSR stands for (in English) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.\n\nThe USSR was comprised of several Soviet Socialist Republics (thus the need for a union). The largest was the Russian Socialist Republic. These entities operated nominally like the sates of the United States or the Provinces of Canada, but with a lot less autonomy.\n\nAfter the USSR dissolved the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic became an independent sovereign nation and renamed itself the Russian Federation. The various Soviet Socialist Republics did similar things.\n\nDuring the Cold War, from the end of WWII until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USSR exerted control over a number of countries that did not become members of the USSR proper. These countries were called the \"Eastern Bloc\" - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Hungary, etc. The nominal independence of these nations was agreed by the British, American and Soviet leadership during WWII, but the Soviets took a very liberal view of \"independence\". They were never incorporated into the USSR but they were controlled by the Soviets and on two occasions the Soviets demonstrated the willingness to go into these countries militarily to assert that control."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
430q6c | how do homeless people register to vote, get a drivers license, or fill out forms that require an address? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/430q6c/eli5_how_do_homeless_people_register_to_vote_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"czek1vb",
"czekyjp",
"czeptki"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Just because they are homeless doesn't mean they don't have a mailing address. Many charities will receive mail for the homeless. They may also use a PO box, shelter, church, or family/friend's as their address.",
"In one state I lived in, if you didn't have an address, there was a space on the voter registration form where you could draw a map of where you lived.",
"To be fair, many just... don't. Some jurisdictions and states have been active in attempting to put up roadblocks to voter registration for various risk populations. This is a matter of debate and controversy. Certain voter registration legislation that has been proposed in some places include such requirements as already having the driver's license, or they do not allow for a PO box to be used. It affects not just homeless, but working poor as well, or non-native English speakers. \n\nBut in places that do not have such restrictions they do use a PO box, a relative's address, church address, shelter address, etc. as mentioned above. \n\nWhen I worked for a county public health office and was doing TB testing in homeless shelters, the shelters I visited provided mail services to their clients. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2lqioe | using public dns vs my default isp dns | My internet connection has been wonky lately and I came to the conclusion that it was due to my DNS settings. I googled around a bit (with my smartphone) and I found a feature that is built into my router to use a preset DNS instead of my default ISP DNS. In my case I decided to use Google's public DNS and lo and behold my internet was working once more.
Now I'm trying to wrap my head around what EXACTLY is a DNS and how it factors into my internet browsing and such. Mainly I'm just worried about how safe my data is when using a public DNS seeing as some people apparently pay for a private DNS from what little I managed to search on the subject.
Thanks in advance! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lqioe/eli5_using_public_dns_vs_my_default_isp_dns/ | {
"a_id": [
"clx7pcl"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"A DNS is basically a phonebook for your computer. When you type in _URL_0_ a DNS server needs to look up the actual IP address so it can direct you to it. \n\nThe main reason people use different DNS servers is for speed. Since you can't do anything until your DNS servers look up the IP address of where you want to connect to. it's preferably you have a very low latency to it. GoogleDNS is often chosen since they have servers everywhere. No matter where you are there is a solid chance you'll have an acceptable ping.\n\nSome will also use them for certain features. For example OpenDNS is known for offering their clients options to block specific sites from their network and view statistics/data on what the DNS is doing for them.\n\nCertain DNS's are also safer to use. I can explain but I think you'll benefit more if you check outs Google's information on DNS security.\n_URL_1_\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"reddit.com",
"https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/security"
]
]
|
|
crqdul | what is the difference between astronomers and astrophysicists? | I always see them mentioned together, but what exactly is the difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/crqdul/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_astronomers/ | {
"a_id": [
"ex8o5mo"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Astronomers observe the \"heavens\", ie the sky and catalogue it, whereas astrophysicists theorize and calculate about how that stuff moves, using math to figure out why it looks the way it does. \n\nPut simply, astronomers are nerds with cameras/sketchbooks, and astrophysicists are nerds with calculators/math."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1wehu1 | why is it advisable to get a tetanus shot after receiving a cut/puncture/burn, when it takes time for antibodies to build up? | Tetanus can incubate as quickly as 3 days. Is your body able to produce antibodies that quickly after a tetanus booster shot? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wehu1/eli5_why_is_it_advisable_to_get_a_tetanus_shot/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf18hvf",
"cf18p08",
"cf18paj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For a person who has been vaccinated previously the shot is recommended for up to 7 days after would formation. The shot is recommended to be given for up to 21 days after the wound has occurred for a person who has never been vaccinated. So evidently the bug can start to incubate but not overwhelm the bodies basic defenses for some days. ",
"In general, after a vaccination, antibodies will start to increase significantly after 1 week and peak around 2 weeks. The average incubation period for tetanus is about 1 week, but can be a month or even several months. So getting a tetanus shot right after an injury won't always be beneficial, but it's very likely that by the time those bacteria start producing the toxin that causes the symptoms of the disease, you'll have more circulating antibodies than if you didn't get the vaccine, and that can shorten or eliminate the disease course.",
"You should be getting Tdap vaccines every 10 years or so. So you should have the antibodies required to fight the virus already. Boosters after an injury are usually precautionary to stimulate more antibodies. T-helper cells, I think, also stimulate antibody production faster after each exposure, but don't quote me on that. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6g6mna | fat contains 9 calories/gram. how does a 3500 calorie deficit in a week result in a 0.5kg weight loss then? (if you do the math, it should be approx. 0.39kg) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g6mna/eli5_fat_contains_9_caloriesgram_how_does_a_3500/ | {
"a_id": [
"dinxgs2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First, your figures are incorrect. There are 7.7 calories in a gram of body fat, not 9. And that means 3850 calories per 0.5 kg. \n\nSecond, it's not that simple; this trivial math was pointed out over 50 years ago but it doesn't work that way in real life. You actually have to remove *about double that amount* from your diet because your body will fight the weight loss in various ways.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml"
]
]
|
||
60a59i | is there a reason why some people with tourettes have swear words specifically as their tick? of all words that could be their tick, why is it almost always profanity? | Note: I am fully aware not all people with Tourettes have this tick, it's just the most famous kind of Tourettes and I wonder why. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60a59i/eli5_is_there_a_reason_why_some_people_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"df4xjd4",
"df4xo57",
"df4zmxe",
"df4zpt6",
"df4zyp0",
"df500sa",
"df52rl8",
"df547cd",
"df5481r",
"df55nwe",
"df55s9d",
"df585q4",
"df5m806"
],
"score": [
21,
60,
38,
4,
51,
2,
2,
7,
146,
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I think that it may have to do with the commonality between Tourette's and OCD. OCD has a common feature of trying to escape intrusive thoughts/impulses and it is very common for those of us afflicted to have some aspect of religion involved.\n\nI wonder if the reason profanity escapes out so prominently is because the sufferer is trying so hard to keep that in? \n\n",
"I'm working from a small sample size, but of the five people I've encountered IRL with tourette's none of them have had swearing as a tic. Their tics have been sounds, snapping, and in one case talking about a cat.",
"It isn't almost always profanity. Actually it almost always isn't. You just remember people yelling swear words for obvious reasons.\n\nThe most common manifestation of Tourettes would probably be jumping in place or obsessive blinking",
"I am fairly certain that expletives, similar in this way to any other TS tic, are processed differently than language-type word combos. Maybe they bypass pre-frontal cortex? And/or do not involve Broca's or are stored w/memory like bike-riding etc. Those that do not degenerate in Alzheimer's patients. Thoughts?",
"I used to have moderate/severe Tourette's, with swearing as one of my tics. There are two subsets of tics: vocal tics and motor tics. Both of them are caused by uncontrollable muscle movements, either in the vocal chords or other parts of the body. To diagnose Tourette's, [at least two motor and one vocal tic must be witnessed over the course of a year (top of second paragraph)](https://www._URL_0_/about-tourette/overview/what-is-tourette/). This means that you can have swearing tics (known as Corprolalia) without Tourette's.\n\nVocal tics have another subset, known as phonal tics. Vocal tics are grunts, sniffles, or other non-word related noises, whereas phonal tics are either words or more complex phrases. Coprolalia falls into the phonal category, as well as random or out-of-context words.\n\nAccording to _URL_0_, [fewer than one third of all people with TS exhibit this symptom at some time during their lives. (bottom of first paragraph)](https://www._URL_0_/resource/understanding-coprolalia). There have not been many studies on Coprolalia, and our understanding of it is limited. All we know is that it is neurological in nature (it's encoded into the nervous system, not something that can be controlled).\n\nTourette's in general is a difficult subject for researchers to understand. Because of the complexities of the brain and nervous system, it's hard to determine what causes Coprolalia to happen in some patients, but not in others. We do know Tourette's is hereditary, but unfortunately, we do not know what causes it to happen.\n\nHope this response helps!\n\n\n\nsources: \n\nhttps://www._URL_0_/resource/understanding-coprolalia/\n\nhttps://www._URL_0_/about-tourette/overview/what-is-tourette/",
"Coprolalia (repeating inappropriate words) only accounts for 10% of tics. A tic can be any sound or movement. But it's the swear-y ones that get attached to the disorder. A diagnosis of Tourette's requires multiple tics, including at least one movement tic, so no one only has Tourette's that \"makes them swear.\"",
"For me, it was sometimes curses, sometimes not. Sometimes what I would say would have no context. I would have an uncomfortable thought , and this random vocalization would come out. It's a stressful feeling, so I can see why some of the vocalizations are curses. ",
"Tourette's isn't what you saw on Deuce Bigalow or \"Tourette's Guy\". It isn't mental retardation, either, nor is it a disease, or related to autism, though research shows it may be related to epilepsy. I have Tourette's, and I've dealt with it since it showed up around age 4. I am 27 now. \n\nTourette's is a neurobiological disorder characterized by physical (motor) and/or vocal (which doesn't mean words, just sounds) tics. Phonal vocal tics are words, and while there is a very small subset of us who have phonal tics, and a fraction of that fraction have phonal vocal tics that are swear words, that's very uncommon, and is luck of the draw. \n\nI'm sorry for being so blunt, it's just frustrating what that fucking stupid Rob Schneider movie did for those of us who actually live with the disorder",
"It's actually one of the least common tics, its a condition called corprolalia. It's famous because its the one people think is funny.\n\nIt's all pretty mysterious, even to doctors, but one theory is that it has something to do with the way our brain stores \"taboos\" in a separate part of the brain. An example of this is when you see Alzheimer's patients devolve into using foul language. They've lost access to their normal vocabulary, but this separate storage unit is untouched by the disease for now. So, if you think of TS as random muscle twitches, corprolalia is a twitch of the \"say bad words\" muscle. \n\nThe most common response when I have to explain my TS is \"I wish I had that, so I could curse whenever I wanted.\" I don't have corprolalia, but I still say \"Fuck You.\" That's like saying you wish you were in a wheelchair, so you could park in the handicap space.\n",
"I read that only 10 percent of tourettes sufferers use swear words. I know a women with mild tourettes, she only gets it when she is stressed, she will roll her lips and yip kind of like someone tryig to make a baby laugh. My music teacher has tourettes and he just says \"yeah\" in a deep voice at random times when talking.",
"Side question: those that have coprolalia, how did this present before you learned curse words? Did 4-year-old you blurt out \"fiddlesticks\"?",
"I was diagnosed with ocd at a young age and then in my twenties things changed and I was diagnosed with tourettes. never cursed though. I call that tv tourettes.",
"Word ticks are actually rare, and the \"bad\" or curse words are even less common... It's just that people noticed the curse words. \n \nI dated a gir who tick just involved touch... If you touched her left shoulder she would have to touch her right shoulder (the sex rocked) \n \nI had a boss who's tick would be pushing a bit of air out of his mouth like pronouncing the letter P.\n \nLastly, I listened to an interview with a lady with Tourette and her tick was saying \"biscuits\". "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"tourette.org",
"https://www.tourette.org/about-tourette/overview/what-is-tourette/",
"https://www.tourette.org/resource/understanding-coprolalia",
"https://www.tourette.org/resource/understanding-coprolalia/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
bzrl12 | in a given location, is relative cloud cover a product of temperature, a symptom, or completely independent? | Assuming the same location (a place that isn’t always hot/cold), same season (lets say between spring-summer), and no abnormal weather conditions (such as a fire that blankets half a country in smog). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bzrl12/eli5_in_a_given_location_is_relative_cloud_cover/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqw26rk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Trees have to regulate their temperatures just like other living things, and one way they stay cool is by allowing some of their stored water to evaporate, a little like how humans sweat. That can form clouds over forested areas.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI think one can see the opposite, too, although maybe not in your hypothetical place. In Central America the deforestation of the Yucatan peninsula is obvious now and it's easy to spot the deforested/savannah areas in Ventusky through their lack of cloud cover and noticably higher temperatures (example: Peten, Guatemala). \n\n & #x200B;\n\nTherefore both temperature *and* relative cloud cover can be dependent upon the presence of a forest."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7yhg9y | what is a private school and why do they receive government support? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7yhg9y/eli5_what_is_a_private_school_and_why_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"dugki28"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A private school in the US is a school that does not receive government support (or if they do have some have very little). They are not open to the public and admittance is not automatic. A potential student must apply (and often test) to get into it and their family pays for their schooling with tuition fees. Many give scholarships for poor or high performing students, but not all do. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3rw3cq | why no medicine or treatment has been developed to cure common cold, sore throat instantly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rw3cq/eli5_why_no_medicine_or_treatment_has_been/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwrv9ap",
"cwrx1fw"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Colds are caused by a virus. Viruses aren't alive, so our medicines can't kill them. We have antiviral drugs, but they only work on specific viruses by targeting unique chemicals on their protein shells, and each kind of virus is a little different. As well, you have to be careful not to damage the proteins the body is making.\n\nDepending on the cause, a sore throat may also be a virus, but more likely than not you're talking about strep throat, which is caused by a bacteria. Antibiotics absolutely help treat that, but no cure for any disease is instant. The antibiotic can't be too strong or it will kill healthy calls on your body, and the bacteria is going to hide in different places where the antibiotic has a tough time getting to. So your body has to do most of the work, the antibiotic is just there to help.\n\nWe *could* make vaccines for them, but colds are fairly harmless, just annoying, and there are thousands of different cold virus and each ones need its own vaccine, so it's just not work it. Strep is dealt with easily enough with antibiotics and usually harmless as long as you get it treated, so again not really worth making a vaccine.",
"They're all different. Imagine spending millions on \"This years flu\" only to 6 months later it mutate and yours is ineffictive. Most places give out yearly flu shots for this reason"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1wwijh | why is atomic bomb testing in the ocean allowed? | Surely the Atom Bomb leaves radiation and wont the pollute the water and kill millions of life forms? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wwijh/eli5_why_is_atomic_bomb_testing_in_the_ocean/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf5zkuz",
"cf6047m",
"cf608jw"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The ocean is *really really really really god-damn BIG*. \n\nIt would take quite a blast to cause a noticeable difference on anything larger than a local scale.\n\nA-Bombs aren't great for life, you are correct, but as long as we don't detonate a bunch of them all over we can minimize the damage.",
"Who's going to not allow it? International laws are really just agreements that the majority of nations accept and comply with. There is no international body capable of forcing countries to obey, short of the UN Security Council agreeing to drop bombs - and that happens extremely rarely because the members of the Council vote how their governments tell them to.\n\nJapanese whaling is a perfect example. There is an international law, but the law allows science, so Japan claims it needs to harvest thousands of whales every year for science. And no one can stop them.",
"At the time it was done, it was not prohibited by any treaty. Today it is prohibited by the Limited Test Ban Treaty. As a result the USA, USSR/Russia, and UK have not tested underwater weapons since the 1960s. (France and China did not sign the LTBT until much later; I don't know if they did any underwater tests after that period.) India, Pakistan, and North Korea have only tested their weapons underground.\n\nAs for the radiation, much of it gets absorbed into the water, which does get highly radioactive. However the ocean is very large and so that diffuses to non-harmful levels in a relatively short amount of time. As for killing lots of animals, sure — that happens all the time. \n\nIn many ways it is better than detonating them on land, because that produces long-range, harmful radioactive fallout when the dirt mixes with the radioactive fireball. Underwater testing actually produces very little fallout outside of the immediate area of the test. \n\nIt is worth distinguishing between true underwater tests and those which are on coral atolls. Atolls are a terrible place to set off nuclear weapons from a fallout concern; actual underwater tests are not so bad."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2rpop8 | why is everything cheaper in the us than in central eastern european countries? | I always wondered why there is so much difference in prices and salaries between the US and Hungary, Romania, Greece, etc. Romanians have a minimum wage of cc $230, electronics cost almost twice as much, food has the same price as in the US, clothing is much cheaper in the US(e.g. the same t shirt from U.S Polo is $60 in RO and $20 in the US). Gas in the US is 3x cheaper. An avg programmer makes 80k in the US and 20k in RO and so on. Enlighten me reddit! Thank you! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rpop8/eli5_why_is_everything_cheaper_in_the_us_than_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cni5p7e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There's really no blanket answer for this question, because the economy is vastly intricate-- as a result, I'll answer these questions separately. \n\nImports from country to country, especially if they're on different continents, tend to be extremely expensive-- Romania, for example, is halfway across the world from the United States, and it costs a lot of money to ship something from the US all the way there. The United States has a population roughly 16x higher than Romania, which naturally decreases the number of people likely to buy any specific product from the US like a Polo shirt, so they need to raise prices to compensate for that and the added cost of shipping to make it worth it to export there.\n\nDifferences in gas prices can be explained by differences in policies between countries. Again, because the US is a much bigger country, it represents a much larger customer to the businesses that sell oil, so they can buy it in much larger quantities for a lower price, but also, close proximity to places where oil is drilled (Canada, the Gulf) makes transport cheaper. However, in addition to this, countries in Europe especially seem to place a much higher importance on limiting pollution, and tax gas to an extreme level-- for example, The Netherlands place a tax of roughly $3.50 on each gallon of gasoline purchased, while the federal tax in the US on a gallon of gas is around $0.20. \n\nFinally, in regards to wages... This is because the cost of living is different in both places. Things like rent, food, etc are much more expensive in the United States than they are in Romania. For example, if a basket of groceries in the US costs $100, but in Romania it's only $25, and prices are similar like that across the board (ex. rent in Romania is $300 a month, and $1200 a month in the US), the wages are effectively the same. You can compare the real differences using this site: _URL_0_\n\nWith the simplified example I gave, though, the wages in both countries are more or less equivalent-- if things in Romania are four times cheaper than the US, but the US makes four times as much money, than a programmer in both countries makes about the same wage when applied to the things they spend their money on. It should be noted that this example depends solely on how in demand programmers are in Romania-- the US right now has a lot of businesses in need of software engineers, so businesses have to raise their wages to attract the best employees. If software engineers are not as in-demand in Romania, the wages will tend to be less because they're not as vital as the same job is in the US. However, since outsourcing of work has been growing in recent years, it is not unheard of that companies on the United States might start hiring workers from other countries to do programming projects over the internet for them, which might have a substantial effect on the wage differences for jobs like this between countries!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Romania&country2=United+States"
]
]
|
|
29ooqs | were our teeth naturally supposed to be yellow? and is it actually healthy for them to be white? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ooqs/eli5_were_our_teeth_naturally_supposed_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cimzkfi",
"cin0962",
"cin179x",
"cin6jw1",
"cin7ajy",
"cin7g3v",
"cin8w33",
"cin8z30",
"cin95f0",
"cin9700",
"cin9d6l",
"cin9l5f",
"cin9twv",
"cinae1j",
"cinajk0",
"cinauuf",
"cinb5b8",
"cind3mw",
"cindik1",
"cindpkx",
"cindymv",
"cinenpa",
"cinepyh",
"cinf1di",
"cinf7ax",
"cing0nn",
"cing6vy",
"cingm50",
"cingvf5",
"cingw36",
"cinh9e6",
"cinkvh2",
"cinpem2",
"cinrtb4"
],
"score": [
2,
1535,
180,
47,
17,
9,
6,
258,
112,
243,
9,
6,
5,
2,
10,
187,
3,
8,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
13,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Any dangers, if they exist, seem likely to emerge over the long term and perhaps the methods (peroxide) haven't been used for long enough on enough people to reveal such problems. That said materials are often stronger with impurities doping/alloying them - taking these out, repeatedly, may not be so bright.",
"Enamel is white, and it covered Dentin, which is yellow. As bacteria and acids eat away at enamel, yellow dentin is exposed. Teeth would have naturally been very white up until processed sugars because widespread, because bacteria thrive on sugar and churn out acids which break down enamel.",
"My brother's teeth are whiter than mine despite ridiculously bad oral hygiene (he's had several infected teeth pulled and smokes). I think most of it just the luck of the draw, with some people having whiter or more yellow teeth, and food/drink choices playing a pretty minimal role. \n\nPlenty of animals have yellow teeth, and most of them are organic paleo localvores. ",
"so does that mouthwash that says it strengthens enamel really work??",
"Can you grow back enamel?",
"Related question, does coffee actually stain your teeth?",
"So whats the deal with \"oil pulling\" with coconut oil? Does it actually do anything? Does it harm good bacteria? ",
"ELI5 - why can't we put new enamel on teeth, when we can paint enamel on all sorts of consumer products?",
"I work in a dental lab and we often get requests for \"teeth as white as you can make them\" they look ridiculous. You want a bit of color to your teeth, paper white just looks silly and fake as hell. ",
"Anecdotally, my teeth are yellow(ish) and I hate them but my dentist loves them. I was given meds as a kid for an infection that permanently stained my teeth. No matter how much I brush and floss I'll always have yellow teeth. I asked about whitening solutions but was told my teeth are structurely perfect and that the whitening agent will actually cause damage. While it's nice to have \"great\" teeth, I hate smilling.",
"Are over-the-counter whitening products like Crest White Strips or trays harmful to your enamel? I always receive mixed responses to this. ",
"HOLEY SHIT ALL THE COMMENT ARE bitter sweet and all \"hope\" and \"you are fucked\"",
"Sometimes my teeth appear more white as on other day's or more yellow why ?",
"I have red hair and have been told that my teeth will always be yellowish, and never a properly pearly white.",
"Repost \nRelevant:\n_URL_0_ - NovaMin was bought by GSK and then its active ingredient, calcium sodium phosphosilicate, disappeared from the few US toothpastes that contained it for some mysterious reason.\n_URL_1_ - AKA Recaldent, which was in a brand of Trident gum until they discontinued it (it was really unstable and tasted pretty funky). I haven't found an OTC toothpaste containing Recaldent, but it is available in MI Paste from the dentist.\nThere's another similar substance that I believe is still in Nature's Gate toothpaste.\nI'm disappointed that we've got these marvelous new chemicals available for repairing teeth that simply aren't reaching most people in the US. Most toothpaste companies seem content to just keep marketing fluoride toothpaste a hundred different ways instead of actually improving it.",
"Enamel is translucent and it covers dentin, which is yellow. The shade of your teeth is already predetermined by how much light can be refracted into that dentin. Some people will have teeth in which very little light can be refracted all the way back into their dentin and thus will have whiter teeth. \n\nVarious toothpastes will have varying grades of abrasiveness. The main scrubbing agent in toothpaste is the silica. The more abrasive silicas will be found in \"whitening\" toothpastes. Essentially the whitening toothpastes just scrub away surface stains. It would be difficult to make your teeth whiter than they naturally are with just these whitening toothpastes.\n\nSource: dental student",
"Primary teeth, or \"baby teeth/milk teeth\" are whiter than permanent teeth or \"adult teeth\" as well. \n\nSo kids shouldn't worry if suddenly their smile is not looking quite as bright after puberty...",
"I hate my teeth and now this thread is telling me I can't do anything about it :(",
"Dentistry is a scam. I met afghans while deployed who had PERFECT teeth. I asked them using our translator if they had ever seen a dentist, had tooth pain, anything and they all told me they don't don anything lol. Our whole lives growing up were told all of these things we MUST do to maintain dental health. These people in Afghanistan don't even have soap they bath in rivers let alone any sort of dental hygiene items. It's mostly diet for sure but still..scam ",
"What about the strawberry paste and baking soda mixture? That's all over YouTube as a natural whitening method in tutorials.",
"Teeth are supposed to be slightly yellow not pearly white. Dentine, the protective stuff within enamel is a little yellow. Dentine is good.\n\nsource : son of former dentist",
"I met an old Indigenous Bundjalung Elder in Australia who told me that he used to use charcoal when he was kid to clean his teeth. I tried it and it actually works. Not sure why though.",
"GUYS. Does anyone have a legit solution? Now I'm scared to brush my teeth.",
"Yellow is maybe too strong a word. I prefer \"ivory\", because, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense.",
"On a side note. I don't eat a lot of sugar, but I rarely brush my teeth and when I do, I don't use toothpaste. My teeth are pretty damn white. \nAm I doing it right?",
"Teeth are naturally slightly yellow, see the shade guide...\n_URL_0_\nthe three weirdly white ones on the left are the shade for bleached teeth.",
"Hey, I'm a third year dental student in Scotland. It's a little more complicated than that as different cultures and nationalities have different colours of teeth (or appear to when compared to the colour of the skin). The teeth are made up of Enamel on the outside and Dentine underneath. Healthy enamel is actually slightly translucent and healthy dentine is yellow in colour, so healthy teeth are slightly yellow. When teeth start to become less healthy (developing dental caries) the dentine colour fades but more importantly, the enamel becomes more opaque leading to a white colour, and as it gets worse it becomes grey then black. \nAnother situation is to do with fluoride uptake (in water and salt and toothpaste). With slight fluorosis of the enamel, they become whiter than \"normal\" and stronger (more resistant to caries) but with too much fluorosis they become brown stained. Hope this helps someone at least!\n\nTL;DR: Healthy teeth are yellow-ish unless exposed to fluoride.",
"When I wake up in the morning my teeth look a bit yellow even after brushing, after I've been up for an hour or two they are look perfectly white. Does this happen to anyone else?",
"I'll be honest. My teeth do have a small yellow tint. Never had a cavity in my life and I'm 32. So I've never had a cavity with yellow teeth? Does this make sence?",
"My teeth are naturally yellow, but then again I'm a redhead...",
"And isn't it a slight flaw, from an evolutionary perspective, that we need to brush our teeth every day to avoid dental problems when we lived thousands of years without doing so? Or was that always a problem, did our ancestors have constant toothaches?",
"Hopefully this doesn't get buried, but does drinking plenty of water help to prevent staining your teeth? For example, drinking water and swishing it in your mouth right after drinking coffee or after a meal? ",
"Just a quick question on the topic of bad teeth...\n\nI hate to admit it, but I haven't brushed my teeth in probably 4 years+ by now. I go to the dentist 2 times a year, and I never get cavities. My brother however, brushes his teeth everyday, and gets cavities all the time. I probably eat and drink more sugary crap than he does. Why haven't I got a cavity or gum infection or something, while he gets everything bad? I should probably start brushing my teeth, because I know it's gross.\n\nEdit: Grammar",
"I thought it was B.S. about brushing teeth with activated carbon, so I did it as a test. I was shocked. It worked better than bleaching. About the 5th time they were 'movie star white'.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NovaMin",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_calcium_phosphate"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://vident.com/products/shade-management/vita-classical-previously-the-lumin-vacuum-shade-guide/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
eog2lv | why does fluid come out of our eyes when we get “sad” or upset? how could a genetic characteristic like that develop? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eog2lv/eli5_why_does_fluid_come_out_of_our_eyes_when_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"fecjsz2"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It signals to the social unit around the individual that there is a crises, motivating the social unit to care for the individual. \n\nCheck out when babies learn to fake crying to get their parents to do stuff."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
wm3gf | cellphone data (what it's for, usage, plans, anything you can contribute) | Hey there reddit,
I'm a few months away from getting a new phone, and I'm considering switching carriers as well.
For the first time in my life, I would like to get a smartphone, and I know this entails purchasing a data plan of some sort. That being said, I have no idea *what* that is exactly (I think it's used for anything web-related?), what it's used for, and how the amount the plan allots you is dispersed. Anything anyone knows would be helpful, pretty much. Thanks for reading! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wm3gf/eli5_cellphone_data_what_its_for_usage_plans/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5ehx7x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Data is downloading things (games, emails, applications, photos), or accessing the Internet through a browser or application (checking the scores) only when not in range of a connected WiFi network.\n\nIt's Internet over the cellular network away from WiFi.\n\nPlans for data are measured in gigabytes/month, which is how much data transfer (uploading, ie updating facebook status plus downloading, ie checking your friend's tweets) occurs.\n\nOften, so-called \"unlimited\" plans are not unlimited or you are [throttled](_URL_0_) if you go too high."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling"
]
]
|
|
5ez1df | how and why can something be "so ugly that it's kind of cute"? | Is there a biological reason for this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ez1df/eli5_how_and_why_can_something_be_so_ugly_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dag7fao"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because you should always take care of the little ones. Our brain make us want to take care of things. It's to ensure our babies grow up big and strong. So sometimes, when something is \"ugly\" and little or alone, our brains tricks you into thinking it's cute. It's the reason why parents with ugly children think they're adorable. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
9h9n9r | does butchered meat from a slaughtered animal go through normal death processes like rigor mortis? is it different for fresh slaughtered butchered meat vs. meat that has been left on carcass for a few days (like to bleed out?) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9h9n9r/eli5_does_butchered_meat_from_a_slaughtered/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6a8goe",
"e6a8qi8",
"e6apvtx",
"e6aq7y0",
"e6as4o1",
"e6at3ej",
"e6auc95",
"e6avbyo",
"e6aw0u0",
"e6awfm7",
"e6axasr",
"e6axdiw",
"e6axvp1",
"e6azmue",
"e6b0g87",
"e6b11y6",
"e6b1g9z",
"e6b2e8f",
"e6b3aq2",
"e6b54ns",
"e6b5vpd",
"e6b6dpp",
"e6b6x8b",
"e6b9dbu",
"e6bb81h",
"e6bbvb8",
"e6bga46",
"e6biy9c",
"e6bj5o7",
"e6bm4c4",
"e6bmof6",
"e6bz3t5",
"e6c1ogj",
"e6debht"
],
"score": [
156,
3204,
1997,
210,
9,
45,
4,
70,
3,
35,
8,
15,
15,
4,
23,
4,
3,
12,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Rigor Mortis is caused by the build up of waste chemicals in the muscles of the dead creature.\n\nIt does occur in freshly slaughtered meat and if the meat is chilled immediately you get what is called \"cold shortening\" where the muscle literally shortens due to chemical changes.\n\nTo prevent this, particularly in Beef, the carcass is electrified immediately after slaughter.",
"Rigor mortis occurs in chickens, making it important to pluck and process them immediately after slaughter, as chicken does not benefit from aging.\n\nGame birds can be hung until rigor passes, enhancing the flavor and making them easier to dry pluck.",
"Food Scientist here. The answer: ABSOLUTELY YES!\n\nFirst it's important to know WHAT rigor mortis is! Rigor mortis causes the carcasses (and meat!) to become stiff. This is because after the animal is dead, they are no longer eating food (adding energy to their system). Over time, the energy stored in their body (glycogen) is used up. This can cause the rigidity, off flavors, pH drops (acid production) etc. \n\nIn fact, some meat is called \"pre rigor\" and is used extremely quickly in order (some sausages will do this) in order to give a higher overall quality.\n\nThis varies from animal to animal. Someone mentioned how chickens are usually killed and processed quickly because of this, where other game can be left to do this to develop flavor.\n\nBut: ELI5: YES! ",
"Rigor mortis only lasts for a short time after death. When you kill a deer it will get rigor mortis pretty quickly, but they are hung for 24 hours and the rigor mortis goes away. It is not advised to butcher the meat while it has rigor mortis, or shortening will occur where the muscles retract and the meat becomes very tough. Animals are not hung to bleed out because the heart is not pumping as they hang, they are hung to let the rigor mortis subside. \n\nEdit: As some posters have mentioned, the hanging is to also age the beef so that it becomes more tender. This occurs once the rigor stage stops and enzymes begin to break down the muscle tissue. This takes some time, but the outcome is much better. Some people leave the skin on, but if you have fridge it can be removed once rigor mortis has resolved itself.",
"I've wondered about the cruel way freddy from house of cards made his BBQ ribs, was indeed a real thing that some butchers do?, and if yes, does it indeed taste better when the cow suffers 😥",
"Yes, the meat you eat went though the rigor mortis process. And the majority of the meat you buy, fresh or frozen has been bled out to aid with cutting. ",
"Rigor mortis happens in all meats, which is often why aging them makes them tenderer because the affects of rigor mortis are reduced as time goes on. I think :P",
"For some reason after reading this thread I feel like becoming a vegetarian ... the thought of my steak having been in rigor mortis ...",
"I don’t know firsthand about livestock, but I know that many of the larger game animals we’ve brought to a butcher already went through rigor mortis. Same thing for waterfowl when we pluck them. By the time our hunt is over, most, of not all, of the ducks we killed already went through rigor. I do know that we’ve drained the blood from deer before skinning them. Made it a little less messy when we were cutting the meat. ",
"Rigor mortis is a natural process for all animals though some cycles are longer than others eg. Birds 1 day vs cows 7 or more even. Chemical changes in the body that first stiffen eventually tenderize. This process is effected by stress during slaughter, too much stress = no rigor = yucky meat that has a shorter shelf life. A surprise kill is likely going to yield better result vs an uncomfortable or scary trip to an unknown place. Proper bleed out will also effect the shelf life as blood spoils much quicker than the meat does.",
"So I don’t understand aging of beef - so is it rotting and getting softer ?? Like Peter Luger ages it’s steaks - so why does a super maker reduce for quick sale steaks and yet a restaurant will age beef for weeks.",
"Slaughtered meat is bled out before the carcass is processed. Settled blood plays a role in expedited decay so having blood in your meat is a no no. If you’ve ever seen a so-called “bloody’ steak, it’s unlikely it had any blood at all. The red or pink fluid in meat is more likely just albumin from the interstitial cavities between cells or from inside ruptured cells. Albumin by the way is the same stuff as in egg white. If you’ve ever cooked meat too fast you can actually get the albumin to cook before the meat where you’ll get a grainy white leakage coming out of the meat. Poorly or over cooked salmon is very well known for this. \n\nFor the main part of your question: Almost all meat you’ve ever eaten from a store or restaurant is well past rigor. Rigor sets in 2-4 hours after slaughter. After a few days rigor begins to resolve. As no meat producer would want a customer to eat meat in rigor and no meat producer is going to get meat on your plate before rigor, the meat you eat is almost certainly not just days past rigor, but 2-4 weeks past the onset of rigor.",
"I filet fish for a living. Most are pretty flippy floppy, but man. I get a few every once in a while that are oddly stiff and it is just unnerving. ",
"Rigor occurs in fish as well. Freshly cleaned fish turn stiff after a while, and stay that way for hours or days. Then turn soft again. This is a good way to check for freshness when you buy fish.\n\nRigor usually starts at the tail, and the muscles harden along the body towards the head until the whole fish is quite stiff.\n\nHow long this process takes depends on many factors such as Species, temperature, size, and health. A healthy fish takes a lot longer for rigor onset. Probably because the muscles have more energy stored to stay supple. Low temperature slows the process down as well.",
"I once worked at a place that made a contact with an Alaskan fisherman who did not go catch the fish until the order was placed and then overnite the fish on dry ice. It was expensive but we were very proud to claim that we had fish that was swimming less than 24 hours ago. It was very hard to butcher, like it was flexing and the meat clung to the bones. And the texture was grainy. It wasn't good. That's how we learned animals get rigor mortis too. \"Jiro dreams of sushi\" is a great documentary about a master sushi chef. There is a scene where he is fondles this filet and decides it's not ready yet, age it for another day. Blew my mind, I always thought fresher is better in seafood. Obviously you don't age it as long as beef, but you do age it. Rigor mortis tastes bad. ",
"Yea. When i shoot a deer I’ll gut it asap and then hang it up when I get back home to season. The body stiffens right up. ",
"I can only speak for birds, but they go through rigor mortis. Ducks I usually take out the meat right away. But some birds, like grouse, i hang for tendering for a few days without gutting them. They go through rigor mortis and then they become limp again.",
"I don't know about other animals but i do know about fish, particularly tuna, if you catch a tuna and eat it right away the flesh will feel rubbery and tough, but if you put it in a fridge or a cooler full of ice overnight, then it'll eat really nice. Don't believe these assholes on tv telling you it tastes like it was caught an hour ago. ",
"Source: ex butcher\nSpeaking on beef and pigs, they are slaughtered go through death throes, then become still and the joints rapidly become less flexible, generally speaking while they are still hot, they still flex at the joints. once they cool, which is essential the joints become very inflexible, what you'd expect from rigor mortis, this inflexibility does not go away, the rest of the death process is negligible because most of the bacteria was removed with the guts . I'll answer any follow up questions i can. ",
"[This] (_URL_0_) video answered a few of my questions about the beef cow. Including the one you asked at least to some degree.",
"I worked on slaughter floors, and yes. It's basically a big chain of people, the hangers, killers, Skinners, trimmers, etc. They certainly do get it, but you can also fix it by massaging the dead muscles, but you don't need to do that on a kill-floor because once it's cooled overnight for the butcher team they just throw the halves on a big-ass bone-saw to quarter it and cut it from there.",
"Even fish goes through this--so you either eat immediately or after rigor, or you freeze immediately and then eat immediately after thawing, or you allow vigor to pass and then freeze. The issue though (if you're doing it at home) is that animals (and even individual ones) vary in how quickly vigor set in. When I do my quails/ducks, by the time I'm finished with the last one, rigor sets in with the first few and I have to let them sit or else the meat is super tough. ",
"Yes. I am a butcher. All animals slaughtered will ‘set’ after a few hours. Also when there bled out it sets the muscles. That’s why it’s important to hang and tie if necessary certain animals. Pigs and lambs are quite easy to straighten up though. You need to put a bit of pressure on the limbs ",
"I’d argue that a smaller farmer is going to produce better quality meat than a factory farm. Industrial farming terrified the animals on a production line. Whereas a small farmer would take pains (normally) to minimize their animal’s suffering in the last minutes of its life.\n\nSource: lived on a farm when young, before the Ag Industry took over everything ",
"In factory farming, cattle are processed by the minute. They’re killed, hung, gutted, portioned and sliced in literally minutes, every minute, every day. Billions of them. There is no time for rigor to set in. They barely have time to clean the shit and puss off the meat before they sell it to you. ",
"I studied meat science, worked as a butcher in a beef, pork, and lamb slaughter and process plant from 19-22, and am now a Food Safety/Quality Assurance Manager in the protein industry.\n\nYes, and no. Beef, lamb, and pork carcasses are hung in \"hot boxes\" (which are actually cold, but the carcass goes in hot) to allow for rigor to occur quickly. If this process didn't take place, and all the chemical releases didn't occur, the meat would be far less palatable. In Chickens, we stimulate the rigor mortis process in a lot of plants by using Electronic Stimulation. This sends electrical currents through the carcasses, allowing those reactions to take place. Chickens are moved much quicker than their red meat companions through the kill and processing process. ",
" Iowa here. All the hyvee's have it, most of the other grocery store do, either the exception, I think, of Walmart. They don't. I don't think.",
"I worked in a kitchen were we picked up trout from a local trout farm about 30 mins away. Often they were still catching/eviscerating the fish when we got there. Sometimes if we were fast enough we could get into filleting it before rigor set in, but usually we would have to wait for it to pass (many hours or next day) before we could finish processing them.",
"I don't know but I do know if you take a live chicken, cut it, let the heart pump the blood out, pluck it, gut it, then cook it over a camp fire, it will turn into harder meat than the toughest jerky you can think of. Maybe I overcooked it because it was my first time.",
"This video explains how cows are taken from the farm to the table. It’s a little depressing but also funny. \n[Journey of a Beef Cow](_URL_0_) ",
"i shot and butchered game and as long as you drain the blood and gut it it will stay fresh . in Alaska and more rural areas you can be surprised how long you chould hang the meat outside as long as it below freezing. i have heard of hunters and native american storing meat under Perma Frost like wolf and bear do . ",
"No matter how long you leave them hanging please for the love of god skin that creature as soon as possible. Some folks I know leave it on to “cure” it and that’s just stupid. Getting the skin off let’s the meat cool down wayyyyy faster. If you leave it on the meat will stay hot and it’s like leaving your steak on the counter for a week. \n\nNot entirely on subject but kinda.\n\nProbably different for birds; I’m not too familiar with them.",
"My first job was a butcher and deer skinner. The answer is yes. Meat is somewhat different. Meat is typically aged 1 week before processed.",
"I do t k ow how to but please some e who can help send me a private message. I dont want monetary help, I need an ear."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/MmHiZQRaso0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/MmHiZQRaso0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9rfk11 | why are our feet more sensitive to hot water than our hands. | For example feeling the water of the bath with one hand feels hot, but stick a foot in it and you want to die.
With our feet being abused I would expect the opposite.
My guess would be that the hands being our principal touch organ they need to feel a wider range? Still feels weird | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rfk11/eli5_why_are_our_feet_more_sensitive_to_hot_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8ghqi0"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"Our bodies can only feel *differences* in temperature, not the actual temperature.\n\nFor example, you can set up 3 bowls filled with cold, room temperature, and warm water. Put one hand in the cold water and the other hand in the warm water for a minute. Then put both hands in the room temperature water. The hand that was in the cold water will feel warm while the hand that was in warm water will feel cold even though they both are in the same temperature water.\n\nThe same thing happens with your feet and hands before you shower. Your feet are farther away from your body so they do not get as warm. Plus they get cold from stepping on cold surfaces on your way to the shower. Since they are colder, they feel a larger difference in temperature than your hands. This makes the water feel hotter on your feet than on your hands!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
dveoyr | do people in good health need less sleep ? | Since sleep helps our body recover, do healthy people need less sleep than people who smoke, drink, etc. ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dveoyr/eli5_do_people_in_good_health_need_less_sleep/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7c9fc9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Nope, but the other way round. People who get enough sleep tend to be healthier and less illness-prone than sleep deprived people. Factors as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes and so on do have little impact on how much sleep a human body needs."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2cgy2d | why can't someone just calm down when they are having a panic/anxiety attack? | I know that telling someone to calm down in such a situation is useless, and it usually will just make it worse, but why? Even if nobody tells them to do anything, why is it so seemingly impossible? I ask because I've never really had a problem with anxiety; when I'm stressed I typically just begin feeling tired, so anxiety as a whole is pretty foreign to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cgy2d/eli5_why_cant_someone_just_calm_down_when_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjfczcn",
"cjfd0eb",
"cjfdge7",
"cjfe74n",
"cjff93i",
"cjfmmxi"
],
"score": [
2,
46,
32,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"I think it has something to do with awareness. Like, something stressful happens so a panic/anxiety attack starts. Someone else goes \"Oh no, this bad thing is happening to you!\" and another layer of stress gets laid down as they worry about the panic attack in addition to or in place of the original problem.\n\nI've never had a full-blown panic or anxiety 'attack', but I have had stress issues affect my breathing. I found that watching a comedy fixes it as it unhooks my brain from the stress.",
"Panic attacks unnecessarily trigger your fight or flight response and send adrenaline all over your body. There is no danger, but your brain has erroneously perceived danger. You can't stop the adrenaline that's already been released in the same way you can't tell your brain to stop making your heart beat, essentially. \n\nSince it takes time for the response to die down, any attempts to calm oneself that aren't quickly successful can make the situation seem more endless/hopeless. ",
"Why can't you just wake up when you're feeling sleepy?\n\nWhy can't you just stop being hungry?\n\nThe truth of the matter is that some biological system for processing fear has been stimulated, and there is no undoing that until it has run its course. People having panic attacks usually *know* its illogical, but that doesn't make it any less real, or more importantly, doesn't help them solve the problem. \n\nIf I were to send you on a zipline between two skyscrapers, you might *know* you were in no danger, and that the rigging was perfectly safe, but that doesn't stop you from feeling fear.",
"The one time I had a panic attack it was all about making myself aware that I wasn't going to die. I felt like I couldn't breath, but I realized it was a panic attack so I just kept telling myself that I was breathing because logically I would be dead if I wasn't. \r\rThat calmed md down and it subsided within minutes. However, that was a purely physical reaction to withdrawal from medication. For mental attacks it would make sense that one would need someone else to remind them to calm down and focus on breathing.\r\rTL;DR Its hard to calm down when you're stressed and unable to breath and sometimes crying uncontrollably.",
"for the same reason people, who are perfectly capable of doing so, don't just swim when they are drowning. for the same reason you get scared on a roller coaster even though you know it's safe. because our brains are anything but reasonable, when someone has an anxiety attack the fear centre of their brain is going fucking nuts, it's registering existential threat when it should be registering \"everything's fine\" for the more complex explanation:\n\nthe fear centre of the brain(the amygdala) is only slightly connected to the part that handles rational though (the prefrontal cortex) it responds much quicker and then tells the rational part about it a little later, it's off screaming doom and gloom while the prefrontal cortex is like \"what? where? who? what's going on here\" and the amygdala is all like \"don't mind that just run! scream! get out of here we are all going to die!!!!!\" \n\nnow imagine there is someone yelling at you \"it's ok there's nothing to be afraid of\" and you are all like \"OMGWTFAAHHH\" and now you got someone yelling something at you, i don't have time to listen to them i have to get out of here!\n\neventually though it will subside, the rational part will realize there is nothing to be afraid of and tell the amygdala to STFU, amy g will comply...but it's still convinced there was something there...next time...next time you'll see...",
"I'm gonna explain this like... like I'm five.. I also have panic disorder and this is my first post on here.\n\nA panic attack for me just starts out with something just feeling wrong, maybe a slight chest pain, I thought I saw something weird, and now I'm linking it back to having a stroke or a heart attack and that my entire world is crashing around me and that certain death is imminent. Telling me to calm down isn't going to help when I've completely convinced myself that I'm going to die within the hour. I have probably had 3-5 panic attacks a week for the past year, and within the last 3 months I probably go to the ER once a month.\n\n*\"But Jake! You haven't died yet why do you keep having these Panic attacks if you survive every time?\"*\n\nI was lucky last time, and it has to come **sometime** and next time could be it.\n\n\ntl;dr You can't convince a person, who thinks they are going to die very soon, just to calm down"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1w4bfb | why is alcohol legal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w4bfb/why_is_alcohol_legal/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceyk0i1",
"ceyk0j3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Last time it was illegal more harm was done than good.",
"People like it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
n5vrf | star wars | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n5vrf/star_wars/ | {
"a_id": [
"c36io99",
"c36lz1k",
"c36io99",
"c36lz1k"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Assuming you're not trolling...\n\nCrazy fans aside, Star Wars is basically a fantastic telling of a classic story. A boy from the middle of nowhere is suddenly caught up in a rebellion against an evil system. He leaves his home, learns that it's his destiny to help the rebellion succeed, and rises to become the leader of the force that returns peace to the land. \n\nThe characters are richly fleshed out and very believable and (mostly) likeable. Even the bad guys have good sides, and you can understand their motivations (IMHO this is what makes a great villain). \n\nThe acting is great, especially with Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford. \n\nThe music is composed by John Williams and is one of the best scores I can imagine. The hero's theme song is full of fanfare and excitement and hope, and the villain's song is imposing, intimidating, dark and powerful.\n\nThere's a wonderful balance of comedy, action, heart, drama and tragedy. \n\nIn the end, you're left rooting for the good guys, on the edge of your seat, biting your nails just to see if he can win the one battle necessary to save himself and the galaxy.\n\nEDIT: I'm only referring to the original trilogy. There are no others worthy of discussion.",
"Some stories are called science fiction stories because they take stories and arrange them around details that appeal to our enthusiasm (or fear) of science and technology. That genre of story started out slowly in the 17th and 18th centuries as a branch of utopian fiction. Utopian fiction has been around for ages and ages -- the ancient Greeks wrote about utopian societies, and the word itself is made up out of Greek words, but the first person to really use the work \"utopia\" was a writer named Thomas More. In the early 1500s, he wrote a book called Utopia, which described a fictional island nation off the coast of South America that was supposed to be so well-constructed that everyone there was happy and received everything they needed. *Utopia* became the template for an entire genre of fiction about happy societies, and when people talk about perfect societies, they generally call them utopias after More's book, but it's worth noting that the word itself basically means \"no place,\" and More's book was probably at least partially satirical.\n\nUtopian literature gave rise to another genre of fiction, dystopian, which is about societies that a structured in such a way that there's almost no possibility that their citizens will be happy. One of the earliest instances of the genre was a Russian novel called *We*, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and it influenced what is almost certainly the best known dystopic novel, George Orwell's *1984*.\n\n*Utopia* and its predecessors were written when there were still large swaths of the world that were only just being discovered by Europeans, though many had long ago been discovered and inhabited by humans who had migrated through Asia and either across the pacific in boats or through ancient Russia and across the Bering Strait into America. The vacant space on maps allowed European writers to speculate what societies might be like in parts of the world they had never seen. That became particularly popular in the late 15th and early 16th century, when advances in the technology of ship-building and the creation of corporations allowed for huge leaps in exploration. Entrepeneurs like Marco Polo, John Mandeville and (eventually) Christopher Columbus traveled widely and returned to Europe with stories about peoples and societies previously unknown in Europe. More's *Utopia* is one of the direct results of that increasing awareness of the diversity of human society.\n\nBut eventually the Age of Reconaissance (as it's called) drew to a close as explorers came closer to charting a complete map of the lands of the world. With fewer and fewer undiscovered societies to speculate on, utopian writers found a new way to write about fictional societies: by speculating about the future. One of the first books to do this was *L'an 2440*, written by Louis-Sébastien Mercier in the late 18th century, when Europe (and France in particular) was seized with the revolutionary zeal for radically remaking society. That sort of forward looking speculation was the real beginning of a concerted interest in science fiction, and the success of *L'an 2440* was soon replicated in English with books like *Looking Backward*, by Edward Bellamy.\n\nBy the end of the 19th century, the future was the province of a recognized genre. That was the era of the early masters of science fiction, writers like H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne. By this time, the genre had expanded beyond the motive of presenting utopic societies, though you can still see that impulse in Wells' novel *The Time Machine*. More to the point, science fiction had taken one of the themes of *L'an 2440* -- that the spread and development of science would continue to have fantastic consequences for human society -- and made it the basic conceit for a wild variety of stories.\n\nThe development of science fiction as genre coincided with the spread of another relatively new and popular art form, opera. (Jacopo Peri *Dafne*, usually cited as the first opera, was written at the end of the century begun by More's *Utopia*.) By the 19th century, opera had developed into a sophisticated dramatic form with a daunting number of conventions, and was on the verge of lapsing into the autumn in which we find it today. As science fiction became more popular, innovators in the form began incorporating themes, conventions and stock characters from the opera, and particularly those of the Germanic opera under the influence of Richard Wagner. That helped in no small part because advances in astronomy had turned the eyes of science fiction writers to the stars, and while they had the urge to write about mankind's hopes of initiating a second age of reconnaisance into the heavens, information about other planets and stars remained somewhat sketchy. In 1917 an author named Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a novel called *A Princess of Mars*, about a Civil War veteran's accidental journey to another planet. It was to become the best known example of a branch of science fiction called the \"space opera.*\\*\n\nSpace operas were fantastically popular in the early half of the 20th century, and provided many of the basic plots for stories being told with the new invention of cinema. In the late 20s and early 30s, the space opera transitioned to the medium of serialized 3-color comics that were featured in newspapers, resulting in the creation of enduring characters like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Those characters, in turn, became the subject of serialized radio, television and movie stories, the last of which were often exhibited alongside news reels and the Warner and Disney cartoons then coming to prominence.\n\nThen there was a war.\n\nIn the closing days of the war, and in the years immediately following, there was a \"baby boom\" in which many more babies were born in the U.S. than in the decades immediately before and after. One of those babies, born May 14th, 1944 in Modesto, California, was a boy whose parents named him George. Along with a great many kids of his generation, George grew up watching serialized space operas, but his attachment to them was a bit stronger than that of most kids his age. Even when he got \"too old\" for silly stories, he remembered those serials with fondness, and he still hasn't gotten over them.\n\nGeorge eventually grew up and went to film school. There, in 1971, he made a short film called *Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB*. It was science fiction in a rather classical vein -- dystopian -- but it was stylish and well-received, and Geroge was invited to remake it as a feature length film. It was well-received, and George was off and running.\n\nSomething wasn't quite right about *THX 1138*, though. It's an influential move, and people still love it quite a bit, but it wasn't really *him*, you know. He followed up with a movie about growing up in the 1950s, called *American Graffiti*. That film was also well-received and influential (it's a precursor to *Dazed and Confused*, for example), and it feels more like George in at least one regard, namely that it's nostalgic. After *American Graffiti*, George was ready to come back to science fiction. The success of *THX 1138* had won him a two picture contract with United Artists, and he had been working on another science fiction idea for the last film of that contract.\n\nThat movie, of course, was *Star Wars*. In it, Lucas sought to recapture his love for the serialized space operas of his youth. *Flash Gordon* was a major influence, and Lucas had even inquired about the possibility of simply making a *Flash Gordon* movie, but couldn't afford the rights.\n\nFor whatever reason, the movie struck a nerve. John William's soaring score (which alludes heavily to Holst's symphony, *The Planets*) certainly helped, but I also think that Lucas had managed to appeal to a changing moment in the cultural zeitgeist. For the better part of 20 years, feature length science fiction movies had dwelt on invasions and horror of one form or another, channeling the Cold War fears of invasion and nuclear winter. Where those movies were typically claustrophobic, cynical and pessimistic, *Star Wars* was expansive and adventurous, with an optimistic young lead character (but just wait until the 1980s got done with him).\n\nIt would, in other words, be an understatement to say that *Star Wars* merely updated the serialized space operas of the 1950s. Rather, it took the conventions of the space opera and turned them to the purpose of stoking and reflecting the cultural dissatisfaction of a generation that was ready to break free of the fears and frustrations of the Cold War. Not for nothing is the movie also called *A New Hope*.\n\n---\n\n\\* If you want to see just how influential the conventions of the opera were on shaping the entire genre of science fiction when it comes to adventures in space, check out *A Voyage to Arcturus*, written by David Lindsayin 1920. It's structure is more closely related to Edgar Allen Poe's *The Strange Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym*. Many of Lindsay's techniques and some of his intent seems to have been symbolist in approach, and the result is a far weirder novel than anything you'd find in the space opera genre. Lindsay's book was influential in other quarters, but never gained the wide currency that *Princess* did. You can see its influence in the novels of Stanislaw Lem and in the science fiction novels of C.S. Lewis.",
"Assuming you're not trolling...\n\nCrazy fans aside, Star Wars is basically a fantastic telling of a classic story. A boy from the middle of nowhere is suddenly caught up in a rebellion against an evil system. He leaves his home, learns that it's his destiny to help the rebellion succeed, and rises to become the leader of the force that returns peace to the land. \n\nThe characters are richly fleshed out and very believable and (mostly) likeable. Even the bad guys have good sides, and you can understand their motivations (IMHO this is what makes a great villain). \n\nThe acting is great, especially with Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford. \n\nThe music is composed by John Williams and is one of the best scores I can imagine. The hero's theme song is full of fanfare and excitement and hope, and the villain's song is imposing, intimidating, dark and powerful.\n\nThere's a wonderful balance of comedy, action, heart, drama and tragedy. \n\nIn the end, you're left rooting for the good guys, on the edge of your seat, biting your nails just to see if he can win the one battle necessary to save himself and the galaxy.\n\nEDIT: I'm only referring to the original trilogy. There are no others worthy of discussion.",
"Some stories are called science fiction stories because they take stories and arrange them around details that appeal to our enthusiasm (or fear) of science and technology. That genre of story started out slowly in the 17th and 18th centuries as a branch of utopian fiction. Utopian fiction has been around for ages and ages -- the ancient Greeks wrote about utopian societies, and the word itself is made up out of Greek words, but the first person to really use the work \"utopia\" was a writer named Thomas More. In the early 1500s, he wrote a book called Utopia, which described a fictional island nation off the coast of South America that was supposed to be so well-constructed that everyone there was happy and received everything they needed. *Utopia* became the template for an entire genre of fiction about happy societies, and when people talk about perfect societies, they generally call them utopias after More's book, but it's worth noting that the word itself basically means \"no place,\" and More's book was probably at least partially satirical.\n\nUtopian literature gave rise to another genre of fiction, dystopian, which is about societies that a structured in such a way that there's almost no possibility that their citizens will be happy. One of the earliest instances of the genre was a Russian novel called *We*, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and it influenced what is almost certainly the best known dystopic novel, George Orwell's *1984*.\n\n*Utopia* and its predecessors were written when there were still large swaths of the world that were only just being discovered by Europeans, though many had long ago been discovered and inhabited by humans who had migrated through Asia and either across the pacific in boats or through ancient Russia and across the Bering Strait into America. The vacant space on maps allowed European writers to speculate what societies might be like in parts of the world they had never seen. That became particularly popular in the late 15th and early 16th century, when advances in the technology of ship-building and the creation of corporations allowed for huge leaps in exploration. Entrepeneurs like Marco Polo, John Mandeville and (eventually) Christopher Columbus traveled widely and returned to Europe with stories about peoples and societies previously unknown in Europe. More's *Utopia* is one of the direct results of that increasing awareness of the diversity of human society.\n\nBut eventually the Age of Reconaissance (as it's called) drew to a close as explorers came closer to charting a complete map of the lands of the world. With fewer and fewer undiscovered societies to speculate on, utopian writers found a new way to write about fictional societies: by speculating about the future. One of the first books to do this was *L'an 2440*, written by Louis-Sébastien Mercier in the late 18th century, when Europe (and France in particular) was seized with the revolutionary zeal for radically remaking society. That sort of forward looking speculation was the real beginning of a concerted interest in science fiction, and the success of *L'an 2440* was soon replicated in English with books like *Looking Backward*, by Edward Bellamy.\n\nBy the end of the 19th century, the future was the province of a recognized genre. That was the era of the early masters of science fiction, writers like H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne. By this time, the genre had expanded beyond the motive of presenting utopic societies, though you can still see that impulse in Wells' novel *The Time Machine*. More to the point, science fiction had taken one of the themes of *L'an 2440* -- that the spread and development of science would continue to have fantastic consequences for human society -- and made it the basic conceit for a wild variety of stories.\n\nThe development of science fiction as genre coincided with the spread of another relatively new and popular art form, opera. (Jacopo Peri *Dafne*, usually cited as the first opera, was written at the end of the century begun by More's *Utopia*.) By the 19th century, opera had developed into a sophisticated dramatic form with a daunting number of conventions, and was on the verge of lapsing into the autumn in which we find it today. As science fiction became more popular, innovators in the form began incorporating themes, conventions and stock characters from the opera, and particularly those of the Germanic opera under the influence of Richard Wagner. That helped in no small part because advances in astronomy had turned the eyes of science fiction writers to the stars, and while they had the urge to write about mankind's hopes of initiating a second age of reconnaisance into the heavens, information about other planets and stars remained somewhat sketchy. In 1917 an author named Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a novel called *A Princess of Mars*, about a Civil War veteran's accidental journey to another planet. It was to become the best known example of a branch of science fiction called the \"space opera.*\\*\n\nSpace operas were fantastically popular in the early half of the 20th century, and provided many of the basic plots for stories being told with the new invention of cinema. In the late 20s and early 30s, the space opera transitioned to the medium of serialized 3-color comics that were featured in newspapers, resulting in the creation of enduring characters like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Those characters, in turn, became the subject of serialized radio, television and movie stories, the last of which were often exhibited alongside news reels and the Warner and Disney cartoons then coming to prominence.\n\nThen there was a war.\n\nIn the closing days of the war, and in the years immediately following, there was a \"baby boom\" in which many more babies were born in the U.S. than in the decades immediately before and after. One of those babies, born May 14th, 1944 in Modesto, California, was a boy whose parents named him George. Along with a great many kids of his generation, George grew up watching serialized space operas, but his attachment to them was a bit stronger than that of most kids his age. Even when he got \"too old\" for silly stories, he remembered those serials with fondness, and he still hasn't gotten over them.\n\nGeorge eventually grew up and went to film school. There, in 1971, he made a short film called *Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB*. It was science fiction in a rather classical vein -- dystopian -- but it was stylish and well-received, and Geroge was invited to remake it as a feature length film. It was well-received, and George was off and running.\n\nSomething wasn't quite right about *THX 1138*, though. It's an influential move, and people still love it quite a bit, but it wasn't really *him*, you know. He followed up with a movie about growing up in the 1950s, called *American Graffiti*. That film was also well-received and influential (it's a precursor to *Dazed and Confused*, for example), and it feels more like George in at least one regard, namely that it's nostalgic. After *American Graffiti*, George was ready to come back to science fiction. The success of *THX 1138* had won him a two picture contract with United Artists, and he had been working on another science fiction idea for the last film of that contract.\n\nThat movie, of course, was *Star Wars*. In it, Lucas sought to recapture his love for the serialized space operas of his youth. *Flash Gordon* was a major influence, and Lucas had even inquired about the possibility of simply making a *Flash Gordon* movie, but couldn't afford the rights.\n\nFor whatever reason, the movie struck a nerve. John William's soaring score (which alludes heavily to Holst's symphony, *The Planets*) certainly helped, but I also think that Lucas had managed to appeal to a changing moment in the cultural zeitgeist. For the better part of 20 years, feature length science fiction movies had dwelt on invasions and horror of one form or another, channeling the Cold War fears of invasion and nuclear winter. Where those movies were typically claustrophobic, cynical and pessimistic, *Star Wars* was expansive and adventurous, with an optimistic young lead character (but just wait until the 1980s got done with him).\n\nIt would, in other words, be an understatement to say that *Star Wars* merely updated the serialized space operas of the 1950s. Rather, it took the conventions of the space opera and turned them to the purpose of stoking and reflecting the cultural dissatisfaction of a generation that was ready to break free of the fears and frustrations of the Cold War. Not for nothing is the movie also called *A New Hope*.\n\n---\n\n\\* If you want to see just how influential the conventions of the opera were on shaping the entire genre of science fiction when it comes to adventures in space, check out *A Voyage to Arcturus*, written by David Lindsayin 1920. It's structure is more closely related to Edgar Allen Poe's *The Strange Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym*. Many of Lindsay's techniques and some of his intent seems to have been symbolist in approach, and the result is a far weirder novel than anything you'd find in the space opera genre. Lindsay's book was influential in other quarters, but never gained the wide currency that *Princess* did. You can see its influence in the novels of Stanislaw Lem and in the science fiction novels of C.S. Lewis."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6wsprz | why does high water cause the risk of dam failure? shouldn't they be built to withstand capacity and if water isn't released then it just goes over the top or another passive failsafe? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wsprz/eli5_why_does_high_water_cause_the_risk_of_dam/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmafyhf",
"dmag3dc",
"dmagija"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1) Water going \"over the top\" is what can cause the dam to fail -- it's one thing to withstand a steady push, another to withstand the eroding effects of flowing water. If the lip starts to erode, then more water can move through, which has an even greater erosive effect, until the whole structure catastrophically fails.\n\n2) There are passive fail-safe outlets for dams, but they also have a max capacity -- if they can't release water fast enough, the dam will be overtopped and risk failure. The outlet itself can also wear out and fail if it's dealing with more water than it was designed for.\n\n3) Many of these dams were built 50 to 60 years ago. That means many have outdated technologies or may not function as well as they were supposed to.",
"Depends on the type of dam. \n\nUsually dams have floodgates or emergency spillways, which are designed to safely pass any excess. But if you get into a situation where the emergency spillway can't pass all of the excess flow, you might get water coming over the dam crest.\n\nIn concrete dams it's not really the end of the world (Although it can be pretty serious for anyone downstream of the dam,) but in earthfill dams overtopping is very very bad. Basically if an earthfill dam overtops, the face of the dam will turn into mud and erode away with the overtopping water, which then opens a hole that causes more water to release, which causes more erosion and makes the hole bigger - you get the point.\n\nAside from overtopping, you also have to consider loads. Water exerts a pressure on the dam face that is proportionate to the depth of water (it's called hydrostatic force.) 100 metres of water exerts a much greater force on the dam face than 50 metres of water. So if there are any weak areas or instabilities in the dam, they will be put under stress by high water levels. That's pretty much what happened in the Val di Stava dam collapse in Italy in 1985, when 268 people were killed.",
"Water is *heavy* - like, really, *really* heavy. Much heavier than most people realize. That means a dam has to hold up against an utterly massive amount of weight pushing against it - if the water gets too high, its weight just pushes through the dam. Dams certainly **are** engineered to withstand a lot, but there's still a limit.\n\nHere, some quick and dirty rough numbers: say you have a river 20 feet wide and you build a dam across it. Water weighs more or less 60 pounds per cubic foot. If the last 100 feet of that river that're up against the dam rise by 1 foot, that's an additional 120,000 pounds pushing against the dam. If we increase that 100-foot-long stretch of river and say that a half-mile of the river closest to the dam rises by 1 foot, that's suddenly *3 million extra pounds* pushing against the dam. ^(No, it doesn't *exactly* work that way, but good enough for illustration, right?)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
aqviat | why does it feel uncomfortable hearing your own voice (and how to get over it) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqviat/eli5_why_does_it_feel_uncomfortable_hearing_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"egitk6t",
"egitlgh",
"egittde",
"egitudv",
"egiug9z",
"egiuh13",
"egiwjr8"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
15,
5,
3,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Because hearing your voice while speaking sounds different than hearing your voice on a tape or sth like that. And like all things you want to get used to just listen to your voice as often as you can and you will get used to it.",
"Never listen to yourself...problem solved. \n\nSince you have technically heard every word you've ever said, it actually doesn't both you. I think you're referring to how many people don't like to listen to the playback of their natural voice. ",
"Keep listening to recordings of yourself to desensitize to the way it sounds. You hear a much richer version of your voice as it vibrates bones in the head, but this is how others hear you. Just get used to it. ",
"I think it’s because we get so used to hearing our own voice a certain way, so when we hear it played back, we dislike it because it’s not our perception of our voice",
"when you speak, you are hearing the sound vibrating through your skull. \n\na recording, even a perfect one, will be missing some of the lower tones you hear in yourself. ",
"It’s kinda blowing my mind thinking not that long ago nobody had heard their own voice before recordings ",
"Depends whether you mean listening to your own voice as you speak/sing or listening to a recording of your voice. If it's the latter, part of the weirdness is the lack of bone conduction that you would normally hear as you speak, but a huge factor is the microphone being used to record your voice and how you play back the recording, be it on speakers or headphones. If you're using a phone to record and the phone speakers to play, the combination of both will make your voice sound more \"tinny\" due to the physical inability of both microphone and speaker being unable to record and reproduce lower frequencies in any adequate way. In other words, your voice will sound less resonant and less full. As you upgrade the equipment you use to record your voice it will tend to sound closer to what you hear and in some cases make your voice sound better than what you normally hear when speaking.\n\nIn my experience, progressively listening more and more as a matter of necessity (I record my own vocal music) has made me more comfortable listening to my voice, despite its seeming flaws. Because I make multi-layered vocal music, I'm listening to many versions of my voice and the fact that I have to do multiple takes of each part often results in an emotional detachment from how beautiful my voice sounds to the actual nuts and bolts of rendering the music towards a complete state e.g. that bit's out of tune, I said the wrong word/vowel/consonant, that vocal part needs more oomph, the rhythm and timing is not synced there, etc. I don't have time nor do I care necessarily how beautiful or lovely or weird my voice sounds because there's a more important job to do. I suspect listening to my voice thousands of times in this way makes it less weird but it doesn't completely remove it. There's a gaming video of me out there where I'm speaking through my headset mic and my voice sounds really weird in that context."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2fqz4g | why it costs a fortune to legally defend myself in a lawsuit ? | Can't I just go to court and argue for myself.. All it should eat up is my time, not my savings. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fqz4g/eli5_why_it_costs_a_fortune_to_legally_defend/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckbw3p8",
"ckc2rlf"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can represent yourself if you want. It's generally not a good idea. Lawyers cost a lot because they have to go through a lot of schooling and perform educated labour.",
"Actual trial is often only a fraction of the process. You might spend 2-5 years total and only have 2-5 days in trial. [This says](_URL_1_) that 4-5% of personal injury cases go to trial. [This says](_URL_0_) (measuring a recent year in Florida of most civil suits) that 0.2% went to trial.\n\nIt's incredibly unlikely that it will ever go to trial. And if it does then the time in court is remarkably short and (unless you're really invested) remarkably boring. The fancy sexy stuff like:\n\n > Objection! Bias!\n\n > Your honor, I have pre-marked this super secret piece of evidence exhibit A and BAM now I can use it! HAHA!\n\n > AHA! THEN HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS TIRE WAS GOING TO BE FLAT *UNLESS YOU PUNCTURED IT AHEAD OF TIME*?!?! *dum dum dum*\n\nDoesn't happen. The meat of the case is a lot more boring stuff; stuff like forcing yourself to read a footnote even when you're tired, or keeping track of deadlines and rules for you and the opposing counsel. Like, do you know:\n\n* How much time you have to respond?\n* The deadlines you have for all paperwork?\n* How to respond?\n* What you should file in response?\n* How to file things clearly and correctly?\n* How to defend your filings if they object?\n* How, and what, to object to in their filings?\n* How much time they have to file things?\n* What to do if they're late?\n* What to do if you're late?\n* What and when they're allowed to ask/file?\n* What and when you're allowed to ask/file? (And what should you?)\n* What the applicable law is?\n* How to argue when the applicable law isn't clear?\n* How to do research?\n* Whether they even *can* sue you in that place, whether it's better for you to try to move it, whether they even *can* sue you for whatever?\n* Etc etc\n\nThe law is remarkably complicated. It's the only thing that I can think of that has to cover **literally every situation people could ever be in**. Plus it has to do so uniformly and justly. It's an impossible task and so we do the best we can.\n\nIn the US we operate under the American Rule. That means that each side **usually** pays their own attorneys. The English Rule means that the losing side (usually?) has to pay the attorneys of both sides. \n\nThe advantage of the American Rule is that it's easier to sue; if I'm poor then I can still get access to justice. The disadvantage is, well, that it's easier to sue. Which is better is a matter of opinion and, I suppose to some degree, indoctrination and perspective.\n\nAnd there are court fees that you have to pay. You **may** be able to get them -- along with attorney fees, along with extra money -- paid by the other side.\n\n--------------------------\n\nThat said, if you're in small claims court then you often won't even be allowed to have an attorney there with you. It's probably worth talking to one beforehand, but this is a lot more pleading your case before a judge. No one is expecting you to be a professional orator or use \"tricks and technicalities\". "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.legalteamusa.net/civillaw/2013/01/03/what-are-the-odds-a-case-is-going-to-trial/",
"http://thelawdictionary.org/article/pre-trial-settlement-percentage-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/"
]
]
|
|
2x6x8a | how do you make money from a youtube video going viral? | Lets say 3 friends make a music video (unknown band) that goes viral on youtube - how much money can they make? Is there a rough estimate like $10,000 for one million views? Who pays them? Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x6x8a/eli5how_do_you_make_money_from_a_youtube_video/ | {
"a_id": [
"coxhsk9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The advertisers pay them for the ads that they agree to put on the video. The contract that you have to make with Youtube to accept advertising includes a clause that says you're not allowed to say how much money a view or a click is worth, so we don't really know the rate, but we don know that people can make a good living on it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
390651 | does putting ice in front of a fan actually cool the air the fan is blowing? | I've looked up on the Internet how to stay cool without A/C and this keeps being recommended, to put a big bowl of ice in front of a fan. I don't think it's working for me, not even for the twenty minutes it takes for the ice to melt into a bowl of water. The fan air feels pretty much the same as when there's nothing in front of it.
Could I possibly be doing it wrong? Or is the science bunk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/390651/eli5_does_putting_ice_in_front_of_a_fan_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"crz98dx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Having ice melting in your room will cool the air a small bit. However if you are using your freezer to make the ice, it will produce more heat making the ice than the ice will cool."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4hu439 | stupid question but how come( especially overweight people) standing on one leg doesn't break it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hu439/eli5stupid_question_but_how_come_especially/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2sb83r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Overweight people have more weight to carry around daily so their body will develop more muscle, this is why you might notice some overweight people are pretty strong, particularly in their legs, a thin person has less weight to carry around and their body has no need to develop muscle to support them. \n\nYour leg doesn't snap because your legs are strong enough to carry your weight. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3x3mlz | what ever happened to dane cook? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x3mlz/eli5_what_ever_happened_to_dane_cook/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy16l1p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Credit to /u/noposters for this answer: What people don't realize about Dane Cook is that he was on a mega run before Harmful if Swallowed blew up. Even before his comedy central half hour, he was the highest paid comedian touring colleges at that time (not the highest paid in general, but he swooped in when Sandler stopped doing colleges and took those gigs at Sandler's rate). Once his albums blew up, he played MSG, etc. he tried to make the transition into film. His films flopped, and simultaneously both his parents died and it was discovered that his brother/business manager had stolen 50million dollars from him (never recovered). With all those things coming together, he took a bunch of time off. When he came back, tastes had changed and he no longer had the traction he'd had years earlier. He tried to make some comeback appearances but wound up generating controversy by trashing the audience at one of his shows at the Laugh Factory (TJ Miller and others brutalized him on twitter for his behavior). Since then he's appeared here and there in LA and done some voiceover work, but for the most part he keeps a low profile. He's also alienated a lot of people in the NY comedy community for playing up his relationship with Patrice O'Neal in interviews when the two were, in fact, not close"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2ss54t | could a nuclear bomb destroy an asteroid in the vacuum of space? | I hate asking this, but after watching the movie Armageddon again, my house mate mentioned the bomb wouldn't have worked as there was no air on the asteroid. Is this the case? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ss54t/eli5_could_a_nuclear_bomb_destroy_an_asteroid_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnsc95k",
"cnscaqn",
"cnsdoem"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The explosion could have occurred, there just wouldn't be a huge ball of fire and noise accompanying it. The real problem would be that when the asteroid would get blown to pieces, those pieces would still be on course to Earth. And still be huge. In other words the bomb wouldn't actually have been very helpful. The current planned reaction to a scenario like this would be to send a nuclear missile into space, detonate it *near* the asteroid but to one side of its course. This would knock the asteroid of its course, and thus render it harmless.\n\nMore than what you were asking for but I hope it helps.",
"A nuclear bomb doesn't require oxygen, so it would work. It wouldn't destroy the asteroid because the explosion is far too small for an asteroid that big (I read somewhere that this is the equivalent of putting a pin sized hole in a bowling ball and farting inside it). ",
"It wouldn't have worked for all sorts of reasons but that's not one of them.\n\nNuclear explosions aren't fire - they're not the result of rapid oxidation. They don't need air. In fact numerous high-altitude nuclear weapons tests were made, some high enough as to be essentially \"in space\" just to see what would happen (answer - artificial radiation belts were created that disrupted shortwave radio transmissions for years, and an electromagnetic pulse was emitted that damaged the electronics of ships at sea and the telephone system of Honolulu).\n\nA large enough nuclear weapon could vaporize an asteroid. One of the largest hydrogen bomb tests conducted by the US in the South Pacific vaporized an island. Called Castle Bravo, resulted in a 15 megaton explosion and left a crater 6,500 feet in diameter and 250 deep. The Soviet Union detonated a weapon 3 times as powerful, as a preliminary design of a weapon 6 times as powerful that was never tested. Making even larger weapons is certainly feasible. There's just no meaningful reason to make one for warfare so nobody ever bothered.\n\nIf it became necessary to try and destroy a celestial object with a nuclear weapon something big enough to do the job could be built. Nobody wants to do the work that would be required until it's absolutely necessary for the obvious reason that it would require breaking the various test-ban treaties and would be seen by all nations as a weapon that could be used on a terrestrial target.\n\nThere would have to be careful consideration made of how to deliver such a weapon and how to trigger it to avoid just breaking up the target or deflecting it in an unwanted direction or of failing to vaporize the target."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1zx0ib | why has human evolution only gotten us to the point where well less than half of females experience an orgasm during vaginal intercourse? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zx0ib/eli5_why_has_human_evolution_only_gotten_us_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfxq6yx",
"cfxqkcd",
"cfxs9or",
"cfxt0na",
"cfxuadz",
"cfxz0ta",
"cfxzic8"
],
"score": [
155,
28,
15,
5,
55,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably because vaginal orgasms have little bearing on successful mating. If women *had* to have an orgasm in order to conceive, you can be sure they'd all do so. ",
"I've read a number of articles which suggest that this is less a result of biological evolution than it is of societal evolution. Specifically, for hundreds of years we (as a society) have been teaching women that their bodies are things to be ashamed of, and as a result many women have a kind of psychological block. Sometimes they will unknowingly recoil from an orgasm, confusing the pleasure for pain. Or they will just be too stressed out about being thought of as slutty to let themselves go and enjoy sex. Speaking as a guy, I know it can be very hard for me to reach an orgasm if I'm worried about something else, and I imagine this could affect women in the same way.\n\nAnother factor is that many men don't really understand what does or doesn't feel good for a woman. And even that they can assume that what feels good for them will feel good for a woman, even if this isn't actually the case. \n\nThere are probably other contributing factors as well, but I would be very hesitant to claim that the primary issue was biological as opposed to psychological or sociological. ",
"Most women require clitoral stimulation to orgasm, yet the clitoris is not even touched (let alone with the rhythm/pressure/consistency it wants) during most positions because it's so far away from anything else. Plus, it usually takes women longer than men, whose most sensitive area is on the bottom tip of the penis - what would've been the clitoris if they'd stayed female in utero. So, most males get so much more stimulation during vaginal intercourse than females. (Toys can even the score. There's even one that's a ring with a vibrator attached - very nice.) Most women don't know themselves enough to know what to even ask for. I strongly recommend the book The Guide to Getting It On as a great starter to knowing yourself, your partner, and how to even begin to know what works, what doesn't, and how to ask for it. It's constantly being revised and updated, but I've worked with old editions happily for years. It's really popular, and you can probably find multiple copies at a used book store or your local library. Here's a link to it on Amazon: _URL_0_\n\nAs for the evolution aspect, I agree that it's societal, not evolutionary. We don't teach women about their own bodies, and also don't teach men how to please women. It's sad, because most men want to know, but don't even know where to look for answers. Plus, a man even admitting that he doesn't know leads to him being seen as a sexual failure. That's ridiculous, considering that every woman is different. Some never admit it, like the commenter below that claims he's never met a woman who doesn't orgasm during vaginal intercourse. Obviously, that's not true. He's either too ashamed to admit he doesn't please every single woman, or he's been with a few who lied to him, perhaps because they felt obligated to have one lest they come off as prudes or disappoint him. Honesty is so important.\n\nI hope this helps. Sex is definitely one of those things that gets better with age because we learn more about it and ourselves.",
"For the vast history of homo sapiens, there was very little downside for a man having sex. The same cannot be said for women. Or, in other words, women are the ones that get pregnant and having a massive sex drive and intense orgasms every time they had sex is probably not such a good thing. They have to be much pickier about who they have sex with because odds are high they'll end up pregnant with that persons child and have to give birth to it and raise it. ",
"Because women who don't experience orgasms keep having kids.",
"Most other species do not experience orgasms and in many species (think large cats) sex is very painful for the female due to the shape of the penis or barbs. More importantly, the purpose of sex (evolutionarily speaking) is to successfully produce viable offspring. An orgasm is not necessary for reproduction and is arguably energetically expensive. \n\nBasically, what I am saying is that we should not ask why only a portion of women can orgasm. We should be asking why anyone can orgasm. What is the value of that from an evolutionary perspective?\n\nUpdate: You ask your question as if you think of evolution as a ladder (a species keeps improving to achieve an ideal form). This is not how evolution works. A species changes continuously through random mutations and, through natural selection, the individuals that are most suited to their environment will reproduce and pass on their genes. There is no end point;species change, some differentiate into multiple species and some species die off continuously. \n",
"I'm removing this. The question comes from an (admittedly common) fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, as many of the replies have pointed out.\n\nIf you're really dissatisfied with my removal, the fact is that /u/Porridginal said the whole thing. It frankly is not important from an evolutionary standpoint whether women have an orgasm or not, just as long as they're having sex. They clearly are (there are a lot of us humans around as proof), so there's no need for any evolutionary change.\n\nIt's becoming untenable to moderate the replies, and there's no further conversation to be had."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Guide-Getting-It-On/dp/1885535333"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7dcmod | why is it that some people can sleep through a thunderstorm and yet be woken up by a simple flick of a switch or a bug flying around? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dcmod/eli5_why_is_it_that_some_people_can_sleep_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpwstrx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Absolutely not an expert, but I believe that the brain reacts to specific noises rather than sheer volume when it instructs the body to wake on hearing a noise.\n\nFor example, a baby's cry is specifically designed to wake a mother from sleep, which is why it generally works. You can also make your own associations, such as your alarm clock or phone ringtone.\n\nObviously, like all traits we evolved in this manner, it will vary from person to person. But it's about type of noise, not volume. I had a friend who could quite easily sleep through the sound of two loud angry nerds playing WoW in his room and absolutely NOT keeping the volume down. We go out for a smoke and come back in and he wakes up like Rip Van Winkle and asks \"Did you smoke in here?\" just from the fact he could smell it on us.\n\nAgain, not an expert, but I seem to recall hearing this explantion from someone trustworthy. Don't take my word on it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8w24zz | why do some of us enjoy / are curious about / are attracted to - horror / creepy stories? | It causes us discomfort, anxiety, distress, disgust, among other negative feelings. Shouldn't we feel the opposite of attracted and not want to know or hear anything of the sort? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8w24zz/eli5_why_do_some_of_us_enjoy_are_curious_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1s33i4",
"e1sbqx6"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Being scared releases a cascade of chemical signals and responses that can actually feel good. You get amped up to fight or run away, so your heart rate increases, you breathe in more oxygen, and you get pumped full of feel-good chemicals that will prevent you from feeling tired, hurt, or overexerted until the threat has passed. Amusement park rides and horror fiction are ways of getting that response in a safe environment. \n\nAside from that, sometimes it's just fascinating to explore the darker parts of human nature or the unknown. It can also be satisfying to experience a story where a scary experience resolves itself with a happy ending.",
"As a survival trait, humans are fascinated by stories of horrible things happening to other people. It allows us to think about how we would defend ourselves in such a situation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4ceojk | why does it take longer to copy a file from a computer to an external hdd than vice versa? | I noticed that when I copied a file from my external hard drive to my computer, it took about 10 minutes. When I copied the file from my computer to my external hard drive it took about 20 minutes. No other copying processes were going on during either instance.
* The computer is a Macbook Pro with a solid-state drive.
* The external HDD is not solid-state.
* The connection is USB 3.0. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ceojk/eli5_why_does_it_take_longer_to_copy_a_file_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1hh7y8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your external HDD has a slower write speed than read speed. When the computer has to access your HDD, the data reads fast but when the computer wants to write to the HDD it takes longer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7dhtht | how do businesses get paid in china? does the government take all the money they receive? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dhtht/eli5_how_do_businesses_get_paid_in_china_does_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpxwgjn",
"dpxwx9s"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"AFAIK their economy works like Capitalism but their government/laws run like Communism. Their system has evolved. I apologise if I am wrong.",
"China runs on capitalism. \n\nIf you are a worker, you work and get paid. \n\nIf you have a business you work and get paid. \n\nThey do collect taxes just like everywhere else. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
32gszc | can gravity decay over time? why or why not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32gszc/eli5_can_gravity_decay_over_time_why_or_why_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqb1qhr",
"cqb1s65",
"cqb1smf",
"cqb4tv2",
"cqb51y4",
"cqb6wsy",
"cqc9fca"
],
"score": [
14,
59,
2,
3,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, Gravity is a fundamental force, and, as far as we can tell, stays constant forever. ",
"No, gravity doesn't decay, at least not directly as a function of time.\n\nGravity is just a function of two things: the mass of two objects and the distance between them. \n\nSo if we had two objects of fixed mass at a fixed distance and those properties never changed, the force of gravity between them would be the same today as it would be a trillion years from now.\n\nNow, if one of those objects lost mass in any way, gravity would decrease. If you moved one away from the other, it would decrease. But neither of those really has to do with time.",
"There are only two things that affect gravity: the mass of the two objects, and their distance. If neither of those things change, then the gravitational attraction will not change.",
"If you want, you can view gravity as a force vector that decays with time and moves at the speed of light away from objects with mass and points towards them. Gives you the same result as a model where gravity weakens with distance. Either way you have a field of vectors. \n\nSuppose a new piece of mass winked into existence a light year away. The purely distance model fails to account for the delay in time demanded by the speed of light, the moving vector model doesn't. If new mass is created, any model without time fails. If no new mass is created, all that matters is distance.\n\nThis assumes that general relativity holds.",
"The current *assumption* is that it does not, i.e. that it is constant over time. Our confidence in this comes as experimental evidence does not contradict it. \n\nHowever, this does not make it necessarily so. It's only \"true\" until *some* observation disproves it. ",
"Gravity is not a thing. Its a fundamental force that is a *result* of a thing. That thing being matter which hass mass. \n\nGravity is the warping of spacetime, but it's the warping of spacetime that creates gravity and therefore gravity relies on things that warp spacetime (matter).\n\nSo the only way gravity can decay is if the mass that is warping spacetime decays. When thinking about entropy, entropy does not affect gravity directly, since entropy applies on systems of matter. Therefore entropy can only affect things that create gravity, but not gravity itself directly, since gravity is a result of an object warping spacetime.",
"I like this one: Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.\nWheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity. According to deGrasse Tyson, we don't know \"what\" gravity is. There is no real proof of gravitational decay, or for example that gravity was somehow different and weaker back in the dinosaur ages. Or stronger for that matter. Lots yet to be learned, me thinks..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4seoz8 | why aren't cows ridden like horses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4seoz8/eli5_why_arent_cows_ridden_like_horses/ | {
"a_id": [
"d58po1x",
"d58pvur",
"d58qgok",
"d58rlrt"
],
"score": [
18,
7,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"[They certainly can be](_URL_0_), however cows are particularly dim witted by comparison with horses so they're just much harder to train. That's why you don't see it more often.",
"Horses have very strong backs when can withstand the extra weight. They also have gentler gates and ways of moving than other species. This is likely why they were domesticated for riding over other animals",
"Cowboys sure do try, if you would like to see them try, got to the rodeo next time it is in town.",
"Ruminant cattle's four- stomach digestive system allows them to eat tough, course, woody, and pulpy scrub whole (or your house, for that matter) which means they can survive in larger numbers on less acreage. Horses, on the other hand have only one stomach and eat mainly the tender leaves and shoots of grasses, thus must range farther in lesser herds to find sufficient forage. \n\nBecause of this, horses evolved to move faster and farther in the course of their daily exigencies. Their lighter skeletons and more graceful muscle distribution results in gaits that are more even and efficient than cattle's are, and are far smoother and more comfortable for the human rider. (If you watch a cow at a trot you can see how they gallumph along with their stomachs bouncing and swinging from their backbone, while horses carry their weight more evenly.) \n\nAdditionally, horses, having been domesticated for riding and companionable partnership over hundreds of generations are also more emotionally attuned to humans than cattle -- which still basically view us as The Enemy, and are far less inclined to cooperate with us. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDLzcJRM6Y"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5t812m | why/how are there many more girls then boys in fine arts schools? | I'm at a fine arts high school, and its nearly 80% girls. Im in creative writing, there are 2 other boys out of 30 girls in my whole class. Almost exact same with my fine arts middle school too, i always wondered why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t812m/eli5_whyhow_are_there_many_more_girls_then_boys/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddkt07i",
"ddkuyut",
"ddkvhvw",
"ddlej8b"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Society has pre-conceived roles that each gender should fill. We are programmed from a young age to what we are supposed to be when we grow up. Men typically go to school for engineering, business, and computer related roles, while women typically go for liberal arts, teaching, or social sciences. \n\nNothing is actually stopping women from going to school for STEM degrees.",
"I've seen too many fathers (and even some mothers) who are afraid that boys who express any sort of creativity are going to \"become gay\" and so anything to do with color, design or expression is forbidden. I really feel for these boys, because the appreciation of beauty brings so much joy. ",
"Different genders have different preferences. Men tend to go into more math dominated fields and women tend to go into more emotive fields such as arts, social work, education, etc.\n\nThere's a lot of sociology and biology behind it, but people gravitate to what they feel they are good at. Also, the arts doesn't typically pay very well. Men are conditioned, as well as being part of their biology, to be providers which is hindered by the pay. Even if interested, men are less likely to go into fields that pay less because society expects them to have money and to be able to provide in order to find a good mate and maintain a high social standing.\n\nI guess you could frame the question in another way. Why do so many girls feel they can drop a ton of money on an education for low paying fields and poor job opportunities? Why do they have the belief that they don't necessarily need to be self sufficient with their degree?",
"\"Different genders have different preferences. Men tend to go into more math dominated fields and women tend to go into more emotive fields such as arts, social work, education, etc.\" NO. And, wow, the lack of understanding on the responses below beggers belief. The fact that you have women in history who have excelled at maths and physics and science, from Hypatia of Alexandria (c 350) to the women in the new movie \"hidden figures\" shows it is not a genetic or DNA issue. It's a combination of social pressure, social prejudices, most of which take hold of you long before decide on a career. And if you fight all that and go and complete a degree then you get a whole new heap of social prejudices. I'll give you one example. (gender bias in science!)[_URL_0_]"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/"
]
]
|
|
29yt0x | how are foods that have been processed in a factory into a finished product cheaper than fresh raw ingredients | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29yt0x/eli5_how_are_foods_that_have_been_processed_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cipt9tp",
"cipth5c",
"cipttc0",
"cipvmfk",
"cipwvjk",
"cipxp0b",
"cipxt30",
"cipysvp",
"ciq0ui7",
"ciq0wjm",
"ciq1i9p",
"ciq25q5",
"ciq6gfk",
"ciq6vez",
"ciqer5j"
],
"score": [
15,
162,
170,
20,
2,
6,
6,
9,
6,
2,
3,
11,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of the ingredients in processed food are heavily subsidized by tax money. Also, the factory can use the economies of scale; if it costs ten times as much to buy an industrial oven, but it can make a hundred times as many cookies, it's cheaper overall, as long as you're making a lot of cookies.",
"Two things: Processed foods are often not cheaper. Soda/pop is just basically sugar and water and flavors. How much wheat or corn do you think is in in a box of cereal? Just a few cents worth. The same with bread.\n\nOther than that, the perceived quality of the raw ingredients is way lower in processed food, most noticeably fruits and vegetables. If you go to a supermarket or fruit stand, you are not likely to see, and less likely to buy bruised or disfigured fruit or vegetables. But this is what goes into juices and soups and other stuff because appearance doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be packed or transported as carefully so it's cheaper to buy.",
"Fresh food spoils. When you process it, add a bunch of salt and freeze or can it, you extend the shelf life immensely. You can buy raw ingredients when the market is flooded, getting the cheapest price and you don't have to throw anything out.\n\n",
"A big thing that people always leave out is distribution. There are a few things to consider. I work at a smallish grocery and produce store, and I do orders and inventory. \n\nFresh ingredients are generally large, heavy and wasteful. One case of celery is 40 pounds... and we'll sell that in a day. One case of lettuce [green, red and romaine leaf] is about the same and sells in a day. A case of bananas is about 40 lbs. That sells in a day too. You get the idea. Even for a small store like mine, we'll generally require $2k-$3k a day for fresh produce and vegetables. That's 2-3 large [6x6x6 foot pallettes] delivered daily. Then counted, quality checked, moved into a cooler, and then on to the floor. And then maintained throughout the day. We have to toss poor quality specimens. A lot of stuff goes bad, so there is [for produce alone] a few hundred dollars worth of stuff thrown out daily. \n\nSo the gist of what I'm getting at is that, where processed products see high cost in manufacturing, fresh products see high cost in distribution, sale and shrink. Grocer goods have a shelf life of weeks or months, which means that shrink is less. They are optimized for distribution by being packaged and [generally] light weight. They are easy to count, and require no maintenance at the store end. It's just receive, shelf, face and forget. There is very little risk or loss. \n\ntl;dr They basically have opposite pros and cons. Fresh = heavy, large and wasteful [distribution and shrink issues]. Processed = light, compact and long lasting [manufacture costs]. ",
"It lasts longer, so it can stay on the shelf longer. Fresh fruits and vegetables are constantly being cycled through because they expire quickly, and that costs more money. The store has to make that back.",
"A further factor to take into account is that a lot of processed meat products are just leftovers. All the nice bits of meat, such as chicken breast or prime steak cut are all taken first and sold at a higher price.\n\nThe stuff that's left after all the prime cuts are gone, is the undesirable ( but still edible bits) such as snouts, genitals, meat scraped off bones etc. All these bits would normally have been thrown away, but the industry decided to make money off of the waste. Hence, the very cheap nasty bits are normally made into cheap nasty food. \n\n All this leftover stuff is normally pulped into a nasty ass paste, then formed to shape nuggets, or sausages or any other product that can be ground up and made into different products. The Young Turks did a good ( but pretty gross) video about the process. \n\n( Video- _URL_0_ )\n\nEdit- I forgot to actually add the reason. ",
"From what I'm told its only in the States thats like that. For me in France everything boxed or processed or ready meals are ridiculously expensive, and then a baguette costs 30c.",
"It takes a full crew to cull, zone and stock a produce section. A lot of heavy lifting, sorting and making it pretty. It takes more labor than you think. This drives up the price too. ",
"This was in the first class in business school. \n\nSay a farmer picks 10,000 apples a month, but can only sell 5,000 since everyone in his towns and the town around him already bought apples from him. If he got a dollar an apple, he'd have $5,000, but 5000 apples that go to waste. \nNow Walmart comes along and offers him 75 cents an apple, and will buy all 10,000. Now that farm has made more money (7,500 instead of 5,000), and Walmart can sell them for 90 cents at the store at a lower cost than regular farmer sell them for $1, while still making profit.\n\nIn reality, Walmart does this, but insteAd of buying 10,000 apples they buy 10 million barbie dolls or 5 million duck dynasty t-shirts. \n\nTL/DR: Walmart buys in bulk",
"Also, many processed foods use a poorer, cheaper quality of produce. Nobody cares if the corn that goes into the factory is off-color, misshapen, slightly off-tasting, unrefrigerated, et cetera.",
"actually, this harvard study shows that fresh foods are not more expensive than processed foods. But fresh foods do take more time to prepare.\n\n_URL_0_",
"There are several reasons. One major reason is that commercial food sellers cut corners on the quality of ingredients. For instance when we make baked goods we usually use butter, cream etc. If you look at the ingredient list of equivalent prepared goods, you'll see everything *except* butter such as combinations of various oils. Cream will be represented as various shelf-stable components of milk. Check for things like \"butter spread\", they had to use the word spread because the product doesn't meet the industry standard of identity for butter. \"Chocolate flavored\" means it doesn't meet the standard of identity for chocolate. \"Frozen dairy dessert\" is the phrase for sub-standard ice cream, etc.\n\nAnother, food in chain grocery stores has an absurd markup applied to it. Food is not supposed to cost as much as Safeway would have you believe. If possible, check out those small hole-in-the wall markets always crowded with Chinese, Mexican, Filipino people etc. Not trying to be racist, but they are great cooks who wont tolerate bad deals and often have large families to feed. They all know what's up while we're paying 2$ for a smaller avocado than they're getting for 50 cents.\n\nAlso, with today's gas prices, you're not so much paying for the thing, but the gas to get the thing to you. A shelf-stable product can take it's time getting to you via a large, organized distribution system but that box of berries was trucked over in a refrigerated trailer (or flown) almost straight from the farm. \n\nEDIT: I also forgot to mention that sometimes there are complicated price support systems in play. The US govt tariffs imported cane sugar to keep our domestic sugar competitive and it also subsidizes corn growers for corn syrup. This creates an atmosphere where cheaper corn syrup is more attractive to mass producers than cane sugar. ",
"Dunno if anyone mentioned it but another factor is that processed foods from animals use many parts of the animal that most people would never buy raw/whole.",
"Filler, lots and lots of filler.",
"Quality of ingredients used in processed foods are not comparable to the quality of foods you use to create a similar item from scratch. Also, the majority of processed foods are more expensive. Take crackers. About $1.50 worth of ingredients (flour, shortening, leavening, water, salt) sells for $3.50+."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T67DvoH2H3E"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/a-healthy-diet-is-cheaper-than-you-might-think-study-finds-9431.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
15sp0a | why we need both a senate and a house of representatives? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15sp0a/eli5_why_we_need_both_a_senate_and_a_house_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7pfsww",
"c7pftq7",
"c7pjkat"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"because checks and balances?",
"The House is elected every 2 years. So, they are closest to the people and will be most reactive to changing opinions.\n\nBut, Senators are only elected every 6 years. So, they have the luxury of being able to make unpopular decisions that might still be the best thing for the country. They temper the raw populism of the House.",
"When Americans were trying to cobble together a constitution in the summer of 1787 (to replace the already-existing constitution called the Articles of Confederation), the biggest dispute was between the big states and the small states. How should representation be determined in the new congress? Should states with larger populations get a bigger say? Or should each state get an equal voice?\n\nThe biggest state was Virginia, and their delegates at the Constitutional Convention introduced what's called the Virginia Plan. It called for a bicameral (two-house) legislature in which representation in each house would be determined by population. Obviously the small states didn't like this, and submitted a counterproposal called the New Jersey Plan: a unicameral (one-house) legislature in which representation would be by state. Furthermore, under this plan, each state would have veto power over legislation. This debate was very serious and threatened the negotiations. Finally they came up with a compromise: a two-house congress. The lower house (the House of Representatives) would have representation by population. The upper house (the Senate) would have an equal number of representatives (two) from each state. All laws must be approved by both houses. This makes both the big states and the small states happy. It made it possible for all 13 states to feel comfortable living under a more muscular constitution which would create a federal government that would have considerable power over their lives, much more so than existed under the Articles of Confederation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2kr0b2 | now that it's egg nog season. how and what is egg nog made out of? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kr0b2/eli5_now_that_its_egg_nog_season_how_and_what_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"clnwcj1",
"clnwdqg"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Eggs, milk, half and half, sugar, vanilla extract, cinnamon, nutmeg. It can either be cooked or uncooked. _URL_0_",
"It is not yet egg nog season, slow your roll man. Pump the brakes, it'll happen...don't force it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.food.com/recipe/creamy-cooked-eggnog-107273"
],
[]
]
|
||
5wm27a | why do we have lips? | This questions just randomly sprung up on me today. I was in class and I looked at someones lips and wondered why are they there. What's the point of our lips being all pink and looking the way they look? Why couldn't we just have all normal skin/flat skin cover our mouths the same way. I was in class just thinking like wow lips are weird like do we really need them do they really have a purpose or would we be fine with flat skin, but still have that skin cover our mouths | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wm27a/eli5_why_do_we_have_lips/ | {
"a_id": [
"deb6tti",
"deb80g8",
"deb85y2",
"deb9z4l",
"debal6s"
],
"score": [
17,
4,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I recently read the superb book \"touch\" which is solely about the sense of touch.\n\nThe nerves in the lips are very, very sensitive. \n\nThe lips serve humans as an excellent tool in sensory perception. This is most evident in infants who will constantly use their lips to explore items.\n\nFurthermore, the sensitivity of the lips makes them serve a key role as an erogenous zone. It is for this reason that kissing builds intimacy and affection. And kissing builds that intimacy and affection also in platonic connections, such as with our kids and parents and friends.",
"I don't have a super science answer here, but babies were mentioned above. Babies kind of flip their lips out and around the nipple when breastfeeding. We always think they're sucking on the nipple, but really the nipple is deeper in their mouth and their using their lips and jaw to get the milk out. And yes, I know that about 90% of that is potentially dirty. Chill out people, they're babies.\n\nI think there's a lot related to our mouths, too. Babies suck on pacifiers or thumbs to soothe themselves. They explore with their mouths. As adults we kiss to develop romantic social bonds. And we continue with some hand-mouth anxiety behaviors, like nail biting. Smoking and stress eating probably also falls into this category.\n\nSource- I work with babies and frequently talk about breastfeeding. And a healthy dose of pure speculation.\n\nTLDR: lips help babies breastfeed, they develop soothing behaviors around their mouths (ie thumb sucking), and use the sensitivity to explore their world. Then we continue some of this as adults.",
"_URL_0_\n\n^From the article:\n1.) Nursing\n2.) Speaking\n3.) Kissing (a. pleasurable, b. adequate partner selection) \n\nAlso, I remember watching this show about the science of attraction, and I think they said that lips remind us of sex organs; depending on the look of your lips, your potential partner may desire you more or less. ",
"Mouths are essentially sphincters, and as such, the tissue at the end of this sphincter (the lips) must be able to fully seal. \nAt the same time, us people have been known to open our maws up to chew on turkey legs and corn on the cob. We've evolved a yuge sphincter, one of the best sphincters, and we have the best people working on making them even better. MSsGA! \nForgiving my one sentence joke, lips provide the dual function of opening wide and shutting tight. If you've ever squatted over a mirror, and I know you have, your anus has \"lips\" too. Our bodies don't simply wrap the same skin allover, instead, some skin performs different functions better. \nFurther, let's look at the inside of your mouth. Your inner cheek flesh is kind of exposed, but a weak substitute compared to the leathery outside of your cheek. Lips are the transition between leather and meat. \nAll hail the sphincter!\n",
"Honestly, I don't think that every part of our body is must have a purpose. Some could have been created by random mutations and not being a disadvantage that would get your ancestors killed (blonde hair for example).\n\nIf you're a creationist you'd just have to find purpose in everything. But please don't be a creationist."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150112-why-do-we-have-lips"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1fcvcd | how do cpu heatsink towers work? | [These things.](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fcvcd/eli5how_do_cpu_heatsink_towers_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca90e72",
"ca90gvj",
"ca922i2"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"These things are air cooled. As in, they depend on air to take heat away from them. To work well, they need to be touching a lot of air at the same time. \n\nAn example of large surface area helping cooling is putting hot soup in a saucer vs putting it in a tall mug. The saucer allows more soup to touch the air, and cools it faster.\n\nThe design of these heatsinks has a large number of plates with gaps in between them, increasing total air contact area. Heat arrives from the CPU through the pipes that are passing across the plates. Air passes through these gaps in the plates and cools it down quickly.\n\nBlowing air over the soup saucer helps too. This is where CPU cooler fans come in.",
"Computer processors can produce quite a lot of heat. Heatsinks are designed to help move that heat away from the processor, otherwise they'll get too hot and can be damaged. The plate at the bottom is attached to the processor and conducts heat away from the processor through the heat pipes on the side to the tower of fins. The heat from the fins then moves into the air and is ultimately exhausted from the computer case.\n\nThe tower is made of fins so that it can move heat into the air quickly. If it were a solid block of metal it could hold more heat but would eventually heat up as it can't get rid of heat as fast, and then wouldn't do a very good job of moving heat away from the processor. The greater surface area of the fins allows more contact with the air, so there's more air available to move heat away.",
"It's worth also noting how [heat pipes](_URL_0_) work to carry the heat away from the small surface of the CPU and deliver it to the huge surface of the cooling fins.\n\nIf you look at a [cross-section of a heat pipe](_URL_1_) you can see that it is hollow in the middle, and has a porous material on the inner surface. A small amount of liquid is sealed inside the heat pipe, and all air is removed leaving otherwise only vacuum inside. \n\nThe liquid has a specific boiling temperature, so that the part of the liquid closest to the hot surface of the CPU boils into gas which then expands filling the middle part, carrying the heat with it. At the cooler end where the fins are connected, the gas condenses back into a liquid as it cools, and then gets carried by the [capillary action](_URL_2_) of the small holes in the porous surface material coating the inside of the pipe, which acts like a wick, back to the source of the heat.\n\nSince heat pipes used in typical CPU coolers rely on capillary action, and not gravity to move the liquid, they can work in any orientation, including upside down.\n\nUsing a phase transition of a liquid (evaporation and condensation) to transfer heat is much more efficient than just using a solid thermal conductor (metal), which was typical in the [earlier CPU heatsinks](_URL_3_) without heat pipes."
]
} | []
| [
"https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjyMlVrMC03d3t7Ry4T_8bkZzL4pnbY7jUqhH7T6JJOoeLS-ku7Q"
]
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe",
"http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1359431112004206-gr3.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action",
"http://dc309.4shared.com/doc/0ks1ex0P/preview_html_m1b0547a2.jpg"
]
]
|
|
56qqq4 | why did immigration officials on ellis island rename vito andolini to corleone? (godfather ii) | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56qqq4/eli5_why_did_immigration_officials_on_ellis/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8lo25i"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"There is a myth, which this movie buys into, that immigrants into the US were often forced to accept new names against their wishes, either because the government wanted immigrants to Americanize their names, or (as in this case) because overworked or incompetent officials misheard or misread, and recorded all the names wrong. One of my favourite myths is the one of the German immigrant who, when asked his name, replied \"Schon vergessen,\" which means \"I've already forgotten\"; this was duly recorded as \"Sean Fergusson\".\n\nThere is no evidence that this happened. Immigration documents were prepared by the steamship companies, and for the most part US officials seem to have made every effort to record the names as accurately as they could. Sometimes the spelling was changed slightly, but ghastly errors like the one in *The Godfather* don't seem to have happened.\n\nWhere names were Americanized, it seems to have been the immigrants themselves who did it, wanting to fit in to the New World. Sometimes they were only too glad to get rid of their old names, especially European Jews who had sometimes been made to adopt faintly insulting names. A prime example of this was a Polish man called Szmuel Gelbfisz, who first emigrated to England where he anglicized his name to \"Samuel Goldfish\" (a literal translation of his Yiddish name) before emigrating to the US. He eventually, for reasons that should be very obvious, changed his surname to \"Goldwyn\", which is just as well because otherwise we would now be watching movies made by Metro-Goldfish-Mayer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4gmgqm | other than financial limitations, is there anything stopping me from starting my own space program separate from the government? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gmgqm/eli5_other_than_financial_limitations_is_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2iuqan"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"If you are asking whether there any laws prohibiting such a thing, no.\n\nThere are lots of hurdles, though--land, permits, materials, a team of engineers...but with money and support those things can be conquered. See the Amazon guy (Jeff something) and the Tesla guy (Elon Musk) and Space X and Virgin Galactic. A number of wealthy businesses and/or individuals are working on various projects, but in the US the only government agencies are NASA and the military.\n\nEdit: There are laws prohibiting using space stuff as *weapons*, but other than that you're good to go :)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5ghish | why does food stick so strongly to plates or frying pans after its sat out a few hours compared to when it's fresh? | I was doing dishes today and had a couple particularly old stubborn smears I had to clean off. Even food items that were never hot (like guacamole or sour cream) seem to bond abnormally strong to dirty dishes after a night's rest in the sink. Why are they so stubborn!? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ghish/eli5_why_does_food_stick_so_strongly_to_plates_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"daseb0x",
"dashpjx",
"dashsdm",
"daskog0"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
3,
12
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately I don't have an answer to what causes this, but a pro-tip I can give you is to let your dishes soak if you aren't going to wash them right away. ",
"Not a food scientist but I'm gonna guess that it's a combination of:\na) Food drying/losing water so it's not as soluable as it used to be when you try to rinse\nb) Oils harden when they cool down, it seems especially bad when mixed with left over food particles\nc) probably some other ingredient specific chemical reaction voodoo that I don't know about",
"Heat has a lot to do with it in my experience. Wash something with very hot water compared to cold. ",
"When food is wet, it tends to be soft and goopy. In this liquidy state it can seep into microscopic cracks and such. As it dries out, it loses moisture and both shrinks and hardens. As it shrinks and hardens, it solidifies its grip on the surface as if it were clenching its fists. Once it's hard, as all hard things are, it becomes difficult to move and thus to clean."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
880voy | if the mona lisa painting was a commissioned piece of florentine noblewoman lisa del giocondo ordered by her husband, why wasn't it kept within the family and how did it end up public property and in a museum? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/880voy/eli5_if_the_mona_lisa_painting_was_a_commissioned/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwgz3uq"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It is unknown who actually commissioned the painting, if anyone. It remained with Leonardo until his death because he never officially \"finished\" it.\n\nAdditionally, what happened to it upon his death wasn't clear, whether his pupil inherited it to finish or sold it off."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8ix289 | why do software companies (especially social media ones) change their ui very often even though it is perfectly fine, often leading to objectively worse design? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ix289/eli5_why_do_software_companies_especially_social/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyv8a7n",
"dyv8h61",
"dyv9x6i",
"dyve8f3",
"dyvfq6a",
"dyvvqtk"
],
"score": [
7,
21,
4,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, they do this to stay 'new'. Although you may like specific UI, every version has some problems. They have to think about a lot of people and a lot of problems, which needs to be changed. \n\nVery unintuitive solutions can work very well, but only after you found out how. Typically it is better to change that to a more intuitive solution that works better for new users, but feels very worse for current users.\n\nA very big update in the UI usually have a lot of unexpected problems that slowly will be patched, so it can happen that the first version feels very bad in respect to the previous one, but after patches it is probably better.",
"They are trying to be \"new\" because it increases engagement. People who use the site all the time figure it out, and people who don't use the site often might give it more tries. Better or worse isn't really the goal, it never was. This approach dates back to some human performance studies done in a factory during the 1920s. It's called the Hawthorne effect, after the town where the factory was located. ",
"Previously worked in product development for a software company. Your UI is developed based on personas (fictional, but believable profiles of your users - such as Chris Thomas is a college student at XYZ and enjoys ABC). Over time, you begin to capture data about your users and how they use your product - are they really interested in a certain feature? Maybe it's currently difficult or takes them longer to get to the feature in question. The data can be captured by literally what looks or buttons they click, and the entire path that users navigate if tracked throughout their session. In aggregation with a lot of data, behaviors become clearer of how the users use the product and what they're using it for. Additionally, most companies also hold usability studies after they've introduced new changes to confirm that the new updates are intuitive enough to use. So while you may not agree or enjoy the new UI changes, it's likely a data-driven decision to accommodate most users, that statistically is worth doing.",
"Users don't like change. Users will usually dislike a UI change *even if it is for the better*. What's more, users who dislike a change are much more likely to voice their opinions than users who like it, let alone users who have no opinion. So any UI change will probably be met with vocal resistance and claims that the product is “objectively worse” regardless of the facts of the matter. This does not mean that those users are *necessarily* wrong, merely that you can't assume they're right.\n\nSoftware companies make UI changes for many reasons:\n\n- To accommodate new features.\n- To make existing features easier to use for experienced users.\n- To encourage users to use certain features that they may not be using, or to use those features more.\n- To improve performance.\n- To update a visual design that may look dated or off-putting.\n- To provide a visible change that suggests continual improvement.\n\nA very large company like Facebook has a *mind-boggling* amount of data about their users and how they interact with the product. They also employ teams of user experience (UX) specialists who are trained to interpret this data, suggest changes as a result, and evaluate the outcome.\n\nFor instance, suppose that Facebook believes that Feature X is underutilized: that many potential users of that feature are not using it. (They might determine the pool of “potential users” by seeing who is using very similar features.) They decide to attempt to increase user engagement with Feature X. UX specialists try to get inside the minds of both current and potential users. They relate this to the design of the product and come up with a hypothesis: more potential users will use Feature X if the feature is brought to their attention when they are using certain other features. They design a few UI changes, have them implemented, test them internally, and then deploy each to, say, ten million potential users for one week. They determine that users who are shown UI Change B are 10% more likely than the control group (users not shown any change) to use Feature X. Facebook then deploys Change B to everyone.\n\nFacebook has a *lot* of features and a lot of people working on them. This adds up to a lot of UI changes.",
"I remember reading on this topic and one interesting version was that this happens whenever a manager or some other position in the staff gets replaced. And this new person gets pressured to do something to improve on the profits of the company and he/she needs to do it fast. So, the first thing they do is change the user interface to show their boss that they are doing something.\n\nTake this with a grain of salt. I'm in no way an expert in this matter.",
"To create version 1.0 of any user-facing software product, a company pays several people to be \"UI designers\" or \"program managers\" or some such role. These are the folks who create the feature set and design the look and feel of the application. After version 1.0 launches, these folks are under constant pressure to come up with all kinds of \"fixes\" and \"improvements\" to keep collecting their paychecks. This is how idiocy like Clippy and Microsoft Bob came into existence at Microsoft while I was there."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1ior2b | why is it that our voices seem normal in our heads but when we hear it from another perspective it sounds so gross and cringe-y? | For example hearing yourself on a video or a voice recording. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ior2b/eli5_why_is_it_that_our_voices_seem_normal_in_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb6k1b1",
"cb6kk7k",
"cb6ms68"
],
"score": [
77,
7,
41
],
"text": [
"When other people hear your voice, the sound gets transmitted to them through the air.\n\nBut when you hear your own voice, much of the sound gets transmitted to your ear by bone (your jaw and skull) rather than through the air. Because bone transmits sound differently to air, the way you hear your voice is different to how everyone else hears it.\n\nWhen you hear a recording of your voice, you are hearing the same as everyone else hears. You don't like it, though, because it's unfamiliar, it's not the way you think you sound.",
"There are two things you should know that complete your answer. \n\nOne, people often delude themselves by thinking they are more attractive than they are, are more confident than they are, are more intelligent than they are, and even sound cooler than they do. We do this by building an unconcious acceptance to the way we see ourselves in these areas. Let's take an example.\n\nThe way you see yourself in a mirror. Have you ever seen a picture of yourself from the back of your head, or from the side of your face, and really hated it? This is because it doesn't fit the template you can delude yourself with in your mind. It doesn't make you comfortable because the person you were deluding yourself into thinking you are is harder to believe, now that you've seen him/her in a different light.\n\nNow, let's take your voice. You've made the template for deluding yourself the voice you hear yourself when you talk. This sound is completely different to the sound a voice recorder or anybody else would hear. If you say anything, you can feel your chest and throat kind of vibrate a little bit. This changes the sound of your voice to you, because it makes certain frequencies of your voice sound much louder.\n\nTherefore, when you hear your voice without this frequency boost, the delusion of your voice is broken. This makes many people uncomfortable.\n\nNow remember, when I say 'delusion', I don't mean it's the wrong way of seeing yourself. I'm saying that everybody is insecure by nature, and to like themselves, they have no choice but to form delusions and comfortable visions about how they look and sound.",
"Wait, so all this means that I sound to everyone like I sound in videos? I'm going to hide in a hole now forever. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1m7ael | why is it that certain word associations just have a single way that sounds "right." | For example, if I tell someone to fetch me some pepper and to get the salt as well, I'll never say that. It's "Salt and Pepper." Not "Pepper and Salt." Just "Salt and Pepper." Then you have "Nieces and Nephews," "Ladies and Gentlemen" (Though that seems to be more of a phrase), "Fruits and Vegetables," etc. There's obviously many more, but I can't think of them at the top of my head. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m7ael/eli5_why_is_it_that_certain_word_associations/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc6fue5",
"cc6g825",
"cc6royn"
],
"score": [
12,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Because these are commonly used combinations and the more you hear it the easier it sticks to your brain. Its a historical accident that we use \"Salt and Pepper\" instead of \"Pepper and salt.\" If half of america used \"Salt and Pepper\" and the other half \"Pepper and salt.\" eventually one of them would win over the other, because it represents an unstable equilibrium, the more people which use one, the more influence that will have to get even more people to use it.\n\n",
"By dint of repetition in media and normal usage, they've become a kind of set phrase sometimes known as a pair of [Siamese twins](_URL_1_). There's not really a logical background or rule behind this type of development, it just happens organically as the users of a language latch on to a turn of phrase they like. Sometimes, this kind of phrase can even preserve words that aren't really used elsewhere in the language, socalled [fossil words](_URL_0_).",
"I'm surprised that nobody has suggested that some combinations of sounds are easier for your tongue and lips to say in one order than another. \n\nNot all sequences of sounds are as easy as each other, or else there'd be no such thing as a tongue-twister. We also respond well to certain rhythms of speech. \"Ladies and Gentlemen\" is a little waltz, ONE-two-three ONE-two-three. \"Gentlemen and Ladies\" is the same number of syllables but it goes ONE-two-three one-TWO-three\", not as nice. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_word",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_twins_(linguistics\\)"
],
[]
]
|
|
35oao9 | why is "tasty" a positive adjective, but "smelly" a negative adjective? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35oao9/eli5_why_is_tasty_a_positive_adjective_but_smelly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr69bph",
"cr69lsm"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd guess because you can choose what you eat, but not what you smell. The worst part about a truly putrid stench is that you have no choice but to endure it or move away. Describing something as tasty implies your the one who voluntarily put it in your mouth and didn't spit it out.",
"The words and meanings are just different - tasty = something tastes nice, smelly = something smells a lot.\n\nYou can say that something 'smells' but you don't say something 'tastes'. Language is irrational. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3be1ek | what is really being done right now to combat isis? | They keep killing people and instigating terrorist attacks, yet I'm not hearing much about people fighting against them - only people joining them. Can anybody tell me what's being done right now, if anything, to combat them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3be1ek/eli5_what_is_really_being_done_right_now_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cslaviz",
"cslba9w"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"From the US specifically, air strikes and helping the Iraqi army with equipment, training and logistics. Also some limited weapons deliveries to non-ISIS anti-Syrian fighters (some of which have been known to defect to ISIS, so that may not actually be \"combatting\" ISIS but the opposite).",
"The Iraqi army is fighting them, with mixed success. They have help from civilian militias, who are mostly Shia Muslims (ISIS are Sunni, it's like Catholics vs Protestants). Iran is also assisting the Iraqi government (they're Shia too).\n\nThe Kurds, who are a widespread ethnic minority in that part of the world, have their own organised army because they've been oppressed by various regional governments for years. Their main force is called the YPG and it includes male and female fighters. They're fighting a very effective guerrilla campaign against ISIS.\n\nSome other neighbouring governments like Jordan and Kuwait are sending planes to attack ISIS. The Americans are doing this too.\n\nFinally there are the various factions in Syria. The Syrian government and other rebel groups in the country have a complicated relationship with ISIS and each other. Sometimes they ally against a particular local enemy, other times they kill each other on sight."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4xyetn | why are there no sports cars with driver seats in the middle? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xyetn/eli5_why_are_there_no_sports_cars_with_driver/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6jgdiv",
"d6jgfoa",
"d6jh2jb"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most people have (or want) a significant other, a one night stand partner, prostitute, friend, etc... or at the very least, a place to put groceries/briefcase/laptop.\n\nOr... In order to fit a high performance engine, a car has to be a certain width... so if you have the room why not throw in an extra seat?",
"It's not as practical for day-to-day use. Middled driver seats are brilliant for driving, but more precarious to get into and out of, and allow less for you to share your supercar experience with friends or loved ones. \n\nMost supercars opt for left or right-hand drive because it gives their customers cars that have more than one seat, which is what many of them are looking for. Something incredibly fast, incredibly stylish, and that they can show off to their friends or one night stands. Middle-seat cars are incredible for driving, but not so much for asserting your status symbol over others who don't have them. ",
"\nThe central driving seat in the McLaren F1 were accompanied with two passenger seats because there is no reason to own a super car without being able to share it. However this made the car wider and had it had awkward seating arrangement. Single seat racers is a genre of cars with a lot of different models to chose between. These are mostly made for the enjoyment of the driver and are mostly used on tracks. Some of them are even not road legal."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
bhawwm | how do mirror neurons work? how do they know to mirror other people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhawwm/eli5_how_do_mirror_neurons_work_how_do_they_know/ | {
"a_id": [
"elrhy8j",
"elrnza4",
"elrog8y",
"elrpbpn",
"els6tnh"
],
"score": [
27,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe a mirror neuron (how we send signals in our body) fires when a person watches someone perform an activity without actually performing the activity themselves. What I believe happens is that the neuron increases myelination (the fatty coating around a neuron) so that when the observer goes to perform the task themselves they can try to coordinate similar movements... BUT! I believe that the individual would have to perform the task once themselves so that they can myelinate (fatty coating) an existing neural pathway... Basically saying if they perform the task then by watching others it helps to slightly strengthen their ability. But obviously actually engaging in the task will have larger benefits. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nSource: Me, a biology teacher/Kin grad, not an academic resource :)",
"That's a very good question, as far as I understand, we don't really have a solid understanding of *how* they work, all the literature about this is essentially regarding correlations and establishing *if* the effect is there, and possibly about some implications, but not about any mechanics of how that symptom is achieved or implemented by our brains.\n\nThat understanding would be key for analyzing how \"theory of mind\" (your internal model of what/how/why another mind thinks) is implemented - we know that our minds have that \"theory of mind\", we know that it's essential for various social skills, empathy, communication, even language, but we don't really know *how* that works. If we would (and understanding the mechanics of mirror neurons would be a big step in that direction) then that would be also very helpful for designing human-like artificial systems which also need a functioning theory of mind in order to cooperate efficiently with us.",
"Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation. Its basically a perception neuron that fired when yoy witness a behavior but also fires when you conduct it. Its just perception",
"There is a great podcast by Stuff You Shoukd Know on the subject. You can find it via spotify, apple music, etc by searching for mirror neurons. I recommend it",
"Mirror neurons in humans are a subject of debate - _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Myth_of_Mirror_Neurons_The_Real_Neur.html?id=LK5bAwAAQBAJ"
]
]
|
||
3nf2wu | dc comics: the new 52 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nf2wu/eli5dc_comics_the_new_52/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvnh2am"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The new 52 rebooted the dc universe following the flashpoint storyline. It was intended to cut down on the many characters and continuitys that the dc universe had. For the most part, you can start with the new 52 stuff without having read previous dc material."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
378g7n | can our cells use atp from our food as a direct source of energy? | I understand how our mitochondria make ATP in respiration and how this is used as a source of energy for, well, everything, but I was wondering if we can digest ATP molecules from our food. Surely there's going to be ATP in our meals. If we have beef, there must be some ATP in the beef that the cow didn't use. Can we digest this? Can we use this in the same way we would use our own ATP? Does it even survive cooking, or does it get broken down to ADP? Thanks guys! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/378g7n/eli5_can_our_cells_use_atp_from_our_food_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"crkite6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"AT has a half-life of about 5 minutes and can't survive cooking. By the time you eat something, there is little to no ATP left in it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5406eq | why do many shoes/sandals have higher heels and put your weight toward the ball of your foot? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5406eq/eli5_why_do_many_shoessandals_have_higher_heels/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7xs9mz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It reduces stress on your heel. Unless you're wearing dress shoes or high heels, the raised back usually has extra padding which reduces the stress on your heel when you step. Since most people walk heel to toe and not toe to heel (unless they're trying to be quiet) walking puts a lot of pressure on your heel. Raised padded heels help disperse the stress across the entire foot. Although there are cases when you don't want raised heels. If you're jumping, you don't want your foot to roll when it hits the ground because it could injure your ankle. If you're jogging, raised heels help reduce the impact stress of each stride."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
374l5f | who are the conservative party in the u.s. and what do they stand for? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/374l5f/eli5_who_are_the_conservative_party_in_the_us_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"crjn0ye",
"crjn260",
"crjn4fv",
"crjnd3f"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Conservative vs liberal is a bit of a sliding scale country to country. A liberal party in the US would be considered conservative in a liberal country. \n\nHowever, in the US the Republicans are the dominant conservative party and the Democrats are the dominant liberal one. \n\nIn terms of what they stand for, that's MUCH more difficult. Suffice to say that each one stands for whatever they think will get them elected. In general the Republicans tend to be pro church and religion, anti tax, anti social benefit, pro \"do it yourself\", pro gun, anti gun control, anti abortion, anti climate change and anti gay marriage. \n\nIn general conservatives tend to be threatened by change. So often when they propose change they are doing so in an attempt to bring things back to \"the good old days\" with a modern twist. The liberals tend to want change because they see the current system as failing. Liberals tend to favor governments that have more responsibilities to its people, that requires more resources and therefore a larger government. \n\nIn general the fundamental disagreement between the two is this role of government in peoples lives. Both parties favor helping people, they just disagree on what form that help should take. ",
"The main conservative faction in the U.S. is the Republican Party. \n\nRepublican Party members tend to oppose corporate regulations, unions, government interference in business (i.e. bailouts), same-sex marriage, non-discrimination laws, and welfare programs. \n\nThey tend to support unilateral military action, increased military spending, aid to the state of Israel, reducing taxes (especially estate taxes and capital gains taxes), abstinence-only sex education, and stronger state (provincial) governments instead of a strong central government.",
"The Republican Party (or GOP) is probably the closest thing to a Conservative Party in the US. Here are some common beliefs of the GOP from Wikipedia -- \n\n > The Republican Party's conservatism involves supporting free market capitalism, limited government, strong national defense, opposing regulation and labor unions, and supporting socially conservative policies.The party is generally split on the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration.\n\nNow there is a huge spectrum - there are Liberal Republicans, Libertarian Republicans and more but these are the general beliefs. \n\nWhat free market capitalism, limited government, strong national defense, regulations/unions and social conservatism mean are hotly debated within the GOP and to what extent they should be followed is argued.\n\nFor example when it comes to social conservatism, there are the radicals who believe the Bible should be enforced as law when it comes to social conservatism while others are more laissez-faire and don't believe government has a role.\n\nIt must be noted however that the two major modern parties in the US are both generally seen as more 'right-wing' than there counter parts in other parts of the developed world, most notable compared to the rest of the Anglo-world. ",
"The two main political parties in the United States are the Democratic Party (sometimes referred to as the \"Democrats\"), and the Republican Party or GOP (\"Grand Old Party\"). The Democratic Party usually falls left of center while the Republican Party falls mainly on the right.\n\n [Here](_URL_1_) is a political compass for some of the 2008 presidential candidates. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are both members of the Democratic Party, while Sarah Palin and John McCain are members of the Republican Party. There are some other parties represented here too - Brian Moore was the Socialist Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party candidate, and Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party candidate. Ralph Nader ran as an Independent. \n\nThe Republican Party mainly fights against government spending (with the exception of defense spending) and believe that lower taxes for the rich combined with lower national debt are the best ways to improve the economy. Currently some of their legislative acts include attempts at revising or repealing the Affordable Care Act which they believe gets the government too involved in health care and restricts freedom to choose the standard of health care one receives, as well as approving the Keystone Pipeline XL construction which they believe will create jobs and drive down oil costs.\n\nOn the whole they believe efforts to combat climate change will do more harm to the economy than good, most hold conservative social views (against same-sex marriage, pro-life, etc.), and believe that the economy functions best when the private sector, not the public sector, is stimulated. [Here](_URL_0_) is the official website for the GOP - you can see more of their views and their platform there.\n\nFull disclosure, while I live in America I fall pretty far to the left. I've attempted to give you as objective of an overview of Republican ideals and beliefs as possible, but I included their website so you can get their platform explained to you from their side. I hope that helps you! I think it's great you're interested in U.S. politics, I love learning about the different political ideologies and systems in other countries as well. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://gop.gov/",
"http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008"
]
]
|
||
3rak0t | if a muscle is zapped with electricity and force it to contract, will it (a) burn calories like exercise and (b) build muscle? | I have a TENS unit, and I'd love to get ripped watching Netflix. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rak0t/eli5_if_a_muscle_is_zapped_with_electricity_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwmciv6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that yes, the contractions actually burn calories, and build muscle, but it's not nearly as effective as actual exercise. I used one a few times a week after shoulder surgery - I hadn't moved my right arm for a few weeks, so it helped in the early stages of physical therapy.\n\nHowever, my nice physical therapist said that you would burn more calories by simply standing up instead of sitting, and that lifting your arm or leg up in the air would be a more effective muscle builder. In other words, it's appropriate long-term exercise for someone who literally doesn't have enough muscle strength to get out of a bed.\n\nIf you want to get ripped watching Netflix, I would recommend doing actual exercise while watching Netflix."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1ryvle | what is the difference between pink lemonade and regular lemonade? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ryvle/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_pink_lemonade/ | {
"a_id": [
"cds9sd5"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Pink lemonade is pink."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
37w3oz | how do monkeys know to peel a banana before eating it? | How come they just don't eat it whole? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37w3oz/eli5_how_do_monkeys_know_to_peel_a_banana_before/ | {
"a_id": [
"crq9e79",
"crq9jfx"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Monkeys in the wild don't [generally] eat bananas. Captive monkeys will and it varies from species to species and from monkey to monkey. You can teach them to peal but most monkeys I know just eat the whole thing...they arn't picky.",
"Actually, most monkeys will just eat the entire thing, peel and all. I spend time in Central America and Colombia. If they do peel them, I've not seen it in the 'wild' (around areas bananas are planted) but there are some \"urbanized\" monkeys which might have learned the behavior."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
37yiqo | why is liquid almost always stored in round containers on trucks? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37yiqo/eli5_why_is_liquid_almost_always_stored_in_round/ | {
"a_id": [
"crqtgb7",
"crqtgu8",
"crqthep",
"crqu72z",
"crqvfhi",
"crr2bup",
"crr3ktu",
"crr5nor"
],
"score": [
5,
15,
3,
8,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not an engineer, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's because in a round container, as the fluid level drops, the liquid will always be in the bottom and center of the container. If the container had a rectangular base, liquid could get stuck in the corners, which would make it tougher to drain the container. ",
"The containers are [not always round](_URL_0_), but most tend to have at least rounded corners and edges.\n\nThis is mostly a stability issue. Sharp edges is where the pressure would be the worst and the container would break first. Round containers have the pressure distributed more equally. The absence of edges also makes the containers easier to clean.",
"Because a rectangle isn't strong enough and has more weak points. Asphere isn't cost effective, though stronger at holding liquid, would have more wasted space on an 18 wheeler. A cylinder is the best of both worlds. ",
"Round containers have more volume for the surface area. It means that less weight is used in the container and it make them more cost effective.",
"Pressure is also a big one. When heat rises, the liquid inside the containers expand, causing the container to morph shape. If the container was a square then the gases would push on the container's walls making it look like some bizarre square-circle hybrid. On a truck with limited space, you want everything to be as compact as possible, but if one object expands then it's going to disrupt everything. cylinders evenly distribute and withstand internal pressure and will not lose its shape.",
"I know this is for soda cans but most of it still applies to why the container is shaped like a cylinder.\n\n[The Ingenious Design of the Aluminum Beverage Can.](_URL_0_)",
"Just like to point out that in the vast majority of applications for liquid hauling trailers volume is not going to be a primary concern. The gross vehicle weight limits will be easily satisfied in the allowable length/height dimensions without worrying about the most efficient volumetric shape.\n\nAnd ya, since the fluid will either be pumped or drained out it works best to have the bottom sloped to a common low point, as a cylinder does. Now that vs. say a box with floor sloped to a common point, the cylinder is probably easier to manufacture. Once you factor that the metal goes through a roller, you realize it requires less welding.\n\nCan't argue with the strength theory as presented here also. Liquids haul rough, they push back and forth with a shit load of force. Case in point, if a water truck is half loaded and slams on the brakes, once stopped the force of the water in the tank slapping back and forth will push the (~70,000 lb) unit around for a couple minutes\n\nSource: Part of my job is hauling water",
"Found this interesting article on soda/soup cans: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/0RZgzsb.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhisi2FBuw"
],
[],
[
"http://datagenetics.com/blog/august12014/index.html"
]
]
|
||
6z8x1o | if you had infinite gears, space, fuel, and nothing broke, could a car keep accelerating forever and never stop at a certain speed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z8x1o/eli5_if_you_had_infinite_gears_space_fuel_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmtddxc"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Just a normal car on a road on Earth. No. Eventually the power output if the car would match the resistance produced by the air etc, and you would not accelerate any more. It doesnt take that much power to reach 150mph. But to go to 200 needs about twice as much. To get to 220 take twice as much as that. The fastest cars with ~1000bhp stop accelerating mainly because of air resistance not because they don't have the right gear."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3eqwq2 | if a recreational drug is legalised do those in prison convicted of charges relating to that drug still have to serve their time? | Also what would happen if the charges were still pending? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eqwq2/eli5_if_a_recreational_drug_is_legalised_do_those/ | {
"a_id": [
"cthjggz",
"cthl3cp",
"cthmxfa",
"cthrlsx",
"cti71f2"
],
"score": [
51,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes they do. They still willingly broke the law at the time. Even if its no longer a law, they still broke it which makes them criminals.\n\nThere are situations were they could be released, but that would have to be a special order. It wouldn't come automatically ",
"This is a topic states are dealing with right now, _URL_0_\n\n",
"Truth is, it's a system it's possible to have, even as default. There's no reason a state couldn't have a system where anyone convicted of a crime is released if their act is no longer a crime. \n\nIt would be easy to argue for - basically if the law is changed then that's a sign the public opinion and democratic will has shifted, and it could be presumed and easily defended that the public opinion and democratic will is _also_ that people shouldn't continue to be locked up for doing what is now legal. \n\nIt's just not the system pretty much anywhere that I know of. Certainly not in most countries. \n\nStill, there's always opportunities to take it into account - early releases, pardons, criminal record erasure. It's just not standard. It could easily have been.\n\nBear in mind though that it's not very often that something that used to be illegal and people are locked up meaningful amounts of time for is made illegal. I'd basically ascribe it to legislative inertia - it comes up so rarely that the other principles of \"people have to serve their punishment\" etc. stand taller.",
"When a law changes, it only changes for things that happen from that point on.\n\nIt wouldn't be fair, for example, to change a speed limit on a road from 60 to 50 mph, and then send fines to everyone who had driven at 55mph on that road. Because it was legal when they did it, even if it would be legal now, they should not be punished.\n\nThe flipside of that is that if it was illegal when they did it, then even if it would be legal now, they still get punished.\n\nHowever. Punishement is not the only reason people are sent to prison. Other reasons are to protect the public from dangerous people; to act as an example, so other people don't commit that crime; and to reform them, so they are less likely to commit that crime again.\n\nIf none of these apply (which they might not if the act is no longer considered harmful, the crime no longer exists, so no example is helpful and we no longer care if they commit it again) then the authorities, might think that the cost of locking someone up is a waste of money and they will be released.\n\nBut it is not automatic",
"Swiss state attorney here.\n\nWe have a law that in this case (law changes) would be in favor of the sentenced. He basically can use the right to get out of prison from the day the law changed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.hightimes.com/read/ruling-clears-way-marijuana-convictions-be-erased"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
51n7hh | how does having 2 cameras help with zoom in iphone 7 ? | I understand how it helps with bokeh.. but how does it do optical zoom with 2 cameras of same spec ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51n7hh/eli5how_does_having_2_cameras_help_with_zoom_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7d92pw",
"d7dac8n"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"They are not \"of same spec\". They have different lenses with different levels of built in \"optical\" zoom. ",
"The lenses have different fixed levels of zoom, so it uses camera A for standard, camera B for 2x zoom. Beyond that, it's digital (software enhanced) zoom."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4b05sd | why does subway eletricity cabels run along side the track instead of above like normal trains? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b05sd/eli5_why_does_subway_eletricity_cabels_run_along/ | {
"a_id": [
"d14yynt"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because for the most part subways aren't going to be put anywhere people are going to walk or drive over.\n\nTrain with overhead cable have them to keep them away from people who share part of the road with the train."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
arol0m | on a chemical level, what happens when dry-aging beef? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arol0m/eli5_on_a_chemical_level_what_happens_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"egope0b",
"egopiiu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bacteria breaks down the proteins of the meat. It makes it more tender and gives it a different flavor.",
"Enzymes, specific molecules that break down other specific molecules, chemically change the make up of the proteins and fats. At the same time, water evaporates from the beef, concentrating the flavor."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
35k9qt | why is the blue part of a flame hotter than the red/orange? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35k9qt/eli5_why_is_the_blue_part_of_a_flame_hotter_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr57pbh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"TL;DR is that blue light is higher energy than red ligit. This means that the hotter something is the more energy there is so the more blue the fire appears.\n\nThere are [more things than temperature](_URL_0_) that effect color, depending on what chemicals are burning. Copper burns green or blue, lithium burns red, and potassium burns purple, for example. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1545"
]
]
|
||
9k5gze | how do diseases get their names? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9k5gze/eli5_how_do_diseases_get_their_names/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6wiux6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some diseases have had old world names that stuck around due to just the convenience like malaria, literally Italian for “bad air.”\nSome names like Syphilis used to be called “The French Pox” but for obvious reasons got thrown out and replaced with a less controversial name (named now after a fictional character with the same namesake).\n\nFinally you get stuff like HIV, which literally is what it is, Human Immunodeficiency Virus. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1wypq1 | what's wrong with russia? why does every video i see from this country feature people who are either drunk, filthy, drugged up and/or violent. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wypq1/eli5_whats_wrong_with_russia_why_does_every_video/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf6l5xz",
"cf6nqe6"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"If there's a video of normal people doing their normal day to day work, will you seat and watch that video? Nope. You'll watch it only if there's something extraordinary or funny happening in it. That's why.",
"We're fine here, video content we see from USA/Europe is pretty much the same you see about us, especially in the news.\n\nHere is a picture of my city with none of \"drunk, filthy...\".\n_URL_0_\nI hope it'll fix your impression a bit. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://eeua.ru/images/piter.jpg"
]
]
|
||
6g9zqq | how subscription music services(pandora, spotify, apple music, etc.) work? how does my money make it to the artists or am i wrong in assuming that it does? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g9zqq/eli5_how_subscription_music_servicespandora/ | {
"a_id": [
"diomg4c",
"dion8vs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"These music services are partly subscription-based. The artists make an account with Spotify/Apple Music, and because of ads and subscriptions, they are able to earn money from it. Mostly how youtube ad revenue works but for music. ",
"These services have ads and people also can choose to pay a subscription. \n\nThe artists make money but not much really. But that applies to CD sales, etc. too."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1sma64 | why has space flight advanced so slowly since the 1960's. why don't we have a reusable rocket yet even though its been 50 years. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sma64/eli5why_has_space_flight_advanced_so_slowly_since/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdyzbmv",
"cdyzml3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"What was the Shuttle?\n\nThere isn't any money for it. We have plenty of issues on the planet and no driving urge to do things on the moon or elsewhere. They probably have made huge strides in the technology, as an example the rockets today are significantly more powerful/efficient, but there just isn't an urge to crank it up.",
"At its post-1970 peak NASA's budget was half of what it was when the Apollo program was in full swing. It's less than that now. Most other space programs either didn't exist until the last 10-20 years, or more often existed but relied quite exclusively on the USSR/Russia or the USA to provide launch vehicles.\n\nAs a result you have NASA who spent everything on the shuttle program and learned a lot but have no real successor to build on it due to limited funds and public interest, and Russia with its leftover from the USSR and their paltry advancements since the cold war.\n\nRockets themselves have been largely dead in the water compared to how hard they were being chased during the Apollo era. The shuttle program and later ISS was/is much more about advances in surrounding technologies like flight computers, orbital construction and docking, science in space not directly related to aerospace, etc. \n\nNow thanks to people like Elon Musk with SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and others we have some people helping push more research into rocketeering itself and we've also got the long-researched stuff at NASA and other agencies like VASIMIR and Skylon that might get us some good advancement in the next few years or decades."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3pny8l | how come the europeans were so aggressive in colonizing the rest of the world? | Most white people are descendants of the Europeans. The only reason why white people exist in the USA is because of the Europeans. Most of the world has been colonized by Europeans, especially my country India. Other things like the Mughal empire have popped up but nothing compares to the vicious colonization committed by Europeans, especially the British.
White supremacist crap says it's because white people are supreme, which is why they colonized the rest of the world. Which is dumb as shit, because any race could, even countries like India or something else could, they just chose to not be so aggressive and didn't go invade other countries.
I think I have a pretty botched view of history because I went to a British school system and they don't like to talk about colonization and stuff in history for obvious reasons. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pny8l/eli5_how_come_the_europeans_were_so_aggressive_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw7vwxg",
"cw7ynps"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"MONEY. With the exception of a few US states that were formerly colonies (not all of them), the vast majority of European colonies were created to make the mother country richer. Considering that in most, if not all cases, the Europeans had superior weapons at the time, it was easy for them to get colonies. The diseases they unintentionally spread only helped by weakening the native populations (more so in the western hemisphere).",
"Resources.\n\nEurope is a relatively small continent, with many small countries. So for any single country to create and sustain a large economy, they have to get resources from somewhere else. And back when they were colonizing, they found it acceptable to just find less civilized places and take over. \n\nAlso, European countries were very competitive with one another, and would often fight amongst themselves. So there was pressure to keep up with colonization, to prevent another European country from getting those lands/resources.\n\nAlso consider the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Manufacturing in Europe increased dramatically, which increased the need for resources. Colonization was already rampant by that time, but it made the colonies all that much more important. \n\nColonization was very vicious and brutal, no doubt about that. But it has pretty much been happening throughout the history of mankind. \n\nAs for why 'white' European colonization was so successful, it probably come down to timing and technology. When they were colonizing, they often had better technology and weapons, which made it easy for them to just sail in and take over. \n\nAnother issue, at least in the Americas, was disease. Europe was connected to Asia and Africa, so they had a change to be exposed to many diseases and build up some immunity. When they went to north and south America, they people there had been more isolated, so they were harder hit by diseases that came along with the Europeans. \n\nThis wasn't the case with Africa, which is one reason why Europeans had a much harder time trying to colonize Africa. \n\nFor a brief but informative look at world history (including colonization), check out Crash Course on YouTube. _URL_0_\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C9"
]
]
|
|
1og1qv | does an electron have a surface? is it a physical sphere? | I've been trying to gain a better understanding of the the model of an atom, and I'm a bit confused about the fundamentals of how we understand particles like electrons.
Are electrons considered to be physical objects, with abstract concepts like spin literally corresponding to rotational motion? Articles like [this](_URL_0_) seem to suggest so. Or are electrons simply regions of space which exhibit particular properties such as charge in their interactions with other particles?
EDIT: Sorry, copied the wrong link. Should be fixed now! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1og1qv/eli5_does_an_electron_have_a_surface_is_it_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccrm6fv",
"ccrm6pg"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as I get it, it's the latter and kind of fuzzy.\n\nWhen we touch things, when we feel a surface it's just electrons repelling, like two magnets touching the same side. We never actually interact with atoms, we just feel repulsion of electrons.\n\nElectron isn't even a \"physical object\". It's more like a cloud of possibilities that condenses when interaction happens. It's better to think about properties like \"spin\" in terms of \"another characteristic\" rather than actually spinning sphere.",
"I think your link is wrong, it points to stackoverflow.\n\nAnyway, no, they don't. I think you put it pretty much perfectly when you said that they're \"regions of space which exhibit particular properties,\" as long as you don't take \"region\" to mean something that's clearly defined.\n\nSpin is sort of tricky. It clearly does have some sort of connection to the classical notion of spin. Quantum angular momentum, which includes both spin and orbital angular momentum (the angular momentum an electron has \"orbiting\" the nucleus) are conserved, and they share a lot of properties with the classical analogue. Electrons, for example, have a magnetic dipole that corresponds to their spin state, which is exactly what you'd expect classically if electrons were little spinning charged balls.\n\nSo, while it is fair to say that there's some sort of rotation going on, there really isn't any good way for us to visualize it. Just like we can't picture what an electron \"looks like,\" we can't picture how it spins."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525131707.htm"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
28mutd | why mosquitos tend to always bite your exterior limbs such as hands or feet instead of your face/torso. | Currently in India... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28mutd/eli5_why_mosquitos_tend_to_always_bite_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"cicer9x",
"cicf7k3"
],
"score": [
17,
5
],
"text": [
"Mosquitos tend to go for areas where the skin is thinner and blood vessels are closer to the surface.",
"Easier access to blood vessels, more articulation which lends itself to more blood flow, usually they are the bits of you that are uncovered.\n\nNow, in India, it's a bit different. There the mosquitoes just eat you whole. \n\nTry the Bhang. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2ji83l | why can't i use one credit card to pay off another? | If the balance was kept low and paid off every month, couldn't the money keep rebounding between the two?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ji83l/eli5_why_cant_i_use_one_credit_card_to_pay_off/ | {
"a_id": [
"clbyava",
"clbyx8w",
"clc8acw",
"clcglim",
"clcirib",
"clclec4"
],
"score": [
25,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can. Credit card companies assess a fee for paying off other credit cards. If the fee is less than your total savings from going from a higher-interest card to a lower-interest card, it might make sense to do this.\n\nYou cannot use one credit card to make the payment on another credit card, though. That's called \"robbing Peter to pay Paul.\" Eventually, you'll hit your limits on both cards, and you'll be insolvent.\n\nEdit: had to change a \"to\" to a \"from\"",
"There are fees and interest that won't really allow that in a profitable way. ",
"I seem to recall stories of this happening in the past where someone would end up with dozens of cards trying to pay off one with another until the whole thing got so out of hand it came crashing down.",
"Because credit Card money is non existant money. Credit Card money is a \"promise\" that youll pay later in cash( real money). Thats why banks love to giveaway credit cards to everyone, its a win win for them always. There are a lot of good reads about that, I recommend searching where do money comes from so you get a better understanding of the system.",
"Yes, you can do this. Typically, credit card companies charge a 3-5% to transfer a balance like this, so you would be paying 3-5% of the balance every time you did it.",
"Oh yes You can. I used this tactic in college quite a few times. Just ask one credit card company for checks. write check to another and that's it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2ob2m9 | can you use the genetic material (chromosomes?) from 2 sperm (or 2 eggs) to make a baby? | If human sex cells (eggs and sperm) contain half the needed chromosomes each, could you pull the chromosomes from 2 sperm cells (assuming one of them is an X) and put them together in an empty egg and create a baby? Or take the chromosomes from an egg, and inject them into another egg to create a baby? Is there more at work here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ob2m9/eli5_can_you_use_the_genetic_material_chromosomes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmyl2mb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This was first attempted in the 1980's by Davor Solter. He tried to create viable eggs using only pronuclei from sperm. Here were the results:\n\nXX- embryo failed\n\nXY- embryo failed\n\nYY- embryo immediately failed\n\n\nThe failure of the YY embryo makes sense. The X chromosome is where all the really vital information is stored, while the Y chromosome is just sort of a \"booster pack\". \n\nMeanwhile, the failure of the XX and XY embryos is less obvious. One reason they fail is due to DNA methylation. Think of methylated DNA as a textbook that's been written in and highlighted so much that the book store won't buy it back (an adult has highly methylated DNA, as it accumulates over time). You've customized it with your notes, crossing out some information, clarifying or underlining other passages... it's been personalized for *your* studying methods and it can't be wiped clean. Likewise, the sperm nucleus is methylated with paternal markers, and these markers persist for some time after fertilization. The zygote then goes through a process of \"demethylating\" the part of the genome with the paternal-markers (\"reseting\" the clock for a new life). However, if both parts of the genome are male-derived, the developing embryo is incapable of proper development. I sort of picture a busy intersection with malfunctioning traffic lights. Some cars never get to go, and others crash into each other because they both had a green light. All the ingredients for proper traffic flow are present, but when the traffic lights aren't coordinated, chaos ensues. \n\n[Non-genetic contributions of the sperm nucleus to embryonic development](_URL_1_)\n\n[Genome-wide methylation patterns in normal and uniparental early mouse embryos](_URL_0_)\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/26/2983.long",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015006/"
]
]
|
|
7m1b8o | why can't states, provinces, or cities borrow money (from their national governments) to build housing to help curb the housing crisis facing major cities today? if developers are making bank, couldn't cities come out without a profit and help the people of their area with more housing supply? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7m1b8o/eli5_why_cant_states_provinces_or_cities_borrow/ | {
"a_id": [
"drqlie8"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I’m not sure what country you’re in, but here in the US, the government builds low-income housing all the time.\n\nMany cities also require developers to build a certain number of affordable housing units with each project.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
32fz59 | why do i always see cop cars with their lights on but no sirens? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32fz59/eli5_why_do_i_always_see_cop_cars_with_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqatfzt",
"cqauwtw",
"cqaxipn"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most first-responders want to be the least amount of disturbing possible. In cities usually they only put sirens on when approaching an intersection so people that can't see the lights are aware of them coming. \n\nWhen lights are enough, why bother destroying everybody's eardrums? ",
"They may be rolling \"Code 2\" which means they are trying to get there quicker than they would without the lights, but its not urgent enough of a response to require them to be flying through traffic and hoping people properly yield at intersections.\n\nThere are times as well that people will request a silent approach for medical calls. So with those you'll see the medics/fire units \"shut down\" the siren as they approach the address.\n\n",
"Use of lights and sirens is tactical. The aim of using them is to make best progress, which does not always mean flying around above the speed limit.\n\nFor example, approaching bends on country roads or at the busier traffi light controlled cross-roads, sometimes the best thing to do is turn all or part of the equipment off in order to get the intended reaction from other road users. \n\nThough normally, it is long tones when on straights, short tones on approaching hazards then back to longs again\n\nSource - Scottish Police Emergency Response Driver and Roadcraft"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.