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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2izr5o | after staring at an inverted image that is changed to black and white, why does it appear to be in color? | From a post earlier someone shared this image in the comments. I'm wondering why this happens. _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2izr5o/eli5_after_staring_at_an_inverted_image_that_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl702q8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Staring at it temporarily burns the colors onto your retina. The colors burned on your retina, mix together with the colors after the picture changed to make a new color. The artist picked colors that afterwards would mix to make normal looking colors."
]
} | []
| [
"https://i.imgur.com/QwMxc.jpg"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
5b8jjq | how does collecting rainwater work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b8jjq/eli5_how_does_collecting_rainwater_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9mlhok"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well I've done it for a long while. It's actually a bit of a process. I collect the water that runs off the house. bird crap and just general stuff like leaves runs into the gutter so I built a bit of a strainer and a small filter in the actual drain, right before the containment unit (in this case a large bin. (New from Home depot. Like a big durable black trash can). On a really rainy day, it will backup just a bit but nothing serious. I change the filter once in a while. Typically after a heavy rain. It's drinkable (check the pH and take samples) however, I typically just use it to water my plants. Any other questions feel free to ask. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
al3lxj | why are first birthdays so important? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/al3lxj/eli5_why_are_first_birthdays_so_important/ | {
"a_id": [
"efadx0e",
"efaegl9",
"efaem0a"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing. Parents are just excited because it's a first birthday party (first ever for their child). Imo they're pointless because the baby isn't going to remember any of that. To me, mom, dad and maybe their sisters/brothers/parents are MORE than enough.",
"A carry over from days when crib death and the like were a common enough worry in the first year of life. Like a \"huzzah, you made it!\"\n\nLiken it to not celebrating a pregnancy till after the first trimester, since that's when most miscarriages and such happen. ",
"I'm a mom.\n\nFirst birthdays mean a few things:\n\na) The tiny human survived it's first year. If you google statistics on infant mortality, while not unusual for babies to make it 365 days, it's still survival and it isn't 100% guaranteed. Thus, a party to celebrate the fact that they made a whole year.\n\nb) The parent(s)/caregivers survived an entire year raising a small human that is decidedly not human-like. Babies are hard, and making it to a year is cause for celebration. \n\nc) There's a big \"firsts are to be celebrated\" mindset with a lot of parents/families/cultures. First smile, first word, first step, first time sleeping for a prolonged amount of time - these are all a big deal and mark development and the fact that parents are keeping the tiny human alive. The first birthday is a good time culturally to celebrate the fact that all these \"firsts\" happened.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAlso, there's cake. I'd probably go just for the cake.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSource: I'm a mom and had to explain this to my possibly on the spectrum exhusband. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
38p6jt | why is canned tuna dry when it has been soaking in water for days or even months? | Title. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38p6jt/eli5why_is_canned_tuna_dry_when_it_has_been/ | {
"a_id": [
"crwpoei"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Canned tuna in water is not dry; it's just very dense. If you open a can of tuna, drain it, and let it sit out for a while, you'll see how much drier it can be."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
lqk92 | li5: how a two-stroke and four-stroke engine works | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lqk92/li5_how_a_twostroke_and_fourstroke_engine_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2usry2",
"c2usry2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"[Here's](_URL_0_) an animation...\n\nand [here's](_URL_1_) another one. Read the articles if you don't get it. ",
"[Here's](_URL_0_) an animation...\n\nand [here's](_URL_1_) another one. Read the articles if you don't get it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/two-stroke2.htm",
"http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm"
],
[
"http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/two-stroke2.htm",
"http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm"
]
]
|
||
21ni9r | why isn't carbon monoxide used for executions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21ni9r/eli5_why_isnt_carbon_monoxide_used_for_executions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgeqw8p",
"cgeqwvi",
"cgeqwww",
"cgeqxtt",
"cgeraub",
"cgere5x",
"cgerx7n",
"cges3x4",
"cgesfcu",
"cgesonc",
"cgesqf3",
"cgesxjn",
"cget5qz",
"cget7yt",
"cgetc17",
"cgetfia",
"cgetilk",
"cgetkti",
"cgetlbd",
"cgeto0d",
"cgeu2cm",
"cgeu88d",
"cgeuilk",
"cgeuqwj",
"cgeurkw",
"cgevmqe",
"cgew520",
"cgewsph",
"cgewwi8",
"cgexctb",
"cgeyfu4",
"cgeytzc",
"cgf0dwx",
"cgf1hov"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
333,
14,
12,
210,
6,
18,
2,
44,
1605,
3,
2,
7,
11,
5,
36,
23,
2,
9,
2,
6,
4,
4,
4,
21,
2,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because asphyxiation is cruel and unusual. ",
"Would you rather suffocate to death, or fall asleep and never wake up?",
"It takes a long time, and it can actually cause a great deal of pain. Also, I think putting someone in a gas chamber may ignite the response in some due to historical context as cruel and unusual.",
"This [video](_URL_0_) may help shed some light on why carbon monoxide is not used for execution.",
"Honestly, the best method has to be a large caliber firearm. Guns are effective in suicide because they complete the act of killing a person very effectively. \n\nIt's gory as hell. But it also ends a conscious existence essentially immediately. \n\n(However, the state really shouldn't be executing anyone.)",
"Because death by carbon monoxide is a really terrible death and would not be constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.\n\nThat being said, Nitrogen, or \"Inert Gas,\" asphyxiation is painless. The human body doesn't register a lack of oxygen. Rather it registers a buildup of CO2 in the lungs/blood. By breathing 100% nitrogen the body merely falls asleep and then dies of oxygen deprivation. It has been suggested as a means of execution, but I don't believe any jurisdiction actually uses it.",
"I'm with OP. Seriously why isn't it used? I'm only seeing asinine jokes and stupid references in this thread so far. I've read in so many places how people can die from it because they have no idea that they are experiencing it and they just... drift off. Why isn't it used?",
"I think if we are *going* to execute people, we should use helium. \n\nIf I ever have to \"cash\" myself out (illness that causes awful over the top suffering, etc.) this is what I'm going to use. Either that, or I'm going to go to New York or some other major city, get the absolute best smack I can lay my hands on and have one last hella rush while I check out. ",
"watched the video provided by /u/Shugoii\n\nfor information most related to what you're talking about [here](_URL_0_)\n\nor if you simply want to knwo why it's most likely not implemented it's because of people like [this](_URL_1_)",
"For that matter I've never understood why they don't just put people out with anesthesia and then once we're out kill us in any number of ways. If it's humane enough for surgery why not executions?",
"Use of Nitrogen asphyxiation has been suggested, as it would have little risk of pain unlike Carbon Monoxide or Carbon Dioxide, except members of the pro-death penalty lobby have opposed it as being TOO humane.\n\n > When asked if nitrogen would be a more humane way for the state to kill, the leading voice of the American pro-death penalty movement, Professor Robert Blecker, strongly disagrees. \n\"If the killers who smash their victims on the side of the heads with hammers and then slit their throats go out in a euphoric high, that is not justice.\" \nWhat makes any method perfect is completely subjective, says Mr Portillo. \"For the pro-death penalty lobby, using a painless method of execution is inhumane to the victim of the crime. \n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\n",
"SF6 is pretty good, I've pulled at least I half a dozen folks out of an SF6 filled environment and judging from the look on their face when I resuscitate them, they'd swear they were abducted or caught in a time loop. Never knew what hit them, and most were upset because they never felt a thing. Note: SF6 is heavier than air or O2, if you are in a confined space the air in your lungs is quickly displaced by SF6 through normal respiration, next thing you know your somewhere else and people are looking at you really concerned.",
"I once almost died from carbon monoxide. I just went to sleep, was discovered, taken to hyperbaric chamber (like they use for the bends.) There was absolutely no discomfort. It was an accident, not attempted suicide.",
"I think a gunshot to the brain is actually the quickest and least cruel way to kill somebody although people will never consider it again since it's messy and appears worse even though it's more humane to me. Granted the gun does need to be perfectly placed and no chance to hit the wrong place.",
"There was an article in the National Review a number of years ago that called for using nitrogen asphyxiation for executions because it was so kind. [A copy of that article can be read here](_URL_0_).",
"I just watched the movie Conspiracy tonight. It was a meeting in Germany about the \"final solution\". In it Eichman, yes that Eichman, talked about how a German army unit named Project 4 (or some such name) used Carbon Monoxide gas chambers on mentally retarded jews, and how gas chambers was suggested as a means of killing large amounts of people at that meeting. ",
"I've always wondered why we don't use Nitrogen displacement. It's painless, quick, leaves the body intact (organ harvesting, etc), and it's cheap. If I ever end up with some sort of debilitating sickness where I'm in pain all the time and just want to die, that's the way I'm going.",
"Why not use a bullet to the brain? I don't ask this to be stupid, but you are killing someone and lethal injection can sometimes not work or be painful, wouldn't a bullet be quick and painless? ",
"Because the seals on the chamber are made by the lowest contract bidder.",
"Just thought I'd add, CO was used briefly by the Nazis in their quest for the final solution but was stopped after a combination of reasons including the time it took to kill and, apparently because the trucks had to be cleaned out after every use from the involuntary defecations.\n\nSource: HHhH by Laurent Binet\n\nI'm on my phone so forgive me ",
"Its revenge plain and simple",
"Maybe I watch too much game of thrones, but I think the person who decides the death penalty is appropriate should be the executioner as well.",
"I never understood why they don't just use a plasma chamber or something that vaporizes you instantly",
"Death Penalty: WHAT'S WRONG WITH OLD AGE? -There can't be much worse than getting near to the end of a very very long prison sentence knowing that your long and tedious life has been a complete and utter waste of time. Death Penalties are immoral, unnatural, cruel, and give the victim purpose, importance, meaning and a chance to be courageous in public. There's many examples of Life Sentence prisoners pleading for freedom at the closing of their lives: That's when the punishment starts in my opinion. And yes, a Life Sentence should mean every last second of the prisoners life. No compassionate release. A prison death with no one around that could give a damn. No shocking or brave last words, just an anonymous and meaningless expiry. Not even euthanasia if they fall seriously ill as some people choose. Just a natural, meaningless death after a pointless and wasted life. No place in history. A death penalty can also sometimes hand control and manipulation back to the prisoner in the form of appeals, stays of execution, last words to their victims family, false contrition, drama, or what have you.\n\nJustice and revenge are different sides of the same coin but when seeking vengeance there's a danger, as the saying goes, that if you sing with the devil you end up dancing with the devil. Best to serve both cold and stay in complete control by not sinking to the perpetrators level. ",
"As a neuroscientist, we use Carbon dioxide to kill lab animals that is really fast and painless, much better than carbon monoxide. Also it is odourless and tastless.",
"1) CO is tricky because you have to get the concentration right to insure a humane death. When the Nazi gas vans were designed, the intent was it for it to take a leisurely 15 minutes or so to drive from the city to the ditches. Instead drivers, disturbed by the nature of their trip, would step on the gas and the victims would die horribly, the SS workers unloading were so disturbed by the death scene that they needed to get drunk to stand it. (source- the \"Treblinka\" book by one of the survivors). \n\n(The truck itself was a crude replacement for the T4 euthanasia program that used bottled gas at fixed facilities, [But these were intended for undesirable Germans and not where they were needed to \"deal with\" the Jews.] The next evolution was to let the truck idle inside a fixed enclosure, Chelmno, the first extermination camp, where you could also have slave labor deal with the bodies, the third evolution was when someone realized you can make the \"truck\" as big as you want since it didn't have to move, and the Reinhard camps (Treblinka et all) had an engine exhaust feeding fixed chamber. The final evolution was Auschwitz where they adopted commercial hydrogen cyanide pesticide by having the warning odor removed.) \n\nThe reason hydrogen cyanide was implemented in the US was that in the early decades of the last century there was a trade disputes with the manufacturers, and they were eager to see other uses and publicity for their product and it seemed natural since cyanide was used in pest extermination and carbon monoxide wasn't. The book \"The Last Gasp\", although it has an anti-capital punishment slant, is good, if morbid reading about the history of gas chambers, particularly the US.\n\nThe original concept was that the prisoner would be sleeping in their cell, and gas would be pumped in at night and they'd never wake up. This was obviously impractical so the concept switched to a dedicated fixed chamber. There were some unsettling developments early in the process. Animals that the gas chambers were tested on seemed to suffer, and the first gassing was a converted barber shop that was so cold that most of the cyanide just liquified on the walls and floor rather than stay as a gas, and it used bottled gas that had to be transported and handled at substantial risk. \n\nDespite the gilded comment, carbon monoxide has never been used in any execution gas chamber in the US, although it's commonly but controversially still used to euthanize animals. Also see \"14 days in May\", again there is an anti death penalty agenda, it follows the execution of someone where there were doubts about his guilt, but you can see a real gas chamber being tested on rabbits. The warden was disgusted that he got all kinds of letters saying they shouldn't have gassed the rabbits, but almost none about gassing the convict. ",
"Execution aims to kill people, not slowly choke them to death which could be deemed as torture.",
"Any change to the method of execution would be lobbied-against most vigorously by the anti-death penalty crowd even if it meant a quicker and more humane death . Why? Because it would be seen by them as an affirmation of the \"rightness\" of the death penalty - the very thing they're trying to eliminate.",
"Because it'd take too long, not all of them would die, and the survivors would be brain damaged \"vegetables\".",
"Put simply, a certain group of people who were the runners up in WWII also used gas to execute people. Since then, it has been stigmatized. I believe hanging is also actually considered one the most humane ways to execute a person overall. ",
"take the time to read the last statements of people put to death in texas.\n\nIt's so sad\n\n_URL_0_",
"Carbon monoxide: it's odorless and colorless. Your wife won't know what hit her. ",
"CO poisoning is not painless. If youre awake before hand you will experience some pretty bad headaches. Im a plumber and a gasfitter\nand i was working in a boiler room with ~900ppm of CO for only a few minutes before i started to get a headache. and it lasted for a few hours.\nTurns out the exchangers on the boiler were plugged, and of course the flue gasses dump back over the burner making CO.",
"I don't get why all serious criminals don't get Life Imprisonment, Death you kill a man he's gone he's no longer your problem, but you put a man in prison for life he has to spend 20-80 years in a grey concrete block forced to live like that all their life thinking about all their crimes. It's worse for them if they do something stupid and end up in Solitary where they get no human interaction for months or years. I mean I never got the Death Penalty. Death ends their life yes, but Life forces them to live with it until they die."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAmu3DXk5c"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAmu3DXk5c#t=2511",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAmu3DXk5c#t=2753"
],
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7183957.stm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://off2dr.com/smf/index.php?topic=543.0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_executed_offenders.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
8vlrbw | why do shockwaves in the first few milliseconds warp what’s behind the blast? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8vlrbw/eli5_why_do_shockwaves_in_the_first_few/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1od07h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You see light through the air. If the air moves really fast, the light travelling through that medium get distorted.\n\nThis is what mirages are, hot air expanding and moving, and making the light shimmer with it. Explosions are the same, except the air is moving orders of magnitude faster."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ovy0d | how do those rubber pads in urinals promote hygiene? | While taking a leak last night, I noticed that the rubber pad in the urinal said something about promoting hygiene. How do they do that, and why are they necessary? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ovy0d/eli5_how_do_those_rubber_pads_in_urinals_promote/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3khxcu",
"c3kic6j",
"c3kkjpn"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is a screen for the urinal cake, so the cake doesn't get flushed and clog the drain. The urinal cake is there to disinfect and deodorize the urinal and pipes.",
"Ok so there are the [Urinal Cake screens](_URL_3_), and then there are just the [rubber screens](_URL_4_). \n\nFrom what I can tell, after perusing _URL_2_, both varieties of screen have two primary functions: Acting as a screen, so large hunks of stuff can't be flushed down the urinal (common things I've personally seen from working at a bar: gum, cigarette buts, straws, other trash), and they are deodarizers. If you look at [these products](_URL_1_) you will see they are basically all listed as having a deodarizer or fragrance, I haven't come across one yet that says something about promoting hygeine, however I do know for certain that I've seen urinal pads that said this, in person - however they always seemed to say something about promoting hygiene right next to the company name, so I always believed it was just the company slogan.\n\nHowever, since both the standard urinal cake and the basic urinal screen have fragrance components that slowly release themselves, I would say that it's entirely feasable for them to also have a disinfectant component as well - If they do, I'd say it's more rare. I do also know that a number of places I've seen have been adding [automatic cleaners](_URL_0_) to their urinals, in effort to help keep the place clean (which supports my theory that the urinal pads have no hygiene promoting features)",
"I believe there were a bunch of studies done that indicate that if there's something in a urinal, men are more likely to aim at it. Even if it serves no hygienic purpose, it at least keeps it in the urinal (which I suppose makes it more hygienic that way)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.janitorialsupplies4less.com/product_info.php/cPath/20_747/products_id/43839",
"http://www.janitorialsupplies4less.com/index.php/cPath/20_44",
"janitorialsupplies4less.com",
"http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L_9hoRi20dE/Sj_sS8f6VHI/AAAAAAAAAQY/dbavNSXWNCM/s320/urinal-cake.jpg",
"http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/318336531/urinal_screens_urinal_blocks.jpg"
],
[]
]
|
|
69fpsb | when astronauts are in space, they experience weightlessness in "zero gravity." but, the earth's gravity is strong enough to hold satellites and the moon in orbit. so, what is zero gravity? why aren't astronauts bound to the closest surface by the earth's gravity but instead can float? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69fpsb/eli5_when_astronauts_are_in_space_they_experience/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh676o1",
"dh67kuy",
"dh67z5g",
"dh68tzj",
"dh6r8wj"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They aren't really experiencing zero gravity. They're experiencing *most* of the gravity we experience here on the surface. They are floating because while in orbit, they, and the shuttle/station/etc that they are in, are in free fall. \n\nIt's the same way people float inside the Vomit Comet airplane, they're all falling at the same rate as the plane, so they seem suspended in their surroundings. \n\nThe important distinction is that an orbit is falling laterally fast enough that, unlike the vomit comet, it won't intersect the ground at some point. They fall \"past the earth\" which redefines which way you are falling into a continuous circle. ",
"Ever been on a roller coaster in free-fall or jumped off a diving board? You still feel weightlessness despite being at the surface of the Earth. \n\nThat feeling of weightlessness comes from your guts no longer sitting on the bottom of the cavity in your torso and thus you get that rising feeling. \n\nAs for orbit, here's a great way to think about it. When you shoot a gun straight ahead, it drops. At short distances you don't have to factor bullet drop into your aim but at longer ranges you have to compensate. The faster the bullet travels the further it can go before dropping the same amount as a slower bullet. \n\nNow keep increasing this speed so that the bullet falls at the same rate as the Earth's curvature. Your range will go further and further around the world until it goes all the way around and hits the ground under you. Increase the speed even more and it will keep going round and round (assume no air resistance). \n\nThis entire time, the bullet is in free fall. Now replace the bullet with the space station and put it outside the atmosphere. The astronauts are falling just like you fall during a dive. That's why they feel weightless despite being at a distance where the gravitational force is significant.",
"A more correct term than \"zero gravity\" would be \"in freefall\". The weightlessness that astronauts experience is the same weightlessness that skydivers experience. Of course, skydivers feel the wind as they fall through the atmosphere. So, if you were to put a person in a container and drop them from a plane, they would experience \"zero gravity\" just like on the space station.\n\nIn fact, that's exactly what we do. That's basically how the \"vomit comet\" works. There's also a lab in Germany where they put stuff in a little container, then throw it up into the air in order to do experiments about zero gravity on the surface of Earth.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEdit: Got the location wrong.",
"They don't experience zero gravity at all. They actually experience about 90% of the gravity we experience on the surface of the earth. But they are in free fall, so they experience weightlessness.\n\nIn orbit you fall toward the ground, but go so fast sideways that you miss the curvature of the earth and continue to fall.",
"There are two terms we need to know here: Zero-Gravity and Zero-G's (which are not the same, despite sounding like it)\n\nZero gravity is *no* force of gravity being applied to you at all, which is pretty rare considering how much stuff we really have in space.\n\nZero-G's is no acceleration being applied to you.\n\nWhen you are in a car that is speeding up, this is Positive G's and you are pulled back due to your body having less inertia than the car. When the car slows down, this is Negative G's and you are pushed forward due to your body have more inertia than the car.\n\nIn space, our Earths gravitational pull goes far beyond the moon. To understand the seemingly \"zero gravity\" in things like the ISS, you need to understand what Orbit really is. \n\nOrbit has two things: One is the inertia in where it is currently traveling and the other is the force of gravity applied by the object it is orbiting around. This means that it is traveling parallel to the object at the same speed that it is being pulled towards it, so it stays at the same distance moving around the object.\n\nNow that we understand that orbiting is essentially \"falling\" while also moving to the side, we can continue. In the ISS (and anything else in space, really) there are no forces being applied other than gravity, and since the Earth is very large, you're not rapidly changing directions; it happens slowly. This means that your acceleration is changing very little.\n\nSo now we understand the weightlessness feeling in space. One more question you might have is \"why aren't you pulled to different parts of the spacecraft since it's much larger and has much more mass?\" This one's really simple but I just wanted to go over it in case you're wondering. We know that all object fall at the same speed as long as there are no other forces applied (ie: particles that cause resistance) so the astronaut and the spacecraft will go at the same speed.\n\nI hope this helped!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aCMDQsx740"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1cb03v | would guns work on a moon and in space, and why? | *the Moon | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cb03v/eli5_would_guns_work_on_a_moon_and_in_space_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9er105",
"c9etq4x",
"c9eve54",
"c9f2n7e"
],
"score": [
31,
6,
22,
3
],
"text": [
"Gunpowder does not need air to explode. So yes, they will work. The gun feeding another bullet becomes iffy. A gun like a glock that works on the force of the slide and casing getting blown back would have no problem, most guns work like this. A gun like and AK 47 uses a little tube of gas coming from the barrel to cycle the next bullet. This type may not get enough pressure with the barrel being empty of all air when firing, but it could always be done manually.",
"Gunpowder, black or smokeless, contains its own oxidizer, so yes it would burn and produce the gases to propel the bullet. But I would be concerned about lubricants in the gun's mechanism and possibly in the cannelures on the bullet evaporating/boiling off under vacuum. The gun could jam, or a bullet could get lodged in the barrel.\n\nWere we to find a need for firearms that will work in a vacuum, there are greases used to lubricate moving parts in vacuum chambers that might work in a firearm. And modern mass-produced cartridges are sealed shut with an asphaltum cement (instead of crimping the case around the bullet, as people who reload their own ammunition do), so improved quality control to seal the seams in the cartridge might be sufficient there, assuming the bullet does need to have a lubricant in its cannelures.",
"As other people have stated most current guns could probably fire in space, however a real consideration is *how many* shots could you fire.\n\nMy understanding is that guns heat up pretty fast when you fire them, but in space there is no air to carry away the heat generated by the gun ([a vacuum](_URL_0_) is a really good insulator). Unless you had some specialized cooling system designed for it, any gun used in space could only be fired a set number of times before becoming too hot to safely use. ",
"It is widely accepted that at least one gun has been fired in the vacuum of space from a Soviet spacecraft in the 1970s. [Source.](_URL_0_) \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun"
]
]
|
|
8iq4g3 | if it’s so easy and cheap to get juice from a watermelon, why is it so rare to see in stores? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8iq4g3/eli5_if_its_so_easy_and_cheap_to_get_juice_from_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dytpeel",
"dytsn9m"
],
"score": [
17,
35
],
"text": [
"It really just isnt that popular. Watermelon juice is honestly pretty bland. theres way more water than other popular juices and theres a lot less sugar. \n\nThis is why typically you see watermelon + something else juice.",
"Watermelon juice is really common to see in stores. They store it in big green containers that preserve the juice really well.\n\nOnce you've extracted it from the natural container though, it oxidizes easily, is more expensive to store, and has less flavor/sugar than common juices. So there's no economic benefit to storing it outside its original packaging."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2hmxor | why do people like to say "follow your heart" or "i prefer taking actions listening to my heart over brain" ? why is emotions related to heart ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hmxor/eli5_why_do_people_like_to_say_follow_your_heart/ | {
"a_id": [
"cku4c0r",
"cku89r9"
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text": [
"Before we understood that all emotions are created in the brain, the heart was long thought to be the center of human emotion, and in some religions/cultures, the location of the soul. It makes sense; the heart is a vital organ that if damaged can kill you, it seems to hurt in our chests when we feel sad or lonely, etc. When people say follow your heart, they are saying to follow what you want emotionally, rather than what is logical (or, in your head/brain).",
"I wouldn't say everything happens in the brain, either. Here's an article on how gut instincts (fear, in particular) literally pass through the gut: [How Does the Vagus Nerve Convey Gut Instincts to the Brain?](_URL_0_)\n\nAside from where the signals go physically, it simply is where you can feel it. The extent to which this happens varies between people."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201405/how-does-the-vagus-nerve-convey-gut-instincts-the-brain"
]
]
|
||
5nma0y | hunting seasons | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nma0y/eli5_hunting_seasons/ | {
"a_id": [
"dccl7de"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"With many animals in designated wildlife areas, the population needs to be controlled to prevent over population which would be very damaging to them. Less food available, overcrowding, etc. So during a time of year when the animals aren't reproducing, the state will allow a certain number of animals to be hunted, that's the \"tag\" you buy. You're paying the state for wildlife conservation and habitat protection, keeping those lands open, maintained, etc. You can only shoot (legally) what you bought a tag for and once tags are gone, that animal can't be hunted for the rest of the year. \n\nIf the state decides that they population is too high, they may sell more tags, if they decide the population is too low, they may sell less tags. It's all about population control, and a lot of it has to do with human expansion into their home. We're managing the population in proportion to the land that's available to the animals, removing them when they're somewhere they shouldn't be, or adding them where we'd like them to be. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
20vrl3 | what is the difference between fruits, vegetables, and herbs? | Did some searching on the internet, but there doesn't seem to be clear distinctions. Maybe it's because legal, culinary, and scientific circles have different definitions? As an example: What are bananas? I've read both fruit and herb. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20vrl3/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_fruits/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg77ih9",
"cg77m4f"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"A fruit is the (often sweet) portion of a plant which contains a seed inside. Oranges? They have seeds inside and are therefore fruits. Apples? Same. Bananas, as you requested, technically have seeds inside so they are fruits, although they are grown by planting trimmings instead of seeds so you usually don't notice the seeds. Other counterintuitive fruits include cucumbers and tomatoes. This definition is botanical. There are culinary usages of the word, but \"fruit\" is less explicitly defined in that usage.\n\nVegetables are a broader group, and consist of any edible part of a plant, often with an explicit exclusion of fruits (fruit and vegetable are often taken to be opposites), although some definitions allow fruits to be vegetables as well. This can be anything from a carrot to a head of lettuce to a stalk of celery. This definition is generally a culinary one and it is less rigid. Most people would not describe most fruits as vegetables, but the aforementioned tomato and cucumber often bridge the gap--a salad, for example, is generally thought of consisting of a mixture of vegetables but both of those fruits often find their way into one.\n\nHerbs are a subset of vegetables and are the flavorful leaves of plants. Things like dill, rosemary, oregano, thyme, basil, or parsley are all herbs. Herbs are closely related to spices, although spices are derived from a part of a plant other than the leaves (e.g. from the seeds, root, fruit, or bark). Spices include cinnamon, red black or white pepper, fennel, or coriander.\n\nThere are surely other definitions for each of these for different usages, but these are probably the most common definitions you will run into. ",
"Ah, culinary biology, my favorite, so delicious!\n\nFruits are different from vegetables. But fruits AND vegetables can be herbs! They're different categorical systems. \"Herbs\" are part of a categorical system for the whole tree itself (the banana tree). \"Fruits and vegetables\" reference specific parts of the plant.\n\nBotanically, fruits are the seeds and surrounding tissues that help disseminate the plant's genes. Vegetables are the rest of the plant, such as the roots, leaves, and in narrow view, the \"ovary\" of the plant.\n\nThe term \"herb\" comes from the botanical category \"herbaceous plant\", which means any plant that grows leaves and stems that die annually due to changes in season (think leafy trees vs. pine trees).\n\nSo yes, bananas are fruits and herbs.\n\n(Now culinary definitions are different... for instance, although we know from trivia that tomatoes are fruits, culinary definitions include tomatoes as vegetables. And herbs in culinary terms just mean anything that has flavor or medicinal properties... just to add to the confusion.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1bag24 | why does fat splatter when you cook it? | Does it have to do with moisture content, or does it have some sort of higher potential energy content?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bag24/why_does_fat_splatter_when_you_cook_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c953i74"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Oil has a higher vapor point than water, which means water will flash to steam and splatter liquid oil before the oil would boil."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
23l35i | if we know chemical composition of some edible/drinkable item (e.g. milk), why can't we make it in factories? | ELI5: If we know chemical composition of some edible/drinkable item (e.g. milk), why can't we make it in factories? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23l35i/eli5_if_we_know_chemical_composition_of_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgy1low",
"cgy1mit",
"cgy285l"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Just knowing the chemical composition of something doesn't mean we magically know how to synthesize it in a lab. It takes a lot of effort to create a process that can synthesize something, and do it in a way that can be \"industrialized\" in large quantities, and at reasonable prices.\n\nDrugs like antibiotics, painkillers, etc. are worth the effort because they don't just grow on trees, and people need them to survive. And economically speaking, people will buy them, too.\n\nMilk can just be taken from a cow, so why would somebody spend millions researching a way to create it artificially, which would cost a lot more?",
"Because synthesizing biological materials like fats and proteins (like that found in milk) chemically is quite expensive. \n\n",
"When we find a easy, cheap way to synthesize something in a factory, then we do. But often the best factory to use to make it is a cow, or a plant, or a fungus. If it is easier and cheaper to use the natural process to make something, then that is what we do.\n\nFor instance, the antibiotic Penicillin is still produced by growing and harvesting vast vats of fungal mold."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1dgcv7 | what does meta and alpha mean? | I often hear "that's so meta" or "SO ALPHA" thrown around on reddit. What do they mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dgcv7/eli5_what_does_meta_and_alpha_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9q15ph",
"c9q6efg",
"c9qf6ff"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Alpha pretty much is meant to imply that whoever said it is great/dominant (hence alpha, as in like a pack leader). It's usually said when talking about confidence or suaveness with women, like \"Just got a girls number without even making eye contact, alpha as fuck\" or some other cheesy sentence like that. It's used sarcastically a lot, so watch out for that.\n\nI'm still a bit confused about meta. I think it has something to do with things sort of looping into each other in a situation? I wouldn't take my word for it.",
"\"Alpha\" comes from the term \"alpha-male,\" which is the most masculine member of a group on animals, and is usually the leader. It is usually referenced on Reddit when a situation appears when a man achieved success with women or established himself as powerful or masculine. It is also mentioned when a person does something that animals often do to establish themselves as alpha-males. For example, I once read a comment in an AskReddit thread that described a man urinating on another man's girlfriend while maintaining eye contact with the other man the whole time. The next comment was \"So alpha.\" This was considered \"alpha\" because several animals urinate or excrete to mark their territory.\n\n\"Meta\" is a Greek prefix that indicates self-reference. For example, meta-emotion is emotion about emotion, and metaphysics is the physics of physics (which is actually the philosophy of physics and the universe). Something can be described as \"meta\" if it references itself, similar to the references to \"Inception\" made after the movie was released. There was an XKCD comic I read once that mentioned the phrase \"I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym.\" When the first letters are spelled out, it is \"ISMETA.\" ",
"I figured others would jump in, but let me add some shading to the \"That's so meta.\"\n\nthere's PURE self-referential - a commercial that references that it is a commercial 'breaks the fifth wall' in hollywood speak. Then there is a new shading, that has entered into the social world of internet users, that comes from having this common metaphor of 'meta'. First, let me delve into the commonality, then I'll explain back to what the common phrase 'that's so meta' in an internet discourse might mean.\n\nBeginning with the WELL (_URL_0_) and continuing with such notable sites as wikipedia and reddit, there were parts of these sites designated '_URL_2_, _URL_4_, _URL_3_'. \n\nConsider the *orientation* of the regular part of the website. Users in various sub-reddits focus on cats, news, gaming - metareddit focuses on *them*. The target domain of the well or wikipedia is any area of the world (external), while metawell or meta.wikipedia focuses on the target domain of *those speakers* (internal). \n\nIn this way, _URL_1_, /r/shitredditsays and /r/subredditdrama and /r/depthhubs are 'meta' subreddits. The focal point (source domain) of these subreddits *is* the output of these other subreddits (target domain). \n\n\nA quick domestic example in language. (yelling) \"Do the fucking dishes!\" (teenager:) \"I don't like how you're yelling at me!\" \n\nThe fist statement has a source domain from the environment. The second statement 'goes meta' on the first, reference IT as the source domain. This phrase was introduced famously into the vernacular in the Clarence Thomas trials, in which he 'went meta' on the court, calling into question their right to try him, rather than responding at a content level to their queries. Famously, so did Saddam Hussein. (you can find the phrase in the news articles about clarence thomas, and very very sparsely, before).\n\n\nSo when people say, \"that's so meta\" here in a colloquial sense, they are referencing either a pure form of self-reference, such as Big Bang Theory discussing sitcom television shows, sneakily breaking the fifth wall by having you notice that they are referencing their own category, or they are talking about how some participant in the conversation 'jumped up' from the content domain to a 'higher' (also: lower, more fundamental, depending on the orientational metaphor) domain of 'talking about other people's talking'. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://well.com",
"well.com/flame.ind",
"metawell.com",
"http://reddit.com/r/meta",
"metawikipedia.com"
]
]
|
|
bjf8pn | how is gdp of a country calculated? why is it in small percentages, like 2.5% maybe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjf8pn/eli5_how_is_gdp_of_a_country_calculated_why_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"em7nsre",
"em8wyij"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The GDP is the total amount of money spent in a country (or amount gained in income, as they are hypothetically equal). It equates to government spending + consumer spending + investment spending + net exports (i.e. exports - imports). So if you buy a car it counts as consumer spending, and if the car company buys a new manufacturing machine it counts as investment. However if the car comapny buys steel to make a car its not counted, as its considered to be counted as part of the car. GDP is measured as currency (e.g. the US's GDP is roughly $19.4tn).\n\nNow what you see as small percentages isn't actually the GDP, but \"growth\" which is the rate of change of a countries GDP. So if a countries GDP was £100bn last year and £102bn this year GDP growth would be 2%*. Its normally a small number because GDP growth in advanced economies is typically constrained by technology, which can't advance and be applied that quickly. Also it is exponential, so even small GDP growth rapidly compounds into big changes (2% growth over 35 years doubles the size of the economy).\n\n\n*To add to this, what we typically measure is called \"real growth\" and is equal to growth minus inflation, which is essentially the increase in spending that is not caused by an increase in prices, and thus is probably due to an increase in production.",
"First of all, your question is wrong. The small percentages figure are growth rates. It's like population growth rates. Say for example, India's population was 100 crore in 2010 and 110 crores in 2020, so India's population grew at 10% on average in these 10 years. \n\n\nNow for the GDP, It's simply the sum of earnings of everyone in the country. If your family has people earning 10, 20, 30 and 40 Rs per years, the GDP of your house is 10+20+30+40= Rs 100. **India's current GDP is roughly 2.6 trillion dollars.** \n\n\nIf you have more questions, feel free to ask"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1obwzs | ; why does our body not have a method to prevent or remove ingrown toenails? | They hurt, and in extreme cases can even cause infections and impair movement. to my mind at least it makes sense to have SOMETHING that can do this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1obwzs/eli5_why_does_our_body_not_have_a_method_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccqkv1w",
"ccqoxdb"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"We used to not protect our feet in hardened artificial shells. Shoes are a recent invention in terms of evolutionary timelines. Toenailes would chip and break long before ingrown nails would become a problem, in most cases.",
"Evolution doesn't \"design\" us to be better. Either your genes are good enough to survive and reproduce successfully or they're not. After enough generations, genes that are detrimental will disappear. Ingrown toenails typically don't kill people, and if they do, it doesn't happen often enough to select for that gene."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
17djje | what is "unlocking" your smartphone? what is it now illegal and punishable by up to a $1 million fine? | Apparently this became law this weekend in the US. I hear a lot about "switching carriers" but don't know what this means in the context of this law. If anyone could explain why this law came about and what it means to unlock your smartphone, I'd really appreciate it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17djje/eli5_what_is_unlocking_your_smartphone_what_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c84hwjj",
"c84mnn2"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Phones provided by service providers are usually locked by their firmware into only working on that provider's network. Unlocking disables that so the phone can be used on any network.",
"The reason that carriers were upset about people being able to unlock their phones was because of the prepaid market. You can pick up a prepaid phone for $20 at your local grocery store. The phone is so cheap because it's assumed you have to buy service on the carrier's network and only their network. They are literally losing money on the phone and making it up on the service.\n\nHowever, some companies were buying up these cheap phones in bulk, unlocking them and shipping them off to other countries. That's the practice that carriers don't like."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
rctle | classical vs. operant conditioning | I don't understand how the reinforcement behavior of Operant conditioning is different from the behavior resulting from classically conditioned events. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rctle/eli5_classical_vs_operant_conditioning/ | {
"a_id": [
"c44saa8",
"c44wkzr"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Classical Conditioning: There's an unconditioned stimulus-- in Pavlov's case, this was the smell of meat to the dog. With the unconditioned stimulus comes an unconditioned response-- the dog salivates.\n\nIn Classical Conditioning, you present the unconditioned stimulus, but you pair it with a neutral stimulus (in Pavlov's case, it was a tone). Eventually, the subject is conditioned to give you that same response to the neutral stimulus that you would have gotten from the unconditioned stimulus. This is why Pavlov's dogs would salivate at the sound of the tone-- it had been associated with the onset of meat, which was the unconditioned stimulus for salivation.\n\nOperant Conditioning is another beast. The organism in question actually modifies *its own behavior* based on the occurrence of events it perceives as related. So, for example, if a mouse presses a bar and a food pellet drops from a chute, the mouse modifies its behavior to press the bar for food. It's as simple as that. It's not really accurate to use terms like \"unconditioned stimulus\" and \"unconditioned response\" etc. as we did with classical conditioning, because we're not actively participating in that way.\n\n**TL;DR: Classical conditioning deals with modifying responses, while Operant Conditioning deals with modification of voluntary behavior.**",
"* Classical Conditioning: The phone rings. You pick it up, it's your friend. You get happy. The phone rings. You pick it up, it's your friend. You get happy. The phone rings. You pick it up, it's your friend. You get happy. **The phone rings. You get happy.**\n\nEven though the phone ringing by itself has nothing to do with how happy or sad you are, you get conditioned to become happy when it rings. It's where you get \"programmed\" to react to something in a way you normally wouldn't.\n\n\n* Operant Conditioning: Your dog is begging at the table, and you don't want to give her any food. She starts whining and gets annoying, so finally you do. She stops whining and goes away. She is now more likely to whine when begging because she knows she will probably get food. You are more likely to give her food when she starts begging because you don't want her to whine.\n\nShe has changed her behavior because she has become positively reinforced- meaning that she has recieved a reward. You have changed your behavior because you have become negatively reinforced- meaning that you made something bad go away. In both cases, the behavior has changed because of the consequences of it. \n\n\nMore examples- \n\n* Classical: The bell rings for recess. You instantly run out the doors and race all over the playground. Your heart is beating fast. This repeats every day, so eventually when the bell rings, your heart starts to beat faster.\n\n* Operant: Every time you run in the hallway, you slip and fall down the stairs. After a while, you don't run in the hallway anymore."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
d15bvn | how does electricity distribution works? | If I have some solar panels and I supply to the grid, i get paid. But how does the electricity from my solar panel reaches someone's home? How does the circuit work in this case? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d15bvn/eli5_how_does_electricity_distribution_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezhky1e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Each group of 8-10 houses is a branch in the electric tree. Your branch has a transformer that connects you with a feed line. This transformer also isolates your branch, so that if there is a short only one branch goes out.\n\nYour transformer pulls power from the feed to satisfy the demand of your branch. If you are making more solar than you are using, if flows out through your meter into your neighbor's house. Unless your whole branch makes more electricity than it uses, it's unlikely that you have a two-way branch transformer. Mostly your excess solar is running the neighbor's air conditioner, or something like that.\n\nThis benefits everybody because if there was more demand on the feed, then in your substation the regulator (a special kind of transformer that makes sure that the feed doesn't brown-out) might run out of regulation and then everybody has a problem. By reducing the net load in your feed, less power is made in some distant power plant. This also means less is lost in transmission and distribution."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2iagom | what are the procedures if a supervolcano were to erupt? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iagom/eli5_what_are_the_procedures_if_a_supervolcano/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl0hc1w",
"cl0jidj",
"cl0p4lz"
],
"score": [
9,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"A supervolcanic eruption is a historically unprecedented event, so there's no official procedure anywhere, at least that I'm aware of. I imagine most countries follow some sort of flight safety code that recognizes that volcanic ash can crash airplanes, though.\n\nEUROCONTROL (The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation), has a wiki article outlining the threat volcanic ash poses to airplanes [here](_URL_0_).",
"Same procedure for any major disaster. You should keep supplies and have a basic plan with family.\n\nExcept a supervolcano would probably be real bad, you might want to stock a handgun and a bullet for everybody ;P",
"Supervolcanos are hyper destructive. To survive one don't be there when it blows, that is try to be on another continent, or the other side of continent. Krakatoa, which was not a supervolcano, caused hearing loss as far away as 100 km. If Yellowstone blows it might cause really bad earthquakes in California as well as covering the state with inches of ash, New York would get about an eight of an inch. The don't be there advice is not silly, it is very unlikely that a supervolcano could blow without a fair bit of warning."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Volcanic_Ash"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4dhxkd | how come green has turned out to be the colour of toxic waste and foul smelling gas in comics/cartoons? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dhxkd/eli5_how_come_green_has_turned_out_to_be_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1r2f6k",
"d1r2xmx"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Just a wild guess, but it's probably because it's often glowing in the comics, and the glowing radioactive materials most people are familiar with are those glow-in-the-dark paints, which are green. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Well with a limited amount of colors.\n\nBlack/White reserved for shadows/relfections\n\nRed - Blood or dirt\n\nBlue - water/sky\n\nYellow - sand/food\n\nGreen - Common in nature but no plant related material "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_paint#Radioluminescent_paint"
],
[]
]
|
||
t3lf3 | how a programming language is used to create a graphics engine for a video game? | To be more specific i want to know how graphics in video games come to be. I know they use a graphics engine, but how do you type in syntax of a certain programming language and then it displays a city or a gun? Im very confused on the matter? I assume you use some type of mathematical equation maybe? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/t3lf3/eli5_how_a_programming_language_is_used_to_create/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4j92bz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Objects in games are usually modeled by a set of data. You can imagine that as a big file that lists all the different triangles that are used to create the object. It's kind of like an architectural blueprint.\n\nThe graphics engine reads those files, and then is able to display what the object would look like from any different direction. Imagine that as if you got a stack of blueprints, and then were told to draw what the building would look like from front, from the back, from the side, or from across the street.\n\nThe graphics engine draws that building 60 times per second, changing its viewpoint as your character moves around.\n\nIn figuring out how to turn those blueprints into a drawing from any angle, yes, mathematics are used. The basic mathematics are not all that complex, but once you add in textures and curves, things can get a lot more difficult."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1smdxa | why can some websites not produce a comma/apostrophe and it only shows up as �? | I've been to a few websites that have this problem and it isn't really a problem, but I just wonder why "�" exists. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1smdxa/eli5_why_can_some_websites_not_produce_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdz0gdp",
"cdz9r35"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This comes down to character set encoding.\nLet's break it down\n\n1. The website you are on has text stored using a specific character set (the most common is UTF-8)\n2. When a webpage loads, the site should tell you what character set it is encoded in (normally something like < meta content=\"text/html; charset=UTF-8\" http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" > in the HTML)\n3. Your browser interprets that as \"cool - this site's text is using UTF-8, we'll translate it using this character set\"\n\nAs mentioned, the most common is UTF-8, when websites don't specify their character set, browsers will generally just assume it's UTF-8.\n\nTherefore there are a few situations when you get the � symbols\n\n1. websites uses a different character set, and do not state what it is for the browser\n2. website specifies the incorrect character set for the browser to use\n3. your browser is loading the wrong character set (maybe you manually changed it)\n\nYou can force your browser to use a different character set. In chrome you can do this by going to Tools > Encoding\n\nHope this helps!",
"This generally occurs when the web page builder has copied and pasted text from a word processed document. In the word processed document, quotation marks are rendered as \"smart quotes\" or \"curly quotes\". To be more visually appealing, the word processing software replaces the \"straight quote\" created by typing on the keyboard with an extra-fancy graphical shape; the quotation mark at the beginning of the quote will have an extra dot at the top and will be curved to the right, while the quotation mark at the end will have the extra dot and will curve to the left. This looks pretty on the screen when viewed in your word processor and when printed on paper. When the text is copied into the text editor as part of an HTML document, the smart quotes (and smart apostrophes) are pasted in unchanged. When the web browser attempts to parse the HTML, the smart quote symbols are unreadable and render as the �\n\nBonus content: you can disable automatic replacement of straight quotes with curly quotes in most word processors. In Word, for example, you can access the AutoCorrect options to do so. (File tab or Office button > Word Options > Proofing category > AutoCorrect Options button > AutoFormat As You Type tab > Deselect \"Straight quotes\" with \"smart quotes\" checkbox)\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
78rxt2 | why can our ears handle the pressure from water or air just fine, but excessive loud noise can cause damage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/78rxt2/eli5_why_can_our_ears_handle_the_pressure_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dow7nce",
"dow850f",
"dowrxyn"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a difference between damaging your ears, and damaging your hearing. \n\nYour ears, or more specifically your eardrums, can be damaged by air or water pressure. You may have experienced ear pain if you fly, or dive down deep in the water. Excessive pressure diffferentials on either side of the eardrum can rupture the disc. Although, this is temporary/repairable. \n\nLoud noises can damage your hearing by destroying the fine hairs and nerve endings within the cochlear. ",
"On top of the other answers here...it would take a lot of pressure from an air compressor or water pump to actually get into your ear the way sound waves a can.\n\nYou'd basically have to have the jet of water/air rip your outer ear apart before it could even get the direct application of pressure on your eardrum.",
"imagine a 10 lbs fishing line attached to a 20 lbs object. If you yank on the line very fast ( the excessive loud noise equivalent) the line will break. But if you slowly pull on the line , you will be able to lift the object ( the static high pressure from water).\n\nBasically, you are able to sustain higher static pressure ( silent) vs lower dynamic pressure waves ( excessive sound )."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
as4jjt | why do people ask to be roasted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/as4jjt/eli5_why_do_people_ask_to_be_roasted/ | {
"a_id": [
"egrplcd",
"egrps9j"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they don't really care about getting insulted and they don't really find them as offensive.",
"I think the majority of them just have a really good sense of humour and maybe know there is something about them that is odd and don't mind it being made fun off. Most of the comments however brutal they are, I'm assuming are made with the idea of being funny first rather than being hurtful. The same idea as the roasts you see on comedy central where its good friends taking the piss out of each other! Although since nobody here is a celebrity, the piss taking duties fall to the Internet friends instead! "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
6rhg7r | why is it that you are 100x more excited when a song you love comes on the radio than when you select it from your personalized music list? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rhg7r/eli5_why_is_it_that_you_are_100x_more_excited/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl528k5"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because the chances of it being selected randomly in radio tends to be less than you selecting it yourself. It's like winning the lottery for $5 rather than a friend giving you $5. You feel luckier"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
89ny4v | if i jump out of an airplane at cruising altitude into the ocean, how deep would i plunge, and would i be able to resurface before running out of air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89ny4v/eli5_if_i_jump_out_of_an_airplane_at_cruising/ | {
"a_id": [
"dws8rlm",
"dws8tho",
"dws8vdw",
"dws9bl9",
"dws9ekx"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The surface tension of the water would kill you. You wouldn't need to worry about any of the rest of your questions. ",
"You would die instantly. Water only has a nice soft landing up to a certain point. Once an object is moving too quickly, a lot of drag force builds up because the water molecules can't move out of the way of the speeding object fast enough. Hitting water at terminal velocity from jumping out of a plane would basically be the same as hitting solid concrete. ",
"The higher you fall from, the greater your speed, meaning the greater the impact force, meaning the greater the surface tension on the water. So falling out of anything higher than a few hundred feet would result in the water basically acting like concrete when you hit it. You’d die on impact",
"If you were to jump out of a plane at cruising altitude, the chances of you dying from the speed at which you would be traveling and the surface tension of the water would 99,99999% kill you instanly. It would be comparable to landing on solid concrete, but just for curiousity's sake, if you were to jump out of an airplane at the minimum cruising altitude, which is roughly 30.000 feet (or 9144 km), you would be falling for over 20 mins and that would increase your speed a lot as you can imagine, about 14.000 m/s at the moment you would hit the water. As for the depth you would reach in this situation, I can't really say much about that, I have no idea how water would behave in situation like this, but it's safe to say you wouldn't be able to come up for air fast enough.",
"It depends heavily on how you orient your body as you fall and enter the water. Are you spreading out to slow down, or streamlining to go fast?\n\nHonestly though, it's irrelevant because of the waters surface tension. The surface of the water has a sort of cohesive force that resists objects from penetrating it. It's what let's water striders stand on water without sinking. The faster an object goes, the harder it hits the water. For simplicity let's assume the terminal velocity of a person is about 120mph. At that speed you'd most likely shatter a significant amount of your skeleton and liquify most of your organs. \n\nHow far you would plunge is dependent on your cross sectional surface area, the temperature of the water, how fast you were going, and probably a few other things. I can't remember the formulas off the top of my head, but if you want to look into it read up on terminal velocity and fluid resistance or \"drag in water\"\n\nTLDR: depends if your belly flopping or diving. Either way you'd be going fast enough to die horribly, so depth is irrelevant."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
270i4n | why are tobacco and alcohol companies exempt from listing ingredients on their products? | Obvious answers probably include:
1. They want to keep their ingredients secret between different companies.
2. They know listing some of the ingredients would probably deter some consumers.
3. They have such a powerful influence on the government that, because of 1. and 2., they want and are able to lobby against it.
But honestly, since they are both consumer products and not "supplements" (which is a whole 'nother question), what proper non-illuminati explanation is there for not disclosing ingredients like every other consumer product (fooditems, gum, shampoo, etc.)? Unilever, Tyson, and Coca-Cola are all examples of huge multi-brand corporations that still have to tell you what's in their product, so why not tobacco and alcohol companies? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/270i4n/eli5_why_are_tobacco_and_alcohol_companies_exempt/ | {
"a_id": [
"chw88es",
"chw8nba"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"I think they do post that information. They just don't have to post the exact formula to prevent their competition from getting their \"recipe\".",
"Alcohol and tobacco are under the regulation of the ATF while the FDA governs all foods. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
enxsco | how does an amputees skin form around when it gets cut off? is it like a hole there? | Is it patched up with stitches? Does it do that right after sirgery? I was looking at Shaquem Griffin and its like a kbib at the end of his left arm. How does it form like that? Is there skin problems associated with it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enxsco/eli5_how_does_an_amputees_skin_form_around_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe66xnf"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The skin is pulled back and it's cut clean through while in a tourniquet. The bone is rounded off to prevent sharp edges. Arteries and veins are coterized, then the skin is pulled over the wound and stitched shut. There's usually enough skin to cover it easily by stretching and planning the amputation. The tourniquet is removed to allow blood to flow and verify that the wound is sufficiently sealed, and then bandaged tightly. The skin will scar where it was stitched, but a well done surgery will heal quite nicely."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
325t9u | why are movies rated pg-13, but tv shows rated tv-14 in the us? why do they increase the age by 1 for tv shows? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/325t9u/eli5_why_are_movies_rated_pg13_but_tv_shows_rated/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq85uuv",
"cq85xdx",
"cq85z3m",
"cq8ad1p"
],
"score": [
22,
4,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The film ratings system is administered by the Motion Picture Association of America, while television content ratings are governed by the Federal Communications Committee. Other than that there really isn't a reason.",
"They use different systems. For TV, the guideline thresholds are set by the FCC and TV stations voluntarily choose to use them and what category to assign a show to. For movies, they are set by the Motion Picture Association of America and are mandatory if they are to be released in theaters. The MPAA has a committee of people that rate moves.",
"The only thing I can assume is that it's because the ratings are by different companies, the MPAA and the FCC. The FCC started their rating system in 1997, so little later than the current MPAA rating system, started around 1990.",
"Others have been correct that movies and TV are both rated by MPAA and FCC respectively. I think it's worth mentioning that originally there wasn't even a \"PG-13.\" It went from PG to R in movies. Indiana Jones was originally rated R and Steven Spielberg didn't want it to be exclusively for adults, so he essentially [brought PG-13 into existence](_URL_0_), it could have easily been PG-14, just more people this way"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/indiana-jones-and-the-temple-of-doom-created-pg-13-rating-2014-4"
]
]
|
||
8fbrjw | why has kim jong un had such a change of heart all of a sudden? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fbrjw/eli5_why_has_kim_jong_un_had_such_a_change_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy25za6",
"dy2889l",
"dy28q00"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing those last couple nukes he dropped into his mountain really messed something up, probably to the point where he is gonna need some international assistance. The last few defectors have reported radioactive birth defects in the poor farming provinces. ",
"It is really impossible to know, but the most credible theory I have heard is that the recent [disaster at his primary nuclear test facility](_URL_0_) killed over 200 people, many of whom are believed to be his top scientists.\n\nIf that is indeed what happened, then it is possible that he simply doesn't have the knowledge to continue his nuclear program any longer, which was the cornerstone of his aggressive position; if the world no longer sees NK as a nuclear power, then the concerns about invading them severely decrease.",
"There are reports of a catastrophic landslide destroying a nuclear facility. Also, both NK and US leaders have admitted that they think a war is coming. And both sides know that fight would be catastrophic but would still end badly for NK. The sanctions are worse than ever and even China is taking unprecedented steps to punish NK. \n\nBut don’t worry. As soon as they get some relief from the sanctions and some security guarantees, they’ll go back to being hostile. Just like every other time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/31/collapse-north-korea-nuclear-test-site-leaves-200-dead/"
],
[]
]
|
||
1i6rwx | how do modern synthesizers/keyboards work? | I understand the basics of synthesis, but as someone who isn't tech-savvy and has only played classical piano for his whole life, I find a real gap in technical jargon people use discussing keyboards. Basically, what I want to know is, how to people take the MIDI controllers/keyboards/whatever other equipment and start making music from it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i6rwx/eli5_how_do_modern_synthesizerskeyboards_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb1ikoi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"MIDI is a moderately standardized way for different instruments/synths to talk to each other. A MIDI keyboard sends messages out saying \"using this voice number, play this note for this duration\". It may also send information like note volume and strike velocity. Send enough such messages, and you've got the information for a song. \n \nWith a program, you can then capture and store such information, edit it, send it out to various synths to execute it, etc. In fact, you can create such a file without a MIDI input device at all....you just use the program to edit a blank file. \n \nI'm not sure what other kinds of things you are trying to understand. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
44nqys | why is illegal weed so expensive in the us? | Weed is legal in some states but the price ranges around 15-20$ a gram where as in some countries in Europe it is illegal, but the price is about 4$ a gram. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44nqys/eli5_why_is_illegal_weed_so_expensive_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"czrgt8h",
"czrm99z",
"czrs6iu",
"czrxytk"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Much stronger enforcement leads to higher risk and lower supply. I don't know how it's enforced in and around Europe but I assume they have much more relaxed regulations and enforcement which makes procuring and selling it that much easier. ",
"A LOT of middle men drives prices up. Think about it.. the closer you get to the grower the cheaper the product because their overhead is relatively low but every time the product changes hands before it gets to you it gets more and more expensive. No one's selling for fun or willing to take risk without some reward. Even with completely legal products things are cheaper in bulk because in a sense you're buying closer to the producer and there's less room for 3rd parties to buy, transport/repackage and resell at a higher price ",
"Here in California I'd laugh at you if you asked me to pay 20 dollars for one gram of nugs.",
"Bulk pricing is the way to. You can get stuff for 4 a gram but you have to buy at least an ounce. In oregon I never paid more then ten a gram before legalization and now I pay an average of 9-12 a gram unless I am getting something special."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5yogqd | if a joint cracking is a result of gases in the joint popping, how can i crack the same joint multiple times? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yogqd/eli5_if_a_joint_cracking_is_a_result_of_gases_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dero9uu",
"dert6qx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The gas doesn't go anywhere, it just comes out of solution. Over time, the gas will dissolve back into your synovial fluid. That's why you can't pop the same joint quickly, but you can after a while.",
"imagine you have a balloon and cracking a joint is like opening the balloons mouth for 1 second. If you have more fluid in your joints than one moment of release from a single crack, more will come out on subsequent ones. you may notice how they get progressively less powerful as the crack count continuously goes up"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3vpemt | why do the tigon and leopon have manes if the lion half was female? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vpemt/eli5_why_do_the_tigon_and_leopon_have_manes_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxphk87"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For the same reason that male baldness are also given by the mother's genes. Just because it is a male or female trait, that doesn't mean the genes are passed only through the same gender."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1tfz5p | why are certain knives that open by spring, gravity or centrifugal force considered restricted weapons? are they somehow more dangerous than fixed blade knives? | The Criminal Code of Canada definition of a "prohibited weapon"
""prohibited weapon" means
(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or
(b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon;"
I know (from a previous ELI5) switchblade knives were made illegal due to some sort of image issue in the 1950's - but the laws have persisted and been reaffirmed and even extended to include other knives with automated opening features. Are they actually more dangerous than a fixed blade knife in a sheath, or one with a thumb stud that I need to flick out manually?
This is the previous discussion:
_URL_0_
I'd prefer to keep this about the lethality or risk of the actual knives if we can rather than the politics of self defense... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tfz5p/eli5why_are_certain_knives_that_open_by_spring/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce7j883",
"ce7j8t3",
"ce7jrrz"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they are easy to conceal, they are a go-to weapon among organized crime/gangs. Making them illegal gives police the ability to investigate persons carrying them, possibly leading to further arrests.",
"These kind of knives are built for the purpose of knife fighting. That is why they are illegal.\n\nIf you think about it, switchblades and the like have two virtues. They conceal a long blade in a relatively small place, and they open quickly. These are the two virtues you need if you are going to pull a knife in a fight.\n\nIf you are carrying a large blade around, it will be obvious to people and to cops. This will make it harder for you to use the large blade in a knife fight. If you are carrying a folding knife with a large blade, you can conceal the weapon on you, but now you have to take the time to unfold the knife before you stab anyone.\n\nConversely, if you are carrying a switchblade, you may get into a fight or altercation, and decide that you need to kill the other guy. How useful then, to pull your knife, extend and slash or stab inside of a second.\n\nThis is similar to why silencers are illegal. They are purpose built devices for doing things that you really shouldn't be doing in the first place.",
"Anyone who's owned a few folding knives knows that with a bit of practice they can be opened single-handed just as fast as a switchblade. \n\nI think the crackdown on switchblades and butterfly knives is to do with the fact that they're seen as 'cool' weapons, whereas folders are just seen as functional tools. Switchblades and butterfly knives tend to attract younger people out looking for trouble. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bqqim/"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
37c3fn | how is liquid smoke made? | Seriously. Do they smoke water? Is it just chemicals? Do they grind up smoked wood and liquify it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37c3fn/eli5how_is_liquid_smoke_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"crldro5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[Wikipedia](_URL_0_) tells me: You pass smoke through woodchips (which also makes it more moist) and then cool it down, at which point the smoke condenses into a liquid together with the water in the air."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_smoke"
]
]
|
|
4u1th2 | how do helicopter blades actually lift a 20,000 pound helicopter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u1th2/eli5_how_do_helicopter_blades_actually_lift_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5m93zg",
"d5mghcq",
"d5mgn3f",
"d5mgs88"
],
"score": [
22,
5,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"To generate lift we use wings, which we move fast through the air. We can do this by making the vehicle go fast (planes) or by rotating the wings fast around a midpoint (helicopters).\n\nWings moving at an angle through the air will push that air down. As a result, the wing is pushed up. A helicopter moves a *lot* of air down (which is one of the reasons it's so noisy), so it can lift quite some weight up.",
"I feel like the answers in here are missing the point of his question. If I understand correctly he is asking how 3-4 of those wings can be able to withstand the stress of lifting a 20 ton lump of steel. Ive only been around helicopters when i was young, and so I dont remember the actual size of the blades but they look quite small and so I wonder this myself.",
"Holy crud you guys. Bernoulli effect?\n\nELI5 Answer: \n\n* [A helicopter rotor is at an angle](_URL_0_). When it moves forward (or, more accurately, forward in a circle), it pushes air down. The higher the angle of the rotor, the more air is pushed down.\n* For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.\n* The air that is pushed down by the rotor causes the rotor to be pushed, equally, upward.\n* The helicopter goes up because it pushes *huge* amounts of air down.\n\nThat is all there is to it. People who are talking about buoyancy and the Bernoulli effect are talking total poppycock. ",
"Angle of attack and Action/Reaction. The blades are on a slant like this / , so that when they move through the air horizontally, the air they run into bounces off the blade at an angle and is redirected downward, creating a force on the air molecules in the direction of \"down\". By Newton's 3rd law, this force must have an equal and opposite force on the chopper blade, in the direction of \"Up\". Chopper blades are attached to the main driveshaft, thereby pulling the whole vehicle up with them. The more the blades are slanted, the more air is pushed down, and so the more the chopper gets pulled up. The pilot can control the angle of the slant.\n\nAs a side effect, newton's 3rd law also means that as the blades spin in one direction, the vehicle is going to have to spin in the other direction. This is obviously unpleasant for the passengers and makes control for the pilot virtually impossible, so they put a tail on the helicopter, and put a smaller sideways helicopter there to pull against this spinning force. As long as the speeds match up this will keep the whole deal fairly straight and stable while the main blades are doing the heavy lifting."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/xrotor-blade-pitch-angle.gif.pagespeed.ic.HkBSpg9H0N.png"
],
[]
]
|
||
29ysr4 | what is going on with my cat when he gets 'the eyes' and goes on a rampage knocking everything over and acting like a lunatic? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ysr4/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_my_cat_when_he_gets/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciptq5o",
"ciptqbl",
"cipvvon",
"cipvybr",
"cipw14y",
"cipwsud",
"cipx2ea",
"cipx866",
"cipxjlp",
"cipyd8b"
],
"score": [
103,
34,
7,
8,
16,
3,
12,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The currently leading theory is that because cats are hunters, they have an evolved imperative to keep in shape for hunting, and the freakouts are an expression of this.\n\n(Also, not especially informative, but relevant and humorous: Simon's Cat - _URL_0_ )",
"Scientifically speaking, I think that's being a cat.",
"Our vet calls it a F.R.A.P. (Feline Random Activity Period)",
"I always thought it was the same as a young kid getting super reckless, loud, energetic, and usually annoying.\n\nRemember being a kid and getting those sudden bursts of energy where you would just start yelling, or doing somersaults, or pretending the floor is lava or something? The difference is that our moms would kick us out of the house and tell us to go play in the park or in the yard. While a cat is usually confined to such a small space and the only way they can \"release\" their energy is by running back and forth and climbing on stuff.",
"If you don't play with him he'll feel the need to exercise, and that means acting like a complete imbecile.",
"We call it \"Being a dickhead\" when our cat (female) does it.\nIt's usually after she's taken a massive dump in the litter tray or something, she just freaks out for a bit.\n\n\"Hey Love....Felix is being a dick again\"",
"My cat has failed to evolve any imperative that keeps her in shape. She is , however, well rested for the coming hunt.",
"My cat is indoor/outdoor, spends a lot of time outside running around and hunting, and still does this. I agree with whoever said demonic possession.",
"I have recently taken on my elderly dad's adopted cat, who lived with him on the 8th floor of a condo. He's been here for about two months now, and was immediately captivated by all the birds and squirrels he can see from various windows of my bungalow. Late at night, he has taken to almost howling, which he had never done before. It must be that hunting instinct coming out now that he's no longer an urban cat. The first morning after he did this, I went outside to find raccoons had tipped my garbage bin over and ripped apart the bags. I guess he was warning me of a pending attack.",
"It's a flashback from Vietnam."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ODwR6FPRQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2xjwzc | can someone convert from judaism and still be jewish? | I am watching a speech at the moment about the 'problem' with a rise in anti-semitasm, and I am confused on this issue.
To be prejudicd against people for things they cannot choose - the country of their birth, their ethnicity or gender, and so on - is illogical and something I am dead against. However, is being Jewish a race (specifically, ethnicity)? i.e. something you have no control over?
If it is a set of ideas and beliefs that you can choose to subscribe to or leave, then it seems to me perfectly legitimate to be prejudiced or biased against people who choose to associate themselves with those ideas, if those are ideas that you disagree with yourself.
So is being Jewish an ethnicity, and specifically, can you be, say, a Hindu and have the ethnicity of 'jewish'? Can you choose a different religion and still be Jewish (i.e. it's a ethnicity)? Otherwise, what's the problem with anti-semitism, if it's criticizing or being prejudiced against a set of ideas that you have free will in whether you identify with?
Thanks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xjwzc/eli5can_someone_convert_from_judaism_and_still_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp0qs8g",
"cp0qtag"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Judaism the the religion of an ethnic group, who are generally called Jewish- after their religion. It is possible to be ethnically Jewish but not a part of the Jewish faith, and vice-versa. You can be Jewish without being Jewish, Jewish while also being Jewish, or not Jewish while still being Jewish. < --- I know that made no sense.",
"There is Jewish ethnicity and Judaism the religion. One does not have to be both ethnically Jewish and practice Judaism at the same time. Some antisemites are religion based, however Nazi antisemitism is race-based, therefore most people with Jewish ancestry, regardless of their current religion (or lack thereof) were persecuted. According to Nuremberg Law, one could not become a non-Jew in the eyes of the Nazi government by seceding from one's Jewish congregation, becoming non-practicing, marrying outside the religion, or converting to Christianity.\n\nIn addition, the Nazis targeted mainly Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews since they were the group studied by early eugenicists. Karaite Jews from the Caucasus were not seriously targeted due to their proximity to the Crimean Tatars, to whom the Nazis viewed as less \"inferior\". "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2j25dh | since earth is spinning, why do we land in the same place when we jump or fall? or jumping on the bus? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j25dh/eli5_since_earth_is_spinning_why_do_we_land_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl7nx4y",
"cl7nx5e",
"cl7ny2e",
"cl7o435",
"cl7ok6q",
"cl7pdd0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because we're spinning with the Earth/moving with the bus. This is asked approximately 1 million times a day.",
"Because we're spinning/moving at the same rate.",
"Because you are spinning right along with the Earth, and you have momentum. When you jump, you don't suddenly decelerate.",
"Next time you drive a car, gently throw a tennis ball up and down while you drive. The ball is traveling at the same speed.",
"This video is probably the best demonstration of \"frames of reference,\" which along with \"inertia\" are the concepts that will answer your question.\n_URL_0_\n\nIf you don't want to watch the video, think about these two things:\n\nA) Why doesn't a baseball stop as soon as you release it in a throw? Why would you stop as soon as you jumped on a bus?\n\nB) In classical physics, jumping on a moving bus is the same thing as jumping on a stationary bus that's driving on a giant treadmill.\n\nEdit: don't forget the second part of the video: \n\n_URL_1_",
"you are moving the same speed and direction as the earth beneath you. so relative to you it is stationary"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBNImQkRuk",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053nYXFfjZE"
],
[]
]
|
||
2p72s2 | i recently had the flu and i had a 102.5 degree (fahrenheit) fever but i felt cold. why does this happen and what's the reason for it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p72s2/eli5_i_recently_had_the_flu_and_i_had_a_1025/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmtxtly",
"cmu3bge"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's all a matter of perception.\n\nFever is your body's response to an infection, raising your internal temperature to make it more difficult for the invading virus/bacteria to thrive in your system. When your immune system detects an infection, it sends signals out that tell your body to \"raise the thermostat.\" Once that happens, suddenly your normal internal temperature feels too cold, and you begin to shiver. The shivering itself raises your body temperature (which is why you shiver when you actually are objectively cold).",
"Many bacteria (and possibly viruses; I'm not sure) can only live in a very narrow temperature range - slightly narrower than our own operating temperature limits.\n\nFever, then, is a game of chicken your body plays - attempting to cook the invading pathogens before it cooks itself. \n\nThe way it actually makes fever happen is by *de-calibrating your body's temperature sense*, making it *feel* absolutely fucking freezing, so it will shiver and curl into a ball and seek out as much warmth as it can, so that its internal temperature will go up."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5x50mv | how can the economy keep growing every year if the planet has a finite amount of resources? | If every country's economy grows and is doing well won't we eventually run out of resources? Or can the economy grow without resource consumption? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x50mv/eli5_how_can_the_economy_keep_growing_every_year/ | {
"a_id": [
"def9pns",
"def9xl0",
"defdq4n",
"defoik5",
"defq2yx",
"defstdo",
"defz3vq"
],
"score": [
11,
7,
2,
2,
2,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"There are types/aspects of economic growth that are unsustainable.\n\nBut not all growth is in the amount/size of products. For example a computer CPU is made out of very similar raw materials to a glass jar, yet the computer part is more valuable (by a lot). Technology, in short, allows us to get more practical function and definitely value out of the same resources.",
"Peak oil, an event based on M. King Hubbert's theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to enter terminal decline.[1] Peak oil theory is based on the observed rise, peak, fall, and depletion of aggregate production rate in oil fields over time. It is often confused with oil depletion; however, peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.\nSome observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, predict negative global economy implications following a post-peak production decline and subsequent oil price increase because of the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the low cost and high availability of oil.[2][3] Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be.\nOil production forecasts on which predictions of peak oil are based are often made within a range which includes optimistic (higher production) and pessimistic (lower production) scenarios. Optimistic[4] estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin after 2020, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. Pessimistic predictions of future oil production made after 2007 stated either that the peak had already occurred,[5][6][7][8] that oil production was on the cusp of the peak, or that it would occur shortly.[9][10]\nHubbert's original prediction that US peak oil would be in about 1970 seemed accurate for a time, as US average annual production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day.[11] However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing to additional tight reservoirs caused US production to rebound, challenging the inevitability of post-peak decline for the US oil production.[12] In addition, Hubbert's original predictions for world peak oil production proved premature.[4]\n\n\nIn short, \"Peak Oil\" is the way of all non-renewable resources. Unless we slow down and get local relationships and treat each other more like family, we run out really really fast. If, you really want to see some math involved (Which I don't recomend if you plan on being happy today) get on youtube and search \"Peak Oil\". Watch a few of the shorter (higher production value) documentaries.",
"Economic output isn't simply based on raw materials, but what's done to them. An iPhone worth $500 doesn't have $500 worth of silica, aluminum, silver, etc. in it. It has $10 worth of raw materials, turned into a $100 processor and $20 screen and $30 battery, etc. assembled and loaded with software that now costs $500. So as long as humans can keep creating ideas and using them to turn resources into something worth more than the sum of the raw materials, the economy keeps growing...",
"The economy grows in two ways. One is population growth, the other is productivity growth. These are not tied to resources, though resources do enable productivity and population to increase. ",
"To answer the question, \"can the economy grow without resource consumption\": no. Economics is the study of scarce resources which have alternate uses. If something is not a resource, it has no place in economic discourse.\n\nHowever, what are resources today weren't always considered resources. Our hunter gatherer ancestors used dirt and clay to build huts, not knowing that there was copper ore within. They had no technology to extract resources.\n\nIn some ultimate, geological sense there are finitely many material resources and at our current levels of consumption we will run out in however many thousands of years. However in that time technology will likely permit us to extract further resources and extend the length of time before material resources are consumed.",
"1) The economy is measured in money which is basically infinite because it's made up.\n\n2) You can have high economic outputs (stuff bought and sold) based on anything that a human puts value on and is willing to pay money for including non-tangible goods (things you can't touch like: software, bitcoins, xxx phone chats, naming a star, \"corn futures\", someone singing you a song, farmville game credits, naming rights, ad views etc.).\n\n3) As long as there is enough physical infrastructure (food, shelter, wifi, power cells etc.) to keep humans alive and happy we can grow world economies while living sustainably (not using everything up) and produce nearly infinite non-tangible goods - all you need is a buyer, a seller and \"something of value\". \n\nIt's already begun - look at the Konmari trend and the rampant success of youtube and Apps. The human population is also set to decrease eventually (More stuff share by fewer people). We are learning how to be rich and happy with less \"stuff\". The future is wonderful.\n\n",
"It cannot. But don't expect many people to come out and admit it, as expected growth is the engine of the stock market - the giant gambling game that the super rich and banks use to suck up wealth. Don't expect them to admit to that either. Historically it was based on population growth (using resources, and then when you ran out, warring with the neighbors to get more), and then more recently - and they will tell you this is a way out, but it's not, it has somewhat been based on increasing technological efficiency. I.e. USA grows well without increasing population most years, by increasing productivity and efficiency. But even this has its limits. All systems have a sustainable limit, but as of yet we still pretend we're nowhere near ours. And we probably do have some time, if population is contained and all products are made with renewable resources and energy. But even renewables have limits within the system. Only recourse - space. Making the system bigger."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5zes83 | why did we start using candles on birthday cakes? | I can see why cakes started being associated with birthdays but how did candles get into the mix? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zes83/eli5_why_did_we_start_using_candles_on_birthday/ | {
"a_id": [
"dexizf3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Interesting question, so I decided to do some research. Here is what I found:\n\n\"Birthday cakes have been a tradition since the Ancient Romans were around, and celebrating someone’s birth with a delicious pastry seems pretty logical. But have you ever wondered who the first pyromaniac was to light a cake on fire?\n\nThere are a few theories about the origins of birthday candles.\n\nSome believe that the tradition of birthday candles began in Ancient Greece, when people brought cakes adorned with lit candles to the temple of Artemis, goddess of the hunt. The candles were lit to make them glow like the moon, a popular symbol associated with Artemis.\n\nMany ancient cultures also believed that smoke carried their prayers to the heavens. Today’s tradition of making wishes before blowing out your birthday candles may have started with that belief.\n\nOthers believe that the tradition of birthday candles started with the Germans. In 1746, Count Ludwig Von Zinzindorf celebrated his birthday with an extravagant festival. And, of course, a cake and candles: “there was a Cake as large as any Oven could be found to bake it, and Holes made in the Cake according to the Years of the Person’s Age, every one having a Candle stuck into it, and one in the Middle.”\n\nThe Germans also celebrated with birthday candles during Kinderfest, a birthday celebration for children in the 1700s. A single birthday candle was lit and placed on the cake to symbolize the 'light of life.'\"\n\nsource: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"mentalfloss.com"
]
]
|
|
5spi5b | how do interplanetary spacecraft (and in the future interstellar), protect against collisions with space debris? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5spi5b/eli5how_do_interplanetary_spacecraft_and_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddguq3i"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They don't and they don't need to. Space is incredibly big and empty. Despite how visuals like the one on the [Asteroid Belt Wikipedia article](_URL_0_) makes it seem, the majority of the asteroids are very small and the distance between them is enormous. The odds of our probes to the outer planets hitting anything are astronomically slim and they have been flying directly through it without any collisions so far. Once you get out of the solar system into interstellar space the distances between things just becomes even larger."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt"
]
]
|
||
3efakb | why can't modern houses be economically independent with solar + battery+ a little backup generator just incase? | Would it add more than a fraction to a new house price? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3efakb/eli5_why_cant_modern_houses_be_economically/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctedld6",
"ctedpq9",
"ctge27y"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can indeed live off the grid, with no connection to the power company. This does add a fairly significant cost to the upfront price to build the home. In addition, there are maintenance and upkeep ongoing costs.\n\nThe way the current numbers work out it's rarely beneficial from an economic standpoint to cut off all ties to the power grid but some people do it for reasons other than money.",
"A) You need a large array of solar powers to provide full coverage to the home (large initial cost, requires a lot of surface area, potentially takes away from the visual appeal of the home)\n\nB) until very recently, there hasn't really been any cost-effective battery solution for homes (Tesla Powerwall is helping to change this)\n\nC) Most people who live in developed countries don't have to worry about power outages because they are extremely rare.\n\nIn these countries, it doesn't make sense to install solar panels just as an emergency backup... you would only do the install if your intention was to go off-grid so you don't have to pay a monthly electric utility bill (and/or because you can sell excess electricity back to the grid / power company to potentially earn money).",
"Costs and technology and maintenance. Solars panels have only recently gotten down to a price level that, in some areas, can make it worthwhile for consumers to own. Batteries, however, are still catching up. Even with the new Tesla Powerwalls, I've seen it calculated that, at best, the cost of storing electricity comes down to $0.12 per kWh. Which is the ideal case, but it will be more. Since the average US consumer pays about $0.11 per kWh, the math doesn't add up. Add in the cost of the solar per kWh, and it probably makes more since for most people to only have the solar panels and sell back the excess electricity back to the grid.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3bqxvk | why doesn't netflix have some movies in hd, but only sd? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bqxvk/eli5_why_doesnt_netflix_have_some_movies_in_hd/ | {
"a_id": [
"csomncu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If you are talking about that not all the movies have a HD version but do have a standard version, that would be because the movie wasn't produced in HD originally and no one have gone back to the original movie reel and converted it to an HD format.\n\nEdit: in the cases were they could have a HD version, it would have been a lot cheaper to buy the license to the SD version."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3ctb6i | why cant you use a mirror to see something in the far distance without contacts/ glasses(provided you need them)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ctb6i/eli5why_cant_you_use_a_mirror_to_see_something_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"csyq73k",
"csyqqm3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Looking at an object 100 ft away through a mirror, and you're 3 feet from the mirror, it's going to be as if you're looking at it from 103 ft away. The mirror doesn't do anything to the light, just bounces it back at you. So if it's blurry looking at it, it will still be blurry or even more blurry through the mirror. \n\nYou can test this with a camera with manual focus. Focus on distant objects in a mirror, you will have to focus quite far.",
"The image of object in the mirror is not on the surface of the mirror the same way a painting is on the surface of a canvas. If you look at a specific detail in a painting, and alternately close one eye and then the other, that detail will be on the same spot of canvas. But if you do that with a mirror, the detail that you're looking at will appear to be coming from *different parts of the mirror* depending on which eye you're looking through.\n\nMirrors just act as a kind of \"detour\" for light. The light changes direction, but individual beams of light still act exactly the same as if the mirror weren't there, and they were just continuing on their path uninterrupted. By contrast, a painting will absorb light, and then re-emit it in all directions (destroying the old beams of light, and creating new ones), rather than in a single direction like a mirror.\n\nSince your eyes focus on an image based on how parallel the beams of light from it are, and since mirrors don't cause new beams of light to be created (instead, they cause the existing beams to continue on their way, but in a different direction), mirrors don't reduce the apparent distance to the image, and your eyes still have to focus as if the image were *behind* the mirror rather than *on* the mirror."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3qkxtj | why does day light saving time work backwards? we get less daylight in the winter because of it? | Firstly, I did not grow up in a country that used DST, and this last week in the UK was my first experinece with it.
However, for some weird reason I always assumed when Winter and early sunsets came, we'd push the clock down an hour to extend our days (hence the name day light savings time).
But it seems it does the exact opposite, the sunsets were close to 6PM last week, not it's 4:45PM and pretty much dark outside.
This clearly seems backward. I know we get an hour more in the morning, but hell I don't think that matters much especially since in Dec the sun will be rising at 4AM (I've been told).
Please explain this? My power usage at my flat has increased my 15% since sunday because of my extra use of lights, so clearly this is an ill thought out plan. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qkxtj/eli5_why_does_day_light_saving_time_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwg20rz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's basically double-dipping during the summer.\n\nWe love all of those daylight hours, so instead of sleeping through 1-2 hours of sun in the morning, we shift our clocks so we still all wake up as the sun rises and get to enjoy every hour of sunlight.\n\nHonestly though, I think we need to drop standard time and just use DST all the time. More sun all year round is better."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
25203h | are there any countries in the world that can realistically invade the us by force? | By air and sea like a full on invasion where we'd be seeing some serious shit. Or even like an event leading up to an invasion like the bombing of a coast or capture of a major port or something like that.. Just wondering if like Russia or China might have the capability to do this. Thanks!
Edit: holy responses! It's cool reading through every response and seeing a different scenarios! Didn't think about the whole housing/financial market collapse or cyberspace attack! Crazy stuff... And no I'm not a terrorist! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25203h/eli5_are_there_any_countries_in_the_world_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"chcunw0",
"chcuous",
"chcupxc",
"chcv093",
"chcv1wr",
"chcvcz9",
"chcvdhl",
"chcw5vr",
"chcxhng",
"chcxoyq",
"chcyboj",
"chcylju",
"chcztms",
"chd0xvm",
"chd0yjt",
"chd10mp",
"chd27dd",
"chd2aub",
"chd2fwd",
"chd2smu",
"chd312f",
"chd317u",
"chd31y2",
"chd3svb",
"chd3tuu",
"chd4aro",
"chd4fwk",
"chd4glf",
"chd4i92",
"chd4wrd",
"chd5944",
"chd5ltu",
"chd5npw",
"chd5pfq",
"chd5zi1",
"chd62i0",
"chd65jd",
"chd68rl",
"chd6i4e",
"chd6or4",
"chd6pa9",
"chd79or",
"chd7fgc",
"chd7k0n",
"chd7ocg",
"chd7u1j",
"chd7ul6",
"chd7zfm",
"chd82ui",
"chd89gx",
"chd8a00",
"chd8g53",
"chd8nv0",
"chd90ge",
"chd958z",
"chd978y",
"chd9dul",
"chd9t62",
"chd9wb2",
"chda0do",
"chda782",
"chdacci",
"chdahn9",
"chdak7d",
"chdb36p",
"chdb5k3",
"chdb8hi",
"chdbbto",
"chdbfz3",
"chdbnui",
"chdcbsm",
"chdcdsk",
"chdcwzx",
"chde0q0",
"chdesbt",
"chdgbnp",
"chdhvtu",
"chdiijs",
"chdinb3",
"chdisp0",
"chdjyas",
"chdk6v9",
"chdk9f7",
"chdkqca",
"chdkxvb",
"chdkxxy",
"chdl11s",
"chdl5dc",
"chdl71j",
"chdlh26",
"chdlre6",
"che56ba"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
5,
54,
7,
2,
1578,
90,
157,
21,
27,
18,
16,
146,
21,
13,
3,
13,
32,
560,
5,
3,
47,
17,
4,
2,
2,
3,
3,
9,
2,
2,
39,
10,
2,
6,
26,
22,
20,
277,
48,
4,
22,
3,
3,
2,
11,
54,
22,
2,
20,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
8,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
13,
2,
17,
6,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
10,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Could they? Yes. Would they? Only if they were suicidal. America's response would wipe them off the face of the Earth.",
"They can attempt, but our defensive infrastructure is too solid for that to occur and they know it. Even taking out all our communications and power, we still have the ability to coordinate a full scale defense. We also have little missiles set up around the country to intercept any incoming nukes or bombs. They might take a town or port or something, but we will take it right back and fast. ",
"Not without them experiencing heavy losses. The US monitors a lot of countries, our airspace, and the oceans just like they monitor us, their airspace, and the oceans. We'd notice troops massing, or get notice of it from someone/something. Basically they have to transport troops in boats and planes. And not be shot down by our planes. \n\nEven a large scale bombing, we'd notice any aircraft carriers and airplanes in our airspace long before they could reach their targets.",
"No. Russia & China probably don't even have the ability to invade Australia. Invasions by sea are really difficult. ",
"Yes and no. Many countries are capable of doing this but at a great cost. The easiest way a country can invade is to be invited by us to help with some kinda of natural disaster and then not leave.",
"Not really. The US has the benefit of having oceans on each side. Any force large enough to realistically stand a chance against US defenses would be spotted long before they could strike. The counterattack would then be devastating. ",
"No. The USA shares land borders with two countries, neither of which have military assets comparable to the USA -- the USA spends $682 billion, to Canada's $22 billion and Mexico's $6 billion. The only countries with military expenditures in arguably the same ballpark are Russia and China.\n\nFor countries that don't share a border, an invasion would have to come by sea. To project force overseas a nation requires a blue water navy and aircraft carriers. The USA has 10 aircraft carriers (plus 2 in reserve); there are perhaps 10 other countries that have 1-2 carriers each. The difference between an American carrier and a foreign carrier, just in terms of size and displacement to say nothing of armament, personnel, or training, is staggering -- the UK's (a nation known for its navy) last carrier displaced ~20,000 tons, USA's carriers displace over 100,000 tons. \n\ntldr; Russia and China lack a significant blue water navy. They have no way of effectively projecting force into North America.",
"Water is (and always has been) an extremely difficult obstacle for the projection of military power. The USA is geographically gifted: it exists with two oceans protecting it from the other major powers in the world. To add to that, the US spends enormous amounts of money on defense and military technology. Its largest rivals in the world really cant compare in terms of conventional warfare capability. The greatest threat to American national security is unconventional warfare and the global reach of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.",
"Assumption: Nukes not being factored at all.\n\nRight now there's no chance any power could invade the continental US with any meaningful force. \n\nSeveral militaries could get troops on the ground, maybe, via paratrooper drops or some clever subterfuge like hijacking a cruise ship, oil tanker or break-bulk cargo ship. But they couldn't get enough troops into the theater fast enough to survive the overwhelming response the US could marshal to such an attack. The internal communication and transport systems of the US were built during the Cold War for just such an eventuality. (You didn't think those long, straight, tank-ready interstate highways were built for your convenience, did you?)\n\nSeveral militaries could put troops ashore on US soil but not enough to matter. The beachhead would be annihilated.\n\nThe Chinese don't even have enough ability to project power to credibly invade Taiwan, which is a tiny distance offshore of the Chinese mainland.\n\nThe Russians don't have any meaningful over-the-beach assault capability. They have a couple of units similar to what we would call \"Marines\" but they have decrepit Soviet-era equipment in tiny numbers. Nothing suitable for a real invasion.\n\nActually the British probably could land a meaningful force. They couldn't hold a beachhead but they could probably sack a coastal city like New Orleans or Miami.\n\nThe Canadians and the Mexicans could stage incursions into US territory. They could not hold them but they have the advantage of not having to land forces on a hostile beach. They could just walk across the border. It is rumored that the annual graduation exercise in the top infantry officer school in Mexico's armed forces is to plan a land invasion of Texas. They've been thinking about it for more than a hundred years.\n\nThe Canadians have done some similar theoretical exercises involving Detroit. The Canadians probably don't have dreams of actually doing it, unlike the Mexicans who probably would if they thought they could win.",
"As a West-Coast Canadian, one more hurdle to a land invasion (literally,) is the West Coast mountain ranges. Just about the only flat land and usable port space not covered by American air power on the entire coast, is taken up entirely by the city of Vancouver.",
"What if we attacked you with moose and polar bears, would that count? Because i think Canada has pretty good odds then.",
"Our military would vanquish any invaders, true, but let's not discount the fact that A LOT of citizens are armed to the teeth.",
"Any country's Navy that even attempts this would be annihilated in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean before any of their troops set foot on US soil save for perhaps China and Russia, and even so, they would lose so many causalities on the trip over alone that they would barely get here in one piece, and immediately get decimated on the beach. \n\nThis is leaving out nukes because if you nuke somewhere and then invade it you will end up dying to radiation/there is nothing left for you to conquer so why bother? ",
"The last person to suggest that this was even theoretically possible was Ronald Reagan, in justification of US policy against the Sandanista popular government in Nicaragua in the 1980s. His argument was that with Soviet military bases on Central American soil, the Soviets could move in as many tanks, airplanes, and troops as they wanted, then sweep up through and across Central America without stopping and straight into Texas.\n\nBut the numbers don't work. Even if the whole US military spontaneously disappeared or surrendered, it just doesn't work. It takes tens of thousands of troops just to hold a city once you've conquered it. And they'd have to leave us no cities to retreat to and regroup. Not actually possible; nobody, not even China, has enough troops to forcibly occupy a landmass the size of the US. Let me simplify the numbers for you: it takes about 3,000,000 law enforcement and private security officers to pacify the US *now,* and that's with the consent of the governed and facing no military opposition. Now add in the military force needed to get to that point. The US has 2.2 million active duty and reserve troops. In urban combat, the defender has about a 20 to 1 advantage. Let's be generous to the attackers and assume that, as happened at the second battle of Fallujah, saturation with drones can reduce that advantage to around 3 to 1, let's assume that they have that many drones and that the defending forces can't knock those drones down or disrupt their communications (a *very* generous assumption). So let's say \"merely\" 6 million troops to overwhelm our military and at least 3 million military police. Never mind the sheer obstacle of how do you move a force of 9 million troops into the US, where do you get an army that size?\n\nAnd that's ignoring two important facts. Even if you assume a friendly nation (for the invaders) in Central or South America, it's not even possible; there are no decent roads, none good enough for an invasion force that size, in southern Mexico. And two, the United States never signed the No First Use treaty, and would absolutely certainly respond to the attempt with overwhelming nuclear attack on the capital and major cities of any country (or countries) that tried it.",
"Only two ways that the USA could be invaded by an outside force that I can think of:\n1. An astronomical leap in technology, such as supersecret death ray satellites (\"Surprise! You're all instantly dead!\"), or teleportation (\"Surprise! 1 billion Chinese have appeared in your cities! \").\n2. After a total collapse of the USA government and society (total anarchy). They come in and mop up.",
"[This article should answer your questions.](_URL_0_)",
"What part of the US?\n\nContinental? Big fat no. Canada could push the border south a little bit in a spot or two if they wanted to bleed for it, but nothing big.\n\nTerritorial? Yes. There are many countries that could invade Swains Island and take the place over. The US may or may not care, depending on who did it. If Nauru or even China was to land in force and claim it, would the US be willing to say no? Probably not. It would be an invasion of the US by force.",
"These answers are very comforting. Thanks internet!",
"Even if a country had the naval or aerial capacity to attack the US, three factors would deter them from ever doing it.\n\n1. Nuclear weapons. Nukes are a pretty strong deterrent, and the US is the only country to actually use them. Considering the size and reach of the United States' nuclear arsenal, this alone would probably deter any invasion\n\n2. The international community. The US has a lot of allies who have a strong interest in the US remaining a stable global power. Any country that invades the US must be prepared for to repel counter-attacks by US allies.\n\n3.Economic interdependence. An invasion probably collapses the US economy, which collapses the world economy, which obviously collapses the the invading country's economy. Too many country are too connected to the US, and any significant drop will echo across the globe. ",
"\"From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be it's author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.\" - Abraham Lincoln\n\nSame holds true today.",
"Never seen Red Dawn, eh?\n_URL_0_\n\nAnd yes, I'm completely joking with this.",
"Already done. Answer:Mexico. ",
"There is one candidate for invading the US that everyone seems to be ignoring: the US itself. A civil war along regional lines could do some serious damage. I believe I have read that US military personnel are intentionally mixed and distributed away from their home states to avoid this very thing, so it would be a rather complicated affair to get started. Still, it probably would be the option with the best chance of success.",
"The us navy has some 430 ships. Of that, 76 are submarines. And submarines are in three categories- fast attack, ballistic, and guided missiles. Anyway, for those wondering, a fast attack submarine is the type you'd see outside a country conducting surveillance or sinking battle groups in time of war. Guided missile submarines also can do surveillance, but really in wartime are used to level enemy structures (if you'd like an example, in 2010 the Uss Florida shot in excess of 90 missiles into Libya during operation odyssey dawn during the Libyan civil war) and ballistic submarines are what carry around our nuclear missiles, staying deep under water and generally are our \"big stick\" against anyone who'd want to launch nukes at the us. So, say an invading force had some type of weaponry that our surface ships couldn't defend against. Any invading naval force would also have to have a great multitude of subsurface ships to get past our subs, and that's if we didn't immediately send fast attacks out to preemptively attack any battle groups, and if the distraction of our ssgn ' blowing the ever loving cap out their cities and military bases didn't make them turn around. \nTl; dr: even if a navy got through our surface vessels, they'd have to beat our subs too",
"For this to work, something unconventional needs to be used. Folks have mentioned nukes, but there are disadvantages to the use of conventional nuclear forces (mainly, you just made the area you want to invade very undesirable for a couple of centuries). \n\nYou could try using EMP. Yeah, yeah, I know. All of our gear is supposed to be resistant. And it is tested, and most of it does pretty well. Then I think of all of the systems in an F-15 (Never mind an F-22), and worry about a miniscule 1% failure rate... That kinda freaks me out.\nNever mind our reliance on orbital assets. Satellites that exist in essentially \"fixed\" locations, that are easily tracked. GPS constellations that are highly susceptible to malicious acts. There's some room there to take our capabilities down a few notches.\n\nThen I get to bugs and chems. Our science budget is not that great, and we just can't visualize all of the capabilities at the cutting edge of science. If you look at some of the things the Chinese have done in biotechnology it's fascinating and scary. They don't really have the same regard for human life that we do. \nPlus, we have a population that is moving towards less government oversight over food production, not more. Less measures taken to make sure that the food is safe (Don't believe me, look at the dramatic increase in food borne illness in the US. Want to get scary numbers? Food borne parasitic diseases have increased 300% over the last couple of years. Granted, it used to be almost nothing, but the trend is alarming).\n\nWe're a free and open society (And I love it, don't get me wrong), but we're wide open to get punched again. It won't be smack, square in the nose. If someone really wanted to hurt us, they'll sucker punch us in the back of the head, or kidney. They'll come at us from a direction we don't anticipate, or can't protect, or can't counter (Again, we're a free and open society).\n\nAll of that being said, I still don't see how they can get the troops here. There's a lot of ocean to cover, and folks are going to notice if troops start rolling into Mexico or Canada. We're not talking about a couple of cruise ships filled with fake tourists. We're looking at hundreds of thousands of troops, minimum, with all of their toys. Ultimately, this is what has to happen to invade the US successfully. Even if you manage to take out 90% of the population here, that still leaves more than 30 million citizens. We'd be massively disorganized, scattered, and we'd be on the ropes, but we'd be pissed if we figured out it was an attack.\n\nAt that point, the only real chance that an \"invasion\" force would have is to not be an invasion force, but a humanitarian aid force. Scarily enough, then, it might work.",
"In an ELI5 sort of way. No. The US's stateside forces would be able to easily keep any such attack at arms reach unless someone is willing to glass the US or use some type of debilitating bio attack first, and even with those the US has enough assets based out of the country that would make a physical invasion impossible. No county or combination of countries has enough transportation capacity to sustain the type of attrition losses that it would take to put boots on the ground. Also remember that if you are planning to stage through Mexico you would still need to bring your heavy equipment in on ships or by air. This is the side affect of US military spending equaling the budgets of the next 13 combined (a diverse list that would be virtually impossible to ally against the US)",
"Has anyone forgot to mention a large majority of our civilians have multiple firearms in their homes?",
"The Wolverines would take out any invading force.",
"It seems the consensus is a \"no,\" but I have a followup question: \nThe responses I've read so far have considered only a direct approach. What about a different way? I'm going to call it a \"nation-hop\". Say NationX wanted to invade USA by force, could they first pull off invading Canada, Cuba, Mexico, etc. and then set up shop there (like the Cuban Missile Crisis, only with ground troops instead of warheads)? How realistic would that be?",
"“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”\n\nAbraham Lincoln \n\nDamn, damn relevant!",
"There are perhaps three or four nations with the possibility of using very high technology to attack the US in such a way that the US is impoverished and thrown into decades long turmoil.\n\nIt has to do with destroying the stock exchange credibility and the value of the US dollar, along with some communications assault to sho the US population how much they are being screwed over by bankers and financiers who are stripping the assets and the jobs outta the country.\n\nThen help the already armed militias all over the states conduct their own mini rebellion and separation from the national tax collecting and redistribution system.\n\nSit back and watch the civil war for a few years.\n\nAll you need is a very large population of well educated people to outnumber America in research on cyber war and come up with ways to attack the US with weapons that identify as coming from American soil.\n\nThe low level effort of priming the population for change readyness is already on the way, but I - repeat - \"I\" = am not the fearless leader.",
"Once they made landfall they would suffer unimaginable casualties.",
"Depends on how many dragons they have",
" * US Military: ~2.5 Million People\n * Law Enforcement/Police officers: ~800K\n * Nato Allies: At least another few million\n\nSo at this point, we have about 6 Million people capable of defending against:\n\n * Russia:~ 2.7 Million Troops\n * China : ~ 2 Million Troops\n\nDue to nato having the defening advantage, And Russia/China having a lack of up to date equipment, nato would win, \n\nNow what if we throw in north korea?\n\n * North Korea: 9.5 Million Troops\n\nSo if we throw in China, Russia, and North korea they have a total of about 14 Million people which seems to turn the tide but....\n\nThere are over 300 million guns in the US, with over 100 Million gun owners, So assuming that only 10% of them take up arms, Thats another 10 Million people armed with AR-15's(Similar to a semi auto M16) and High powered rifles. \n\nAssuming the worst case senario, And China, North korea, and russia actualy got ALL their troops on US Soil, they would still be outnumbered, outgunned, and we would have the defending advantage.\n \n\n",
"Yes: Mexico. But very, very slowly.",
"Relevant, maybe the last time it was seriously considered:\n\n_URL_0_",
" > Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.\n\n-Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum Address",
"If Canada were sneaky about it, and pushed across the border without any warning, they could probably go quite a ways relying on surprise, because the United States would be pretty damn surprised if Canada invaded.\n\nI mean, if you're living in Grand Forks, ND, and you see a convoy of army trucks driving through town flying the maple leaf, is your first thought going to be, \"shit, we're being invaded,\" or \"huh, they must be on their way to a joint exercise or something\"?",
"If the rest of the world combined tried to invade the US, they'd get their asses handed to them. It wouldn't even be close.",
"I feel compelled to point out that this isn't unique to the United States either. A full scale amphibious invasion is quite the undertaking and really there hasn't been this sort of active militarization since WWII. The biggest advantage that all countries in the Americas have is simple geography. If you need to cross a major body of blue water to invade a country then it's going to be a very difficult undertaking, I don't care who you are.\n\nEven the Normandy landings and Okinawa were quite a bit more touch and go than we tend to remember them in retrospect and by that point the Allies had almost total air and sea control in those areas when the invasions were launched. This only after a lot of experience was gained during comparatively smaller operations. Supplying an army across the ocean when your beachhead is not absolutely and completely secure is a very different proposition than flying in daily scheduled flights to Baghdad or Kandahar.\n\nThe Allies spent almost 5 years building up capabilities and doctrine to the point where they were able to execute the sorts of operations that we remember in 1944 and 1945 and in the case of the Normandy landings essentially spent a year planning and building up for that specific operation. The first draft of the operational plan was presented by Eisenhower in August 1943 and had been worked on for several months before that. The idea that anybody could go from peacetime to invading a major wealthy and industrialized nation in less time than this seems improbable to me. There is simply no replacement for real experience and in the case of amphibious warfare it tends to be hard to come by and quite costly in terms of lives and material to gain this kind of experience.\n\nAnother big part of why Overlord was successful was because the Allies were very careful to make sure that the vast majority of the German forces were elsewhere. This is not to mention that Normandy is also very close to a number of major British ports. I personally doubt that there was much that could be done by the Germans to dislodge the Allies the end of D+1 simply because the RAF and USAAF had total tactical domination of the immediate airspace, but there are a lot of \"what if?\" scenarios.\n\nRundstedt and Rommel didn't seem to have sorted out the tactical doctrine that they were going to apply in the event of Allied landings, it's possible, however unlikely, that if Rommel had better deployed his forces and had reacted more quickly that the Allied landings could have been thwarted or at least severely delayed. The Allies dramatically outnumbered the Germans in the Normandy region (appx. 3:1 IIRC) and this continued throughout the summer of 1944 in France.\n\nThere was a clear inflection point related to the weather forecasting that basically set the stage for the successful Allied invasion of Europe. If things had turned out only a bit differently there could have been a very different outcome.\n\nThe United States clearly has by far the most developed amphibious warfare capabilities (the USMC alone is bigger than most national militaries and has a larger air arm and organic sealift capability via the USN than almost everybody else has air forces or navies...) but I suspect that there are few military leaders in the US that would be eager to invade even a moderately defended shoreline. There are just too many variables and opportunities for things to go wrong.\n\nThe major amphibious and airborne operations of the last 12 months of WWII will likely be remembered for centuries, if not longer, as a certain pinnacle of combined operations on an industrial scale. There really is nothing remotely comparable that has happened before or since and unless the world becomes a much uglier place than it is today I doubt that is going to change soon. Invading a large country is nothing like invading Grenada.",
"This makes me even happier to live in the Midwest. I feel like I'm literally in the safest place on the entire planet. Other than the occasional tornado, there are no natural disasters, horrifically dangerous wildlife, or other countries able to kill me. I feel safer than a kid with a night light on, the closet door closed and locked, and tucked in with the blankets up to my chin.\n\nExcept for North Minneapolis. Fuck that shit.",
"Everyone keeps asking questions like \"what if they invaded through Canada?\" and I keep wondering if they're aware of what has happened the last few times someone has tried to invade Russia, because longitude.\n\nAnd if you try to throw \"but Antarctic science missions!\" at me, I'm going to ask you to fire an M16 from cover in Antarctica.",
"The only thing that can kill america, is america.",
"Mexico is effectively doing this via illegal immigration and narco trafficking. Not all invasions are military, and not all conquests come at the point of a sword. Draining the soul out of a nation works pretty well too. Oh, and I'm an immigrant (legal) BTW.",
"Maybe if the European Union, Russia, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Korea and North Korea all teamed up there would probably be a slim chance. \n \n \nThen again the USA probably isn't the only country impossible to invade and hold. The United Kingdoms natural defences along with it's decent sized military would be extremely difficult to invade. Occupying the UK would be easier. Afghanistan on the other hand is the opposite. Gaining a 'traditional military victory' would be fairly simple but occupying Afghanistan is impossible. Not even NATO could control the entire country due to its mountainous landscape which makes it ideal for guerilla warfare ",
"Ok, here goes.\n\nHypothetically, with proper care and planning, Yes, if you remember our redheaded stepchildren up in Alaska.\n\nThe Bering Strait is really not much wider than the English Channel, it's only 82 kilometres wide, and only 91 meters deep.\n\nIt would be possible to either pre-assemble barges to create a pontoon boat or simply tunnel under the water.\n\nIf an attacker (presumably Russia given the geography being discussed) were to accomplish a stable dry link across the Bering Strait and simultaneously or nearly simultaneously establish a series of bases on the Aleutian Islands they could largely negate the advantage conveyed by our aircraft carriers.\n\nPresuming for a moment that you could pre-fabricate enough barges for a pontoon bridge, or dig a tunnel and manage to keep it secret until it's nearly complete. You'd also need to pre-fabricate enough buildings, mobile AA emplacements etc and be able to air lift them out to the Aleutian Islands (along with the people to run them.)\n\nRussia technically has the ability to do all of these things, they just don't have a whole lot in the way of logistics built up on the other side of the Bering Strait. It's not very hospitable that far north, especially near the sea.",
"TIL a lot of people don't realize how powerful the US military is. ",
"Mexico has done a fine job",
"They wouldn't even make it through compton",
"The US is being invaded by force... [Fiscal force](_URL_1_)... [Right now](_URL_2_)... [By China](_URL_0_).",
"There is an old saying that amateurs think about tactics, but pros think logistics.\n\nProjecting force means getting your force \"there\" and supporting it. Not too many counties have ever been able to do it. Great Britain and the US are probably the best examples.\n\nCurrently there are none that could think of that have the manpower and ability to project across oceans. Plus there are so many freakin guns here. Any enemy would be fighting a non traditional guerrilla war for decades.\n\nFinally, this is one large country. And it's diverse in terms of weather, terrain, people. Consider,bit takes about five days going 70 miles an hour to cross it.\n\nNo one could occupy it, no one could \"invade it.\"\n\nThe only way the US goes down is the same way the USSR went down--economically.\n\nI feel pretty safe.",
"No, not a chance in hell. Aliens would invade America before another country could.",
"Not fucking likely",
"The Mexicans already did.",
"Yes the usa can invade itself.\n\n\nEdit- I dont know why you would invade yourself but they could if they wanted too.",
"Our greatest enemy is ourselves. Not really in line with your question, but the most effective way to combat a military of our size would be a civil war. We would destroy ourselves much more effectively. Especially if the military splinters among various political or geographic lines.",
"I think assuming we know everything about everyone else's technology is a bit reckless. I remember reading that it didn't matter how big the F-117 was, when mocked up test models were tested in varying sizes they all returned the same radar signature. Who's to say Russia doesn't have giant troop carrying stealth aircraft? ",
"The answers below focus on 'by force' too much, asymmetrical warfare was invented to get around these otherwise valid objections. Canadians invade the U.S. in force, and virtually unresisted every winter.\n",
"The U.S. and Mexico should keep trading Texas back and forth to get a card every round.",
" not a chance \n \nThere was someone in /r/murica who made a great point why it is not possible, I wish I could find that link",
" First, an invading military force would have to take out the satellites watching not only our borders, but far out to sea approaching those borders. Patrolling subs and \"listening stations\" would easily track enemy movement at sea. Then, IF they successfully placed boots on the ground, they'd not only have to contend with our powerful and highly trained military force, they'd be facing the largest armed civilian population on the planet. In the U.S., there are more licensed hunters alone than all the standing army's of the world... combined. Even more citizens own weapons that don't hunt. Yeah, we may be a bunch of egotistical, materialistic, name calling, bigoted bastards, but if anyone were stupid enough to actually invade our country? I'd bet my last dollar we'd ALL become brothers and sisters mighty fast. It'd be all about... Murica !!!",
"I disagree with most of the posters on this thread, I think it can be done and this is how I would do it.\n\n\n1. Land special forces months in advance to set up a massive (country wide) power outage. This can be done by simply attacking as few as 9 power substations. It could take months or years to get the parts needed to turn the power back on under peacetime conditions.\n\n\n2. Plant evidence that this was an attack orchestrated by some other country like Iran or North Korea.\n\n\n3. Wait for the US response, in the meantime the US is experiencing a nationwide Katrina.\n\n\n4. After the US has expended a large portion of their foreign assets on attacking my \"fall guy\" I move my invasion force in as \"peace keepers\" At this point the US navy will be weekend and with the inevitable collapse of the world economy they would be unable to resupply.\n\n5. By now (about 6 months after d-day) the US will collapse in on itself unable to function without electricity and fight a war at the same time.\n\n",
"The USA has a \"civilian militia\" of about 100 million gun owners.",
"When he added the term \"realistically\" to the original Q people forget to take into account that other circumstances can take an effect. What if the world starts running low on resources? Would we ally with our closest neighbor's or keep our current allies. Surely the less self-sustained countries would try to invade the other countries with more resources, with the US being near the top of the list.",
"I don't think there are very many counties that can realisically invade Texas, let alone the U.S. ",
"By force? No way.\nBut individuals and small groups with same ideals could bring down America's morality, economic and social stability, stir up tension or even turn its citizens against their own country.\nThat is probably the only way someone/some country will be able to realistically \"invade\" (more like scratch) US as they have the oceans protecting them and of course, $800B yearly military budget...",
"This thread is giving me a [freedom boner].(_URL_0_)",
"Crazy to think that the USA hasn't even existed that long compared to other countries, yet it is one of the most powerful. ",
" > And no I'm not a terrorist!\n\nThat's what I would expect a terrorist to say.",
"Nope. USA is the best planet in the world! Even though i was born in ukraine, i love this country...",
"Surprised this isn't already in here- \n\n\nAll of these comments are focusing on the US military. Yes, we have an overbloated budget and tanks literally just sitting around rusting away for no apparent reason. But the real question is- to what end? So you invade. You conquer the official military. Now what? Nearly every home in the US has some form of firearm. You're talking armed resistance every single step and organized fighters everywhere else. Paraphrasing here, but during WWII an opposing Axis leader was asked about invading the US. Their response was to the effect of \"you would find a rifle behind every blade of grass\". There is no \"win\" if you invade the US. Overnight the army of 10 million becomes the army of 100 million, stationed throughout the entire country. ",
"From the sidebar\n\n > E is for explain. This is for concepts you'd like to understand better; not for simple one word answers, walkthroughs, or personal problems.",
"This thread made me so hard ",
"\"And no im not a terrorist\".......exactly what a terrorist would say \neither way, if you get into a dick measuring competition with america.. america will not only win the competition.. but america would also fuck your girlfriend afterwards.",
"Invading the US would be a total nightmare... \n\neveryone talks about how ied's and normal vehicles converted to 'technical' assault vehicles are somewhat effective when used by insurgents, but we have more heavily armed and armored vehicles driving around on our streets, and we got high school kids making rather dangerous crap in their kitchens just to get views on youtube. \n\nIt isn't the carrier groups and air superiority that would give an invasion force nightmares, its the american public and their love of all things chaos and mayhem... ",
"Hi NSA! Glad one of you is actually doing work.",
"The invasion of a country is rarely an immediate thing. Typically it starts with sanctions, embargoes, and other methods of cutting off the country's resources. These aren't necessarily acts done with the intention of war, but rather a consequence of strained relations.\n\nThink of it this way, you and your little brother get into a fight over a candy bar. You're not ready to full on kill each other yet, but if he wants to borrow one of your toys, well, he can fuck off.\n\nWhen things escalate enough, it doesn't matter who started it or for what reason, war happens and nobody is really happy.\n\nSo could the US be realistically invaded? Absolutely. It would take a lot of time and resources as well as disruption of its economic and social infrastructure. It would not be a war fought so much with arms and soldiers, but one of subversion and undermining. I would imagine it would take several countries banded together and some serious strategics to pull off. An initial black ops insurgency would probably be the most effective, utilizing a combination on nuclear detonations and EMPs. Fact is though, it would be very hard to pull off and the risk/reward really isn't worth it. An attempt alone could lead to some catastrophic economic and potentially environmental effects. The US is worth far more while it's dysfunctioning than not functioning at all. Truly, corruption is the kind of invasion that is most likely, not full scale war.\n\nEdit: Clarification",
"Barrack Obama was sitting in the White House wondering who to invade next when his telephone rang. \"Hallo! Mr. Obama,\" a heavily accented voice said. \"This is Paddy down in County Cavan, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you!\"\n\n\"Well, Paddy,\" the President replied, \"This is indeed important news! Tell me, how big is your army?\"\n\n\"At this moment in time,\" said Paddy after a moment's calculation, \"there is myself, my cousin Sean, my next door neighbor Gerry, and the entire dominoes team from the pub -- that makes 8!\"\n\nThe President sighed. \"I must tell you Paddy that I have 1.4 million men in my army waiting to move on my command.\"\n\n\"Begorra!\", said Paddy, \"I'll have to ring you back!\"\n\nSure enough, the next day Paddy rang back. \"Right Mr. President, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some equipment!\"\n\n\"And what equipment would that be, Paddy?\" Barrack asked.\n\n\"Well, we have 2 combine harvesters, a bulldozer and Murphy's tractor from the farm.\"\n\nOnce more the President sighed. \"I must tell you, Paddy, that the USA fields 6 thousand tanks, 14 thousand armored personnel carriers, and my army has increased to 1 and a half million since we last spoke.\"\n\n\"Really?!\" said Paddy \"I'll have to ring you back!\"\n\nSure enough, Paddy rang again the next day. \"Right Mr. Obama, the war is still on! We have managed to get ourselves airborne! We've modified Ted's ultra-light with a couple of rifles in the cockpit and the bridge team has joined us as well!\"\n\nThe President was silent for a minute, then sighed. \"I must tell you Paddy that I have 5 thousand aircraft, 450 ICBMs and since we last spoke, my army has increased to 2 million.\"\n\n\"Faith and begorra!\", said Paddy, \"I'll have to ring you back.\n\n\"Sure enough, Paddy called again the next day. \"Right Mr. Obama, I am sorry to tell you that we have had to call off the war.\"\n\n\"I'm sorry to hear that\" said Mr Obama. \"Why the sudden change of heart?\"\n\n\"Well,\" said Paddy \"We've all had a chat, and there's no way we can feed 2 million prisoners.\"",
"Well, with all the spying the USA does, it think they could deter any attack before it would even start, leading all potential attackers into kill zones. And even if not, the USA army is insanely powerful, both in number, technology, organisation and training. Take a look at the sacrifice and expenses they display at a foreign land and then amplify it since they would be fighting on their own soil, for their own homes and families. That is one scary scenario for any attacker to face.",
"Many times throughout history a less force has destroyed a greater one, or a shift of power that seemed impossible has happened. Perhaps another country/group creates a whole new type of warefare? Or an alliance so large even the US can't stand against it? Both highly improbable, but something to keep in mind.\n\nIf you look at kings and countries in the past its when they thought they were invincible that they often fell.",
"Step 1) Financial destabilization of America (USA), cause the citizens to be effectively poor in a rich country (more so than now) by forcing them out of their own housing markets and employment while not changing global confidence in the American market.\n\nStep 2) Engage in cyber-warfare and cyber-terrorism against critical and non-critical infrastructure owned by America and America's allies.\n\nStep 3) Destabilize the American socieo-political system by disseminating propoganda and civil unrest as well as setting up puppet politicians to further the invading countries agenda within a semi-legitimate setting.\n\nStep 4) Engage in terrorism on American soil with the aim of spreading American military and law enforcement over the entire territory held by the USA. Mostly targetting civilian infrastructure, as well as vital national resources like power, water, entertainment, etc.\n\nStep 5) Due to the terrorist actions and guerrilla warfare the US defense force will be called in to assist what remains of local law enforcement in quelling the inevitable civilian uprising, this will destabilize morale within the US defense force as it will be forced to take military action against fellow citizens.\n\nStep 6) Use the puppet politicians to overthrow the government with the aim of setting up a puppet state and run run the state from the shadows.\n\nThe reason this is the most likely scenario is due to no nation on earth currently having the technology or capacity to threaten American soil with their military, even if a number of nations banded together and tried to build enough naval and air forces to contemplate an invasion they would inevitably need the resources of Canada and/or Australia both of which America has very strong ties to. \n",
"Most country design their army so that they can face an invasion by their neighbors. Not USA, they design their army so they can face the rest of the world if they need to.",
"If I am not mistaken, Caanda did in fact capture DC back in the day with the help of the French, but the memory is a bit hazy.",
"It seems like theoretically some type of insane and massive strategy could work. I'm talking shitloads of sleeper cells all over the east coast dropping massive chemical attacks and blowing up infrastructure. Huge cyber attacks taking out the power long enough to throw some EMPs to really fry everything. Then use a series of chemical or nuclear attacks in mexico to cause millions of mexicans to flee north(who are also peppered with enemy agents or plague zombies or something). As shit is starting to get real and we might need some help, a bunch of designed to fail attacks go down on our allies like the UK or France or Canada to distract them. Our water is poisoned. The air may be poisoned. We got all kinds of fighting and disaster on the east coast. Thats when china sends every single troop they got to the west coast in like 100,000 ships with sea/air support from russia. We can only sink a small percentage because we are at the same time fighting insurgency on the east coast and battling with Russia on the west coast, and don't forget tons of iradiated plague zombie Mexican refugees flooding our southern border. \n\nOur bridges our all blown up. Tons of people dying from chemical warfare. Insurgent style fighting all over the east coast. Millions of chinese landing on the west coast. Navy and Air Force, although superior, are quite busy. This whole time you didn't stop to think, Canada is perfectly fucking fine up there, just having some Donaires and watching the news and eating poutine and drinking maple syrup and smoking weed and snowboarding and shit. Thats when it happens. Every single Canadian citizen floods over the border with small arms and melee weapons. You always thought they were soooo nice. Well no \"sorrys\" anymore. They split their forces between east and west, flanking both battlefields and giving the edge needed to topple the US forces. The Canadian Purge pushes into South America. The map is changed. The western hemisphere now contains North Canada and South Canada. \n\nI'm just saying, despite military prowess, we aren't invincible. It's like the boss on a video game, strategy!",
"\"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? ... Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined... Could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.\n\nAt what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.\"\n\nA. Lincoln\n\nTldr; never, unless we massively screw up.",
"Not until our alien overlords arrive.",
"Most importantly \nAny army that could land a significant force would have to deal with THE MOST WELL ARMED CIVILIAN population on Earth, as well as, the large widespread paramilitary organizations in every urban area in the country.\nGangs.\n",
"I'll be the one: Wolveriiines!!!",
"Most obvious answer would be no, but most people seem to only take into account that they'd rush all their troops in like it was the assault on normandy. If Russia tried to attack Alaska through the bering strait then i wouldn't be surprised if they could hold that place for long enough to cross a significant land army, and if they worked with China then they would probably have an army of hackers big enough to disrupt American military communications.\n\nSo the longer answer would be Yes, the US can be invaded, and they could probably lay siege/occupy Anchorage, but they wouldn't get much further than that.",
"Also worth remembering that if anybody did attack the US, it's allies would jump in to help defend it and counter attack.\n\nBritain has your back bro's",
"If you assume you get what you pay for... the USA spends more on defense than the other top 10 defense spending countries [COMBINED](_URL_0_).",
"Southerner here,\n\nWe masturbate about the thought of killing someone breaking into our house. What do you think we'd do if someone tried to break into our country?\n\nBut seriously, I'd say almost impossible (without nuclear weapons, but if it comes to that, everyone loses). Some how you'd have to \"out fox\" the Navy (not happening). Then defeat the most powerful Air Force ever, Literally. Then it would be time to get mass boots on the ground. You'd need the largest standing army in the world to defeat the marines and army, and they aren't exactly push overs. \nInvading via north? Canada will fuck your shit. West coast? Military base around every corner. Gulf of Mexico? Try making it through road blocks of jacked up trucks with a half dozen armed scary mother fuckers. Everyone would be in Camo and drinking beer like its opening Day. Impossible to defeat ~250 Million or so armed pissed off Americans defending their way of life."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70127225?trkid=2361637"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_German_plans_for_the_invasion_of_the_United_States"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SIaGhiZs3A",
"http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-02/china-crosses-line-actual-control-stealth-invasion-india",
"http://www.dailypaul.com/272590/china-invading-america-the-silent-takeover"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/X9DLci9.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"
],
[]
]
|
|
ahloyw | can adam and eve produce all humans from genetic and scientific point of view ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahloyw/eli5_can_adam_and_eve_produce_all_humans_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"eefolgd",
"eefqtkg",
"eeftns9"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I’m going to go with a nope on that one. Not in the time frame that we are talking, it’s meant to be a few thousand years? Even if we isolate one mutation and subsequent adaptations. \n\nEnvironmental changes happen slowly and it takes generations for these adaptations to happen. It’s not just the difference in skin colour, but there are really big differences between populations who have been isolated for a very long time (see certain tribes around the world). \n\nI pulled this off an article about giraffes since it’s a really obvious mutation that we have studied in depth. \n\n“Around 15 million years ago, antelope-like animals were roaming the dry grasslands of Africa. There was nothing very special about them, but some of their necks were a bit long.\n\nWithin a mere 6 million years, they had evolved into animals that looked like modern giraffes, though the modern species only turned up around 1 million years ago. The tallest living land animal, a giraffe stands between 4.5 and 5 metres tall – and almost half that height is neck.”\n\n6 million years for their necks to get long. \n\nThe human genome is really complex, and our adaptations are subtle, but I don’t think it’s plausible that all of our mutations came from two individuals. Even taking dominant and recessive genes into account, the massive variation of people would have to have evolved and spread over the globe over a long long time. \n\nI found [an article on mitochondrial eve](_URL_0_) which sums up the time frames, and the fact that mitochondrial eve and Y-chromosomal Adam existed at least 30,000 years apart, and possibly 430,000 years apart. \n\nThey are our common ancestors, so our matriarchal line and patriarchal lines, and where they all converge.\n\nThis ended up being not quite like you’re 5, but I enjoyed researching this one a bit. ",
"Before the horde comes in salivating and foaming at the mouth about how how stupid Christianity is, according to the story Adam and Eve were the first two. But also know that they weren't the only two created. Only the first. That being said, I don't think it would be possible to populate the Earth with two people. And that's why it didn't happen with just two people.",
"The story of Adam and Eve generally is not considered to be a literal truth, but a symbolic story about the nature of mankind. It probably isn't scientifically accurate, and probably was not intended to be. So its inaccuracy in a literal sense isn't relevant to the truth of the story."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
jeqnx | i'm five, explain how google works. | My five year old brain can't wrap itself around the complexity of this magic. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jeqnx/im_five_explain_how_google_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2bhnbx",
"c2bhu06",
"c2bjkle",
"c2bjup0",
"c2bhnbx",
"c2bhu06",
"c2bjkle",
"c2bjup0"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[Already answered here](_URL_0_)\n\nEDIT: replaced short link with full url.",
"I actually am currently reading a book on Google and how it works. The search engine ELI5 link is good, but for Google specifically, they use keywords on websites to see what other websites are linked to it. The more traffic the linking websites get, the more important Google views them. Google also predicts similar words sequentially, so if you typed \"trojan\" you'd get condom links, but if you added \"horse\" you'd get historical pages. It searches through a literal \"web\" of linked websites.",
"What makes google work well, is that it looks at how frequently other pages link (or points) to a page. Say you have a page about rabbits. The more pages in the internet that point to your page about rabbits, the higher it will appear on in the search results. So if I like your page and link to it, google sees that and 'thinks' that your page is slightly better. \n\nThere is a great explanation of this on Radio Lab's episode on [emergence](_URL_0_). Take a listen!",
"The company sells billions of dollars of ad space and uses the money to fund failures like buzz and wave.\n\nAnalogy version: Like when your dad won the lottery and invested the winnings in remote-controlled ham products.",
"[Already answered here](_URL_0_)\n\nEDIT: replaced short link with full url.",
"I actually am currently reading a book on Google and how it works. The search engine ELI5 link is good, but for Google specifically, they use keywords on websites to see what other websites are linked to it. The more traffic the linking websites get, the more important Google views them. Google also predicts similar words sequentially, so if you typed \"trojan\" you'd get condom links, but if you added \"horse\" you'd get historical pages. It searches through a literal \"web\" of linked websites.",
"What makes google work well, is that it looks at how frequently other pages link (or points) to a page. Say you have a page about rabbits. The more pages in the internet that point to your page about rabbits, the higher it will appear on in the search results. So if I like your page and link to it, google sees that and 'thinks' that your page is slightly better. \n\nThere is a great explanation of this on Radio Lab's episode on [emergence](_URL_0_). Take a listen!",
"The company sells billions of dollars of ad space and uses the money to fund failures like buzz and wave.\n\nAnalogy version: Like when your dad won the lottery and invested the winnings in remote-controlled ham products."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3ivm/explain_li5_how_a_computer_search_engine_works/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/14/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3ivm/explain_li5_how_a_computer_search_engine_works/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/14/"
],
[]
]
|
|
30lx4p | in this day and age, what does it mean to "capture" a city in syria? | I read [this BBC article](_URL_0_) about Syrian rebels "capturing" a city with a population of 100,000 people from government troops.
How would they do that? What would it mean for the city's inhabitants? For the infrastructure in the town? Will water still run? Garbage collection? Who collects taxes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30lx4p/eli5_in_this_day_and_age_what_does_it_mean_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cptsgw0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Basically, what it happens is that militant group A enters a town and occupies it. By that I mean they take over the government control. (You have to imagine that a lot of these towns are more like free standing governments (township) that gets orders from the main government.) Militant group A goes to the town leader and says \"You take orders from us now or else we'll kill you and replace you with someone who will.\" As an example, when ISIS occupied towns in Iraq they took over city planning and education. A few articles I read said that towns ran better under ISIS control than after the US over threw Saddam. (Keep in mind that this is not hard to achieve since after Saddam was over thrown the country's government was basically anarchy for a long while due to the power vacuum.) So to answer your question, Militant group A is now the governing body and sets the laws for the town. As a towns person you pay taxes to Militant group A and they provide services like food, water, power. This is also how they use this as a recruiting tool. Poor village that's being ruled by a corrupt government pleas for someone to save them, militant group comes to \"liberate\" town. Militant group provides needed funds and materials to make said town better. Inhabitants are so grateful towards militant group that they pledge themselves to their cause."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32100644"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
1fdx7q | the relationship between space and time | Is it a grid? I just have trouble understanding. So do larger things age slower? Or...yeah, if I was 5 years old, could you explain it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fdx7q/eli5_the_relationship_between_space_and_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca9c07e",
"ca9c96y",
"ca9cmlv",
"ca9doct",
"ca9g0b3",
"ca9g5f6",
"ca9iw75",
"ca9kxph",
"ca9mo6s",
"ca9ok7b",
"ca9qkhw",
"ca9ytaz"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
42,
3,
7,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Spacetime is a mathematical system where, in addition to the 3 spacial dimensions (width, height, length), they consider time as the 4th dimension, combining them in a single system. In the same way things move through space, things are considered to move through time. \n\nThe benefit of this system comes around when dealing with Einstein's general theory of relativity. Spacetime is considered as a grid in which gravity is caused by more massive objects bending spacetime down in a dip. By considering spacetime like this, many effects relating to time were also able to be applied to gravity, leading to concepts like gravitational time dilation. In the same way time appears to move faster for someone moving closer to the speed of light when observed by a slower observer, time moves faster for someone under a weaker gravitational field when observed my an observer under a stronger magnetic field. ",
"If you travel through space at the speed of light (the fastest anything can travel), you don't pass through time. If you don't travel through space at all, you pass through time at the fastest possible rate. You are somewhere in the middle of these extremes, traveling through both space and time. However, how much you pass through space changes how much time you pass through. If you had a twin and traveled at the speed of light and came back after the earth had gone around the sun 10 times, your twin would be 10 years older than you. ",
"This one is tough, it's an abstract concept that's hard to wrap your head around and I'm not good at explaining this, but I'll try.\n\nTime does not exist. It is a construct of humans used to make things neat and orderly throughout our lives. So when you say \"space and time\" what you really mean is \"space and light.\" Unfortunately space/gravity can't really be ELI5 (at least not by me), so I'll stick with light and let someone else fill in the space part.\n\nWhat light actually is, is tiny particles. They move at, you guessed it, the speed of light (which is extremely fast). The sun emits these particles all the time, they travel down to earth and are reflected off of surfaces into your eye, enabling you to actually see the object and the world around you. When there's no light/sun, you can't see anything because there aren't any particles being emitted that will reflect off of surfaces and into your eye. If you don't understand this so far, don't read the rest because it will only confuse you further.\n\nLet's say you are staring at a clock from across the room and those particles I mentioned earlier are hitting the clock from a nearby window. The particles are reflecting off of the clock and into your eye. Lets say the time on the clock is 12:00:00:00. The thing is, it's not really 12:00:00:00, because the particle needs to travel to get to you. There's a delay between when the particle hits the clock and gets to your eye. So really, its 12:00:00:01, but you're reading 12:00:00:00 because that's the exact moment when the particle reflected off of the clock.\n\nLets move to a larger scale. Say you're looking up at the stars. Well fun fact, our sun is a star, so they all emit those same tiny particles which make their way down to Earth and into your eye, which enables you to see them. The distance between us in those stars is incredibly huge. So much so that no human on Earth can truthfully comprehend the distance. Distances so far, that the speed of light is no longer instantaneous like it was with the grandfather clock. So you have star X emitting these light particles, but they take a long time to get to your eye. Sometimes as long as 7 years! That particle had to cross that entire space between you and the star. Lets say that star were to die out. You wouldn't know for 7 years, until the very last particle emitted by that star were to hit your eye. Meanwhile if you were standing right next to star X, the light would go out instantaneously. See the difference? Time is relative to where you are when the light hits your eye!\n\nBack to the clock example. Say there's someone else (lets call him Joe) in the room staring at the same clock, but he's 10m closer to it than you are. The particles reflecting off of the clock are getting to Joe sooner than they are getting to you. Joe is reading 12:00:00:02 by the time your reading 12:00:00:01. Technically speaking, Joe is ahead in time. But this varies for everyone in the world since not everyone is looking at the same clock. Therefor, time is relative.\n\nEDIT: Space is basically how gravity affects the movement of particles of light. Think of space as a huge trampoline (metaphor for a spacial grid of length/width/height). Take a bowling ball and drop it in the middle of the trampoline. This bowling ball represents a planet or other huge object in space. If you were to roll a golf ball (a particle of light) really fast to the left or right of the bowling ball, the golf ball would \"bend\" around the bowling ball because the bowling ball creates a 'bowl' in the the trampoline. The golf ball would also slightly change direction. This is one way how light is effected by space.",
" > > Is it a grid? *We don't know, probably not a 'fabric' though.*\n\n > We really do not know what space-time is, other than two clues afforded by quantum mechanics (very small movements) and general relativity (gravity). General relativity as developed by Albert Einstein, says, and this is a direct quote from Einstein, that \n > \n > \"Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field\".\"\n > \n\n-_URL_0_\n\n > > So do larger things age slower? *Yes. And anything near it.*\n\n > Consider an apple dropped from the top of a tall building. According to Newtonian theory, the building is stationary and the apple accelerates downwards. According to general relativity, the apple is stationary (or, more accurately, \"inertial\") and the building accelerates upwards.\n\n > The acceleration due to gravity varies with height: it's higher at low altitudes. So the bottom of the building accelerates more than the top of the building. Yet the height of the building is constant. The only way to make sense of this is that the two accelerations are being measured by different clocks ticking at different rates.\n\n > That's a gross over-simplification, but in essence that's what gravitational time dilation is.\n\n-_URL_1_\n\nBasically, if you could watch light go by a black hole, it would look like it's slowing down. But we know this can't happen because light is always moving at a constant speed. So it must be time that's slowing down.\n\n\n\n(if I'm wrong, or you have something to add, let me know!)\n\nEdited to better answer OP's questions.",
"Essentially, spacetime is 4-dimensional. Imagine a set of 3 perpendicular lines in space, and the time \"axis\" would be perpendicular to all 3. This is hard to wrap your head around, but the important thing is that you always need 4 numbers to describe where and when an event occurred. This wouldn't be that interesting, but a result of relativity is that you're always moving at the speed of light through spacetime. It sounds ridiculous at first, but if you're sitting still on the couch, all that velocity is in the time direction, and this is what you perceive as the passage of time. If you start to walk through space, some of that velocity gets taken away from the time direction so you can move in space, and the result is that you see time going slower (also sounds ridiculous but confirmed by experiment). As you go faster and faster, more of that velocity gets rotated out of time and into space, until the limit where you're traveling at the speed of light in space, but sitting still in time. \n\nSide note: if you want to know more I recommend \"The Fabric of the Cosmos\" PBS miniseries. It's all free online, and as a physicist I didn't find it insulting like almost all other tv physics.",
"If you want to explore more about this I highly recommend A Brief History of Time, a book by Stephen Hawking.\n\nIt does a very good job of explaining many physics issues to the layman.",
"Space is distance. How far apart things are, how far across things are, etc.\n\nTime is also distance, but in a different way. Time is the \"space\" between one event and another. \n\nThe relationship between space and time is movement or change.\n\n",
"Can't have a place without a when. Can't have a when without a place. ",
"Kind of a boring video, but you will get it if you watch this:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I've never answered one of these before, but I love this subject so I'm gonna try and explain it like I would to my roommate's kids...heregoes:\n\n\"Space\" is the three dimensional world around us that we can see and interact with. I think \"time\" is very much the same thing, we just can't perceive it. Time would be considered the fourth dimension. We are moving through this dimension constantly unaware of it. For an example, think of a two dimensional creature walking along a piece of paper. It would have no concept of the third dimension, but we could observe him moving through it because we are third dimensional creatures. If he got to the edge of the paper, we could fold it in half and allow him to cross from one edge to the other and he would have no idea that he was able to do this only by crossing through a higher dimension. Does that make sense?\n\nSo if you were to try and visualize our bodies in the fourth dimension we would look like long, undulating snakes with our birth on one end and our death at the other. All we can experience is one cross section of this \"snake\" which is our current self in the third dimension.\n\nIf you think of space as a piece of fabric stretched out like a taut bed sheet or something, you can imagine a giant planetary body having mass by pushing down on the surface and creating a little indent. Then you can picture moons or satellites orbiting this body by rolling around the inside of the indent, kind of like a penny that you put into those charity things at malls and they spin around and around until the orbit decays and they fall into the hole at the bottom. So this is a massive warping of space in the third dimension, which has to have consequences in the higher dimension of time. That's why when things have more mass and higher gravity time affects them differently.\n\nI don't know if I made myself clear but I did my best. The last paragraph I feel may have been a bit of a stretch but I wanted to directly address the example you put in the OP. If you want to do some follow up on the fourth dimension crap I mentioned, look up Imagining The Tenth Dimension. It starts to get hard to follow in the higher dimensions, but he explains the first four perfectly.",
"I'm writing a kid's book for 5 year olds about this sort of thing. :-) It will not be at all like any of the other answers in this thread!\n\nImagine taking your body, which takes up space in three totally different directions, sideways, up and down, and back and front, then imagine your body moving in another, totally different, direction. That new direction is time. For us living things, things seems to move in only one direction of time, unlike the way things can move sideways, up and down, and back to front. But if we could look outside of the whole universe, we might see that there are things that are all over the place, in the past, present, and future, and that many of these things, like your body, are more like wavy, wiggly lines that start out when you're in your mommy's belly, and end when you've died and all your atoms (the little parts that make up your body) start spreading back out into the universe to be made into something else. These wavy lines are your whole life, as seen from a place where the whole universe spreads out into the whole direction that time can take up.\n\nThe things that we living things aware of, either in time or space, are the things we've already learned about through our senses (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling). We generally know what happened in the past, and what is happening right near us, but we don't know what happened far away either in time or space, because the stuff from those places and times hasn't gotten to our senses yet.",
"SCGF's response is correct, but it deals with perception of time, rather than time as a mathematical construct.\n\n----\npecamesh's response is also correct, but it deals with speed and travel.\n\n----\nI think this is moreover what you are getting at is the philosophical construct of time and it's mathematical consequences.\n-\nImagine that you have a dot, this dot is named Bob. Hi Bob.\nBob exists in a 1 dimensional universe. There are two directions, left and right. That's it. No up, down, forward, back, future, or past.\n\nNow imagine what Bob perceives. He perceives things to his right, and things to his left. Imagine that there are an infinite number of Bobs on every imaginable point left and right. Bob sees himself stretching into infinity in both directions.\n-\nNow imagine that Bob cannot perceive the direction right. He is only capable of looking left. So he sees all these versions of himself to his left. All of these are looking to their left and only able to perceive those to their left.\n\nBob makes the logical induction that since every Bob to his left (an infinite number) has Bobs that aren't \"quite as left,\" even though they can't see them, and independent of whether or not they believe there are more Bobs that aren't \"quite as left.\" Why should he be any different? It stands to reason that there must be Bobs that aren't as left as he is.\n-\nSo Bob invents a word for not being left. He calls it right. He imagines what it would be like to be further right all the time. In fact, in his head, he practically lives there. Thinking of all the nice things that he'll have when he's further right.\n\n----\nAll of that aside, let's compare it to ourselves.\n\nIgnore for a moment that we have space dimensions and focus on time.\n\nWhat do you know about time? You believe that you are progressing in one direction through it? Why? Because you can only perceive one direction in time. View time as like a collection of snapshots. In this instant, you are in one place in space, everything else is in it's place in space. \n\nBut there is no proof of past other than the fact that we remember the past. There is no proof of future without assuming there is a past.\n\nThink of yourself like Bob. You are on a one dimensional track. With your memories you are looking pastward seeing other Dahfuzzzes looking toward their past. Because of this, you assume you used to be there, and that you will be somewhere less \"past.\"\n\n----\nThis is how Time differs from the other dimensions. We have three space dimensions (unless string theory is correct, in which case we have 10) and then one dimension of time.\nWe treat time as something special because unlike all three dimensions of space, we can only see in one direction.\n\nDoes this help at all?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5732-1",
"http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=276815"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rek7881OGRY"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
br5vl2 | when tectonic plates shift, why is there only an earthquake in a single place and not all along the plates' boundaries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/br5vl2/eli5_when_tectonic_plates_shift_why_is_there_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"eoadb46"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"As plates try to shift, the plate becomes locked as rocks on one side catch on rocks on the other side. The plate bends as the forces build up and the catch point gives, and you get an earthquake. This shifts load to other catch points, that might then give - these are aftershocks. \n\nThese quakes release the tension in that area of the plates. Another sequence of quakes will happen mearby, releasing tensions in that area. All these small shifts happening over the centuries makes up a shift in the tectonic plates."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
81zq1z | how does a vasectomy work? | I dont quite understand the meaning of it I guess? After a vasectomy, how does a "shoot blank"?
If the tubes are tied up, does excessive semen not make them burst from pressure?
Where does the semen go, as it cant really get out of the tubes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81zq1z/eli5_how_does_a_vasectomy_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv6d89r",
"dv6entq",
"dv6h5ll"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
10
],
"text": [
"They're not tied. They literally snip and cauterize the tubes that carry the sperm from the testicles. The semen part of it comes from a different place so you still ejaculate but there's no sperm in the mix.",
"The sperm get absorbed by the body as they can’t go anywhere. This is just the same as when you don’t cum for a while. The seminal fluid is still ejaculated, so you still cum. It looks, smells and tastes the same. But it has no little swimmers in it.",
"To add to what everyone else is saying, the fluid you ejaculate is not produced in the testicles--only the sperm in it. The total volume of sperm is about the size of a period on a printed page.\n\nThe fluid is all produced in the prostate.\n\nA vasectomy severs the connection between the testicles and the prostate. The ends of the vas deferens are cauterized, sealing them. The vas also has the ability to reabsorb sperm that haven't been ejaculated after a short time (because your body is constantly making them by the million, and sperm don't last forever), so the tiny amount produced is reabsorbed before it can cause a problem."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3wiwbq | why aren't the super fast gearshifts from a dual clutch gearbox bad for the engine? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wiwbq/eli5_why_arent_the_super_fast_gearshifts_from_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxwjshj",
"cxwnqdw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Heavier engine means the parts are made from heavier and more resilient materials that can take a lot more stress.\n\nRace car engines have to be rebuilt after every race.",
"_URL_0_\n\nIt seems that your answers will be there."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=dual+clutch&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all"
]
]
|
||
4t68aj | what is the squeaking sound i hear from my nose when it is stuffy? | My nose is a little stuffy right now and a few seconds after I blew it, I heard some "squeaking", coming from my nose as I felt the mucus moving. I've heard it before but never thought about it. What causes this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t68aj/eli5_what_is_the_squeaking_sound_i_hear_from_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5ewaxe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"lol funny one :) \n\nIt's similar to when you whistle. Breathing normally doesn't make a sound, but you can move your tongue and mouth to create a resonance chamber that, when the air passes by it produces the whistle. \n\nNow your nose doesn't sound exactly like a whistle - it's likely much higher pitched and quieter than a whistle - but the same concept is going on. You blew your nose and the pressure you put on it probably closed the airway completely, but when you let go it opened back up slowly. During the process of opening back up there was a point where the airway was narrow enough that the air passing through it \"whistled\" briefly"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
42ppay | why do we translate words from arabic (like iraq and burqa) with a "q" when in english u is always supposed to follow q? if the language and script are completely different, why don't we just spell it phonetically (like irak)? | For that matter, why does English even require the "Q U" combination? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42ppay/eli5_why_do_we_translate_words_from_arabic_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"czc56rw",
"czc57ep"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The q is based on transliterations of Arabic, which use the letter q to denote a sound not found in English.\n\nThe English qu combo comes from Latin, which also used qu the same way. As for why Latin did that, here's what Wikipedia has to say:\n\n > In the earliest Latin inscriptions, the letters C, K and Q were all used to represent the two sounds /k/ and /ɡ/, which were not differentiated in writing. Of these, Q was used before a rounded vowel (e.g. ⟨EQO⟩ 'ego'), K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C (and its variant G) replaced most usages of K and Q: Q survived only to represent /k/ when immediately followed by a /w/ sound.[2] The Etruscans used Q in conjunction with V to represent /kʷ/.",
"English generally doesn't require a change of spelling because it's not a phonetic language. Languages that are phonetic, like Spanish and French, do require a change of spelling (and so they both call the country 'Irak' due to the spelling rules of the languages).\n\nThe 'Q' is used because it represents the Arabic letter qaf, which is a sound that does not exist in English - think a 'k,' but then pronounce it in your throat. This is an example of a transliteration system, where rules describe how to write a language normally written one way in a different writing system. Sometimes it leans more phonetic and AIDS in pronouncing ion, like the modified Hepburn system for Japanese. Sometimes it's more systematic like the Hanyu Pinyin system for Mandarin Chinese. Sometimes it's neither, like the Royal Thai General Transcription System. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
zfey9 | why is pain satisfying when you're frustrated/angry? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zfey9/why_is_pain_satisfying_when_youre_frustratedangry/ | {
"a_id": [
"c644ymh",
"c6463hl"
],
"score": [
2,
12
],
"text": [
"Can you elaborate? ",
"The emotional parts of your brain are complex, but maybe not as complex as you think. Most of your emotions are regulated by the flow of a very few chemicals within your brain. These chemicals are called neurotransmitters:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nWhen you're frustrated or angry, you feel a need to begin some kind of action. That's the very basic purpose of being angry. Something is wrong, and you need to deal with the situation.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYour brain floods with neurotransmitters that encourage optimism, action, and quick thinking, and decreases inhibition-- don't confuse these with happiness, obviously. The purpose of this flood is to make you take an action.. ANY action to try to relieve what's making you angry.\n\nThis same flood of neurotransmitters also makes you feel 'out of control' or 'fuzzy' because your brain is trying to prompt you to take physical action without really thinking about consequences. There have been various studies done that indicate that most people who are angry or frustrated also tend to score lower on intelligence tests than they do when they are calm.\n\nPain serves two functions that counter this.\n\nThe first thing that happens when you feel pain is that the emotional part of the brain that's demanding action is satisfied. You've taken an action, and it's left a physical reminder. You hit someone, and it stung your fist. You kicked down the obstacle in your way and your foot aches. The part of the brain responsible for flooding you with anger neurotransmitters backs off a bit and starts flooding you with 'reward' neurotransmitters. Even if it's not rational or logical, you think you've done a good job, so you get a little burst of pleasure.\n\nThe second thing pain does is flood your brain with 'danger' and 'hurt' neurotransmitters. These neurotransmitters cause you to want to back away from what's hurting you. They cause you to think less optimistically and increase your inhibitions. They cause you to think more slowly and carefully because your brain needs to consider what's causing you pain-- what's injuring you-- and how to stop it.\n\nThis counters and can overwhelm the anger response, so you feel sharper and more in control when you're feeling pain.\n\nThat's why feeling pain, say from self-injury, can alleviate feelings of anger or frustration, even if you haven't dealt with the situation that's making you angry. You're still altering the balance of neurotransmitters in your brain."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anger",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neurotransmitters"
]
]
|
||
5pwdmf | what is a "sigh," exactly, and why do we do it when we're sad or exasperated? does every culture sigh? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pwdmf/eli5_what_is_a_sigh_exactly_and_why_do_we_do_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcufve7",
"dcuk3j7",
"dcuo6oa",
"dcuy93v"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
9,
7
],
"text": [
"I might have to dig it up somewhere but there was a good response to this question before as it being a kind of \"emotional reset button\"",
"What about sighs of exasperation? \n\nThey don't seem so... resty to me.",
"I don't think it's cultural or even human for that matter. I've heard my dog sigh when he's frustrated",
"There is a great article in the Guardian that discusses this;\n\n > Californian scientists have identified the source of the sigh. It is not just a response to sadness, depression or despair: it is, also, they report, a life-sustaining reflex that helps preserve lung function.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt occurs in humans and animals, so would happen in all cultures. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/08/a-sighs-not-just-a-sigh-its-a-fundamental-life-sustaining-reflex"
]
]
|
||
dxlq10 | what does vanilla extract/essence taste like and what happens if i drink the stuff? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dxlq10/eli5_what_does_vanilla_extractessence_taste_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7s8ck6",
"f7s8h9s"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Pure vanilla extract contains a surprisingly high percentage of alcohol. The FDA requires pure vanilla extract to contain no less than 35 percent alcohol, while most beer has an alcohol content of between two and nine percent.",
"Think somewhere among the lines of \" a glass of unsweetened black tea that's been sitting out for quite some time. Now remove like 98% of the water to make the flavor that much stronger.\"\n\nTl:Dr tastes like vomit, assuming you don't do immediately after attempting such an action.\n\nIf you can some stomach drinking that stuff straight, congrats you now have what could argue for the title of the world's worst tasting and most expensive liqour."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
aofbgq | why do competitions by radio or television companies ask questions that 99.999% know the answer to rather than just give the money away? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aofbgq/eli5_why_do_competitions_by_radio_or_television/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg0ev3k"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"In some legal jurisdictions, games of pure chance are illegal, but games of combined chance and skill aren't. By adding a trivial question, they can turn a random giveaway into a combined game of chance and skill, and thus avoid the prohibition on pure gambling games."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5hxnxr | why do we move our whole body around while playing a video game as if we are in the game? | Like if we were playing in VR type thing but we aren't playing VR we are just playing on our PC's it still happens. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hxnxr/eli5_why_do_we_move_our_whole_body_around_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"db3rw9f"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your brain consists of neurons that are connected to one another, and these connections strengthen over time through repetition.\n\nIn your whole lifetime you've learned that the way to evade an object flying at your head is to move certain muscles. So when some neurons send a signal \"there's something flying at my head\" the nerves that move these muscles get an automatic signal.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
9q10hp | if chip cards are more secure than swiping your card, why do some retailers who have chip reading terminals seem to have this feature disabled requiring you to swipe instead? i’ve even seen them go as far as to insert a piece of paper saying “no chip” into the reader. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9q10hp/eli5_if_chip_cards_are_more_secure_than_swiping/ | {
"a_id": [
"e85v13n"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Enabling chip authentication requires updating their point of sale systems along with the back end software which interacts with it. All told adding chip capabilities to a single terminal can cost about $2000 each, and an organization would want to update them all simultaneously.\n\nSome businesses may not have that sort of cash laying around for a task that doesn't actually stop their business from operating. They can weigh the cost of fraudulent transactions against delaying and choose to delay."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
57dvs4 | what are the advantages and disadvantages of using turboprops over turbojets? | Turboprops are essentially jet engines, but the rotational force is used to turn a propeller. Why do this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57dvs4/eli5_what_are_the_advantages_and_disadvantages_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8r551y",
"d8r5ea5",
"d8r5ge4",
"d8r5iw8"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's _without controversy_ more fuel efficient on shorter flights. It's also true that on longer flights the jet wins. This has to do with the density of air at the _altitude_ at which long flights are done.\n\nIt is also without controversy that turbojets don't push hard - you can't have a giant plane with a turboprop and have it compete with a turbojet. Just doesn't generate enough thrust with efficiency. \n\nSo...these are the two big variables - altitude at which you're going to fly which equates to flight length and number of passengers / weight of plane. Each are better than the other depending on these variables.",
"Turboprops are useful for smaller engines that work at lower speeds. Not every application warrants the 50,000 pounds of thrust a turbofan produces or needs to operate at the high speeds a turbojet is efficient at. ",
"So Turboprops move a larger volume of air at a slower speed versus a turbojet which moves a smaller volume at a very high speed. (Large slower fan versus smaller high speed fan/jet)\n\nThe speed that an aircraft is the most efficient is when the velocity of the thrust is closest to that of the aircraft. This means that Turboprops are more efficient at slower speeds, and turbojets more efficient at higher speeds. \n\nFor a similarly sized engine, a turboprop will be better at moving a larger higher drag aircraft at slower speeds or Takeoff in a shorter distance vs a similarly sized jet which is better at higher speeds in a more sleek aircraft.",
"Because it's very efficient and an equivalent piston engine would be larger in size. Jet turbines are very compact for the amount of power they give out and turboprop and turbofan engines make use of the jet in order to power a propeller or the vanes of a turbine in order to move air. A jet engine is less efficient because it is using the expanding exhaust gas to provide thrust, but they can put out serious power and do so at very high speeds. Because of the compression of incoming air, turbofan/prop engines operate well even at very high altitude where piston engines would start to lose power because of reduced oxygen. You could use superchargers to force more air into the engine, but that's even more weight and complexity where as a turboprop engine can handle altitude better, is simpler mechanically (but with far tighter tolerances) and produces more power in a smaller package. \n\nTurbofan engines are used in places of regular jet engines in many aircraft and they are often mistaken for regular jet engines because there are no propellers. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2vz8t0 | why is there no charger for phones or laptops that automatically shuts down when full? | How hard can it be | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vz8t0/eli5why_is_there_no_charger_for_phones_or_laptops/ | {
"a_id": [
"com6652",
"com6whu",
"com7nf8"
],
"score": [
11,
53,
8
],
"text": [
"Newer phones/chargers do sort of do this. With my iPhone 6, once it reaches 100%, the battery will get down to ~97% before charging it back to 100%.",
"The charging circuitry is almost always in the phone / laptop itself, and nearly 100% do this. \n\nWhat makes you think they don't do this?",
"They do. What you see on your battery gauge is not always what is really going on. Lithium ion batteries are dangerous to overcharge so the circuitry handles it automatically. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
kwj51 | why is it so hard to find spammers? | It seems like all you have to do is buy some viagra or whatever, and work with the credit card company to see where the money goes. Why is it so hard to track down spammers?
I assume the answer will be "because they're in lawless countries" but I find it hard to imagine that all spammers live in places where it's utterly impossible to enforce the law. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kwj51/why_is_it_so_hard_to_find_spammers/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2nsriu",
"c2nss86",
"c2nt16b",
"c2nw5kd",
"c2nx0p6",
"c2nsriu",
"c2nss86",
"c2nt16b",
"c2nw5kd",
"c2nx0p6"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
6,
3,
4,
2,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"People who respond to the spam don't report it. Besides, a lot of spam is sent from \"botnets\". Which is a network of computers infected with malware (the stuff you pick up from the internet with all those \"fun\" toolbars). They actually send the e-mails without the owner of the computer knowing it. So the source of the e-mails varies. That is why it is not sure where the spammers actually situate themselves.",
"What would be the point? It's a minor inconvenience to most people, and most spammers aren't organized enough to do anything super damaging to anyone with enough power/money/time to do anything about it. It's probably not very hard to track down spammers, it's just not really worth doing. yes, there'd be a paper trail, server IP's, etc, etc, but all of those require warrants for law enforcement to access, which is a lot of paperwork and time. It's just like asking why doesn't the FBI track down every individual whose posted the words \"smoked pot\" online. Not worth the effort.",
"It actually happens sometimes:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAlso good to read on this subject:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I knew a guy who made good money being a spammer. I don't talk to him much anymore, but I can say, for years, he never got caught.\n\nBasically what he'd do is send it using botnet. He had a zombie network with couple thousand computers that would fluctuate. He \"bought\" this chunk of computers from someone by trading a stolen valid credit card number. (not sure where that came from)\n\nHe had a whole bunch of email addresses and would trade his way up to the point where he had somewhere in the millions.\n\nThen, the stuff he'd send was ALL affiliate stuff. Meaning, he'd send links to mostly porn sites, of which most are located outside of the country. They paid him by putting money in some European version of paypal (not sure what, exactly, sorry) or re-charging pre-paid debit cards. These are companies that *know* they're paying spammers, but as long as they pretend they don't know, i guess they can't get in trouble.\n\nAlso, he was a drug dealer. This has nothing to do with his spamming, but you can tell what kind of person he is. Make money no matter what the means.",
"I can't specifically comment on why you can't track spammers by following the payments to them, but I can comment on why it's difficult to simply track the source of spam e-mails.\n\nWhen you send an e-mail from a computer, the main way it can be traced is by IP address (a unique number given to each computer or small network of computers). If you know the IP address an e-mail was sent from, you can usually find that computer in the real world. Alone, you can usually find the country, state, and ISP of the IP address quite easily. If you have the cooperation of the ISP, you can probably pinpoint the exact real-world address associated with the IP address. So, it's certainly possible to follow the source of spam e-mails into the real world.\n\nBecause of this, spammers do not use their own computers, and their own IP addresses, to send spam e-mails. There are lots of techniques they use to keep their personal details separate from the IPs they use to spam you.\n\nFirst, they can use web-based email services, like Yahoo or Hotmail. If a spammer's e-mail client is handled entirely in his internet browser, then it's slightly more difficult to track his IP address; instead of being able to get it directly from the *receiving* server (i.e., *your* e-mail provider), you might have to ask the *sending* server (i.e., *his* e-mail provider) for logs about what IP address the guy was using when he sent the spam e-mail. This, combined with the fact that sometimes online e-mail providers do not require any accurate personal information to create an account, makes them a good choice for small-scale anonymous spam. However, it's still fairly easy to track someone who is simply using a web-based e-mail service, provided you have to cooperation of that service. So this is not a good solution for *mass* spammers, because Yahoo and Hotmail and other such providers would be happy to cooperate in tracking them down - spam makes people less happy with their e-mail service, which loses them legitimate customers, and spam also puts gigantic unnecessary loads on their e-mail servers.\n\nLarger-scale spammers look for better anonymity. It was elsewhere mentioned that spammers often use botnets to send spam mail, and that is definitely the case. A \"botnet\" is basically large collection of separate computers that have been infected by the same computer virus, and are therefore able to be remotely controlled by that virus's creator. Botnets can become *huge*. For example, the [BredoLab](_URL_0_) botnet was estimated to consist of 30 million separate machines! The botnet's master will generally have extensive control over the computers in the botnet, so he can use that control to do many things. The most common uses for a botnet are stealing confidential information like credit card numbers, DoS attacks, and e-mail spamming. When you use a botnet-controlled computer to send a spam e-mail, it is *much* more difficult to track back to you. There's no indication in the e-mail itself that it did not originate from the controlled machine, and there are no server logs on that machine that indicate that you were giving it instructions (especially if you include code in your virus that erases logs).\n\nI have personal experience with being part of a botnet. Several years ago, I was asked to help a family member determine why their internet service had become exceedingly slow. After a bit of poking around, I discovered that there was a single laptop that had to be connected to the internet for the slowdown to occur. I couldn't find any indication in the OS that it was using bandwidth, but when I used an external packet sniffer, I found that it was literally using all the bandwidth it could to send out e-mails! Thankfully, reformatting that computer solved the problem.\n\nSo, a botnet is a good mechanism for sending out gigantic amounts of spam mail, but it has problems too. First of all, creating an effective and infectious virus is incredibly difficult. Second, botnets are very high-profile targets for anti-spam authorities. Sure, they're very difficult to detect and trace, but the tend to always get taken down in the end.\n\nThe smart mid-tier spammer doesn't bother with botnets and uses proxies instead. A proxy is a service running on a computer that essentially lets other remote users reroute their internet traffic through that computer, so it appears like the traffic is originating from that computer to outside observers. There are many reasons someone would run a proxy on their computer; some people use a proxy on their home computer to circumvent browsing filters at work, some people use them to circumvent other IP-based restrictions on the internet, some people do it accidentally or without their own knowledge. Most proxy servers have settings to require authentication (a username and password) to use the proxy, but some people set up their proxies without authentication, due to laziness or ignorance.\n\nIf a computer is running a proxy service without requiring authentication, literally anyone can connect to it and use it, including spammers. Many spammers will simply send proxy requests to thousands of random IP addresses, in the hopes that one of those IPs will happen to have an unsecured proxy server running. Other people collect lists of such free public proxies and post them on websites and forums for other people to use. There is even an application, ProxyFire (**Note: I do not vouch for ProxyFire's safety. Considering it's designed for spammers, it's probably extremely shady. Investigate/download/run it at your own risk!**), that does nothing but hunt for free public proxies at hundreds of IPs per second.\n\nUsing a proxy is a good compromise between traceability and anonymity. On the one hand, it's easier to trace a spam e-mail that originated from a proxy than from a botnet-controlled computer, because the botnet could have mechanisms to destroy logs and keep itself hidden, whereas the proxy will most likely keep logs about every client that connected to it and what it did. If you were tracking a spammer using proxies, you would only have to have access to the logs on the proxy server he used in order to track him to his real IP address. Some agencies set up free public proxy servers with the specific intention of catching e-mail spammers in the act of spamming. \n\nOf course, different proxy server programs provide different capabilities and have different logging policies. Some proxy servers will only allow you to proxy certain on certain ports (which only allows certain applications - say HTTP or e-mail). Some will allow you to proxy e-mails but will pass along information to the receiving server about your real IP address. The more valuable ones to spammers will allow full SOCKS proxying (which allows you to proxy any and all internet traffic with no additional information about yourself) or high-anonymity e-mail proxying (the proxy server declines to pass along identifying information to the receiving mail server). The main upside to using proxies is that doing so is much less illegal than infecting people with botnets (in fact, it may not be illegal at all, depending on what you're doing), so it's much safer, and much less likely to garner the attention of anti-spam authorities.\n\nI also have some experience with proxies, since I have one running on my home router, for personal use. At one point, I messed up a configuration file, which prevented my proxy from demanding authentication from potential clients. About a week later, when I checked the status of my proxy, there were *over two hundred* anonymous users connected to it, most of them using it for e-mail. I don't have a website, have never posted my IP address in any public place on the internet, etc. All 200+ users were people who had simply happened to randomly scan my router, see that it was open to proxy requests, and latch on!",
"People who respond to the spam don't report it. Besides, a lot of spam is sent from \"botnets\". Which is a network of computers infected with malware (the stuff you pick up from the internet with all those \"fun\" toolbars). They actually send the e-mails without the owner of the computer knowing it. So the source of the e-mails varies. That is why it is not sure where the spammers actually situate themselves.",
"What would be the point? It's a minor inconvenience to most people, and most spammers aren't organized enough to do anything super damaging to anyone with enough power/money/time to do anything about it. It's probably not very hard to track down spammers, it's just not really worth doing. yes, there'd be a paper trail, server IP's, etc, etc, but all of those require warrants for law enforcement to access, which is a lot of paperwork and time. It's just like asking why doesn't the FBI track down every individual whose posted the words \"smoked pot\" online. Not worth the effort.",
"It actually happens sometimes:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAlso good to read on this subject:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I knew a guy who made good money being a spammer. I don't talk to him much anymore, but I can say, for years, he never got caught.\n\nBasically what he'd do is send it using botnet. He had a zombie network with couple thousand computers that would fluctuate. He \"bought\" this chunk of computers from someone by trading a stolen valid credit card number. (not sure where that came from)\n\nHe had a whole bunch of email addresses and would trade his way up to the point where he had somewhere in the millions.\n\nThen, the stuff he'd send was ALL affiliate stuff. Meaning, he'd send links to mostly porn sites, of which most are located outside of the country. They paid him by putting money in some European version of paypal (not sure what, exactly, sorry) or re-charging pre-paid debit cards. These are companies that *know* they're paying spammers, but as long as they pretend they don't know, i guess they can't get in trouble.\n\nAlso, he was a drug dealer. This has nothing to do with his spamming, but you can tell what kind of person he is. Make money no matter what the means.",
"I can't specifically comment on why you can't track spammers by following the payments to them, but I can comment on why it's difficult to simply track the source of spam e-mails.\n\nWhen you send an e-mail from a computer, the main way it can be traced is by IP address (a unique number given to each computer or small network of computers). If you know the IP address an e-mail was sent from, you can usually find that computer in the real world. Alone, you can usually find the country, state, and ISP of the IP address quite easily. If you have the cooperation of the ISP, you can probably pinpoint the exact real-world address associated with the IP address. So, it's certainly possible to follow the source of spam e-mails into the real world.\n\nBecause of this, spammers do not use their own computers, and their own IP addresses, to send spam e-mails. There are lots of techniques they use to keep their personal details separate from the IPs they use to spam you.\n\nFirst, they can use web-based email services, like Yahoo or Hotmail. If a spammer's e-mail client is handled entirely in his internet browser, then it's slightly more difficult to track his IP address; instead of being able to get it directly from the *receiving* server (i.e., *your* e-mail provider), you might have to ask the *sending* server (i.e., *his* e-mail provider) for logs about what IP address the guy was using when he sent the spam e-mail. This, combined with the fact that sometimes online e-mail providers do not require any accurate personal information to create an account, makes them a good choice for small-scale anonymous spam. However, it's still fairly easy to track someone who is simply using a web-based e-mail service, provided you have to cooperation of that service. So this is not a good solution for *mass* spammers, because Yahoo and Hotmail and other such providers would be happy to cooperate in tracking them down - spam makes people less happy with their e-mail service, which loses them legitimate customers, and spam also puts gigantic unnecessary loads on their e-mail servers.\n\nLarger-scale spammers look for better anonymity. It was elsewhere mentioned that spammers often use botnets to send spam mail, and that is definitely the case. A \"botnet\" is basically large collection of separate computers that have been infected by the same computer virus, and are therefore able to be remotely controlled by that virus's creator. Botnets can become *huge*. For example, the [BredoLab](_URL_0_) botnet was estimated to consist of 30 million separate machines! The botnet's master will generally have extensive control over the computers in the botnet, so he can use that control to do many things. The most common uses for a botnet are stealing confidential information like credit card numbers, DoS attacks, and e-mail spamming. When you use a botnet-controlled computer to send a spam e-mail, it is *much* more difficult to track back to you. There's no indication in the e-mail itself that it did not originate from the controlled machine, and there are no server logs on that machine that indicate that you were giving it instructions (especially if you include code in your virus that erases logs).\n\nI have personal experience with being part of a botnet. Several years ago, I was asked to help a family member determine why their internet service had become exceedingly slow. After a bit of poking around, I discovered that there was a single laptop that had to be connected to the internet for the slowdown to occur. I couldn't find any indication in the OS that it was using bandwidth, but when I used an external packet sniffer, I found that it was literally using all the bandwidth it could to send out e-mails! Thankfully, reformatting that computer solved the problem.\n\nSo, a botnet is a good mechanism for sending out gigantic amounts of spam mail, but it has problems too. First of all, creating an effective and infectious virus is incredibly difficult. Second, botnets are very high-profile targets for anti-spam authorities. Sure, they're very difficult to detect and trace, but the tend to always get taken down in the end.\n\nThe smart mid-tier spammer doesn't bother with botnets and uses proxies instead. A proxy is a service running on a computer that essentially lets other remote users reroute their internet traffic through that computer, so it appears like the traffic is originating from that computer to outside observers. There are many reasons someone would run a proxy on their computer; some people use a proxy on their home computer to circumvent browsing filters at work, some people use them to circumvent other IP-based restrictions on the internet, some people do it accidentally or without their own knowledge. Most proxy servers have settings to require authentication (a username and password) to use the proxy, but some people set up their proxies without authentication, due to laziness or ignorance.\n\nIf a computer is running a proxy service without requiring authentication, literally anyone can connect to it and use it, including spammers. Many spammers will simply send proxy requests to thousands of random IP addresses, in the hopes that one of those IPs will happen to have an unsecured proxy server running. Other people collect lists of such free public proxies and post them on websites and forums for other people to use. There is even an application, ProxyFire (**Note: I do not vouch for ProxyFire's safety. Considering it's designed for spammers, it's probably extremely shady. Investigate/download/run it at your own risk!**), that does nothing but hunt for free public proxies at hundreds of IPs per second.\n\nUsing a proxy is a good compromise between traceability and anonymity. On the one hand, it's easier to trace a spam e-mail that originated from a proxy than from a botnet-controlled computer, because the botnet could have mechanisms to destroy logs and keep itself hidden, whereas the proxy will most likely keep logs about every client that connected to it and what it did. If you were tracking a spammer using proxies, you would only have to have access to the logs on the proxy server he used in order to track him to his real IP address. Some agencies set up free public proxy servers with the specific intention of catching e-mail spammers in the act of spamming. \n\nOf course, different proxy server programs provide different capabilities and have different logging policies. Some proxy servers will only allow you to proxy certain on certain ports (which only allows certain applications - say HTTP or e-mail). Some will allow you to proxy e-mails but will pass along information to the receiving server about your real IP address. The more valuable ones to spammers will allow full SOCKS proxying (which allows you to proxy any and all internet traffic with no additional information about yourself) or high-anonymity e-mail proxying (the proxy server declines to pass along identifying information to the receiving mail server). The main upside to using proxies is that doing so is much less illegal than infecting people with botnets (in fact, it may not be illegal at all, depending on what you're doing), so it's much safer, and much less likely to garner the attention of anti-spam authorities.\n\nI also have some experience with proxies, since I have one running on my home router, for personal use. At one point, I messed up a configuration file, which prevented my proxy from demanding authentication from potential clients. About a week later, when I checked the status of my proxy, there were *over two hundred* anonymous users connected to it, most of them using it for e-mail. I don't have a website, have never posted my IP address in any public place on the internet, etc. All 200+ users were people who had simply happened to randomly scan my router, see that it was open to proxy requests, and latch on!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://gizmodo.com/5845448/this-is-how-microsoft-and-kapersky-labs-neutralized-a-spam-botnet",
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/17/rustock_botnet_takedown/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BredoLab"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://gizmodo.com/5845448/this-is-how-microsoft-and-kapersky-labs-neutralized-a-spam-botnet",
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/17/rustock_botnet_takedown/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BredoLab"
]
]
|
|
3aqcw9 | what's the "political process" for an actor to get nominated and win an oscar? grammy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aqcw9/eli5_whats_the_political_process_for_an_actor_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"csf1xqi"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"Can't say much about the Grammys, but the Oscars being political is well known with a lot of bumping and voting being manipulated. Keep in mind that the votes for all the categories in the Oscars are cast by members of the industry. Directors, actors, writers, producers, and I believe past Oscar winners. Since people are responsible for the votes, biases and habits come into play. \n\nFor example, certain films might win best actor or best picture because they cover an important topic, or evoke a particular period despite being forgotten the next year. There's also a reason that \"Oscar season\" and \"Oscar bait\" exist. Certain themes, tones, etc get votes from Academy members, even though some admit that they haven't watched all of the nominated films. They come out close to when voting occurs so that members will be thinking about them when they vote. \n\nThere was once a sketch on the show \"Extras\" where famous actors play caricatures of themselves, and Kate Winslet was doing a film about the holocaust. Ricky Gervais was commending her about how important films about that subject were, but the joke was her confessing that \"If you do a film about the holocaust, you're guaranteed an Oscar.\" It was a joke about \"Oscar bait,\" but a few years later Kate Winslet got her Oscar for \"The Reader\", a film about the holocaust. \n\nThere's also the domino effect for \"best actor.\" Al Pacino was up against Jack Nicholson for best actor (Godfather part 2 and Chinatown, respectively) but they both lost to Art Carney in \"Harry and Tonto\", a film where a guy drives cross country with his cat (that is not a joke, it really happened). Since Pacino got snubbed, he was \"due\" for his Oscar in \"Scent of a Woman\" which snubbed Denzel Washington in \"Malcolm X\". He was \"due\" and got his in Training Day, etc etc. \n\nThen there's the \"for your consideration\" campaigns that emulate the way capital hill gets lobbied by big companies and special interest groups. Miramax had a business model of catering to the Academy and churning out Oscar winning films. In 1998, they were up against \"Saving Private Ryan\" with their own film \"Shakespeare in Love\". Knowing they couldn't possibly win on the merits of the film alone, they started a campaign of trying to undermine SPR based on \"historical inaccuracies.\" Despite the fact that the Normandy invasion sequence was so realistic that actual veterans of the battle had flashbacks, and details that most observers would never pick up on unless they were historians, it worked. The Shakespeare rom-com beat out the Spielberg war epic for best picture. \n\nTo sum up, the political process for the Oscars is self-congratulatory, seniority rather than merit based, widely open to bias and campaigning, and lacking any of the staying power that noteworthy films posses outside of the ceremony. It's no surprise that viewership for it has been on the decline for the last decade. It's about awarding \"the best films that nobody ever watches.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ufcme | why does my hair turn into an unruly poofball every time i wash my hair? | I have to use copious amounts of wax or gel to get it back into "acceptable to be seen by other human beings" condition. I do not know what ethnicity I am due to adoption, other than Caucasian with marginally olive/pale white skin and gray eyes. Despite that, yes, I wash my hair, though I **hate** doing it because it takes two days to get to the style I prefer. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ufcme/eli5_why_does_my_hair_turn_into_an_unruly/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4uw6h5",
"c4uxzml",
"c4v007g",
"c4v1ocf"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"because you have washed all the oils and products from your hair that was making it lay down. Now it is clean, there is not enough weight on each piece of hair to affect it. It may also be static from your towel and/or the way you are drying it.",
"Washing your hair dries it because it removes the natural oils. You might just have less oil in your hair than most people so you need more time for it to build up in a way that might make it look more \"normal.\" Try washing less often- there really isn't any need to wash daily, especially if your hair is dry. Outside of getting greasy hair or dandruff, there is no harm in waiting a few days to really shampoo. \n\nAlso, you could try a \"cleansing conditioner.\" They're more expensive but they clean your hair a little while mositurizing it. It works well for hair that dries out easily or gets very frizzy. ",
"As [emmatini](_URL_0_) said, you're taking too much oil out of your hair. You may want to try a different type of shampoo, or a different quantity of what you are using. You could also wash your hair less often, or alternate full shampooing and just rinsing. ",
"More advice than an explanation (others have already explained wonderfully), but:\n\nI also have unruly poofball (stealing that phrase, btw) hair, and the two best (and cheapest) ways I've found of controlling it is to make sure the conditioner is in for a long time (aim for five minutes, I shave my legs while it soaks in), and to wash it in the coolest water I can bear. I also don't use heated styling products. My hair still looks a bit frizzy in humid weather, but it's definitely curly and not poofball!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ufcme/eli5_why_does_my_hair_turn_into_an_unruly/c4uw6h5"
],
[]
]
|
|
2kqf53 | how do "no vaule until purchased" gift cards work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kqf53/eli5_how_do_no_vaule_until_purchased_gift_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"clnq534",
"clnq7eg",
"clnr4tw",
"clnsafs"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It means the card has to be activated in order to work so don't bother stealing it it's not worth $50\n\nWhen they are purchased they are swiped in so the program that manages them now knows that it is working. ",
"There is an electronic account of some sort that is associated with the card. When purchased it is activated and charged with money. Before this the card is more or less just a piece of plastic with a barcode on it.",
"It basically means \"don't bother shoplifting this, it won't work until the cashier activates it\".",
"The POS contacts a central database and informs them that the card with the barcode XYZ has been activated for X dollars. When you swipe the card later the database informs the POS it has X dollars on it and the POS tells the database that Y dollars of it was used when it gets used.\n\nYou could store the value of the card on the card itself, and only write that it has X dollars on it on purchase, but then someone could go home, buy a card read/write machine and mess with the value of it themselves. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1nxx3a | why is tradition considered a good thing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nxx3a/eli5_why_is_tradition_considered_a_good_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccn2iq5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A tradition is something that has been done repeatedly. If it hadn't been successful or pleasant, it probably wouldn't have continued. Therefore, it tends to be something that was successful or pleasant."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1v4nt7 | picture changes when expanded on twitter | Here's a tweet with a picture attatched:
_URL_0_
When viewed normally, it looks like a boy in his room laying on the floor. When you click on it, the image totally changes and suddenly there is a starry background. How on earth (or not in this case) does this work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v4nt7/eli5_picture_changes_when_expanded_on_twitter/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceonw2p"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Imagine a transparency overhead, those clear sheets that you write on and put on a projector. Now, imagine if you wrote on it with both a blue and red marker.\n\nIf you put the overhead on a red piece of paper, the red ink will blend into the background and you'll only see the red. Similarly, if you put it on a blue background, you'll only see the red as the blue disappears.\n\nThis is what is happening with this image. The room is in a transparent grey. The universe is slightly colored and white. Twitter displays the small image on white, and let's you see the room. When it displays the large version, it uses a black background, so the room disappears and the stars appear."
]
} | []
| [
"https://twitter.com/freddinator/status/422489071756541952"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
5kk0qx | most sounds seem to be made by objects bumping into each other, so why does tearing a piece of paper in half, make a sound? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kk0qx/eli5_most_sounds_seem_to_be_made_by_objects/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbogd3k",
"dboha3a"
],
"score": [
7,
8
],
"text": [
"Imagine Velcro, as you separate the two parts, it makes a sound. In this larger scale, you can easily understand that the sound is from the plastic snares rebounding after being stretched apart by the opposing fibers pulling away from them. Paper is nothing but overlapped fibers pressed flat, so when you're pulling it apart, the millions of overlapping fibers are stretching, snapping apart, and producing sound.",
" > most sounds seem to be made by objects bumping into each other\n\nWhere does this come from?\n\nSounds are made by objects vibrating. Banging them together can cause vibration, but plucking or rubbing or moving air can also cause sounds. Look in the orchestra; sure the drums are impacts, but what about the flutes, violins, and oboes?\n\nPaper has a grain, when you tear it the failure isn't uniform, each fiber fails independently, vibrating the paper."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
219djd | why don't they program metro trains instead of having someone drive them? | With most the [metro derailments](_URL_0_) caused by the train going too fast, wouldn't it be wise (and pretty simple) to program the trains to drive a certain route and what speeds to go in each part. If you do this you eliminate the risk of human error, and the need to pay people to drive the trains. Is it just unions keeping this from happening? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/219djd/eli5_why_dont_they_program_metro_trains_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgauq9a",
"cgaxj6q",
"cgaxtc3"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"[Many trains are automated](_URL_0_). However, it is reassuring to have a human mechanism in there, in case of failure. Until the rate of human failure can be demonstrated to cause more damage than purely automated systems, there will be a driver at the wheel doing less and less of the actual job.",
"In lots of places, the metro trains are programmed. From personal experience, I can tell you that this is the case in Rennes, France. It's also fairly common in airports, etc.\n\nIt's amazing sitting at the front of the train and going down the tracks just watching out the front. 1,40€ for a ride on the least exciting rollercoaster in the world, but you get to pretend to be a train driver.",
"There have been accidents involving driverless trains. [In the case of the Transrapid accident at Lathen, Germany](_URL_0_), the passengers could see disaster approaching, but there was no driver on board to attempt an emergency stop."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/03/24/chicago-subway-train-derails-comes-to-rest-on-station-escalator/"
]
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains"
],
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/23/germany.topstories3"
]
]
|
|
6jxjwn | if there is no law requiring citizens to pay federal taxes, why does almost everyone do it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jxjwn/eli5_if_there_is_no_law_requiring_citizens_to_pay/ | {
"a_id": [
"djhr2m8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"then don't, use that argument in court."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2v22cz | why hasn't chinese-language entertainment enjoyed a similar wave of popularity as entertainment from japan (anime, j-pop, games), and korea (dorama, k-pop)? | I'm from the United States and from time to time like listening to music from different parts of the world. I am aware that Japan has a very diverse music scene that ranges from upbeat, relatively accessible "J-Pop" bands to more avant-garde, noisy, and psychedelic acts like Merzbow and Boris. South Korea also seems to have a lot of popular acts (even if we are to ignore PSY/Gangnam Style) that Western audiences like listening to even if they don't understand anything. It seems that Chinese-language (by Chinese, I mean primarily Mandarin and Cantonese) music, and entertainment media in general, has never enjoyed the same amount of popularity, and I am wondering why that is.
The first thing that came to mind was that many it is because of China's restrictive government, but then I remembered that there are many, many speakers of Chinese languages who do not live in China, and there are places like Taiwan, Macau, and Hong Kong that are full of Chinese speakers and, if I am not mistaken, have governments not as restrictive as China. You would think that given the sheer number of Chinese speakers, not only in these countries but in Western places like the US, there would be at least a handful of Chinese-language bands or movie studios that would enjoy a great degree of popularity with Americans and other Westerners. I know that "Mandopop" does exist, and that there are people who enjoy kung fu movies, but I still feel that Japan and Korea have had more success exporting their media to the West than Chinese speakers/countries have. Does anyone have any insight/thoughts about this?
EDIT: Thanks for the responses, everyone. I'm marking this "explained" since I now have a significantly better understanding of the situation. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v22cz/eli5_why_hasnt_chineselanguage_entertainment/ | {
"a_id": [
"coduget",
"codurbn",
"codv0al",
"codw377",
"coe0n1g"
],
"score": [
7,
49,
2,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm American Taiwanese/Chinese, so I can talk about Taiwan. \n\nTaiwan produces a lot of t-pop, talk shows, and drama tv shows. Taiwan also does tv shows depicting Chinese historical or mythological dramas. These are very popular with the Taiwanese diaspora. They're also gaining/have a lot of popularity with mainland China. There have been some Korean re-makes of the dramas, in particular. \n\nThere is a lot of interchange between South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Japanese manga and anime are popular in Taiwan, as are Korean dramas, K-pop, and J-pop. A great example of this is Boys Over Flowers aka Meteor Garden. It started off as a Japanese manga/tv show, was made in to a hit tv drama in Taiwan, then was remade in South Korea recently. \n\nTaiwan has pretty developed music and tv industry, but it's a small place. The population is about 23 million. S.Korea's population is 51 million and Japan's population is 126 million. Taiwan just doesn't have the money and industry backing that the other two industries do. \n\nHong Kong has a pretty developed movie industry. China produces relatively little pop culture considering population, but it is growing. Not being an expert, I can speculate this is due to the government, but don't feel comfortable stating positively. ",
"Hong Kong Action movies anyone? Taiwan gets alot of respect in independent cinema for it's output of films.\n\nJapan have consistently failed to expand westward with the exception of Anime mainly because it has few competitors(non-kid oriented animation). Korean however likes to act as though it made it big in the west....\n\nK-pop, k-dramas, etc. is primarily popular among Asians world wide because the south korean entertainment industry is among the best in Asia while making a huge effort to expand abroad(they try harder). It is however not very popular in west(How many non-Asians know who G-Dragon, 2NE1, Drunken Tiger, etc. is?).\n\n\nIt's worth noting the Chinese market is strong enough to ignore the west based on sheer population. Likewise for bollywood....India's film industry gives no fucks that western critics dislike singing, mustaches, lack of sex, and cheesy love stories. \n\nEDIT: Karen Mok is the shit!\n",
"Korean entertainment is just a lot more accessible than Chinese media. Clips from korean tv shows (e.g. music shows, variety shows, talk shows) are regularly uploaded on youtube by broadcast channels. Korean entertainment agencies upload their music videos on youtube. There are websites out there dedicated to providing subtitled korean tv shows/dramas. There are a number of active fansubbing communities and websites that translate media. \n\nIn comparison, Chinese music videos are more easily found on chinese websites like Yinyuetai. While chinese tv shows can be found uploaded on youtube, they rarely come with subtitles. Even if someone were to be interested in the Chinese entertainment industry, it's a lot more difficult to delve into for this reason unless they understood the language. \n\nKorea also places a much greater emphasis on making their pop culture popular overseas (e.g. Hallyu)",
"I wrote about half of this before I read the full question and I didn't feel like deleting it. Sorry about that. (I've market the paragraphs that are getting in depth about censorship)\n\nI think there are a couple reasons that play a role to different degrees. But I do think it is pretty safe to say that it is largely the governments censorship polices fault but there are some cultural, taste, and developmental aspects to it as well. \n\nHong Kong cinema actually had a lot of popularity in the west in the 80's and 90's but as mainland China's economy has boomed it's ***because*** Hong Kong speak Chinese/ understand the culture that the hong kong film industry no longer tries so hard to court western viewers, because it's easier to grab greater marketshare in China for them. And because they are trying court Chinese viewers they have to play by the PRC rules. Many westerners and Chinese people, my American self and Chinese girlfriend included, believe that Hong Kong movies have gotten worse for it.\n\n(I wrote this paragraph before I fully read the question but I didn't want to delete it, it's all about censorship)\nNow let's get more into the nitty gritty of the heavy government censorship on content and a fair amount of self censorship to avoid upsetting the government. The censorship means that most things in entertainment are a little edgeless. And without that edge either sexy or critical and honest there is sort of a blandness to a lot of Chinese entertainment. An there are a lot of rules, one rule to illustrate the extant of the governments role in media is if you are a Chinese film maker who wants to submit your film for recognition in foreign awards, say the Academy Awards or Cannes, you have to get approval from the government to submit your film. I believe Vice also did a fun story recently about writing for a police drama set in Beijing, the catch being the government didn't want to present Beijing as having any crime so they had to figure out how to write a police show without crime, in my personal opinion I think it's a great format for a comedy but a comedy about Beijing police probably wouldn't get the green light (see I censored myself there).\n\n(I wrote this paragraph before I fully read the question but I didn't want to delete it, it's all about censorship)\nI know that I've talked about video media, but it also plays some role in music and what can be featured on the major music sharing websites, for example Gungnam style wouldn't have been able to been released by any major Chinese label or performed any large venues because the song is openly mocking the lifestyle of the wealthy (some one with better Korean can explain how). For an example help back up the previous statement, Elton John is not allowed back in the country to perform because he endorsed dissident Ai weiwei and after the 'incident' the government introduced new rules for foreign artists(they need proper college diploma among other things...) \n\n(I wrote this paragraph before I fully read the question but I didn't want to delete it, it's all about censorship)\nAnd it is important to note that the censorship mechanism isn't a checklist that is easily available with rules everyone is clear on. Sometimes the government agents will be more sensitive act more harshly say if they are trying to show off their good work before an expected promotion or if there is a change in leadership and they want everything to feel positive or if tensions are running high because some international incident. And because of the somewhat inconsistent approach to censorship it makes media production, which is already a risky investment, more risky. \n\n\nAnd here is a good time to bring up Korea as a contrast specifically. The Korean government decided about 30 or so years ago that entertainment would be one of the three pillars of the Korean economy and the government heavily invest in the entertainment industry. Japan doesn't have the same government support but because of the stability of Japan's media market and it's mature economy there is room for big entertainment business, which tends to be quite helpful in creating cultural exports. (I'll write about China's development in just a bit)\n\n(I wrote this paragraph before I fully read the question but I didn't want to delete it, it's all about censorship)\nNow this censorship has the more obvious direct affect that it cuts out value of the entertainment being produced here (American living in China) But it also has the effect that makes the entertainment industry look less appealing to go into. Because both the limitations of the work you can create and the limited ability to leverage fame as a platform to sway public opinion and influence people/make a difference. So in China there isn't a lot of talented people flocking to entertainment. I've held casting calls here before and so I am speaking from experience on that one. \n\nBut it isn't just the censorship the puts people off from getting into entertainment, and now I'll talk about how the culture and development play a role. The reason development plays a role is because as a developing country that has been growing at an incredible rate there have been many opportunities and jobs (this is starting to change as the economy slows down) and these are essentially low hanging fruit to live a comfortable life. In mature economies with fewer opportunities or more service sector work, making a career out of art and entertainment is relatively more attractive 'service' to provide. \n\n\nAnd as for the cultural aspect without going to deep into Chinese culture, the stereotype of Asian parents being tough on their kids to succeed, has some base in reality (it tends to be a bit exaggerated and their is a component of spoiling that is completely left out of the stereotype but I'll save the spiel about cultural generalizations for another time.) But the whole do well in school get a real job mentality exists and is fairly normal here but the one big difference between Chinese and American culture that I have to highlight is that parents tend to have a lot more sway with their kids and are empowered to make big decisions for them, such as what University they will attend who the cannot marry etc. Now this is a generality and there are many many Chinese people making their own decisions but compared to American families this is certainly a trend. So with the low hanging fruit of 'real' jobs and parents having more sway and pushing young Chinese into them they talent pool for an already truncated entertainment industry is a bit shallow.\n\n\nThe other big reason China doesn't export much entertainment is tastes. Chinese people tend to like slow ballads that they can sing along to here and although they are opening up getting into foreign pops and faster beats their music tends not to be that interesting musically, you have to understand the words to get the story and meaning. So for people who do not understand Chinese, Chinese music doesn't really do it for them. And their pop music due to light talent pool and only fairly recently opening up to modern international musics is still a bit in it's infant stage.\n\n\n\nAs for say the American Chinese, I am actually less knowledgeable as to why they are not producing entertainment in Chinese, but my guess is that it isn't actually a great language to sing in and if your courting an American audience English is a much better direction to go...\n\ntl;dr\nHK, Macau, Taiwan produce entertainment for China so they play by China's rules. \n\nKorean government invests in it's entertainment industry.\n\nChinese people like ballads, listen to their parents more and get 'real' jobs.\n\n",
"If You Are The One is becoming somewhat of a cult phenomenon here in Australia. Such a practical dating show. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
xj96i | how is warren buffet so rich? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xj96i/eli5_how_is_warren_buffet_so_rich/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5mu0rc"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"He has been very good at picking investments and doing so over the long term. He moves much more slowly than almost any other investor and that means his investments have much more safe because he does his homework and doesn't care about just the next quarter but the next few years."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
13g0vd | what is the difference between a defibrillator and the device used in the hospital to restart a heart. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13g0vd/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c73mjnt",
"c73n5tq"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't quite understand what you're getting at. As far as I'm aware, hospitals use defibrillators too (I'm not a doctor though!).\n\nJust a quick note though - defibrillators don't actually re-start hearts. Defibrillators are used to shock a heart that is beating abnormally (too fast, too slow, or incorrect sequence) back into a normal rhythm. Once a heart has stopped completely, there isn't a huge amount that can be done unfortunately.",
"They're both defibrilators, but the one you've probably seen around is an AED- automatic electronic defibrilator. This automates the process to allow non-doctors to be able to use them safely and effectively. They're not like the TV hospital drama ones where you hold the paddles against the patient's chest and say \"clear\"\" and press a button, then accidentally shock the attractive young female doctor who happened to be touching the metal gurney."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1k4dtw | if a chameleon dies, does it keep it's current color, and why? | Let's say it blends in with a tree and it dies spontaniously. Will it change back (to green?) or will it just stay the way it is?
Edit:
I wasn't really sure if I'd understand answers from /r/askscience, so I chose to post here, hope you don't mind.
Although there were a lot of different answers, I could make up my mind about it and I thank you all for commenting!
PS: I apologize to anyone who misread the title and thought of a dead pokémon, have a nice day. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k4dtw/eli5_if_a_chameleon_dies_does_it_keep_its_current/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbl8sm6",
"cbl9n2z",
"cblbimm",
"cblckkj",
"cblcnjb",
"cblczqo",
"cbld27p",
"cbld2r2",
"cble3b2",
"cblhj0a",
"cbljd3b",
"cblk4d0",
"cbuoga4"
],
"score": [
1267,
149,
72,
11,
14,
12,
6,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Chameleons change their skin color using neural impulses. It's convenient to think of a chameleon changing its color to lifting your arm above your head.\n\nWhen a person dies, that lifted arm will fall to their side as the neural signals telling those muscles to lift that arm up turn off. When a chameleon dies, it stops sending those signals, and turns to its natural color, which, for most species, is a dark brown or black.\n\nEdit: Fun Fact- chameleons don't actually change colors based on their surroundings (for the most part). They change colors to impress potential mates and for communication. They also change colors to blend in, but this is a secondary use of their coloring.",
"Chameleons unfortunately mask illness until its basically too late to help them. Regardless of whatever colors they typically exhibit they have a special kind of ashy greyish color with black markings when they are near death. That's the color they will be when they die. \n\nI'm no expert, but I've kept chameleons for the past 16 years.",
"Chameleons actually don't change color to match their surroundings. It's more a representation of how they feel. Like, we blush when we're embarrassed. That's the easiest way to explain it. \n\nMoving on, I actually had a juvenile panther chameleon die recently and when it was near death it was nearly solid black (an expression of stress). When it died it returned to its normal light grey with red and blue accents. So, it's 'normal' coloring is what shows upon death b/c it's no longer expressing anything. Cuz dead. \n\nSo, if a chameleon's normal coloring was green (like a veiled chameleon) it would turn green upon death. ",
"I had a pet carpet chameleon several years ago who died of old age. While it normally expressed very vibrant green with yellow stripes, or deep brown with white stripes and spots on cooler mornings, in death the animal took on a very sickly shade of yellow. ",
"When my Jackson died, he for one, shot out his tongue, once that happened he passed. His body began to turn into a somewhat dark brown color, that soon covered his entire body. After a few hours the brown on his body began to turn into a dull green, and that is how it stayed.",
"Not ever having owned one of these creatures I have a question for owners. When it's sleeping does it have a sleeping color? Tell us about that? ",
"just before a chameleon dies it goes black, then back to its neutral colour (in the case of the Common chameleon, pale green, dwarf chameleon, light brown etc.) I have seen this many times irl",
"My first pet was a carpet chameleon. I was about 6 when he died. My family had gone on vacation and my grandma was supposed to watch over my chameleon while we were gone. When we got back I looked EVERYWHERE for him. Finally, I heard my dad yell out from the garage \"holy_monkeys\" come out here. In our garage freezer was my beloved pet. Turned ice cold blue and frozen in walking position. It was sad. \n\nTL;DR:My first pet was a carpet chameleon. Died while grandma was watching him, so she stuck him in the freezer. TURNED BLUE. ",
"I thought the title said ChaRmeleon. Even read it a handful of times.... Pretty disappointed ",
"They turn grey, once dead. The sun helps with throwing color pigments. .. Don't believe everything on tv. ",
"[How Do Chameleons Change Their Color?](_URL_0_) A short animation by me (2:30)",
"My veiled chameleon (which is normally a lime green in colour with yellow stripes) turned predominantly yellow with black stripes and brown spots when he died. Same with the female we had.",
"I saw an Animal Planet show *Off the Hook: Extreme Catches* where in one episode they were hand catching small octopus for a luau. After catching it they basically bite the brain to kill them. You could see very clearly when he bit the brain the octopus almost instantly changed to a dull gray/white color. I'm guessing it would work similarly with chameleons.\n\n Mostly just replying ti share the video for an example.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/LkJO9yatdRk"
],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/W88Gu9fPYfo?t=1m9s"
]
]
|
|
6x1v13 | why floyd mayweather made so much more money than conor mcgregor in their fight. $100 mil vs $30 mil. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6x1v13/eli5_why_floyd_mayweather_made_so_much_more_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmcfctk",
"dmcfd5l",
"dmcggs1"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Payoffs are agreed upon by both sides prior to the fight. Mayweather is *the* prominent figure in boxing at the moment, so to get him to even consider this fight, they had to pay him a lot of money. ",
"Floyd is a professional boxer and arguably the greatest of all time. McGregor was an amateur boxer having his first professional fight. Floyd comes from boxing which has a MASSIVE fan base whereas McGregor is coming from MMA/UFC with a much smaller fan base. Floyd is a much bigger draw than McGregor and it's a status symbol for him to say he fought Floyd but the reverse isn't true. Due to Floyd status and draw ability he garnered the higher purse. Note the numbers you quoted were only the fight purse and not including each fights % of the PPV revenue Floyd would have made closer to $250M and McGregor $100M",
"price is a function of supply and demand\n\nmore people would pay to see floyd fight than they would with connor. the demand to see floyd is higher, therefore his price to get him to fight is higher than it is for connor."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3c8htf | why do sites need a credit card for a free trial? | Why can't we just enter our payment info at the end of a trial? Is it just because companies hope we forget and they can charge our cards anyway? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c8htf/eli5_why_do_sites_need_a_credit_card_for_a_free/ | {
"a_id": [
"cst70ix",
"cst70iy",
"cst7dxo",
"cst7pct",
"cstanss"
],
"score": [
13,
9,
7,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Hoping you forget is part of it.\n\nHaving a credit card on file is also sometimes used as age-verification for sites that might need that kind of thing.",
"So that they can start charging you after the free trial is over, and hope that you forget to cancel before that. Also, so they aren't getting bots signing up for the website.",
"The rationale is:\n\n\n* If you've gone to the effort of putting in your card details you are less likely to cancel at the end of the free trial period.\n\n\n* Conversely, if you have to provide your credit card details *after* the end of a free trial then you'd be less likely to take up the product.\n\n ",
"It stops abuse of the free trial, nothing about hoping people will forget. If all you need is an email address to sign up for something, then after 30 days you just make a new email address and start the free trial over again. By requiring a credit card, you still get your free trial but you can't start a second free trial because you need a second card. Well you can but credit cards are limited where email address are not.",
"There is a difference between need and want. They *Want* a credit card for a few reasons, \n\n & nbsp;\n\n* accrued charges outside of the trial\n\n* verifying age, usually for liability\n\n* verifying identity for various purposes\n\n* limit use of the trial"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
50ta1f | how do rape kit nurses and doctors, or medical examiners distinguish between rape and rough sex? | Also, blood and menstruation. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50ta1f/eli5_how_do_rape_kit_nurses_and_doctors_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"d77ahid"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Menstrual blood isn't just pure blood as you'd find in an artery. It's much messier and kind of like snot with little clumps and clots... Ah I hope you don't have a weak stomach! Because of this mucus and endometrial tissue any lab or rape kit could differentiate them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3rlzgk | is it correct, environmentally and ethically to throw an apple core(or something similar) into bushes or trees and claim that it will decompose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rlzgk/eli5_is_it_correct_environmentally_and_ethically/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwp8e92"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It will decompose - eventually. But it takes some time, and attracts bugs/smells in the meantime, so this is the sort of thing one should do only away from civilization."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8grlla | why do cars in a funeral procession have their hazard lights on? is it a tradition or due to a law made specifically for funeral processions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8grlla/eli5_why_do_cars_in_a_funeral_procession_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dye09yi",
"dye0cqv"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"For safety. It identifies the cars that will be disobeying some traffic laws, like going through red lights ",
"Al least where I am from funeral processions are not expected to be broken up by stopping at red lights or stop signs. If everyone has their hazard lights on they are marking themselves as being a part of the procession so other drivers know that they will be ignoring stops."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
49uh9q | how does laser printing characters on keyboards work? (gif included below) | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49uh9q/eli5how_does_laser_printing_characters_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0uxwak",
"d0uxwwf"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing you are not asking about how lasers work That's a quick youtube trip. The laser has a mirror rig attached to servos, the new board is rotated in, the industrial laser runs a program that tells the mirror and shutter work together to fly across the keyboard. The laser is burning the plastic and leaves a discolored mark in the shape of the letter. Different plastics have different characteristics this one is white when marked, a different plastic might be lighter and go darker when lasered. Like with most Automation, everything has to be Just right. Keyboard mis aligned and the laser will put the marks in the wrong place, the focal length and working area have to be just so too. Too much in any direction yields fuzzy letters. The composition of the plastic also needs to be with in tolerance otherwise it won't mark or will melt or catch on fire when lasered. The magic part, \"How did they get the laser to do that?\" part is a CAD like program for that specific laser. You load it up make a design, save it out to the laser, do some trial and error to get it perfect, now it's in production.",
"Basically the plastics absorbs laser light. With a black keyboard carbon is added to the the plastic. The carbon absorbs the laser and gets hot which causes the plastic to bubble (sometimes called \"frothing\"). This makes it lighter grey and slightly raised."
]
} | []
| [
"http://i.imgur.com/goLoYFh.gifv"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
aezezt | why is the wilhelm scream always funny? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aezezt/eli5_why_is_the_wilhelm_scream_always_funny/ | {
"a_id": [
"edu4da7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is quite subjective, and for people who are not acutely aware of the Wilhelm scream will not notice it in the same way. But if you are keyed in on listening for it, it may be amusing for yourself."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
dqvfok | when referring to hashes in cryptography- what are they and why are they irreversible? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dqvfok/eli5_when_referring_to_hashes_in_cryptography/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6a96wo",
"f6e9c8m"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A hash is a unique way to take some plaintext and reduce it down to a unique, (typically) much smaller value. Kind of like running meat through a grinder. \n \nAlthough the resulting hash is unique (actually, *nearly* unique) to that particular plaintext, a great deal of information is lost in the process. You simply can't recover what isn't there. Kind of like trying to re-create a steak from the ground meat. \n \nThe only way to do it would be to take *every possible* plaintext and run it through the same hash function and see if the result matches. That offers some practical difficulties, to say the least.",
"They are irreversible in the sense more than one value can make to the same hash value. A simple hash function might be \"divide by 9 and take the remainder\", a technique commonly used for checksums. If I told you the hash was 4, you'd have no idea whether the original number was 13 or 76 or 538,099,475.\n\nAlso, the hashing algorithm is designed in such a way it is mathematically difficult to start with a hash and find a number that maps to it. Division takes more work than multiplication, taking a root takes more work than raising a number to power, despite those being inverse operations. A good hashing algorithm takes advantage of similar asymmetries.\n\nFinally, practically speaking, hashes **are** reversible. It is really hard, as per the second reason. The first reason often doesn't hold because you can often make reasonable guesses what the original value looked like. There might be an infinite number of values that map to a given hash, but if you can assume that value is 12 or fewer alphanumeric characters with punctuation, there very well might only be one match."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
65016c | why do we blur someone's eyes on pictures/videos to keep them anonymous but can wear full-face ski masks with a cutout for eyes to hide our identities in person? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65016c/eli5why_do_we_blur_someones_eyes_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg6bm6t",
"dg6bquq"
],
"score": [
10,
12
],
"text": [
"It's because defining features are formed by both the face and the eyes. So block one and identification is much harder.",
"people who wear ski masks are trying to hide hide their identity in real life. you can't blur eyes in real life and you need your eyes to see so you can't cover them. eg, robbing a bank. how's a bank robber going to blur to hide their identity from people? \n\nwhen eyes are blurred in pics and video, the identity is being hidden for the viewers. it's a lot easier to throw a blur over the eyes than it is to put some sort of filter to cover a face. not to mention is more aesthetically appealing to view that on tv or computer. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1di5qb | what the point of a sworn testimony is? | Surely if something such as that actually works they could just ask the defendant in question if they did the act in question. I have no idea about law, and I'm fairly confused about this. Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1di5qb/eli5_what_the_point_of_a_sworn_testimony_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9qj3zx",
"c9qj689"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"A sworn statement means that there are criminal penalties for deliberately lying. That's perjury. Asking if they did it wouldn't work, as that would be the same thing as pleading guilty. Better to just lie and accept a small chance of a perjury conviction later on.\n\nOf course, most defendants never testify at all.",
"Sworn testimony allows for penalties if the deception is discovered. It cannot stop someone from lying but if it is found out they can be charged with perjury, etc. This (in theory) means that someone will need to have a very strong motive to lie under oath if they are otherwise not guilty of a crime."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1haltu | why, if i don't believe in the paranormal, do i get spooked after a scary story/am alone in the dark? | I do not believe in ghosts, demons, or any sort of supernatural entities. I find all claims of experiencing these things to be ridiculous and irrational. Why am I still so terrified when I'm alone by myself in the dark, or in a creepy situation? Why do I run up the stairs as fast as I can at night so whatever demon behind me can't catch me? Why do I lay awake at night after watching a good scary movie, afraid to look into my closet? Am I just a pussy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1haltu/eli5_why_if_i_dont_believe_in_the_paranormal_do_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"casjdti",
"caspvxt"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Keep in mind. Evolution hasn't \"trained\" us to do anything. Evolution cannot \"train\", it only \"selects\"\n\nTo keep it simple and based in what we know. We can't see in the dark. We're scared of ANYTHING we can't see. The brain functions very well in creating explanations for things we don't understand (it doesn't do well with \"being content in not knowing\" - see optical illusions).\n\nSince one of our more basic instincts is fear (based on a little almond shaped organ in the brain - the amygdala) we default to that when we do not know something (as seen in other race effect and many other psychological phenomena).\n\n",
"I totally support the Evolution theory. Also there's one thing you should know about our brain. For example, When someone says \"Don't picture an elephant wearing pink shoes\", we normally picture it instantly. Similarly, when you are in darkness you'd want to think there's nothing around but your mind keeps telling you there's some element of your imagination that you fear lurking in the unknown darkness. It paints the unknown with your rational or irrational fears. Hence \"Spooky\"\n\nOr simply what is there in the dark is still unknown...and what is unknown is most definitely scary cause your imagination is ten folds better"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
26fha3 | why is that teachers need years of college to teach kids, while parents don't really need any higher education to home school? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26fha3/eli5_why_is_that_teachers_need_years_of_college/ | {
"a_id": [
"chqjvw4",
"chqkdcw",
"chql51v",
"chqlhe3",
"chqljbg",
"chqln55",
"chqluab",
"chqm16y",
"chqm1mv",
"chqmgqe",
"chqmouj",
"chqmpv3",
"chqmt4w",
"chqmxq5",
"chqn02o",
"chqnatg",
"chqnn9e",
"chqo5gv",
"chqo7pw",
"chqodid",
"chqoitj",
"chqornc",
"chqp33d"
],
"score": [
77,
7,
5,
4,
10,
6,
2,
53,
4,
3,
156,
4,
10,
3,
2,
8,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I am actually pretty comfortable with elementary level academics, and have no problem with homeschooling the basics. However, my kids are getting into stuff that I can't easily recall, or correct without a cheat sheet, and I am glad that one is returning to public school (7th grade) and the other two are involved in a homeschool system that provides teacher supervised courses. The younger of the two staying in homeschool is mostly taking courses through the school - instead of Mon-Fri like traditional school, she will be attending Tues-Thurs, and probably have a pretty hefty homework load. The other kid staying in homeschool is attending the local community college for most of her classes, and raises and shows sheep for the local FFA. Again, I don't have the obligation to supervise or correct her coursework.\n\nI firmly believe that if your child is taking coursework that you are not familiar with, you should not homeschool your kids. We should develop more school options where children can take challenging coursework, and not just get lots in the system as a number. I also believe that you can't really teach a child (or young adult) a subject that you have to learn out of the teacher's manual as you are attempting to teach it...",
"Isn't this one pretty obvious?\n\nI mean, if you know the stuff, you know the stuff. Like the others have said, if you've passed courses with flying colors then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to teach it to someone else if you've properly retained it or are willing to brush up on it before teaching it to your kids. \n\nTeaching your own child is a lot easier than teaching 30 of someone else's children all at once. Is being a teacher about knowing the stuff or knowing how to teach it according to an accepted standard to a classroom full of kids?\n\nHonestly, taking proper care and attention to your kids through homeschooling whilst making sure they socialize sounds like the ideal here. That much one to one support from someone when there's a two-way understanding must be better than sitting in a class of thirty and idly absorbing some information.\n\nI don't know about you, but I attribute about 5% of what I learnt from class, its just not nearly as helpful as sitting down and getting to work on something - I have always been able to take a topic that a teacher would take a week or more to get through and teach myself it in a couple of hours.\n\nTeaching degrees aren't about knowing what gets taught in school - that's why you need to know that stuff before you do the degree, and why we don't have eight year olds with teaching degrees. They are about managing students and catering to them properly. When its just your kid, this comes a lot more naturally.\n\nReally, homeschooling is the way forward. By the end of my high school education I took myself out of class completely and just learnt at home. Individual learning will always be more productive as it is suited to the individual - and that's exactly what homeschooling is (or should be if its done properly, in most cases its clearly not). Its a shame that more people aren't well off enough to have a parent stay home and devote time to home schooling.",
"ITT people are scared that home-schooled kids are actually [well-prepared for college and tend to be even better socialized](_URL_0_), on average. This shatters the notion of the supremacy of centralized education. What I think it truly does though, it reinforces that parental involvement in a child's education is key, and that the state cannot be a substitute for good parenting. Public school students with high parental involvement do better, private school students too. So even if every child in America were forced into a public system, those with better parents would do better. Not really surprising. Parents are the keys to children's success.",
"Imagine you own a farm. And your kids are one day going to inherit said farm. And they will supposedly work it until your grandkids inherit it.\n\nLet me ask you this, how many classes about farming did you take during your primary and secondary education? 0? You're in the norm. \n\nThe law is antiquated, from a time where 40-ish% of the population farmed. And as a result, spending time with dad to learn the trade was the most effective way to be educated for your career. \n\nNowadays that applies to a very very small minority of the population, though they still exist (The Amish are a prime example, modern farmers too). Laws just aren't that easy to be un-made, at least not here in the USA. \n\nI agree it's irresponsible, and short sighted, and probably not good for our country, or the future of the world in general. The real issue here is whether or not a law should be un-made, or how difficult it should be to un-make laws. It's kinda a whole seperate issue, but I hope I've at least shed a little light on your specific item. ",
"Good question. Perhaps because as a teacher you are a stranger who needs to continually convince roughly 25 sets of parents to trust you with their child's education.",
"It's a sort of legal disclaimer. You can never say that the teacher the school hired was not educated enough to teach your kids.\n\nBasically, you can't sue yourself for fucking up your kids education.",
"Parents aren't legally accountable for what they teach. \n\nPublic schools have to answer to the state and private schools have to answer to their board. \n\nBut you still should be knowledgeable in whatever you're teaching. ",
"One of the main reasons is that a lot of what licensed teachers learn in their classes isn't applicable to home schooling. Here's a brief list of things that a public school teacher *really* needs to learn how to do that a home schooling parent almost certainly does not:\n\n* Manage 30 kids at a time for 8 hours at a stretch.\n* Deal with widely disparate ability and achievement levels in the same classroom.\n* Interact with parents.\n* Navigate the labyrinth that is public education unions.\n* Comply with regulations about supervision ratios.\n* Identify and report child abuse.\n* Understand and implement any number of IEPs (individualized education plans) for students that probably should be in some kind of remedial class but aren't for whatever reason.\n* Deal with an entirely new batch of kids every year.\n* Teach a curriculum that is handed to you and from which you are not really permitted to deviate no matter how brain-dead or inappropriate it turns out to be.\n* Coordinating 30 kids to be all more-or-less prepared for the same standardized test at the same time.\n\nThose are all really hard! A teacher in a traditional school that doesn't know how to do them will likely wind up being a very poor teacher and ultimately not last long, as those are *essential* skills for the classroom environment. \n\nAnd they have almost zero to do with *education*. They're bureaucracy and crowd control. After all, the education degree is not actually about conferring information which one then passes on to students. A person with a BA in Education and a teaching certificate has the basic qualifications to teach in almost any public school classroom. But a person with a Ph.D. in a subject that does not have a teaching certification would never be permitted to teach. \n\nAny adult who has gone to college--and many who haven't--is competent to teach pretty much every subject through at *least* the fifth or sixth grade to one or two kids at a time. Which is all home schooling parents have to do. Even if you've got seven kids, odds are very good that no more than one or two of them will be doing the same thing at any given time. And since there aren't 30 kids all in the same room, they're far less likely to fly off the handle or get into trouble. I'd even argue that an expert in their field *should* be considered qualified to teach that subject to anyone. But public education is so overloaded with bureaucracy--and union rules--that people like you seem to think that an education degree is an absolute requirement to actually educate children.\n\nIt isn't. Indeed, the degree didn't even *exist* 200 years ago.",
"Because a system where there is no free opt-out of a state provided education infringes on personal freedom. ",
"Some of the smartest individuals I have ever met were home schooled for a portion of their lives. I never understood how until I became an adult and started having kids. There are a lot of distractions in public schools and even though the teachers are well qualified there is only so much they can do when they have 30+ students in their class. The people I knew who were home schooled had an uncanny ability to concentrate and not be distracted when working on a problem.",
"The same reason I can do repairs to my car anytime and in any way I want, but if I want to be a mechanic I have to get a certification and follow safety guidelines. ",
"First Reddit comment!\n\nEasy question to answer. Because they learn by themselves. all kids need is love and the opportunity to explore their world. Parents can easily provide both. Teachers need training to learn to teach and provide support to the large numbers of kids they get dumped with! \n\nTeachers work very hard in the restraints society have given them and deserve our respect! They are the number one profession that has more direct influence on our future and should be treated as such. They should be trained and paid much better than they are!\n\nPublic school systems aren't well equips and designed to teach children well and instead stifle creativity. Standardised education is not the best way to educate. If you haven't yet watched the most popular TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson I highly recommend that is your next step of discovery on this topic if you truly care about our children's futures.\n\nPS there can be bad parent teachers and bad school teachers as well as the opposite being true. ",
"Parents are the primary educators of their children. The education of a child in all aspects primarily falls to the parent. I was not home schooled, but some of my friends and people I know were. Some of them were Christian, some of them were not. Some of them home schooled because work meant that they were constantly travelling. Some of my Christian friends intend on home schooling. Some of my Atheist friends intend on home schooling. That is their right, their children are their own not mine. Why the hell do I want to interfere in someone else's life?\n\n-Now to be honest my home schooled friends have done just as well or just as badly as my other schooled friends. Well to be honest proportionally the home schooled friends have probably \"done better\". But I personally don't really care for it and I would send my children to a decent school.\n\nOn a side note: My grandfather was a teacher and then a headmaster of a government high school and a primary school (he was the youngest one in the State). He was sent to a large town with 1000+ students and consequently my father started high school there. My grandfather then sent him to a boarding school in the city. Lets just say that the local townspeople weren't happy. My grandfather did not feel that the school which he was in charge of was good enough.\n\n**tl;dr Your kids Your Life**",
"Same reason you don't need to go to college to become a parent. Teaching other people's children in a school setting is a lot harder than teaching your own children the same thing at home. There's also a lot more liability if you do something wrong.",
"I love how not having any higher education makes one \"not really educated\".\n\nHow did society *function* before STEM majors were offered?",
"Why do we let people fix their own plumbing but require licensing for professional plumbers? Why do we let people drive their own kids but require a commercial driver's license for bus drivers?\n\nThere's a big difference between doing something with your kids, whom you know and are responsible for, and being trusted to be paid money to do it with someone else's kids.\n\nEdit: Thanks for my first gold!",
"This is exactly the reason I still struggle with my times tables. I was supposed to learn them in third grade but that's the year my mom decided to homeschool. ",
"We home-school because our local public school is failing and we can't afford private school. We are not religious, and yes that is what everyone always assumes. ",
"I was home schooled until 8th grade due to a lethal peanut allergy. If there were two things I learned in my time being home schooled it was to love learning because I wasn't forced to do it, and to learn for application rather than regurgitation. If there's anything I got out of my public school experience (I'm in college now) it's that being wrong is the worst sin a person can commit. It took me a little while to get used to the fact that I was penalized for being incorrect and that there was only one \"correct\" in most cases (I'm looking at you specifically, English class). There's nothing wrong with being wrong if you're not too self centered to admit it, learn from it and move on, which is what real learning is. Public schools in my experience never fostered this learning process, just the \"spit out some facts at me then who cares about them\" kind of learning. There's a good Calvin and Hobbs about this that I'd pull if I wasn't on mobile. ",
"Because saying the words:\n\n*\"As a mother...\"*\n\nAutomagically makes you an expert in any field.",
"Because you don't need any training to pass on your religious cookery to your children. ",
"My kids are now 25 and 23. I homeschooled because my youngest is disabled and I was appalled at the school's early intervention program's attitude towards her. They TOLD me that they would, \"manage her.\" Yes, she had significant problems, but she was also bright in many ways and I was unwilling to settle for her being warehoused. So I sent my oldest (K) to kindergarten and began teaching my youngest (C) myself. K excelled at school but wanted to be with her sister and me so I began teaching her the next year as well. \n\nIn a classroom of 25+ kids a teacher MUST be a manager. They can not allow kids to learn as THEY need to because 25 different learning styles would equal chaos in a classroom. I COULD allow C to learn as she needed to. C was very tactile, so math was taught with cubes as well as print. I had always read to my kids, I used a book called Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons. We did state testing each year and my girls scored MANY grade levels above their age.\n\nI sought out activities for them. We were in an eclectic HS group. I am a white Christian, but I did not want my kids thinking that was the only *correct* group, so I made sure our friends included people of many races, nationalities, religions and family dynamics. I did not want my kids to grow up thinking whites were better, or heterosexuals were better, etc. I taught my children LOVE and RESPECT by BEING loving and respectful. \n\nBiology was learned on the farm. You can't buy a better sex ed curriculum than watching the lifecycle of plants and animals in real time. When my life situation changed and I was forced to work full time off the farm, my kids started public school at grade level, 7 and 9. K was involved in many clubs/activities. She graduated with honors, became an EMT/Firefighter and then a paramedic. She is happy, healthy and well adjusted... and was homeschooled to high school. She has told me that she wishes she would have continued to homeschool instead of going to High School, but understands why it was needed and respects that.\n\nC was in special classes for her disabilities, but was adored by the staff. She was never bullied in our homeschool groups, but was bullied mercilessly in school. Not within her class, but in the halls, busses and lunchrooms. Despite that, she graduated, reads at a post college level, and is able to care for her basic physical needs. \n\nAll this from an unqualified, non-degreed teacher :) I knew a few parents over the years that I believed did not provide an adequate education for their kids, and homeschooling was more an excuse to do nothing than a choice made with the best interest of their child in mind. But I saw that many times with people that had their kids in traditional school as well. The vast majority of homeschoolers I knew truly invested their time, energy and money in their kids. The kids in general were well educated, well socialized kids that have grown into productive adults. I honestly believe, though I have no proof, that on average adults that were homeschooled are doing as well as, or better than, their public schooled peers.\n\nBTW, I learned with my kids. I went to college also, and am now a college graduate working in healthcare.",
"Isn't it basically because parents should have the right to raise their children how they see fit? (Barring the breaking of obvious laws). The state should not interfere in the family unless absolutely necessary."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/homeschooled-students-wel_n_1562425.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5mjbbf | how do we connect a prosthetic limb so that it can "feel"? | And on top of that, how can we connect the brain to the limb allowing for our brain to control said limb? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mjbbf/eli5_how_do_we_connect_a_prosthetic_limb_so_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc42qz7",
"dc42wkw"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't need to. If the brain interprets that limb as our own, it will go on to fabricate sensations based on other sensory input. [Watch this](_URL_0_).\n\n > And on top of that, how can we connect the brain to the limb allowing for our brain to control said limb?\n\nCybernetics. Stick wires into the brain. Learn the rest through practice.",
"(NOTE: I'm an engineering student, not a scientist or a doctor. The following is my best guess. I know it's against the rules but I can't resist).\n\nThe transmission of information through nerves is a process that can be detected - by EEG, for example. The problem is that it's not strictly binary, strictly digital or strictly synchronous - the same signal coming 0.003 seconds later could mean an entirely different thing.\n\nBy observing the patterns in neural activity, scientists have achieved a pretty close approximation of which group of signals means what. As far as I know, it's far from a natural limb, but hey, at least it's a limb.\n\nAs for the feeling part, I haven't heard of a prosthetic limb that can replace touch. The problem is that neural cells are extremely touchy. \n\nThat's all I know. Hope that it explains it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk"
],
[]
]
|
|
ufvp9 | differences in health care | Differences in Americas current health care system, Obamacare, and the single payer system | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ufvp9/eli5_differences_in_health_care/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4v1152"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Current system: You may or may not have any source of payment for your health care, depending on a)whether you have a job that provides health insurance, b) whether you can afford it, c)whether you have a pre-existing condition, d) your age, e) the phase of the moon. (just kidding about the last one, but it's almost that random). If you're very poor, you can get Medicaid (gov't paid health care), but only if you're under 18, over 65, or totally disabled. \n\nObamacare: Everyone has insurance, either through work or through an individual plan. Insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. People with income below about $45,000 annually get help paying for their insurance premiums. Everyone (with some exclusions based on immigration status) who is very poor gets Medicaid at no cost. \n\nSingle payer: Doctors and hospitals are still private, but instead of a whole bunch of different insurance companies collecting premiums and paying the bills, the federal government collects any premiums and pays all the bills. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2kqy3i | why am i able to more or less chug whiskey after a long day of work but shudder and gag with every sip if i've been relaxing all day. | Is it simply my brain saying "Yo i gotta get faded NOW" or is there something more complex going on with my physiology. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kqy3i/eli5_why_am_i_able_to_more_or_less_chug_whiskey/ | {
"a_id": [
"clnvwmg"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"after a hard day, your body is filled with an excess of fukitahl. it's a chemical that builds up as we deal with the shit in our daily lives. whiskey has been shown to lower levels of fukitahl. however, be warned. if your levels of fukitahl drop too low extreme, dangerous, or antisocial behavior could occur. this behavior may range from embarrassing to deadly. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2rfby3 | . how can russia make way cheaper rocket engines than the us? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rfby3/eli5_how_can_russia_make_way_cheaper_rocket/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnfbnzq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In the US most military equipment is made by contractors. This means that the gov says \"hey, we need ABC and XYZ\" and a bunch of companies bid on it: \"I can do it for 5 million\" \"oh yeah, we'll do it for 3 million\" etc. It usually goes to the lowest bidder.\n\nThe problem is that these companies all know that there's a certain line they don't want to cross. They can't pay their own employees AND still turn a profit if they dip below a certain cost. Not only that, but often times the contracts are given to companies despite having a higher bid than everyone else. This is usually because some senator knows some CEO, kickbacks, and all those other shenanigans.\n\nIn russia, it's a bit different. Lots of their military equipment is made by the government (or the military, rather) instead of contractors. When it is given to contractors, the government sets the price and the contractors can take it or leave it. Furthermore, they're often paying their employees less than we pay ours.\n\nThere are other factors like the price and quality of building materials, but for the most part it has to do with our screwy system of bidding and back-room deals."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3n23dx | why are tropical countries largely underdeveloped? | The only tropical country I can think of that is developed would be Singapore which only occurred recently. Hong Kong is technically subtropical. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n23dx/eli5_why_are_tropical_countries_largely/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvk58m5",
"cvk5jcr"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Mixture of luck, natural resources and a snowballing effect of gaining momentum after making discoveries. \n\nDon't for one second think that the Middle East and Arabic countries weren't the centre of learning for many years. Pre Industrial Revolution and even during, life was pretty poor everywhere. It's easy to think as though the West has always been way ahead. This has only been true for 300 years max. ",
"Tropical areas tend to be easier to cultivate and thus demand less external resources. They aren't spurned on to conquer other lands, and innovation isn't encouraged by necessity.\n\nAll this together means, come the globalization era, they were colonized by militant and scientifically minded nations who saw their major draws as agriculture and then tourism, neither of which requires large-scale infrastructure like manufacturing or information technology."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.