q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
301
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 3
values | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
vhf8y
|
Is there any scientific truth to the idea that you shouldn't sit too close to the TV?
|
I was told when I was a child that I shouldn't sit too close to the TV, because it will damage my vision and hearing. Is there any truth to this?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vhf8y/is_there_any_scientific_truth_to_the_idea_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c54ikc6",
"c54j1r9",
"c54mmbh",
"c54mmml"
],
"score": [
23,
19,
20,
4
],
"text": [
"No. However focusing on one spot for a long period of time can cause eyestrain, however that is only temporary.\n\nYou may find this interesting.\n_URL_0_",
"As others have already said, focusing on one spot for a long period of time can cause [eyestrain](_URL_0_), but this condition is usually temporary so this wouldn't necessarily damage your vision. \n\nHowever, in the early days of television, it was possible for EM radiation (other than visible light) to exit the [cathode ray tube](_URL_1_) behind the screen that was producing the image. This radiation can cause eye damage at close range, and was the reason early adopters of television were warned to not sit too close to the television. However, since the early 1970s, the FDA has monitored television radiation, and the dangers of sitting too close to televisions has been lowered. ",
"Yes, and modern flat screen LCD and plasma TVs are much more dangerous that older ones.\n\nTheir higher centre of gravity and narrower base means that they can, [and sometimes do](_URL_0_), fall on children sitting too close.",
"Children sit close to the TV so that they can see it better, especially if they are having trouble seeing it from far away. If a child has to sit too close to a screen to see it clearly, that is a sign that they may need corrective lenses. As a result of this, a reverse correlation was made that they now need glasses because they were initially sitting too close to the TV. \n\nI worked for an optometrist for 4 years, and this urban legend was one of her pet peeves."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/tv-bad-for-eyes.htm"
],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/eyestrain/DS01084",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube"
],
[
"http://www.google.hr/#q=flat+screen+tv+falling+on+children&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=6ijmT52cDI67hAe71bHHCQ&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=9085bf463cf339eb&biw=1680&bih=933"
],
[]
] |
|
2n2x4s
|
how is it that a vehicle can be good at towing but shit at carrying heavy loads?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n2x4s/eli5_how_is_it_that_a_vehicle_can_be_good_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm9t7kp",
"cm9twx2",
"cmanqme"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A vehicle can have a strong engine, trans and drive train to pull a heavy tow.\n\nIt needs a strong suspension system to carry a heavy load.\n\n",
"Because the trailers wheels take the brunt of the load weight. Imagine having a load spread across dozens of axles and tires. Much easier to pull. Put that load over a single axle it puts a lot of strain on the only load moving axle. It has to hold the weight up as well as move the vehicle forward. ",
"Try pulling something somewhat heavy. Now try carrying it. Get it?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
z7wal
|
What is the chemical reaction that occurs when you put ice cream into soft drink?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z7wal/what_is_the_chemical_reaction_that_occurs_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c628ce5"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"No chemical reaction... the fat and sugars from the ice cream increases the surface tension on the bubbles, which means they don't burst. You see a bunch of bubbles because you've just introduced something with a bunch of nucleation sites. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ivwrw
|
Besieging castles (pre cannons)
|
1. How long was an average siege
2. How long did it take trebuchets, catapults and ballistae to penetrate a section of wall.
3. If a castle didn't have a moat and undermining was a prospect, how far could sappers dig per day, how close to the wall would they start the project.
4. How many men could adequately defend a castle to make assaulting an unlikely consideration for the attackers. Probably more a ratio of defenders to attackers question.
5. What sort of defenses did the besieged have against such things as siege towers, battering rams, trebuchets and the like.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ivwrw/besieging_castles_pre_cannons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb8mfke",
"cb8n3w2"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert on sieges, but here's what I can offer:\n\n1. It would depend entirely on the technology available to both besiegers and besieged, as well as what was besieged. The First Siege of Rome during the Gothic war lasted a little over a year. When the Mongols under Batu Khan besieged Kiev in 1240 it took about a week. Another factor would be how much help the people inside the castle had on the outside, the size of both forces, morale, etc. I don't think there can be an average.\n\n2. If you're hitting a wall with a trebuchet, then you are most likely aiming it wrong. These were designed to launch objects over walls, not into them. The projectile had a very high arc and could easily clear walls several stories high. For the other two, it would depend on the wall thickness/build, the number of siege weapons attacking a section, and the objects being used. Again, I wouldn't say there is a set time to penetrate a wall. Too many variables.\n\n3. Again, a lot of variables make this hard to quantify. I'm sure there are treatises available in which people set a science to determining this, but those would just be theories based on exhaustible circumstances. Nothing could cover every siege. A main factor would be the technology available. If the attackers could easily create several points of entry into a fortification, then they might not strive for as large of a numerical advantage then if the defenders could easily turn away the siege engines. Another could be morale. A large defending force that has been out of food for weeks could perform much worse than a smaller force with plenty of provisions. In addition, a group of people that have been trapped in poor conditions for over a year might not have that same spirit as men who have only been there for a week.\n\n5. Fire was a pretty nifty thing to use. Siege weapons were built of wood and other flammable materials, so unless they were protected very thoroughly (covered with animal hides, for instance) they could easily go up in smoke. Using fire would be easiest against towers and rams, since they actually came up to the walls and gates. In order to reach the ranged siege weapons, however, the defenders would most likely have to launch a sally. Some men from inside would exit the fortification under favorable circumstances (night time, through a gate people weren't watching very well, etc) and try to cause damage amongst the siege lines. They could burn tents and siege weapons, kill men who weren't aware, and in general make a lot of chaos arrive in already tense conditions. This of course did not always work, and could easily end with the death or capture of all defenders involved.\n\nI'm sure more people could expand on this, or correct me where I'm wrong. I'm just drawing from some general knowledge of the subject, so if you need specific sources I can't help you there.",
"1. A siege went on as long as it needed to. The two main limiting factors were A) food - both those inside and outside and B) reinforcements arriving. As long as a fortification can maintain a food supply, they are in great shape to continue withstanding the siege. The sieging force would be able to last due to living off the land or merchants/hunters showing up with food for sale/barter. Now, another limiting factor on average siege length is reinforcing numbers. A sieging army would generally retreat and break off the siege in the event another force showed up. Remember, the goal is to take the keep/castle/fort but leave it intact for future use as well as to ensure you take as few casualties as possible. You don't want to lose troops forcing a siege if you can avoid it. Capitulating was a more common reason for a siege to end.\n\n2. The ultimate goal of these engines, while destructive, was not necessarily aimed at penetrating and taking down sections of the wall. While this may be the case in many games, it is not advantageous to destroy a fortification/wall just to gain access. Many things would be launched within the walls to demoralize the enemy forces, attempting to push them towards capitulation. There are excerpts that show that the Mongols would launch dead animals or fallen soldiers as a form of mental warfare as well as throwing the threat of disease and plague. \n\n3. While undermining was a prospect, it isn't going to be as popular a method unless you want to force the fortification sooner rather than starve them out. As u/GaiusCassius stated, many variables need to be taken into account. One of the main things to remember is that castle walls should have foundations that go down pretty far - I know a lot of Czech castles would have the foundations 10-20 feet under the surface. Now please note that a lot of keeps/donjons are preferred to have foundations built on solid bedrock (Pernstejn castle is an example regarding the keep). And you have to take into account the soil composition as well as the availability of lumber to shore up the tunnel walls from collapse.\n\n4. There is no set number to make this a 'golden rule' for defense. A lot has to do with the design of the castle, the number and type of towers, food stores and resources available, is there a barbican or a moat (wet or dry) as well as the proximity to additional friendly troops. It is accepted that you could defend a fortification with fewer people than the sieging force, you still have to have enough to defend all possible avenues of breach - is there only one approach for a ram, or do you have exposed walls that could be reach by tower or ladder? Spearmen would be the most prevalent forces to repel attackers OVER walls because of the additional reach. Halberds, spears and pole arms would see extensive use in fortification defense due to ease of use and simple construction.\n\n5. Defenses available would depend upon the time period, but generally the best things to have would be food and clean water. As long as you can outlast the besieging force, you were able to repel many attacks. Trebuchets and catapults are best defended against by trying to hide and avoid the projectiles. Rams would be restricted due to fortification design to reduce the number and direction of approaches to any gates. Castle design works to make sharp turns, under barbicans with murder holes, all in an attempt to destroy the ram before it made it all the way to the keep. Siege towers, while popularized by the Total War series and RotK, are expensive to construct, bulky and difficult to keep moving. The best defenses available would be a combination of catapults to throw boulders, fire arrows as well as boiling oil to set the base on fire. Again, some form of pole arm is best to repel attacks that make it to the wall. \n\ntl;dr - there are easy things that can be done to protect against sieges but they get glorified by Hollywood and games to make it seem easy and a fast thing. Remember, sieges take time and had fewer forced/pitched battles and more breaking-off of the siege or capitulation by the defending force."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ch7j4u
|
Why do we discuss Ancient Greece in terms of city-states?
|
Athens was the capital of Attica with many other cities in it. Similar for Sparta.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ch7j4u/why_do_we_discuss_ancient_greece_in_terms_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eur0mpf"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Many Greek city-states had slightly different setups, but their basic structure was the same: a single *astu* (city-center) with administrative control over a *chora* (territory). Athens controlled a large *chora* (Attica) as the result of *synoekismos,* or synoecism as the Brits would say. This is the process by which, usually early on in the Iron Age, various smaller population centers came together (literally \"housed\" together) to form a larger political unit: a *polis*, comprised of *astu* and *chora.* Why one center became the *astu* vs another was usually dependent on population, military might, religious importance, or the like. In Attica, the smaller population centers were organized into districts (\"demes\"). Some examples are the Piraeus (the harbor), or Sunion (a temple center in the south of Attica). These were not \"cities\" in that they had no independent authority in the business of Athens the polis. You should think of them as neighborhoods within a modern city, with some localized civic or religious structures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7xthvq
|
How did Multi-track sound recording come to be and subsequently widely used?
|
I also am interested into how this shaped the set up of the typical recording session. How did this affect the way in which sound engineers would rig up the equipment and if so, what were the knock on effects of this?
Thanks :)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7xthvq/how_did_multitrack_sound_recording_come_to_be_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dubbk18"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"During World War II, some technically-minded people listening to German radio were puzzled: was Hitler really demanding that the Berlin Symphony Orchestra play Beethoven symphonies at 3am in the morning? It was a puzzle, because the sound was pristine, without the clicks and pops you get from a vinyl disc - at that time, the only option for playing pre-recorded material that the Americans and English knew about. They couldn't figure out how the Germans were doing it until, after the war had been essentially won, and the Allies gained access to the premises of Radio Frankfurt in Bad Neuheim, which had been broadcasting the Beethoven symphonies. One American Major who was a classical music fan and curious about German radio, Jack Mullin, decided to head to Bad Neuheim, and discovered that they had a new method of recording to Magnetophon - to magnetic tape - which crucially had an AC bias that enabled almost pristine recording quality.\n\nPrevious to this, recording had essentially been straight to vinyl disc, which was more limited in a variety of ways - once the groove had been laid down by the transcription needle, it was that way forever. However, magnetic tape could be altered - you could tape over it. \n\nAfter the war, Mullin worked with the company Ampex to replicate the technology they'd seen in Frankfurt. Initially using reels of tape taken from Bad Neuheim, and on prototype technology, they pre-recorded radio shows for Bing Crosby, a major star at the time; after Crosby gave the company $50,000 with no strings attached to perfect the technology, they released the first commercially available American tape recording devices in 1948, which basically instantly became the standard. \n\nCrosby gave an Ampex tape machine to his friend Les Paul, a jazz guitarist (and inveterate tinkerer who worked with the Gibson guitar company on the guitar brand that bears his name). Paul, like Mullin, had noticed the German broadcasts at 3am; he was working at Armed Forces Radio in Europe during the war, and he couldn't figure out how the Germans were doing it. So upon getting an Ampex tape machine, Paul was very keen to play with the technology, and discovered that 'overdubbing' was possible; you could record yourself playing along with a previous recording - as a singer you could harmonise with yourself. So you get recordings like Les Paul's recordings with Mary Ford (e.g., ['How High The Moon' from 1951](_URL_0_)), which were exceptionally popular, and which showed Paul playing several guitar parts at once, and Ford harmonising with herself. \n\nThis was effectively multi-track recording in one sense - there are multiple tracks of music recorded one after another - but it's not multi-track recording in the modern-sense, because there weren't multiple separate tracks of tape for each instrument - there was just one tape, with different performances literally dubbed over pre-existing performances.\n\nAn Ampex employee, Ross Snyder, heard these Les Paul and Mary Ford records and thought that the overdubbing method they used lead to a decline in sound quality, and so he aimed at developing a tape machine that had multiple tape heads that were in sync with each other; this was a complicated project with a lot of technological constraints - getting different tracks to line up with each other and making sure that the tape was at the right speed etc was something of a problem. But in 1956, the Ampex Sel-Sync was put on the market, an eight-track recording device. The Sel-Sync itself was generally seen as impractical for recording studios (it was enormous and heavy and glitchy), but other multi-track recording devices came into vogue in the late 1950s. \n\nIn England, someone at EMI who had seen the Magnetophons at Bad Neuheim had also had the same idea as Mullin, and they had unveiled the EMI BTR1 in 1947, a single track tape machine. After some improvements to the design (the BTR2 in 1952), and due to the coming demand for stereo recording, EMI put together a BTR3 in 1956 which had two tracks; however, these were not used for multi-track recording, per se, until just before the arrival of the Beatles in 1962, when a modified BTR3 at Abbey Road dubbed the 'Twin-Track' was used in order to do rudimentary multi-tracking. However, in late 1963 the Beatles began using a Telefunken M1 four-track recording machine made in Germany (which had been on the market since 1957, but which EMI experimented with extensively before allowing its use (Telefunken had also built the Magnetophons in WWII). In 1965 the Beatles started using a Studer J37 four-tape track recorder which was more suited to studio multi-tracking experimentation, and (a modified version of which) was used on *Revolver* and *Sgt Peppers* - the albums where multi-track recording most obviously became an artform in itself, with musicians creating sounds using the studio and the multi-track recorder as an instrument in itself.\n\nEdit: To deal with your second question - for a sound engineer it would have depended on what kind of music they were recording. Firstly, in the mid-to-late 1950s, Frank Sinatra was still recording basically on a single microphone, with the orchestra simply softer than him in the background. In contrast, in more or less the same time period, there was a maze of cables on the floor of the Motown studio at Hitsville USA (thus why the studio was dubbed the 'snakepit') indicating that there were leads and microphones going to different instruments set at different volumes - recording desks that mixed the volume and frequency of different instruments with each other already existed and were more common in pop rather than in orchestral contexts (especially because the levels of rock instruments could vary so much, and needed further control). Basically, once multi-track recording became a thing, it enabled engineers to record as pristine and perfect a sound of an individual instrument as they could, and multi-track recording multiplied the time it took for a band to record a song in the studio, with each part being looked over in detail to try and perfect it; often, when a band was playing together before the era of multi-tracking (or in the early years of multi-tracking), the band recording was basically it, perhaps with overdubs. But as things progressed, musicians would first lay down a basic track and then elaborate on it later, or record instruments one by one. So this meant that the original basic track didn't have to be as perfectly balanced and mixed as it had to be in the pre-multi-track days, as it was likely going to be elaborated on, and that musicians and producers could think more carefully about how the music sounded on record in context, and arrange the music accordingly. Geoff Emerick, who was the engineer on much of the Beatles' records, speaks of his disillusionment on working on the Beatles' stuff in the later era when multi-tracking was a thing in his book *Here, There And Everywhere* - he thought that the broad array of possible options and the pursuit of perfection led to a sort of paralysis, and made working in the studio with the Beatles much more difficult.\n\nSources: \n\n* *Recording The Beatles* by Brian Kehew and Kevin Ryan\n* *Perfecting Sound Forever: The Story Of Recorded Music* by Greg Milner \n* *Here There And Everywhere* by Geoff Emerick"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkGf1GHAxhE"
]
] |
|
9gftt7
|
what would happen if there was a second big bang somewhere else outside of our own expanding universe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gftt7/eli5_what_would_happen_if_there_was_a_second_big/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e63v91d",
"e63vaw7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If it was outside of our universe it would also be beyond everything that we are capable of observing or understanding, so we would have no way of knowing that it even happened. ",
" > Would the space from each just become one and the furthest stars\n\nAs far as we know there is no such thing. Our universe appears to be infinite in extent, there is no boundary or edge to overlap. Similarly the idea of \"space outside our universe\" is incoherent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1vc9m0
|
the four tigers of asia
|
How did these tiny little islands become so rich and influential? They don't have much natural resources. In fact, Singapore and Hong Kong are so tiny they don't have that much room for industrialization either. Why didn't the larger and more natural resource rich countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or Philippines become more prominent?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vc9m0/eli5_the_four_tigers_of_asia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceqtndk",
"ceqvtqq",
"ceqw9o9"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You could post this question in /r/AskSocialScience if it hasn't been asked there already.",
"The view in the early 2000s, which summarized a lot of research in the 1990s, [was that](_URL_0_):\n\n > Asian growth, impressive as it was, could mostly be explained by such bread-and-butter economic forces as high savings rates, good education, and the movement of underemployed peasants into the modern sector. What they found was that once you took account of the growth in these measurable inputs, you could explain most, and in some cases all, of the growth in output. What Young and Lau found was, if you like, that Asian growth has so far been mainly a matter of perspiration rather than inspiration--of working harder, not smarter. These results were and are controversial--partly because many people don't want to believe them and are eager to accept contrary calculations--but their basic message has held up quite well under repeated challenges. \n\nFurther,\n\n > The other unwelcome implication of the perspiration theory was that the pace of Asia's growth was likely to slow. You can get a lot of economic growth by increasing labor force participation, giving everyone a basic education, and tripling the investment share of GDP, but these are one-time, unrepeatable changes. So the perspiration theory suggested that sooner or later Asia's growth would slow down--sooner in the case of the original Asian tigers like Singapore, which is already investing half its GDP; later in low-wage countries like China that still have vast reserves of underemployed rural labor to exploit. \n\nIn short: the four Tigers had high savings rates (which translated into high rates of investment in capital), underwent massive efforts to educate their populace, opened up to trade, and moved a lot of people out of low-output industries and into high-output industries. \n\nIt was fundamentally the same story as always. While at the frontier of growth (like in the US and EU), economic growth comes from innovation and technological progress, growth in poor areas can be effective achieved through re-allocating existing resources to more productive uses.\n\nSome modern re-examination of the East Asian miracle has identified more sources of productivity growth (working smarter), but the dominant consensus is that we can explain the Asian miracle through the standard fare of capital accumulation, openness to trade, education, and reallocation of resources to more productive ends. \n\n(This isn't quite ELI5, it's more explain like I'm a freshman econ student, but it's the answer I would have given to you in /r/asksocialscience. Let me know if any of this needs clarification.)",
"1) They realised the importance of people and their education.\n\n They realised they were small islands, that their strongest assets were their people and their development was pegged to the countries development. All 4 countries have always invested and promoted human and physical growth. The importance placed on education and skill development has always been high and gender equality in terms of receiving education.\n\n2) They stayed free from debt and kept their money(currency) strong as possible.\n \n They borrowed little money from outside, kept their exchange rate strong and mostly stable. They prevented exchange rate appreciation by having somewhat of a fixed currency. Due to them being strong trading hubs and heavily involved with exports, they managed to keep themselves away from having too big a budget deficit.\n\n3) They are key Trade hubs\n\n Singapore for instance is in the centre of shipping trade between India and China. It has always managed to encourage free trade and has signed numerous [FTA](_URL_0_)\"free trade agreements\" that allow it to be a choice for trade and business.\n\n4) They managed to keep their economies growing steadily \n\n The governments have worked to keep certain industries such as Finance, export etc strong and encourage & develop these. This has allowed them to grow at a steady and good pace and surpass other regions.\n\n\nSpecifically in Singapore's context, good governance (debatable I know), low crime and high influx of professional talent are more reasons as to why it has managed to succeed thus far. \n\nSource: I am from Singapore.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/perspire.htm"
],
[
"http://www.fta.gov.sg"
]
] |
|
5ix0x2
|
why is there so much nudity in classical paintings?
|
Best guesses are appreciation of human form, ease of not having to paint clothing, and a sort of relaxed bohemian attitude around nudity and sex in general; but I was wondering if there was a more educated answer out there.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ix0x2/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_nudity_in_classical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbbw0in",
"dbbwc3a",
"dbbwjd8",
"dbbwo6k"
],
"score": [
37,
64,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The human form was what they were presenting. So, you paint/sculpt nudes. And modern prudish society is actually pretty recent, seasonal, and geographical. You won't find many equatorial societies wearing layers, fur and all of the added insulation. \n\nIt's not everything, but it's a start.",
"So with the spread of humanism ushered in by the beginning of the renaissance, people started to take a keen interest in humanity. They started thinking that people were incredible and the individual was exceptionally important. As a result, we start seeing changes in a number of artistic modes of expression. To answer your question though, painters and sculptors wanted to idealize the human form which took on a whole new significance in renaissance art. The natural human figure presented an expression of beauty, perfection, and humanity.\n\nTL;DR - Round about 1400 or so, people started thinking of humans as hot shit. As a result they celebrated the ideal human form - a nude figure.",
"In periods that were more conservative, it was a way to have eroticism in an acceptable form. When you look at some of the biblical allegories etc it is pretty obvious that they were more about sex than Jesus. \n\nAs long as the subject was a classical theme, nudity was acceptable. That is why Manet's [Luncheon in the Grass ](_URL_0_) was scandalous. If it had just featured the naked ladies no problem, but the fact that there were also clothed contemporary people in the scene made it shocking. ",
"The classical period I'm assuming you are referring to is that of the Renaissance. In Europe a few people experienced a return to the Romantic style of art. The Romantic style, popular in Rome, celebrated the human body in its ideal form. Hence, well-shaped nude bodies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Déjeuner_sur_l’herbe"
],
[]
] |
|
62xwkn
|
why do people pass out/feel like they're about to, if the suddenly go from very warm water to very cold water or vice versa?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62xwkn/eli5_why_do_people_pass_outfeel_like_theyre_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfq0zkq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's because of the mammalian diving reflex. We experience bradycardia (slow heart rate) and vasoconstriction. Essentially all of our oxygenated blood is shunted to vital areas (Brain, heart, and lungs)only. This conserves oxygen allowing us to endure the cold water for a longer period of time for the best possible chance at survival. Unfortunately in non life threatening situations it can make is feel like we're going to pass out. This \"hack\" is actually used as a first line treatment by physicians when a patient has a rapid heart rate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a4crh2
|
Were people in the old west (1865-1890) able to listen to classical music? would the average joe be familiar with composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin etc...?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a4crh2/were_people_in_the_old_west_18651890_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebduezz",
"ebdul9l"
],
"score": [
50,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on who that \"average joe\" was. People played much more music for their own pleasure than we do today; small towns did have \"opera houses\" -- which while they didn't often play Verdi, did have aspirations to European culture. So, for example, we have records that in 1877, an opera by Balfe, *The Bohemian Girl,* was performed at the Belvidere Theatre in Central City, Colorado. This today little known light opera seems to have been a favorite in the old West opera houses, along with *The Mikado.*\n\nConsider the piano player-- he might be self taught, or he might be an Eastern swell who'd come out west, doing his Teddy Roosevelt. A remarkably diverse range of men and women sought adventure and fortune on the American frontier-- the French nobleman, the Marquis de Morès, a graduate of St Cyr (the French military academy-- he was a classmate of Petain)- came to the Dakotas to make a bundle in cattle ranching. He and his wealthy American wife would have been familiar with the \"greatest hits\" of contemporary European culture; you can say \"he's not an 'average Joe\", but . . .\n\nWhat I'd say is: revisit your idea of who \"average Joe\" is in the \"old West\". He might be a former Confederate soldier. He might be a former slave. He might be a Chinese railroad worker. He might be British with a fancy title. He might be a Methodist who'd know all the verses of popular hymns but have no idea of Mozart. He might be a Mexican or South American working on ranches (essentially all of the ranching technology and terminology that we think of as \"western\" is Spanish in origin, that \"buckaroo\" is actually a *vaquero)* and playing guitar for himself and his friends.\n\nSome of these people couldn't read . . . some of them could play Chopin. It's a very diverse crew, much more so than legend would have it.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nsources:\n\n[Marquis De Mores: Dakota Capitalist, French Nationalist](_URL_4_)\n\n[Chateau de Mores State Historic Site](_URL_3_)\n\nPrairie Fever: [British Aristocrats in the American West, 1830–1890](_URL_2_)\n\n[Kwangtung to Big Sky: The Chinese in Montana, 1864-1900](_URL_5_)\n\n[Colorado's Historic Opera Houses](_URL_1_)\n\n[Spanish Influence in the United States: Economic Aspects](_URL_6_)\n\n[The History of the Vaquero](_URL_0_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;",
"Thanks this helps a lot!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.americancowboy.com/ranch-life-archive/history-vaquero",
"http://www.operapronto.info/mementos/exh_houses/exh_houses.html",
"http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1698&context=annals-of-iowa",
"http://www.history.nd.gov/historicsites/chateau/index.html",
"https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6028873-marquis-de-mores",
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/4519115",
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/2507307"
],
[]
] |
||
411ick
|
with woman's equality in military combat roles being normalized, why is it still absurd that woman play with men in the nfl and other major league sports?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/411ick/eli5_with_womans_equality_in_military_combat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyyutyh",
"cyyuvfp",
"cyyvfp1",
"cyywibe",
"cyywwwe",
"cyywzpe",
"cyzbzpq"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
21,
10,
6,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"Because physically a woman in the NFL would not be able to stop most of the males.\n\nNow, if you have some sort of 6'4 275 she-hulk that would work.",
"Women have the *opportunity* to serve in combat roles if they are physically qualified. Although the military's physical fitness standards are tough, you don't have to be a beefcake--most soldiers wouldn't make very good football players. Thus few women attain the physical characteristics for play at the highest levels of certain sports.\n\nThe fact that there is usually segregation at the lower levels of sports doesn't help, either--it takes years of training to make it to the major leagues, and women typically play either on women's teams or not at all. So there is not much of a breeding ground to propel those women who *could* rival the major male athletes in those sports to actually do so.",
"Women are currently allowed to play in the NFL. There just hasn't been a woman good enough at football to qualify for a team yet.\n\n > I checked with league spokesman Greg Aiello, who said, \"The NFL has no male-only rule. All human beings are eligible, as long as they are three years out of high school and have a usable football skill set.\" Prep and college football have experienced huge controversies about whether girls and women can play. There's never going to be huge controversy in the NFL, because the decision is already made -- women are welcome.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Perhaps your believing propaganda a little too much. In non contact sports it would be devastating. Contact sports would be fatal. _URL_0_",
"The best way to get women into pro sports would be to have boys and girls play mixed leagues as kids. The better girls would develop more against tougher competition.\n\nIf your goal was get a girl in the NBA, I feel mixed youth leagues would be a great method to improve the talent of top tier girls (would hurt middle and low tier girls)",
"There are still lots of people that think it's absurd to let women into the infantry (myself included). I spent 6 years in the Army and met plenty of females that were great pilots or mechanics. I don't think I met a single female that could reasonably carry the weight that infantry troops do every day. Even someone as undeniably fit and badass as Rhonda Rousey would have trouble carrying an 100lb load while on patrol through Afghanistan.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I think the NFL is a bad example. \n\nBiologically, women are different from men. This isn't a dispute. It's accepted as fact. \n\nThere are certainly sports that could be integrated, but football isn't one of them. It's too physical. If you take a fit man and a fit woman, the man will always be stronger. Maybe you could get away with a female kicker, but that's about it. \n\nNow, if you look at a sport like bowling, it could be integrated across the board. Women are just as capable of perfecting their bowling skills. An elite male bowler would probably bowl faster than an elite female bowler, but since that's not taken into account, it shouldn't matter. \n\nSimilarly, a sport like baseball might one day be integrated. There is less and less contact between players every year thanks to new rules. If a woman could perfect the skill set required to bat and throw, she should be able to compete. I think you'd see more men than woman, but an athletic woman *could* compete in baseball. Eventually. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/061114"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch"
],
[],
[
"http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
33sfcm
|
what is the body trying to accomplish when we dry heave?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33sfcm/eli5what_is_the_body_trying_to_accomplish_when_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqo19sy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your body is attempting to vomit but not succeeding. That's pretty much it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
avvo8z
|
Why were there only two American Aces in the Vietnam War?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/avvo8z/why_were_there_only_two_american_aces_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehi4mwi"
],
"score": [
42
],
"text": [
"Remember that becoming an ace requires downing five enemy aircraft, and to down enemy aircraft the enemy needs to have some in the first place.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe VPAF had only started to receive jet fighters in 1964, and their aircraft were generally less numerous and less capable than what the Americans were fielding. Because the aims of the VPAF were exclusively defensive in nature and their supply of both manpower and materiel was very limited, they would deploy their aircraft very conservatively. They generally would only sortie their fighters when the situation was very much in their favor, and tactics were designed around ambushing strike formations, with forcing the attackers to drop their ordnance early and abort the mission being just as effective as downing an American aircraft. A more typical tactic involved having fighters appear away from a strike package to draw away escorts and then having another group pop in under the radar and make a pass on the strike aircraft themselves. While the typical strike aircraft (F-105) was nominally faster than the MiG-17, it could only outrun the MiG-17 once it had jettisoned its payload and thus ruined the mission. The MiGs, on the other hand, didn't exactly stay around to fight - all they had to do was ruin the mission, so a typical \"attack\" could consist of one pass on the strike aircraft followed by a rapid withdrawal by both the attacking and decoy aircraft.\n\nBecause of that, opportunities for American fighters to actually engage the VPAF were few and far between. Making this worse, particularly early on, was the tendency of American forces to rotate pilots through the theater to spread experience and the generally poor air-to-air combat training provided early in the war. So while encountering an enemy fighter was already a rare thing for American pilots in Vietnam, the rotation of aircrews meant that it would be rare to stay in the theater long enough to encounter enough VPAF fighters to even have the potential to make ace, and poor air-to-air combat training meant that you were less likely to be successful at downing an enemy fighter before it was able to disengage and escape."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
205yq4
|
Why did the brain of most animals evolve in the head and not in the torso?
|
It seems like it would be protected more of it were in the torso.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/205yq4/why_did_the_brain_of_most_animals_evolve_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg09uj3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It would be more protected, yes, but we keep our seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting organs in our heads. If our brains were in our torsos, our senses of sight, smell, and hearing would be much less efficient (because the nerve signals would have to travel farther along pathways), and this would make us less able to survive. It's better to see a predator and run away before being attacked than it is to be attacked at all, even if your brain is better protected."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2c3m4g
|
why can some animals give birth without help when humans can't?
|
So Ive been wondering about this for quite some time, because Ive read that childbirth is one of the largest cause of death in Africa. ( But yeah, I know there is times where human birth goes fine)
BUT animals, like my cat gave birth to 4 kitties without any help?
Is it the evolution that has killed that instinct? And if so, why don't we have that instinct still, but others?
Edit:
"There, 280,000 mothers and 2 million newborn babies die on the day of birth. Every year."
source _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c3m4g/eli5_why_can_some_animals_give_birth_without_help/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjblipv",
"cjbm46i"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Humans can, it's just not ideal. The problem is we're bipedal animals evolved from quadrupedal animals. Plus, we've got active brains which require bigger skulls than other animals. Women's wombs just didn't keep up as well during our evolution to adjust for larger skulls and a bipedal lifestyle. But even with these problems, more than enough children were born and survived to adulthood without any problems that subpar care during birthing as seen in less advanced societies still isn't an evolutionary disadvantage.",
"The only true assets of humanity are its intelligence and its social/communication skills. Those two assets require one big ass brain, proportionally. That giant brain is what makes our birth so difficult and also why we have such high mortality rates surrounding it.\n\nThe other factor that makes birth so dangerous is that humans evolved to walk bipedally, for reasons of vision and locomotion. Bipedal stature makes the hips a lot more narrow, and in turn, gives the baby less room to escape the birth canal. Evolution decided that risk was worth it.\n\nThe things that make humans have difficult births were the exact same things that allow us to help each other with them. So we traded safety for knowledge, and we assist each other because we're smart enough to do so.\n\nTL;DR- Your cat can have 4 kittens on her own just fine because the cost of that is cat-intelligence. The cost of human intelligence is a difficult birth and a long childhood. Reproduction and evolution think that this is a reasonable price."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.laerdalglobalhealth.com/doc/2514/10-000-Happy-Birthdays"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33v3pw
|
The brain is remarkable energy efficient. Is there any limit to the efficiency in which information is computed?
|
I was wondering if there is a known limiting factor for how information gets processed? aka do we know how energy and the computation of information relate?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/33v3pw/the_brain_is_remarkable_energy_efficient_is_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqozodn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Information is a very important concept in physics (particularly in thermodynamics). At the most basic level information in physics is quantified as [entropy](_URL_2_), and the relationship between energy, temperature, and entropy can be understood in part through viewing [Boltzmann's constant](_URL_3_) as a (temperature dependent) conversion factor between energy and information.\n\nOnce you understand that energy and information are closely related and that relationship depends on temperature, you can go a step further and look at [Landauer's principle](_URL_0_) which describes how to apply this conversion factor to finding a lower limit of the energy required to erase 1 bit of information - E=k\\*T ln 2 (where E is energy, k is boltzmann's constant and T is temperature). That means there is a minimum energy cost associated with every \"lossy\" logical operation (AND, OR, XOR, etc.- any operation where the number of output bits is fewer than the number of input bits) a computer performs, at a given temperature.\n\nThe universe as a whole is permeated by the [cosmic microwave background radiation](_URL_6_), which is low-frequency microwave radiation at around 2.7 K. That's probably the most energy-efficient temperature for your computer to be at, because you can cool down to that temperature for free (just have your computer sit in deep space), and going colder than that would require you to use active heat pumps (which would almost certainly take more energy than you'd save on the more efficient computations). \n\nSo, [plugging and chugging](_URL_1_), that comes out to about 2.58×10^-23 Joules per bit deletion. Just for brevity let's assume that each processor clock is equivalent to one bit deletion (not true but close enough for an order-of-magnitude estimate), and assume your processor was running at 4GHz (why bother running a super-efficient computer if it's not fast enough to run Crysis?) That implies a minimum required power of about [0.1 picoWatts](_URL_4_). By contrast, an i7-4790K consumes about [150 Watts](_URL_7_) - about 15 orders of magnitude more. So while there are indeed physical limits on the efficiency of processing information, current engineering is not even remotely close to those limits. There are much higher and more relevant limits that relate specifically to how information is processed with current technology (moving electrons around).\n\nIf you're interested in how physics and information relate, and specifically how those concepts impact computing, [this](_URL_5_) is a good entry point page for learning more. If you liked the topics I wrote about above (which are pretty much just the third 'physical limits' bullet spelled out a bit more verbosely), you'd probably also really enjoy the other links on that page. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=boltzmann+constant+*+2.7K+*+ln%282%29",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2.58%C3%9710%5E-23+joules+*+4+GHz+in+picowatts",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_computation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background",
"http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-core-i7-4790k-devils-canyon-processor-review_143880/13"
]
] |
|
8yxc0h
|
why do some acne medications cause an "initial breakout," making your skin worse, before making it better?
|
I was prescribed tretinoin recently, and I noticed that after using it as directed, my acne was even worse than it was before I started. I looked it up, and I found out that this is called an "initial breakout" and that it will last one to three months. My dermatologist didn't tell me this would happen.
Why must I suffer even more?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8yxc0h/eli5_why_do_some_acne_medications_cause_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2effqz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hi, it’s because your cells are turning over rapidly and pushing acne that is below the surafce to the top. This is quite normal. Now if at any point your acne become severe and it seems that the breakout is not normal for YOU, go to a derm just to make sure you are not allergic to the product. It is a good idea to start slow and if the side effects are too much, cut back"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4xnima
|
why do professional swimmers wear 2 caps when competing?
|
I know that they often put the strap of their goggles in between the first and second, but couldn't they just put it under the first cap?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xnima/eli5_why_do_professional_swimmers_wear_2_caps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6gwqg5",
"d6gwtmt",
"d6h4dwd"
],
"score": [
2,
20,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing, but most likely, the increased weight doesn't matter compared to the reduced drag from smooth-ass head.\n\nEdit: stack exchange is 100% better than reddit for these things.\n_URL_0_",
"So I was actually wondering this out loud the other day while I was watching the Olympics with my wife, and not 10 seconds later the commentator on the TV actually explained it. He said occasionally you will see some swimmers wear their goggles with the strap on the outside of their swimming cap, but most wear them with the strap on the inside. Some swimmers wear their goggles with the strap in contact with their hair, and then a single swim cap over top, but other swimmers may feel that their hair is too slippery for the goggles' strap to stay in place, so they wear a swim cap, then the goggles with the strap over top of the first swim cap, and then a second swim cap to make sure their goggles can't slip off. He seemed to know what he was talking about, so I trust his explanation.",
"While diving in goggles and caps tend to fall off also while swimming caps tend to fall off bringing the goggles down with them. Wearing two caps helps to keep everything stay put and avoid the drag caused by your hair. This is also why goggle straps are typically placed under the cap. \n\nSource: swimmer. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1236/why-do-michael-phelps-and-some-other-swimmers-wear-two-caps"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
bftfgp
|
What should one look out for when selecting historical works to read, especially ones on controversial matters?
|
Hello, as of late I have broadened my reading from my own fields into history a bit, and while I am enjoying it I am faced with a new challenge; When you read various books on controversial figures such as, say, Lenin, its hard not to feel that the biographer's opinions are always going to get in the way of the ideal goal of objectivity, sometimes more so, sometimes less so. What should I look for when choosing books? The authors academic credentials? Because it seems as if a lot of historical works are written by journalists and the like who don't necessarily have those. Is that always a de-merit?
Or, basically: How does one effectively go about judging the accuracy of a historical work? (Preferrably *before* reading them)
Sorry if this question is outside the boundaries of the subreddit's rules.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bftfgp/what_should_one_look_out_for_when_selecting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elgaya1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Brilliant question. \n\nSo it can often be very hard to know quite what to look out for with works of history, particularly when you are new to the field and can’t spot the problems. \n\nAcademic qualification is perhaps a good starting place, yet, as you note, many books are written by journalists without formal training in academic history. This is not in itself an indicator of bad history as many such writers do produce very high quality work (Max Hastings for example). Instead I would look more broadly for what I suppose you could call the competency and dependability of the writer. \n\nThere are a number of ways you can check this. Firstly, reviews are brilliant. I would recommend checking feedback a particular book has received since publication, academic journals, and some websites newspapers will run review sections which can often prove helpful. Often books will also feature appraisals on the front/rear cover of the text itself, however I would approach these with caution - remember this is advertising, and I would be sceptical of such appraisals unless you are familiar with the quality of work of the individual writing it. \n\nNext, it is worth considering various matters, publisher, format, style, quality of print, etc. These are all often overlooked but can indicate the quality of a work of history. It has become increasingly easy to self publish bad history in recent years, either online or in print, so it helps to be wary. If something looks off, be wary. \n\nIn a similar vein, read the synopsis of a book, this will usually give you a condensed view into the book, its themes and central arguments. Do these seem plausible? Well presented? \n\nTry reading the introduction. This is of course not always possible, especially if not buying a book within a physical bookshop, but is very handy. The introduction, like the synopsis, will offer a glimpse into the soul of the book. Here you should be able to see the quality of the writing which will be displayed throughout, and this can be a brilliant test of character. \n\nAt the end of the day, these tips can help, but are not full proof. There is always going to be bad history out there which is not that credible. Often it can sneak through undetected, and can appear entirely legitimate to the untrained eye. In fact, even ‘good history’ is not without its flaws sometimes, and often a brilliant work may be betrayed by its style. It is often hard to tell, and if you are to spend much time reading history, you will certainly come across some questionable, however, there are some general rules which you should consider when reading which may help when you do come across such things. \n\nAlways engage critically when you read history. Remember that the author is constructing an argument when they write, and has a point of view they want to convince you of. When writing history, the historians can choose which facts to select, and how to present them, all history is biased and subjective in some way. However, this does not mean all history is created equal, some is better than others. Some writers will make their subjectivity clear, and acknowledge their role in constructing the narrative you will be reading, while others will not, they may present as objective undeniable fact that which they have subjectively interpreted. Keep this in mind while reading. Ask questions of the author, does a claim make sense? Is it backed up convincingly? Does the evidence they cite actually support their claims? Why have they portrayed something in a certain light? Personally I make notes in the margins of history books I am reading through to aid in this process. These issues can at first be tough, but as your wealth of knowledge grows, it does become easier. If something sticks out, pick at it much like a loose thread, and see where it leads. \n\nWith this in mind I would like to note that having a particular stance when history is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends upon how this manifests itself. Objectivity relates more to being “fair to the evidence” than being neutral to the topic, if you catch my meaning. To be fair to a figure like Lenin does not mean to be without judgement, but rather to have an opinion predicated upon the evidence. However, evidence is often complicated and vast, and can support many conclusions. One could be positive, or negative, about Lenin, and while neither can be considered undeniably true, both can ‘objective’. \n\nAs I hope to have pointed out, it can all be rather complicated, and it’s something we all struggle with. Good luck!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ib0ed
|
Were number systems written down before words and language?
|
For instance, did the Sumerians or Egyptians develop a written numeral system to keep track of money and transactions before they started writing down cuniform?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ib0ed/were_number_systems_written_down_before_words_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb2rn4r",
"cb2x4at"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"OP, if you don't get a satisfactory answer here, try cross-posting to /r/AskAnthropology",
"Sumerian cuneiform has its origin in accounting systems, particularly those used by temples to keep track of goods like cattle and grain. A sign could represent a type of good, and the number with a system of tick marks next to it. Cuneiform symbols originated as mnemonics/pictograms, which were subsequently abstracted, and the representational/mnemonic function of the symbols became more sophisticated over time, developing into a more complete system. [This website](_URL_0_) has a more detailed explanation of how the system developed.\n\nSome kind of abstract numerical representation system does seem to predate what we think of as written language, but the development of written language was very gradual--it wouldn't be accurate to mark a strict cutoff before which proto-writing could be considered merely a mnemonic system and after which it could be considered \"fully-fledged writing\". John Hayes, in the *Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts*, points out that written Sumerian in all likelihood is an incomplete representation of the language as it was spoken, especially phonologically.\n\nWriting may have developed quite differently when it arose in other places--the earliest Chinese writing is from inscriptions on bones used in pyromancy, not accounting. The exact relationship of Egyptian hieroglyphics to cuneiform is still debated, and I don't know if anything is known about the development of Mayan writing, so it's hard to say if the method of development of writing in Mesopotamia out of an accounting system represents a general tendency or a peculiarity.\n\nAnd, of course, the written accounting tools used by the ancient Mesopotamians were still pretty basic--mathematical notation and double-entry bookkeeping are both much more recent inventions. What they had were pretty much just counting systems.\n\nHope some of that helps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ancientscripts.com/sumerian.html"
]
] |
|
24mn2e
|
what defines a religion from mythology?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24mn2e/eli5_what_defines_a_religion_from_mythology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch8m4o0",
"ch8wpq4",
"ch8znbl",
"ch94dh7"
],
"score": [
131,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"A mythology is a set of traditional stories. The Jewish mythology is the Old Testament, the Christian mythology is the Old and New Testaments, the Greek mythology is... well, Greek mythology. Mythology doesn't have anything to do with whether the stories are true or not, it's an agnostic term. It simply says \"these are stories that people tell each other.\"\n\nA religion is a set of beliefs that is accepted on faith by its followers. Religions often incorporate mythologies as part of their belief set, though it's not totally necessary. The point here is that \"religion\" and \"mythology\" are not interchangeable terms. One is a set of stories, one is a set of beliefs.\n\nIt's confusing because the colloquial usage for \"mythology\" (and \"myth\" especially) often *implies* that it's something that's untrue, so many religious people avoid calling the stories from their faith \"myths.\" They are, though, by the strictest technical definition.",
"I know it's marked as explained, since [u/corpuscle634](_URL_0_) did a good job of it, but I want to belabor a few points:\n\nMythological stories are often more or less cultural--that is, they are particular to a certain culture (for earlier cultures this often coincided with the religious sphere, but does not have to). Myths are considered to be emblematic of cultural values, even if they didn't always have a clear message. So more than simply \"stories that people tell each other,\" they are stories that *peoples* tell each other. A nuanced difference, but one I find important.\n\nReligions are also wayy more than a set of beliefs. If you want to be a bit reductive about it, which I will be for the sake of clarity, religions are a combination of beliefs, moral systems, practices/rituals, and narratives (like mythologies). Of course each of these particular things could exist on their own--especially mythologies--but when they come together as a whole we generally define them as a 'religion.'\n\nSorry about being a bit long-winded, let me know if you have more questions about it. I spend quite a lot of time studying them so I guess I'm a bit passionate about the details ;)",
"Mythology: other people's religions.",
"If a you call a goats tail a leg, how many legs does it have? If you answer that wrong you will answer the religion question wrong."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/user/corpuscle634"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3tubs2
|
how did they predict existence of subatomic particles, black holes, multiple universes using maths and equations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tubs2/eli5_how_did_they_predict_existence_of_subatomic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx98p5o",
"cx9ei20"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
" > subatomic particles\n\nThey didn't predict those with math. They were largely experimentally discovered. Thomson's cathode ray experiment found that there were negatively charged subatomic particles we now call electrons, for example. \n\n > black holes \n\nThese were first thought of from Newtonian mechanics by Laplace (and others?), but it was really just an idea. After Einstein produced the general relativity theory, Schwarzschild predicted the limit at which a black hole could form. \n\n > multiple universes\n\nThose aren't mathematically predicted either, they're really outside the realm of science. ",
"You find an equation that explains what you can see, then you look at what that equation predicts about what you can't see. After that you make experiments to do tests, and when you find results you can't explain you repeat the process over again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
21uqj6
|
if your car gets stolen and your insurance covers it, what happens if the stolen car gets found after you have already gotten a new one?
|
I actually drive a moped (that I still possess and is not reported stolen) and have no interest in committing insurance fraud on a vehicle that I would maybe get $200 out of it, so there's that.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21uqj6/eli5_if_your_car_gets_stolen_and_your_insurance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cggwmt9",
"cggxgxo",
"cgh0hl2",
"cgh1ypp",
"cgh2avi",
"cgh2p39",
"cgh4idt",
"cgh588q",
"cgh8ldt",
"cggok6s",
"cggq11n",
"cggrtug",
"cggubzx",
"cggw1et"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
6,
2,
142,
73,
11,
25,
5
],
"text": [
"If you had comprehensive coverage (which is what total theft falls under) and your insurance company paid out on the claim, you either have the option to repay back the money for the value of the car or the insurance company simply takes possession of the vehicle. People choosing to retain the vehicle and pay back the settlement is rare but does happen. We see this every once in a while, and we do also pay to have the vehicle towed back to you.\nSource: Licensed auto adjuster",
"I buy it from an insurance auction.",
"I was given a choice when my car was stolen because the insurance cut a check to my bank 8 hours before my car was found and it hadn't cleared so they could cancel it still. I told them to give me an hour to go look at it and at first glance I called them back and said its yours. that car was beat up from the feet up and I wanted nothing to do with it lol. nothing was taken besides my emergency toolbox so I got most of my possessions back at least but I don't think many people get that choice to go decide if they want the car or not afterword.",
"I handle auto theft investigations, the insurance company pays for the value of the vehicle. In a sense think of it as them buying it from you and if it is found then it belongs to the insurance company. I've had cars I investigated be recovered 2 years later in perfect condition. Any questions feel free to ask and I'll answer with as much as I am able to release. ",
"In college, my dad's car was stolen from our driveway. We lived in a gated community. It was a nice house, but nothing crazy. Still had a gate where you needed a code. \n\nI get a call the next morning. \"Hey, any chance you came by and took the car?\" \"Uhh, nope. Still at school\" (in town school)\n\nTurns out it was stollen. Insurance gave him the price of the car, as it was valued at the time (depreciation). \n\nA couple of months later that let him know the guy was busted for trying to sell the car for crack. It was nice of them to let us know, but they owned it at that point. ",
"This actually happened to me. I had full coverage insurance. The cops found the car like a week after the insurance company paid out my claim and about a couple of months after it was stolen. The insurance company owned the vehicle. I was notified and visited the tow yard to get some personal belongings. Found out later that I actually \"stole\" my belongings since I no longer owned them. I was supposed to file claims to my insurance company for my personal belongings as well, which I didn't know at the time. I actually got a carfax from the car months after that and saw the insurance company sent it to an auction. The strange thing is that they branded it a salvage title salvage but the car was in perfect condition.",
"After the car is claimed by the insurance company they will go up for sale. Ive seen 40k~ Mercedes auction for $12k cause it was stolen, no exterior damage just needed new locks.",
"Story time. Yay! This happened to me. A number of years ago, I was in a long distance relationship with a girl. I was living in Colorado and she was in a shit town in Washington state. The relationship had gone on for long enough that I decided it was time to shit or get off the pot. To be together I moved to Washington after I graduated from university. She had a year left in school. I had no money. Money enough to move but that was it. I did have a '94 nissan altima. It was cherry red with grey leather interior and \"wood\" trimmings. I loved that thing. It had some scratches but its only retardation was that the front driver door wouldnt lock, so I never kept anything of value in there figuring \"who the hell wants a shit box nissan?\". We'll the fine people in sometown, WA did! I came out one morning to find my car not where I left it, or anywhere at all. So I called the police. Filed a report, figuring its long gone but not an hour later did I get a call from the police letting me know they found the car. Turns out it was involved in a high speed pursuit running drugs from the other end of town. The colorado plates tipped em off. I guess the thief sped off and was pursued. He bailed and ditched the car in some neighborhood where the police pursued him on foot with a K9 unit. They caught him. My car was exactly the I left it! But I was required to have an insurance adjustor look at it. Because of its scratches and broken door, it was declared a total loss but it ran just fine. Insurance paid me out more than I bought the car for at full value. They paid me something like $4000. I did have to pay a \"salvage fee\" of like $200 to keep the car. As a result of a salvage title, they wouldnt insure it beyond liability. So I just needed to make sure I didnt crash it or let it get stolen again. So I paid to have the door fixed. The bigger up-side to this is that with the money I got from insurance, I got an engagement ring! I spent like $1000 on that and the rest I put in the bank. I later sold that car for another $1000 to some guy a few years later at full disclosure that it was a salvage title. \n\nTL;DR: Stolen car helps me buy an engagement ring. ",
"Insurance adjuster here. When you report your vehicle stolen we have 60 days in Rhode Island to attempt recovery. Unless of course we have obvious signs of theft (e.g. Car jacking, use in a crime on video) most companies will not issue payment till then for this reason very reason. However in the unlikely event your car did turn up after we paid out your claim we would have all ready bought your title from you, thus we own the recovered vehicle and will most likely sell it at an insurance auto auction. ",
"Usually, it belongs to your insurance company now. They'll take full ownership of the stolen vehicle. This should be stated in your insurance policy.",
"This exact thing happened to me. The police found my car, parked and in perfect condition a week or so after the insurance cut me a check and I bought another car with it.\n\nI just let the insurance company know and that was it. They went and took possession of the original car and put it up for auction I assume to recoup their payout to me.\n\nThey did let me go and grab some personal items that were left in the car. \n\n",
"Yep, it goes to the insurance company, who auctions it. Here's the Insurance Auto Auction website: _URL_0_",
"If its found in your garage you go to jail",
"My dad's truck got stolen off the dealership lot when it was in for an oil change (story on request). They eventually found his truck, intact actually, insurance let him pull all the cab-over camper hardware and airbags off it but after that it was theirs even though it was intact."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.iaai.com/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
cfi5fu
|
what is the difference between normal steel and galvanized steel?
|
Was shopping at Lowes today and bought galvanized steel wing-nuts.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cfi5fu/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_normal_steel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eua3mxt"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Galvanizing is a process of adding a zinc coat to the steel. It should make the nuts last longer and prevents rust.\n\nThe actual process is slightly more complicated but this is essentially it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4nydrm
|
how are the "dark triad" traits in psychology different from each other?
|
I just noticed that the three traits - psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism - have many similar effects on behavior. What makes them distinct?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nydrm/eli5_how_are_the_dark_triad_traits_in_psychology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d47zilg",
"d4810ui",
"d48c227"
],
"score": [
30,
18,
5
],
"text": [
"Psychopathy is a lack of empathy & understanding of how people feel.\n\nNarcissism is placing your own needs & wants over others.\n\nMachiavellianism is lying & manipulating people to achieve your goals.\n\nThey're called the \"dark triad\" because they do so often overlap & feed into each other. It's easy to be narcissistic if you don't care about how people feel. It's easy to manipulate people if you feel your needs are more important than theirs.",
"While there's a lot of overlap among the three diagnoses, there are some unique factors to each diagnosis. So for example all 3 might lack empathy, have feelings of grandeur, and be controlling and manipulative, it's only psychopaths who lack any conscience. They're also easily bored and lack an ability to feel fear beyond immediate peril. They don't need people because they don't care about people. Hannibal Lecter is a psychopath. He feels no guilt for anything he's done. He's bored and likes to show he's smarter than others by doing things such as killing and eating people, or killing people and making other people eat them unwittingly. He can bite off someone's tongue and swallow it while his heart rate never changes from normal, because he doesn't feel fear or nervousness, nor emotions beyond very shallow ones of entertainment, when he does this.\n\nA narcissist does have a conscience so *may* feel guilt about bad things they've done, though many have a very weak conscience so will feel no guilt at all. They typically DO have empathy, but only for those who they recognize as useful to them, or similar to them. To the extent a person is similar to them, they may relate to that person. Otherwise, they won't. They do often need people--to admire them and reflect back their greatness. They see 3 types of people: people they love (because they're useful and/or embody traits that they want to have in themselves), people they hate (because they embody all of the traits that they abhor in themselves) and people who don't exist (everybody else, who can't be useful to them as someone to love or hate). Narcissists are prone to narcissistic rage. That is, they can easily become furious if challenged or wounded by an insult or threat to their elevated sense of self. Think of the Wizard of Oz--the great, powerful Oz. Enormous, green, with smoke and a booming voice. That's how the narcissist sees himself. All powerful, a whole city worshiping and celebrating him. But when someone starts to figure out that that's all an act, and the Wizard is really just a cowering, pathetic loser behind a curtain, then he gets *really* angry and threatening. He sends a little girl and her friends to (he thinks) die at the hands of a witch just so he can conceal his true identity as a nobody. \n\nSomeone who has machiavellianism desires to control and manipulate and be powerful. They might be narcissistic too, but they might not be. It is associated a lot with narcissism, though, because narcissists have a hollow core that they're trying to fill up through external praise and recognition. Think of Benito Mussolini. He desired power and recognition, to bend people to his will, to control. He could be cruel in exerting his control, though he wasn't cruel for fun or entertainment, as a narcissist or psychopath might be. He was cruel to assert his power, though. He did very evil things in Ethiopia to gain power and wealth. But he also seemed to form bonds of closeness with family members. Psychopaths wouldn't do that, and narcissists would only do it to the extent that it glorified themselves, and I don't think he did that.\n\nThese terms have recently been thrown around a lot in connection with Donald Trump. I'd say he's a narcissist, not a psychopath. And he has a certain amount of machiavellianism in him, but it's not so strong with him, at least right now--if he wins, it will come out greatly, though, because he'll have the power to do a lot and he'll want more. All 3 of these types are insatiable in their pursuit of power in the case of machiavellianism, acclaim and love in the case of narcissism, and amusement in the case of psychopaths.",
"It is also important to note that diagnostic names are not concrete fact. These change drastically over even decades as more understanding develops. Some even being equivalents of throwing darts at a board. I'd caution parsing too much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2vkn4b
|
Why don't we launch spacecraft using magnets?
|
Is it financial or physical limits that prevent us from making a rail gun like launch system.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2vkn4b/why_dont_we_launch_spacecraft_using_magnets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coiiyxd",
"coij7hn"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"To get into low earth orbit with a rail gun would require an exit velocity so high that whatever you are launching would burn up immediately. It has been suggested as an efficient way to launch things from bodies without an atmosphere.",
"It's physical limits. If you launch with a strong rail gun then your spacecraft will just burn up like a meteor, simply because the speed required to get into orbit is just too fast to travel through the atmosphere. That's why they need a heat shield when coming back from orbit.\n\nYou can launch with a heat shield from the rail gun, but in this case it will slow down due to atmospheric drag and fall back before reaching orbit.\n\nThe only way to do this would be having a rail gun long enough to rise like 100 km or more, where atmospheric drag becomes negligible. In this case the physical limit would be the resistance of materials: the rail gun's cannon would collapse under its own weight.\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength"
]
] |
|
7go45y
|
how does winrar/7-zip just make my files smaller?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7go45y/eli5how_does_winrar7zip_just_make_my_files_smaller/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqkg2v5",
"dqkgdw6"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Just about any set of information contains some repeating information. My paragraph contains the word contains several times. One means to reduce the size would be to put a short unique identifier in place of each word \"contains\" and a reference that the identifier means contains. \n\nSo a very simple compression scheme for the above paragraph might look like:\n\nJust about any set of ! @ some repeating !. My paragraph @ the word @ several times. One means to reduce the size would be to put a short unique # in place of each word \"@\" and a reference that the # means @. \n\n!=information\n\n@=contains \n\n\\#=identifier\n\nThat's a quick 15% reduction in the characters (counting the replacement information we added). If we did the same with parts of words, or shorter binary strings, we could further reduce the space. It's easy to automatically replace the characters with the original words when you want the original file back.\n\nCompression schemes do something similar with the binary data that makes up all computer files. \n\nThat's why compression works better on data with lots of repeating information (like text or a bitmap image) rather than data with little repeating information (like a jpg). ",
"I'm not familiar with the exact methods they use but I know one technique is redundancy removal (this is \"lossless in that when uncompressing nothing is lost - it can be restored to its original condition every time)\n\nLet's take an image for example. It's made of pixels, each one represented by it's rgb color value in rows and columns.\n\nLet's say you have a white area in the photo, so you have say twenty white pixels right next to each other in a row. The easiest way to represent this is by saving twenty pixels with the same value, however you could instead compress it by saving it in a way that says (white pixel) x 20, so you've stored only two values - one for the pixel type and one for the quantity - instead of twenty.\n\nNow there are more complex ways to do this but it all boils down to things like that, finding ways to better represent values for size rather than convenience and easy use."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
17l2uv
|
model-view-controller pattern
|
I'm learning Ruby on Rails and would like to understand MVC from the outset to better understand the Rails framework.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17l2uv/eli5_modelviewcontroller_pattern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c86ilvg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"MVC isn't that hard. You have the view (or views). This is everything you see. It's a lot of rules about how to show the info. \n\nThen you have the model, which is the data. \n\nThen you have the controller. The controller takes the data and moves it into the view. If something changes, you tell the controller and he updates the correct places. \n\nExample: \n\nView:\n\n TextBox age: Position left \n Slider ageSlider: position right\n %%could have separated them into two views if I wanted to\n\n onSliderUpdate(\n NotifyControler(newAge)\n )\n\nModel:\n\n Person{\n int age.\n }\n\nController: \n\n OnNotify(int age)\n model.age = age\n for each view\n updateView\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1w8c0c
|
why do people like to believe in god
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w8c0c/eli5_why_do_people_like_to_believe_in_god/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cezlk5d",
"cezm8za"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"1) if you've been raised in a religious household, it's hard to say that your family is wrong and taught you incorrect things\n\n2) it's comforting to think that everybody gets what's coming to them in the end, i.e. if you're good, you get rewarded, and if you're bad then you get punished\n\n3) many people are naturally fearful of death, so if someone can \"guarantee\" that it's not scary or bad, that's a relief",
"I imagine you'll get a lot of responses along the lines of \"they need easy comfort\" or \"they were brainwashed as children\".\n\nI don't think these are untrue. But they're too simplified, even for ELI5. \n\nAs far as comfort goes, it's not just comfort people are looking for. It's order. Humans love patterns and we really love authority. We're still very tribal in nature and that concept of a central authority for us isn't just appealing, it's a desire that is a base part of out nature. This is why you often see religions in which gods or a god promise a specific group of people that they are special. This god was part of a tribe. The leader of that tribe. \n\nGods are a powerful explanation and a powerful authority. As history shows, our commitment to that authority and the sense of community is so strong that many of us simply can't let go of. This is the part where the brainwashing children comes in. I wouldn't say it's intentional, at least not in any kind of malicious way (fundamentalists and extremists notwithstanding, they're a totally different story). It's more that we develop our connection to tribe/community very very strongly as children. And if your tribe follows a god as a leader, you will as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
dhgpfg
|
Why was Iran/Persia never colonized?
|
I know the british had a monopoly over the tobacco trade in the region, but why was it never invaded by the British or the French or another colonial power and made an actual colony?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dhgpfg/why_was_iranpersia_never_colonized/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3ogaqd"
],
"score": [
112
],
"text": [
"While the area that is modern day Iran was indeed never colonized the way that India was, the country was picked apart bit by bit in the 1800s and what was left was more or less defacto colonized by Russia and Great Britain. Although there were resources to be had, nothing was quite so valuable as to engage a Great Power in a series of costly and strategically risky colonization efforts.\n\nAs a starting point, a huge area of the middle east, centered in Persia, was controlled by the Safavid Empire through much of the early modern era. Similar to the Ottomans or the Mughals, they had a strong government, a standing army made of slaves similar to the effective Ottoman Janissary system, and in the later years a modern gunpowder based musketeer force.\n\nDuring the early to mid 1700s, Persia was on a decline. Indian silk was booming in Europe (and drawing some uncomfortable looks from colonizing powers), causing disruption to the economy. Huge swaths of Safavid territory were lost to the Ottomans and to Russia, in a series of wars launched by Peter the Great. A brief resurgence in the mid century would actually see the territory reconquered, but the country subsequently declined again after their ruler was assassinated, their economic woes continued, and the Safavid dynasty ended. By the turn of the century, as the colonizing powers strengthened their hold on India and the East, what would become modern day Iran was much diminished compared to it's past Imperial self.\n\nThe 1800s weren't all that great for Iranian empires either. More wars with the Russians would lose them most of the Caucasus, Amernia, and some northern cities. A series of wars with Great Britain would lose Herat and eastern territories which were heavily populated and filled with useful agricultural products like saffron. At this point Iran could more or less see the writing on the wall.\n\nIn response to Iran's growing losses and the obvious influence of Britain and Russia, the new Qajar Dynasty ended up more or less acting as puppets to the great powers. Colonization was costly and intensive, and intervention by any power in Iran could have drawn a response from one of the other powers. With this knowledge, and with new diplomatic ties to the west, successive Qajar monarchs sought to modernize Iran, and play western powers off each other, to varying degrees of success. Iran would remain nominally independent, but more or less entirely existing because it lay in both Russian and British spheres of influence. Neither Power willing to commit to an invasion, but both with significant influence in the region.\n\nIran's situation was precarious, but hadn't changed for generations of Qajar rulers. Just to make things interesting, as the world rapidly approached the end of \"classical\" colonization coming after World War II, oil was found in the Middle East in the early 1900s (again drawing those uncomfortable looks from hungry Western powers). Almost concurrently, several terrible famines struck the region and millions of Iranians died. The hundred years of more or less \"stable\" rule quickly crumbled in a rapid-fire series of events.\n\nIran found itself under (mostly neutral) occupation by British, Russian and Ottoman forces during WWI. The Russians suffered their own revolution, the Ottomans collapsed, and the British unsuccessfully tried to setup a protectorate. The resultant interwar years were filled with several internal revolutions and coups, a brief constitutional monarchy, a military dictatorship, but ultimately independent, Iranian rule. After several hundred years of conflict with western powers, Iran was finally occupied in WWII by a joint invasion of the Soviet Union and Great Britain. I do find it somewhat telling that the only time an occupation like this happened was with the agreement of both British and Russian forces.\n\nHowever, this wasn't an occupation with the intent to colonize. Iran had just made it just under the bar for that particular form of control. Instead, Iran got to be the very first theater in a different kind of geopolitical power game, the Cold War. The resultant Iran Crisis of 1946 over the withdrawal of the Soviet forces would end up with the eventual relinquishing of Soviet control in the area, and (with some words from the USA) the Iranians would even get to keep their oil.\n\nI would tend to frame what happened to Iran, not as \"avoiding\" colonization, but merely getting by until colonization wasn't the preferred method for influence in a country. Iran suffered a CIA lead Coup in 1953. To this day, even after the Revolution of 1979, Iran continues to walk a line between spheres of power. It's not \"free\" from them, no country is really, but it maintains independence by being costly to invade, and being willing to push and pull a little to play the major powers off each other. I don't find it hard to think of some topical examples where this continues right into modern day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
49qgaa
|
why do people go to the bathroom on a pretty regular schedule?
|
Every day right at 2 I have to pee! Why does this happen and how is my urinary system synced up with a 24 hour day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49qgaa/eli5_why_do_people_go_to_the_bathroom_on_a_pretty/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0txeiv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because generally your food/drink intake is fairly regular as well. You have coffee every day at 8am. Lunch at noon, dinner at 7 etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1q8dyd
|
why do prepaid visa cards ask for social security numbers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q8dyd/why_do_prepaid_visa_cards_ask_for_social_security/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cda9cq0",
"cda9rgw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Its a bank account. Just like a bank. You can't open an account at a brick and mortar bank without using a SSN. Same applies to a non-traditional account.",
"So they can't be used for money laundering. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
epfyhb
|
How often are planets found?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/epfyhb/how_often_are_planets_found/
|
{
"a_id": [
"felsmte",
"felxkyj"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Planets in our Solar System, or planets in general?\n\nIn our Solar System, only two planets still considered planets have been found in recorded history, Uranus in 1781, and Neptune in 1864. If Planet Nine is real, odds are we'll find that within the next 10 years or so.\n\nOutside of our solar system, planets are found on a virtually daily basis, although usually only announced in batches of a few planets, a few dozen planets, or rarely a few hundred planets. For some planets just announced recently, a bunch of planets around nearby stars were announced only a week ago: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Exoplanets: Roughly one to two per day as average over the last years, but they often come in large batches as people study hundreds of objects in parallel and then release the analysis. [Here is a graph](_URL_0_).\n\nGaia is a spacecraft that currently collects data, it is expected to find over 10,000 exoplanets in the next few years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02577"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confirmed_exoplanets_by_methods_EPE.svg"
]
] |
||
8p0w80
|
whats happening when a sneeze ‘gets stuck’ then just burns your nose and makes your eyes water.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8p0w80/eli5_whats_happening_when_a_sneeze_gets_stuck/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e07vi8n",
"e07vm5a",
"e083l22",
"e08t0kg"
],
"score": [
727,
5,
2,
17
],
"text": [
"Sneezes are a protective response to alert you to less than ideal breathing conditions and remove irritants/allergens from your nose. They’re triggered by the presence of irritants, but only a certain concentration, which is mediated by multiple nerve endings that generate “spikes” when they’re irritated. Once the number of spikes passes a certain threshold, you sneeze. \n\nSometimes your nose will be irritated to the point of feeling like you have to sneeze, but there isn’t quite enough to push you over the threshold. So you “get stuck.”",
"According to Wikipedia: \n\n\"Sneezing typically occurs when foreign particles or sufficient external stimulants pass through the nasal hairs to reach the nasal mucosa. This triggers the release of histamines, which irritate the nerve cells in the nose, resulting in signals being sent to the brain to initiate the sneeze through the trigeminal nerve network. The brain then relates this initial signal, activates the pharyngeal and tracheal muscles and creates a large opening of the nasal and oral cavities, resulting in a powerful release of air and bioparticles. The powerful nature of a sneeze is attributed to its involvement of numerous organs of the upper body – it is a reflexive response involving the face, throat, and chest muscles. Sneezing is also triggered by sinus nerve stimulation caused by nasal congestion and allergies.\"\n\nSo your \"half-sneeze\", or whatever it's official name is, is what likely happens when something in your nose triggers the urge to sneeze, but not the complex mechanics involved in the actual process.",
"When the inside of your nose gets a tickle, a message is sent to a special part of your brain called the sneeze center. The guy manning the sneeze center then sends a message to all the muscles that have to work together to create the amazingly complicated process that we call the sneeze.\n\nSome of the muscles involved are the abdominal (belly) muscles, the chest muscles, the diaphragm (the large muscle beneath your lungs that makes you breathe), the muscles that control your vocal cords, and muscles in the back of your throat.\n\nDon't forget the eyelid muscles! Did you know that you always close your eyes when you sneeze?\n\nIt is the job of the sneeze center to make all these muscles work together, in just the right order, to send that irritation flying out of your nose. \n\nSo what happens when a sneeze get's stuck? The guy at the sneeze center is on a coffee break.",
"For all my life, I've suffered from allergies and would frequently have really horrible sneezing fits. I envied people who could just sneeze once or twice and be done with it. That was so foreign to me. If I allowed myself to sneeze once, I was committing myself to at least 15 or 20 intense sneezes, one right on top of the other.\n\nIt was exactly like this: _URL_0_\n\nSometimes it was so intense, I couldn't catch my breath. The worst part was that when sneezing like this, you desperately need to swallow because you're salivating. But swallowing would only intensify the sneeze reflex. So I'd often feel like I was choking. It was so bad I'd hardly ever allow myself to sneeze in public. I just got used to biting my tongue and making weird faces. I'd fend it off at all costs. I often had them while sleeping, since I couldn't prevent them.\n\nIt got worse in my 20s, because I'd broken my nose in high school and suffered a deviated septum. And over time, all my right-side sinuses became severely blocked up. By the time I was in my late 30s, I was miserable.\n\nAnyway, a couple years ago I finally got my nose straightened and my sinuses cleaned out (FESS), and immediately after began getting allergy shots.\n\nI now know what it feels like to only sneeze once. Only now, after that first sneeze, I get \"stuck\" in that almost-sneezing zone for about 10 minutes and it's incredibly frustrating and unsatisfying. I just keep throwing my head back like I'm going to sneeze and it never comes. I look even more ridiculous. I almost wish I could go back.\n\nBodies are weird, man."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vtkDKUuXBU"
]
] |
||
4531yj
|
What was Moscow's relationship with Ceausescu before the Romanian revolution? What role, if any, did they play in the revolution?
|
I have a Romanian friend who grew up in the 1980's outside of Timisoara. His parents were dissidents who had been involved in the opposition to Ceausescu for many years. He tells me that the Romanian revolution was really a coup d'etat orchestrated by the second-level officials with the support of Moscow--and most of what we saw on TV in the press was actually orchestrated by westerners. What was Moscow's relation with Ceaucescu at the time? Did Moscow play a secret role in organizing the revolution?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4531yj/what_was_moscows_relationship_with_ceausescu/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czuyzpb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Ceausescu was something of a maverick in the Eastern Bloc, which is why your friend probably thinks that. Relations between Brezhnev/Andropov and Ceausescu were cool at best and outright frigid at worst, although they never reached the point of de facto breaking off relations, unlike in Beijing. He denounced the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He kept relations with both Israel and the PLO and helped push for peace between Israel and Egypt. He kept up cordial relations with the Chinese, much to the extreme irritation of the Kremlin-Ceausescu personally modeled his personality cult off of Mao Zedong and Kim Il Sung. He openly recognized West Germany and was the first Warsaw Pact country to independently invite a US President to visit. (Nixon would later use Ceaucescu as a conduit for backdoor negotiations with the Vietnamese and while in Bucharest, consulted with him on his desire to open relations with China.) He refused to endorse the invasion of Afghanistan, and participated in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, which the Soviet Union boycotted. \n\nWith that being said, however, I don't find it quite plausible. To be sure, if there is one intelligence service in the world which **nothing** should be put beyond, it's Russia's, no matter who rules in the Kremlin. Westerners often have a hard time grasping just how tactically skilled and utterly amoral they are. But Moscow wasn't able to react in places with a much larger KGB presence and more strategic value, like East Germany, in 1989, as none other than Vladimir Putin points out quite vividly. (\"Moscow was silent.\") I don't think they could have orchestrated a coup in a place like Romania where the security service in practice watched out for the KGB as much as anybody else. Moreover, the 1989 Romanian Revolution wasn't a reaction against just Ceausescu, in contrast to previous coup attempts such as that in 1984(I think), but against Communism as a whole. No matter how many Communists joined the opposition, the ideology was strongly discredited all over the Warsaw Pact by 1989. Gorbachev thought he could keep the genie in the bottle. But the Romanian Communists who joined the Revolution didn't, as seen by their subsequent economic and social liberalization policies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2l7mzv
|
why do roosters "cock-a-doodle-doo" in the morning?
|
I found that it is tied to a biological time clock, but not sure WHY they do it in the morning. Can anyone explain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l7mzv/eli5_why_do_roosters_cockadoodledoo_in_the_morning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cls7633",
"cls7x8i",
"cls8ryv",
"cls93kf",
"clsctcm",
"clsd86f",
"clsfcru"
],
"score": [
67,
28,
12,
2,
13,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"They actually crow all day. Not just mornings.",
"And can triple confirm.\n\nSpend some time in the third world and in some places it seems like everybody has *at least* one.\n\nThey crow 24/7 and if several are in a reasonably close vicinity they will occasionally even have crow-offs. A rooster that's gone hoarse, presumably from excessive crowing, is.. amusing. Except when you're trying to sleep and they decide 3am is *roosta time*!",
"Because you're from America. They say other things in different countries. ",
"Pretty sure its their mating call, which they use at the quietest time of day(dawn). And, as other people have pointed out, other times(assuming it's quiet then as well).",
" they cock-a-doodle-goddamn-doo all fucking day and night.not just in the morning.",
"Crowing is a form of communication. My roosters crow whenever the hell they want, but because a lot of people think its just in the morning, and also because roosters are usually most active in the morning, that's usually when people actually notice the crowing, but it happens all day. ",
"Roosters crow all the fucking time. The cartoon image of crowing at dawn comes from you hearing it as soon as you wake up. It's a joke, son.\n\nSource: Lived next door to roosters for 4 years.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
z2fs9
|
How Accurate/Bias was "Century of the Self"?
|
I've just recently watched "Century of the Self" about Edward Bernays influence on 20th century America in business and politics and the field of psychology. I feel like I know everything about the false dichotomy of party polarization and the current political atmosphere now. THEY'RE ALL LYING PROPAGANDA MACHINES!
Or... did I just drink a film-maker's kool-aid?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z2fs9/how_accuratebias_was_century_of_the_self/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c60vyj5",
"c60xhhg",
"c60yvf1",
"c60zcsj",
"c610ujk"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"I eagerly await the more informed responses here, but a key aspect to this history is the role Bernays played in the cult around his own personality. What I mean by this is that as a master of PR, Bernays was very willing and adept in talking up his own influence. I'd take the depictions of Bernays with a grain of salt, but it's a fantastic documentary. ",
"Not really one to comment on this, but if you haven't seen his (Adam Curtis') other more recent works The Trap and The Power of Nightmares you absolutely should. Excellent stuff. ",
"Have you read Propaganda? It's pretty damning. There's a link to a free PDF copy if you follow the bibliography/works cited section at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. ",
"Not commenting directly on \"Century of the Self\", but Adam Curtis:\n\nMost all of his documentaries start with \"This is a story about...\"\n\nKeep that in mind. It's a story. It's a particular account of events too complex to explain otherwise. It may be compelling, even undeniable. It may be well researched, he may have universal consensus backing his thesis or smoking gun evidence to back it up.\n\nBut it's just a story.\n\nI like Adam Curtis, I think he illuminates interesting aspects of our culture and recent history. I agree with him on a lot of his views. But I'd still endorse some healthy scepticism when watching his work. There's often a lot he overlooks or neglects (because if he included it, his \"story\" wouldn't run).\n\n(I really wanna make a documentary about Adam Curtis that starts with \"This is a story about a documentary maker who believed the chaos of historical events could be explained in a simple way, and the key to doing so lay in understanding the ideologies of those involved...\")",
"Why don't you tell us you own opinion in more detail? Just because you aren't a \"pro\" doesn't mean you can't think. Also, please consider posting a review to /r/HistoryResources"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cl5gwi
|
how does my (i)phone know which sounds to let through in a phone call / face time?
|
When I’m on FaceTime with my friend, I‘d sometimes play music on my phone through the speakers which I can hear perfectly but they can’t. When I speak and the music is on, they’ll hear my voice perfectly clear but not the music even though it‘s on high volume and the speaker is right next to the mic.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cl5gwi/eli5_how_does_my_iphone_know_which_sounds_to_let/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evsz604"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are several microphones. 1 intended to pick up your voice, the other(s) to pick up all the rest of the noise around you (lets call them noise microphones). The cell phone subtracts the sounds from the noise microphones from the sounds picked up by the voice microphone. The sounds that are left are just the voice."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5wkcqd
|
In the post red giant stage of a star, why do the outer layers drift into space and not collapse onto the white dwarf?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5wkcqd/in_the_post_red_giant_stage_of_a_star_why_do_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deatquv",
"debkwg4"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"Two reasons. One is that as the star expands the surface gravity decreases and so it's easier for those outer layers to escape. Two is that it's not actually a \"drifting\" away in many cases but is in fact forceful; [stellar winds](_URL_0_) are generated which are blowing surface material away. We see this observationally but the physical processes that are all intertwined are quite complex.",
"It's worth remembering, too, how thin the outer layers of a red giant star can be. The sun isn't going to gain any mass when it becomes a red giant, but it will expand all the way out to 1 AU or so. It's almost a cloud as much as a star, if a hot, glowing cloud.\n\nThe eventual white dwarf is very, very small. So given the volume here, you don't need much momentum to stay in orbit, rather than fall back in. So those cooling, outer layers of gas can swirl on their own, with the force that led them to be expelled out in the first place keeping them in motion. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www-star.st-and.ac.uk/~pw31/AGB_popular.html"
],
[]
] |
||
6y9t3u
|
why can't facebook, twitter and instagram just shut down bot accounts?
|
There is a lot of news lately about bot accounts on social media and I want to know what the process would be to shut down the accounts automatically? How hard is it to design/implement that process?
Or is it a fairly simple process to design and implement but perhaps there are other reasons why they can't do it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y9t3u/eli5_why_cant_facebook_twitter_and_instagram_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmloexe",
"dmlpbtn",
"dmlvkx1",
"dmlvnsz"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The problem is how do you actually figure out that a twitter user is a bot. You can use Machine Learning with certain features (like tweet sentiment) to analyze the data, but there's the possibility of false positives. Also, it's an arms race. Once they figure out what you're looking for all the bot creator needs to do is to change the bot themselves. You can take a look at [this pdf](_URL_0_) if you're interested in the details of figuring out whether a twitter user is a bot or a human. My ML professor participated in the DARPA Twitter Bot challenge and he said there were a lot of arguments on his team because of it, and at times he felt that it was going to rip the team apart.",
"2 problems:\n\n1: It's hard to get computers to recognize bot behavior in some cases. Computers are terrible at patterns, which is weird for humans to comprehend, because humans are amazing at noticing patterns. This we're getting better at constantly with machine learning (complex equations that adjust themselves to better fit patterns). Additionally, you have to continually train the machine to combat newer kinds of bots- you can't beat a pattern before the pattern exists. And the more behaviors you flag as \"bot-like\", the more risk you run against the next problem.\n\n2: If they screw up and shut down normal user accounts they'd have a media frenzy on their hands- anyone whose account got banned because Facebook though they were a bot would be furious, and it wouldn't be hard for them to rally support either.\n\nAnother consideration is that they might not always want to shut out bots. Some could very well be interesting twitter bots that provide useful or novel services, like a neat bot that would tweet Twitter's stock price every hour, or would tweet a link to the highest Reddit post of the last day every day at midnight. Those aren't particularly taxing on their systems, but could be a neat thing that brings more traffic to Twitter, which means it's good for business. Also, depending on how the bot is set up, it may get served ads and generate revenue that way (this heavily depends on the people behind the bot).",
"If I can throw something else into this discussion, these Services all make money based on advertisements. What do you think would happen to Facebook if the advertisers found out that say, half of the users were fake? ( between my girlfriend and I I think we've created seven or eight ourselves) What about if the Twitter users that always get posted were discovered to be just 20% fake? If you were an Advertiser wouldn't you feel like you deserve to be reimbursed or that contracts for advertisement should be renegotiated based on actual users? There is a profit motive - a very serious profit motive - to keeping these Bots accounts active in spite of how problematic they can be. That's why I don't believe that there's ever going to be a real push from the service providers to get rid of Bot accounts. It will only be when the advertisers realize that they are wasting money for inflated user counts.",
"Well, just banning the accounts in the first place is a bit of a problem in and of itself from a structure standpoint because there are a lot of loose ends to tie up.\n\n* What do you do with the usernames? Are they still taken even after the account is removed? This could be thousands of usernames. Do we differentiate between \"bot dukeofdummies the 1st\" and \"human dukeofdummies the II\"? Do you show it visibly or hide it in the back end? \n* Do you show the history of the previous account? Do you delete all of \"Dukeofdummies the 1st\" or does it still show up? Records are nice but it does skew with all the marketing data these sites make money off of.\n* What happens when another bot account *still wants to talk to dukeofdummies*? I take this account not knowing its prior history and every day I get 30 friend requests from random bots I've never met. Talk about a bad customer experience.\n\nEven if we get all the technical jargon figured out to remove accounts (it's annoying but it's doable) How do you even figure out if someone is a bot? You could look for bot-like behavior... but that gets tricky. \n\n* 8000 people on one IP address? Kinda sketchy. 50 people on one IP address? Could be legit.\n* 8000 people copy paste the same post all around 9:25? Could be a bot net, but it could also be a bunch of humans posting the latest Rush Limbaugh rant that started at 9 in a race to be the first to post on Facebook.\n* What about an account that doesn't do anything but copy yesterday's most popular posts in these subreddits and then tries to post them to the front page! You could easily build a bot to do this [but on the other hand...](_URL_0_)\n* Flat up asking is an interesting idea, but that doesn't work. Because humans can ignore your question just as easily as a bot. Some people can go six months without checking Facebook. People can also easily say \"yes. sincerely, Dukeofdummies\". How is that proof that you're human?\n\nThe really, really difficult part about all of this though is that these websites purposely make it easy to sign up. If the initial barrier to enter to one of these sites is too high... then people don't sign up. However that means that even if you remove 700 bot accounts accurately... they can simply build them right back up. You need to remove them from circulation *faster* than they can repopulate, which means jumping to conclusions faster and making false positives, costing you customer satisfaction and having people leave your user base and cost you money which hits on the biggest issue in all of this.\n\nWith all of the effort it's going to take to fix this, with all of the ambiguity of the question \"are you human?\", with all the potential costs of accidentally removing customers, A website owner has to ask itself, \"is anyone *really* going to care if bots are manipulating some things?\" Is the user base going to leave over this? Comparing costs/benefits does this really hurt us? Can we make do with a light purge every once in a while of the most obvious offenders to make it look like we're doing something and go on with our lives?\n\nTL:DR: It's kinda hard to do, really hard to do it well and in a timely fashion, and they really don't feel the urge to do it in the first place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1xLFrAl-fBValZPSkdLZzRnemc/view?usp=sharing"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/079/173/ed2.png"
]
] |
|
4xm5iy
|
why do higher impedance speakers yield better sound quality?
|
Title explains it mostly. I have a pair of headphones that are 350 ohms and a pair that are 32 ohm. Also subwoofers vary from 1 ohm to 8 ohm. What makes higher impedances different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xm5iy/eli5_why_do_higher_impedance_speakers_yield/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6gmgf8",
"d6gpiyh",
"d6gt0l3"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It will be hard to keep this simple, but here we go. A larger voice coil SLIGHTLY improves quality. The larger the voice coil, the higher the impedance. The higher the impedance, the lower the volume. To maintain higher volume, you need higher voltage. Many phones and other portable music devices won't put out higher voltages. It would shorten your battery life. ",
"For the most part, impedance is unrelated to sound quality. That said, lower impedance tends to make amplifiers work harder, which can lead to poorer performance. ",
"The amplifier has an output impedance and the speakers have an input impedance. The signal itself is a time-varying voltage which is divided between the two impedances according to their ratio. To maximize the amount of power in the speakers, you want as low an output impedance on the amplifier and as high an input impedance on the speakers as possible.\n\nNote that this is the same for *any* sort of amplification process. You want high impedance on the load because that's where you want most of the signal to be dissipated. If you have a low impedance on the load, most of the signal will be dissipated (uselessly) elsewhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
548hbi
|
why did teachers always tell us to remove hats/caps when we enter inside a building? what does this signify?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/548hbi/eli5_why_did_teachers_always_tell_us_to_remove/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7zrtp0",
"d7zslt6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It goes back to olden times when a knight would remove his face gear. It's simply a sign of respect to remove head pieces when in someone else's \"home\", and as well as during the Pledge of Allegiance.",
"What Saul/Paul of Tarsus wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:7 likely plays a role too. This is why it has been traditional to take hats off in church, at least."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3vy6nk
|
Would having a more efficient/ faster brain affect our perception of time?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3vy6nk/would_having_a_more_efficient_faster_brain_affect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxrprvk",
"cxsm9xd"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"I am by no means an expert, but I know (both firsthand and from [documented sources](_URL_0_) ) that your perception of time can be affected by life-threatening situations. These situations *probably (and I'm guessing here)* do something like speeding up your neuronal activity and cause your neural \"clock speed\" to increase. This causes things around you to move slowly from your point of view. \n\nPerhaps someone in this field can expand further on this, but it's an interesting subject and I wish I knew more about it to properly answer your question. ",
"If you simulated a brain at twice the speed, it would alter the person's perception of time. If it took them ten seconds to count to ten normally, then it would take five seconds to simulate them counting to ten.\n\nIf you made a human brain more efficient, then you're redesigning it. You could alter the perception of time, but you could also leave it the same. It depends on what you do to it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_motion_perception"
],
[]
] |
||
2cmp6e
|
Are you born allergic to things or do you get it later on?
|
Sounds like a weird question but I always wondered if you are born allergic to things or does it come to the body later on?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2cmp6e/are_you_born_allergic_to_things_or_do_you_get_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjhahns",
"cjhgv94"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Both. There are several different types of allergies. Type I hypersensitivity is caused when your body identifies something as an antigen and over-responds to it (for example, peanut allergies fall into this category). However, there is another type of hypersensitivity reaction, a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, that occurs after you have been \"sensitized\" to something. This is what occurs when you develop a reaction to something like poison oak/ivy (whatever they have in your area) or latex. They are mediated by different mechanisms: Type I is caused by mast cells releasing histamine and other pro-inflammatory cytokines, while Type IV is mediated by macrophages that congregate in the \"infected\" area.",
"No. You are not born allergic to anything. You need to be sensitized to the allergen first, and you aren't really fully capable of that until several months after birth.\n\nYou can, however, be born with a predisposition to becoming allergic to things (not specific things, just \"things\" in general). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2mj51d
|
Will the other side of the moon ever be facing earth?
|
I know we see one side of the moon in our lifespan but
I'am curious to know if over many many years we will see from earth a new section of the moon and lose sight of a part we see at the moment?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2mj51d/will_the_other_side_of_the_moon_ever_be_facing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm56g09"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"The Moon is [tidally locked](_URL_0_), meaning it's orbital period equals its rotational period. Thus, the answer to your question is that the same side of the Moon will *always* face the Earth. Viewing the Moon from Earth, we will never see the other side. Something very dramatic would have to happen to change that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking"
]
] |
|
1ktrmb
|
Question about image scaling
|
So I have a weird question about image scaling. Presumably, when scaling down, you will not always end up with an integer scaled-down size. Say a 10x7 image, 2x smaller, it would be 5x3.5. So, do web browsers round up or down and make the aspect ratio incorrect (5x3 or 5x4), or does the browser alphablend the last line 50%?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ktrmb/question_about_image_scaling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbsieqj",
"cbslsup"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a bit more complicated than that. [Here's a very good explanation of how it's done.](_URL_0_)",
"When deciding how large to render an image, you have to arrive at an integer size at some point. This typically happens internal to the rendering API being used - you provide it an NxM image, and given the current transform (in your example, scaling down), it will arrive at needing to draw the image at some other size XxY. It's up to the implementation to round up or down to handle fractional sizes, or even leave the fractional sizes in and perform antialiasing on the edges, as you suggested).\n\nTo actual draw the image at the smaller size, some form of interpolation is used (such as nearest neighbor, linear, or cubic). This process has some similarities with [texture mapping](_URL_0_) for 3D rendering. For each destination pixel, the nearest source pixels will be factored in and weighed according to their distance to the destination pixel.\n\nFor nearest neighbor, the nearest pixel in the source image is used. For linear, the nearest 4 pixels are used and weighed (a 2x2 grid)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://entropymine.com/resamplescope/notes/browsers/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping"
]
] |
|
28xos6
|
how exactly do organisms evolve and adapt to their environment?
|
I've heard it mentioned in passing that some species will evolve abilities or characteristics that help them to survive (or conversely, will remove certain body parts that are no longer necessary for survival).
My question is, what exactly is the mechanism for doing so? How do our bodies *learn* about our environment in order to pass down this information to the next generation? Is it all random (ie are the species surviving today here only around because they *happened* to mutate the right characteristics to survive?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28xos6/eli5_how_exactly_do_organisms_evolve_and_adapt_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cifgy4o",
"cifh1aa"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't.\n\nThere's a bit of variation between individuals of a generation, and traits that prove beneficial have a better chance of passing on than traits that don't.\n\n\nIf 95% of frogs of a species are green and 5% are red, so long as green is the preferred camouflage color, the green frogs will reproduce more on account of the red ones getting eaten.\n\nIf, say, an environmental event occurs that causes red to be a better form of camouflage, you'll see more and more red frogs surviving to breed every generation, as the green frogs try to hide, fail, and get eaten.\n\nIt might take generations upon generations, but eventually you might see a day where most of the frogs are red.",
"When an organism has offspring it passes on the genetic code (DNA in this example). During this passing down mutations occur, this causes the offspring organism to be slightly different. This difference may help the organism survive or may hurt its chance at survival, its random mutation. The body doesn't learn what the environment is and design mutations off of that, it is random mutations.\n\nThe environment selects which mutations are beneficial and which ones are not. Imagine some rabbits in a white, snow field. If all the rabbits are brown and one was to gain a mutation that made it white, it would be able to camouflage more effectively and hide from predators more effectively than the other rabbits. Of course if the rabbit had gained a mutation that had made it darker it would stand out and have less chance of survival. At the end of this scenario the white rabbit is much more likely to contribute more offspring to the next generation, then each of them will have a higher success rate than their brown challengers. \n\nThis process is called natural selection. It is the environment choosing the best suited to survive to pass on more genes to the following generation. Eventually the population will be flooded with these 'beneficial' genes.\n\nEdit: I will be very happy to answer any follow up questions you may have whether it's about something I wrote or something else you may be wondering about evolution/natural selection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7upuj5
|
Why are galaxies the colour they are?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7upuj5/why_are_galaxies_the_colour_they_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtmc6k0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The colors gives insight in the composition of the star population of the galaxy.\n\nBlue regions are composed mostly of young hot stars, while red regions are older, cooler stars.\n\nYou will often also see smaller, pink spots. These are huge clouds of hydrogen, the color stems from the characteristic emission of hydrogen gas, which you can see in the [balmer series](_URL_0_). The HII line is the bright red emission on the right side of the spectrum.\n\nWhen you look at galaxies in other wavelengths than the visible light, you can get a lot mor information about the galaxies composition, like radio or gamma emission. But those do not contribute to the visible appearance of the galaxy.\n\nIt should also be noted, that most galaxies are not visible to the naked eye at all. They are so far away, that the expansion of the universe stretched their light into and beyond the infrared spectrum, and can only be seen by specialized equipment. Images of galaxies are then \"converted\" to what a human might see if he were close enough. But it's always an artists impression."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series"
]
] |
||
jql28
|
- why wouldn't it be possible to set up a solar heated steam pipeline that also removes salt, to get water to rural parts of africa?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jql28/eli5_why_wouldnt_it_be_possible_to_set_up_a_solar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2ebnfo",
"c2ebuk3",
"c2ecwji",
"c2ebnfo",
"c2ebuk3",
"c2ecwji"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I guess because they can't afford it. ",
"In a lot of places it isn't the salt, it's microbes and general filth that makes the water bad. They have filters to get rid of this stuff, and a number of charities are handing them out currently. Just google water filter africa and you'll get piles of results.",
"Desalination is extremely expensive, even for wealthy countries.",
"I guess because they can't afford it. ",
"In a lot of places it isn't the salt, it's microbes and general filth that makes the water bad. They have filters to get rid of this stuff, and a number of charities are handing them out currently. Just google water filter africa and you'll get piles of results.",
"Desalination is extremely expensive, even for wealthy countries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3tey0h
|
how fresh water fish populations spread from one river network to another without going through (presumably deadly) seawater?
|
Thanks for the replies - sound plausible, consider Explained.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tey0h/eli5_how_fresh_water_fish_populations_spread_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx5kgo5",
"cx5r2t9",
"cx5w7gi",
"cx671w9"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I wondered that about fresh water mussels. So I asked. They have a free living form which basically hitches a ride in the gills of fish. This means the same species can be in one river system even though they are mussels.\n\nSimilar events can occur for other species. Egrets and other fish eating birds will fly from one river system to another. Over geological time species can be transferred. All watersheds border each other so it is not travel over hundreds of miles but perhaps ten miles. Larva can remain in a bird's mouth during such a flight.",
"Fresh water fish have a membrane transporter on the apical side of the cell (facing the water) that transports Na+ from outside their body into the cell. Some fish when they encounter salt water, have the ability to switch that protein transporter to the basal side, thus pumping Na+ from inside their body, to their epithelial/skin layer so that it can be easily dispersed into the surrounding salt water. ",
"The most likely mechanism is traveling between watersheds during floods. This is especially prevalent in low-elevation areas like the southeastern US. There are numerous watersheds that, at some point, are divided by small elevational differences (inches). For example, for a fish to get from the delta of the Mobile River in Alabama to the delta of the Pascagoula River in the Mississippi, all you would need is one large hurricane that dumps 10-20 inches of rain. Everything would be underwater, and the rivers would be flooding so large that the ocean around the area would be quite diluted. Think of it this way - the Amazon river dumps so much fresh water (which floats for a long time before mixing) into the Atlantic that you can drink it before you can even *see* land. Evolution and migration occur over long time scales, so the probability of eventually having a freshwater corridor between nearby southeastern rivers because of a hurricane is 100%.\n\nIt gets a bit trickier in areas with more geographical relief, like the western USA. As someone else mentioned, ice dams and glaciers can have crazy but temporary effects on the direction that a stream flows, but this only would facilitate movement of coldwater fish, which are not that diverse. The most likely mechanism in steep locations is \"stream capture\". It is similar to how a meandering river eventually cuts through an oxbow. However, in some instances (again, over geologic time), a river can cut through a valley wall until it actually flows completely into another basin. The Colorado River once did this into the San Andreas Fault during the early 1900's and created the Salton Sea. This can provide a conduit for fish exchange. There are even some locations ([Two Ocean Pass](_URL_0_)) where a stream flows in BOTH directions (To the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) at the same time!\n\nHowever, the probability of this happening is much lower than big floods, so there are many steep places in the world that are fishless. Other places it has likely happened only once or twice, so you can have a very unique community of fish evolve (endemic species) because there is so little gene exchange.\n\nBut by definition, you can assume that where you see the same species in adjacent watersheds, there is some natural gene exchange through time, or they would by default become different species just because of different environmental pressures and genetic drift.\n",
"Another reason is that a lot of those fish have been implanted by the department of fish and wildlife. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Ocean_Pass"
],
[]
] |
|
81r9m2
|
Do we experience atmosphere tides? Do the molecules in the air get dragged according to the moons gravity causing “deeper” periods of time?
|
If this has any effect can this be used somehow? Utilised for energy? Or altitude training?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/81r9m2/do_we_experience_atmosphere_tides_do_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv4otdc",
"dv59i4c"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"I have recently encountered something called \"Density altitude\" Which has to do with the change in atmospheric density due to temperature extremes. To address the moon question directly, googling atmospheric tide yielded a [Wikipedia page](_URL_0_) that may be a good place to start.",
"The moon does indeed effect the atmosphere, but orders of magnitude less than it does the ocean. Tidal effects form pressure waves of about 100 microbars, or about 0.01% the atmospheric pressure at sea level. That's only perceptible to scientific instruments, and practically background noise compared to the regular variations in atmospheric pressure that occur due to weather and the effects of the sun.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide#Lunar_atmospheric_tides"
],
[
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060818/full",
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-moon-have-a-tida/"
]
] |
|
8v8fmp
|
what is the difference between losing weight because i am not eating any food vs losing weight while maintaining a healthy diet and working out to lose more calories?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8v8fmp/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_losing_weight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1ldd4s",
"e1letmy",
"e1lidvd",
"e1ln078"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Losing weight is easy by not eating. But you will feel weak from lack of nutrition and you may still not have a good body composition. Working out and eating well you will feel energised and strong and will end up with a healthy body composition. \n\nBody composition is how much fat and muscle you have in your body. You may maintain the same weight your whole life but if you never workout your body composition will change as your muscle atrophy with age. Working out will help maintain your body, your mind and strength so you will still be able to tie your own shoes when you're 80.",
"I was 134 kg and 62 years old. I tried the eat healthy and exercise option. I had a personal trainer to push me. After a year no significant progress except I was a bit fitter. I'd read and had tonnes of advice. But it felt all so much like blah blah because when I followed it nothing much happened. So I just stopped all that and went to eating 1 meal a day in the evening. No carbos, no sugars, no salt, no alcohol, nothing in the fridge to tempt me, no substitutes like vitamin pills. Just vegetables, meat or fish. My dietitian told me I was being irresponsible insisting I follow her recommended diet. I said yes but did no. She was happier that way. She kept on measuring me every 3 months and felt good with the results. I didn't feel lethargic. Test results showed no issues with nutrition. I felt more than sufficiently energized and able to do everything. I don't go to any gym. I am not into fitness. I stand on the weigh scale every day. My blood pressure fell. My diabetes disappeared. My heart irregularities fell away. I lost 30 kg in 6 months. I have held the weight loss and extended it for 24 months without any difficulty. I got down to 101 kg. My weight can oscillate up and down 3 or 4 kgs. When it goes up and I feel I am slipping I simply cut back on food intake. My body has adapted naturally to less food. I rarely feel hungry. I often feel tempted especially in supermarkets and restaurants with all the things on offer and what others are loading up on. That for me is the difference between the 2 options.",
"If your only goal is weight loss there is no difference. But if the goal is also to have a nice, healthy looking physique, and to feel better, have more energy, a mix of good diet and exercise is best.",
"Fundamentally there is no difference.\n\nYou lose weight in the kitchen. Exercise is only loosely related.\n\nIf in your two cases you are running a calorie deficit, ie eating fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight. \n\nWhere starvation diets harm you is a lack of adequate nutrition which can lead to vitamin deficiencies.\n\nStarvation diets tend to encourage unhealthy eating patterns, fasting followed by binge eating. These patterns tend to continue after the diet finishes, leading to weight gain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4e3108
|
why are blood stains on fabric so difficult to remove compared to other types of stains?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4e3108/eli5_why_are_blood_stains_on_fabric_so_difficult/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1wkagn",
"d1wyc6j",
"d1y5dsn"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly because it's a complex substance, containing liquid, suspended solids, cells, fats, oils, and a plethora of other compounds. Most other stains are caused by small portions of these types of compounds. \n\nWine is mostly aqueous (water based), grease is lipid (fat) based, etc. Most solvents are good at cleaning up one type of stain because they designed to pick up one type. \n\nBlood, being a mixture of most or all of these types, means many solvents won't work on all of blood's components. ",
"Try using hydrogen peroxide. I'm amazed at how easily it got out a blood stain on the carpet, when my dog had a tumor burst.",
"Blood shouldn't be washed out in hot water, only cold. Hot water cooks the proteins in it and makes it stick."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2eq7ys
|
How long does it take to boot up a supercomputer?
|
I presume this requires lengthy efforts, as it is a highly complicated system.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2eq7ys/how_long_does_it_take_to_boot_up_a_supercomputer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck23a3n",
"ck24jf8"
],
"score": [
28,
22
],
"text": [
"The only 'supercomputer' I have access to is a network of 128 computers, each with some xeon processors and lots of ram. These can be booted simultaneously, and boot into a minimally configured Linux environment, which is very quick. The master node then needs to start the cluster management software and register all the compute nodes and you're more or less good to go.",
"The cluster (SuperComputer) I work in has just over 2500 nodes (computers) with a little over 30,000 computer cores. It doesn't take very long to reboot it. All the nodes boot up simultaneously. So only a few minutes. What takes the longest is to verify that all services are running and all the high availability systems are functioning properly. Beyond that you need to get it into a state where you can start running jobs which involves getting the job scheduler and resource managers running. On my system we run about 80,000 jobs per 24 hour period and have 300-600 jobs running at any given moment utilizing about 95% of the system 24/7. So if we ever need to restart the job scheduler it can take as long as 30-40 minutes to start back up because there are so many jobs in the queue and data that needs to be loaded into the scheduler. Now if you are taking a system that had been running(powered up) for a year and need to completely power it down to do facility electrical work........ that is when it can become a nightmare to get back into production. When you let a large system cool down to room temp and everything stops running you will see a number (sometimes small sometimes large) of component failures. Hard drives will fail, processors will fail, power supplies will fail. The last time we powered our system down it took 2 x 16 hour days to get it back into 100% working order."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
rn6f5
|
Does potential energy "count" as energy?
|
To clarify, if I were to lift say, a few kilograms of matter a kilometer up, and then combine it with anti-matter, would it release more energy than if I were to combine it on the ground?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rn6f5/does_potential_energy_count_as_energy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c475hln",
"c4763xw",
"c4764lx",
"c476xqp",
"c477gg6"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I somehow miss your sub-question, and I gave an answer. I will keep some of what I wrote there, maybe you will like it.\n\nMaybe you didn't realize it, but gravitational energy is also consider/named potential energy. Why? because it has the potential to generate a force (gravitational force in this case) if you put an object in a gravitational field, it will be attracted to the effective force generated from all the gravitational potential in there. \n\nWhy is it so intriguing?, well it has point out that if you count this potential energy into the evolution of the universe, we could reach a total amount of 0 energy at the beginning. And that is outstanding. Because it means that the Universe was created from nothing.\n\nEdit: Read DocSmile answer",
"Somewhat related to your question: Did you know that a compressed spring becomes heavier by e=mc^2 ",
"If you combine an electron and positron at point A, you create a pair of photons of energy 511 KeV. If one of the photons travels up to point B, it gets red-shifted and ends up at point B with a lower energy. \n\nIf you combine an electron and positron at point B, and one of the created photons travels down to point A, it will end up there blue-shifted, with a higher energy than 511 KeV.\n\nSo, while locally (at the point of annihilation) you see the same amount of energy released when matter and anti-matter, from any fixed point you will see different amounts of energy.\n",
"Potential energy is really a relative thing that measures the *difference* in energy between two states. If I blow up a stick of TNT in midair, the debris will have more energy than it would if the explosion took place on the ground, but only because of gravitational potential energy (debris falling to the ground), not because the effects of the explosion were somehow enhanced.",
" > To clarify, if I were to lift say, a few kilograms of matter a kilometer up, and then combine it with ani-matter\n\nWhoa, hold on. Antimatter isn't anti-mass, it's ordinary mass. There is no distinction between matter and antimatter as to mass.\n\nAnd yes, potential energy counts as energy. For example, a very elliptical orbit (like a comet) is a constant exchange between kinetic and potential energy as the object orbits the parent body -- sometimes more potential energy, sometimes more kinetic, but the two types of energy sum to a constant (to agree with the principle of energy conservation).\n\nBecause all mass is the same type of mass, combining matter with antimatter at any altitude will have the same effect, unrelated to the issue of kinetic and potential energy.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1gest2
|
prism and the nsa scandal
|
I was on vacation the entire week it went down and now I'm completely lost. Can someone explain what they did or give me some starting links for me to figure it out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gest2/eli5_prism_and_the_nsa_scandal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cajj731",
"cajkm9k"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A low level contractor working for the NSA named Snowden leaked a document describing a classified program that collects data from the largest internet communities in the world, including microsoft, facebook, yahoo, google, etc. The internet companies themselves claim to be unaware of this.\n\nIt's a big deal because the government is throwing a wide net and capturing *all* data rather than targeting who, what or when. The part of the law that deals with this would normally require a warrant (of sorts) before digging into your information. Instead they decided they'd search you first then ask for permission. Especially troubling is that the program searches citizens as well, which is illegal and not sactioned under FISA.\n\nThe government, under pressure, eventually admitted to the program existing. So it isn't a question or conspiracy, it's very real.\n\nHere is a great start / quick reading to explain : _URL_0_",
" > Search before submitting! If it's been asked before, indicate that the previous answers didn't help. Otherwise your question may be removed.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/"
],
[]
] |
|
5w0930
|
why does rubbing alcohol, vinegar, etc have expiry dates? how can they go bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5w0930/eli5_why_does_rubbing_alcohol_vinegar_etc_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de6dbdd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The FDA requires expiry dates on nearly everything aside from alcohol and cosmetics. The manufacturers have to put something, so they generally choose a date a few years out, that they are willing to guarantee the product will meet or exceed that date.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm2006828.htm"
]
] |
||
1aep2u
|
In the 60s, was japan's economy expected to overtake the usa's by now?
|
Much like china's is expected to take over the us as world's largest economy by 2050
This is probably more of an economic question but thought I'll try my luck here anyway
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1aep2u/in_the_60s_was_japans_economy_expected_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8wq96n",
"c8wroz9",
"c8wrv85",
"c8wsmlc",
"c8wstcc",
"c8wu0l1"
],
"score": [
25,
2,
3,
28,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"In the 1980's, this was certainly a thing, but not in the 1960's. See for example [this book](_URL_0_) (from 1993, when the Japanese bubble had already burst.) The subtitle, The Myth of the Invincible Japanese, indicates that fear of Japanese power was a theme at the time. You don't write a book to counter a myth when there is no myth.\n\n",
"When developing countries are rapidly industrializing and coming from far behind, they can enjoy from rapid growth rates and their productivity can grow in huge leaps. When they get close to the level of western economies, their growth and competitive advantage will slow down. \n\nJapan reached the western level of economic development but it has has smaller population than US and it's shrinking. Only way they could have overtaken US would be if their competitiveness and productivity would have kept increasing much faster rate than US once they reached US level of sophistication. That did not happen. There was widespread fear of Japanese economy back in the 70's and 80's when they seemed to out-manufacture US in all important sectors. They were first to use robots in large scale and they had huge government projects like [Fifth Generation Computer Systems project (FGCS)](_URL_0_) that were supposed to revolutionize computing. That fear was overblown.\n\nChina is different story. They have bigger population than US. Once their economy develops even close to the level of western economies, they will be bigger than US. China will be bigger than US unless something bad happens. \n\nps. European Union has been the the biggest economy in the world since 2007. ",
"No, it was not in GDP, but definitely in GDP Per Capita, Japan's population isn't and has never been big enough (In the past 100 years) to take over the US in total GDP, it's population just isn't big enough.",
"One minor note: Realistically, China will probably become the world's largest economy much sooner than 2050. The OECD thinks it could be [within the next 4-5 years](_URL_0_), although that's almost certainly jumping the gun. The U.S. National Intelligence Council [thinks it'll be around 2030](_URL_1_) if present trends hold. \n\nThey're by no means guaranteed to -- there are a lot of problems in China's economy that are currently being hidden by their growth rate, and the U.S. is likely entering a natural resources boom -- but either way, 2050 is probably unrealistic. All other things being equal, China and India *should* be the largest economies on the planet if for no reason other than the size of their internal markets. I feel like India gets lost in this debate a lot.\n\nAnd all of this might turn out to be yet another prediction that never comes true. Macroeconomic tea-reading has never been humanity's strong suit.\n\nEchoing the others here, [predictions about Japan's overtaking the U.S.](_URL_2_) were more a feature of the late 1970s and 1980s. The Harvard professor Ezra Vogel's [*Japan as Number One: Lessons for America*](_URL_3_) was published in 1979, for example, and is a somewhat entertaining read in hindsight. Not because Vogel got everything wrong -- a lot of his analysis is spot-on -- but because it's a decent warning against academic overconfidence. ",
"Besides what people before me have already said, an interesting side bit: the USSR was expected to overtake the US because they had rapid industrializatrion. In the standard economic textbook of the time, by Samuelson, it was predicted that the US and USSRwould achieve equal GDP by between 1977 and 1995 depending on assumption. Subsequent edition kept pushing the date further and further",
"As LaoBa said, this was an expectation of the 1980s, not so much the 60s and 70s. It peaked roughly from 1982-1992, cycling through an initial long phase of \"The Japanese are infiltrating our political and economic system and/or buying it wholesale,\" hit several notes of \"We beat them, this is a betrayal of the rightful outcomes of conquerors,\" and finally was heading into \"Japan and the United States will inevitably go to war with one another over domination of the pacific/world/etc.\" in current events pseudo-academic literature (journalists, mid-grade military officers, etc as authors) and news articles until the Nikkei crashed.\n\nSources: I put \"Japan\" into the Washington Post, LA Times, and New York Times archives and read most of what was published from 1980 to 1992 for my Historical Research Methods thesis, \"US Perceptions of Japan in Newspapers, 1980-1992\", and then expanded on it for my East Asian Studies thesis \"Comparative Jingoism: Pseudo-Academic Literature on the threats of Japan 1980-1992 vs China 1997-2009,\" both undergraduate works (my BA is in Polisci and East Asian Studies with a minor in History). Also, Amakudari by Colignon & Usui; MITI and the Japanese Miracle by Chalmers Johnson; and Between MITI and the Market: Japanese Industrial Policy for High Technology by Daniel Okimoto from my highly Nihoncentric East Asian Politics & Society course taught by an eccentric former salaryman that used to joke about what we were drinking according to time of the month."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Japanophobia-The-Myth-Invincible-Japanese/dp/0812919076"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer"
],
[],
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/09/china-overtake-us-four-years-oecd",
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/10/chinese-economy-america-tectonic-shift",
"http://travel.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/weekinreview/03port.html?_r=0",
"http://www.amazon.com/Japan-Number-One-Lessons-America/dp/1583484108"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3rxomv
|
if one were to strike a billiards ball with the cue ball, and we disregard the deceleration as the target ball hits each bumper as well as other balls on the table, would the ball eventually, but always sink into a pocket regardless of where on the table it went?
|
I have wondered this for quite some time. My cousins and uncles play often. It is frequently that I see them shoot crazy angles around the table to strike a particular ball, but miss.
Essentially, if we disregard the deceleration due to hitting bumpers and disregard all other balls on the table, would the target ball eventually end up in a pocket no matter what?
In reverse, would it be possible, on a standard billiards table, to hit a ball at an angle where it would never enter a pocket if it kept up its momentum without deceleration?
(Pardon my poor terminology and ramble explanation)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rxomv/eli5_if_one_were_to_strike_a_billiards_ball_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cws71nu",
"cwsg9sm"
],
"score": [
24,
3
],
"text": [
"No, it won't always sink. It's easy to think of a situation in which it won't happen.\n\nIf you hit the ball parallel to any side of the table, it would bounce back and forth forever, never entering any of the pockets (unless it was right in front of the pocket already.",
"No, it would come to a stop. You didn't account for friction between the ball and table.\n\nIf you disregard that as well, the answer is still no. \\/u/Jeffffffff's answer is correct."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2hyg1l
|
germany just made all universities free, how do other countries do this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hyg1l/eli5_germany_just_made_all_universities_free_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckx5xuf",
"ckx61h0",
"ckx6375",
"ckxbwii",
"ckxc1mi",
"ckxdihc",
"ckxdr8v",
"ckxe21u",
"ckxetin",
"ckxgj7d",
"ckxh9v0",
"ckxns6x",
"ckxpy1k"
],
"score": [
6,
13,
145,
9,
2,
9,
3,
6,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What do you mean by \"just\"? I can't find anything in the news.\n\nIf you're asking why they're so cheap:\n\n##THIS IS EXTREMELY SIMPLIFIED. GERMAN UNIVERSITIES ARE CONFUSING\n\nalso this is only about \"Universitäten\" and not tons of other places you can study. yup, confusing.\n\nThey aren't actually free but rather cost about 300 euros (depending on what federal state you're in) of a Semesterbeitrag (literally semester comtribution) per semester. These (depending on what federal state you're in) might pay for stuff like free public transportation, but (depending on what federal state you're in) you might also have to pay for.\n\n~~Some places, not all (you guessed right: depending on what federal state you're in!) also have a Studiengebühr (fee for studies) up to around 500 euros, but of course, exceptions apply.~~ apparently this changed although wikipedia disagrees\n\nThere's also no such thing as dorms, so you sleep off-campus—which you have to pay for.\n\ntl;dr: studying in germany is not free but super cheap. If you speak german and would like to study in germany but you don't live in germany, check out the [DAAD](_URL_0_)\n\nif you have further questions, ask them.\n\nedit: damn it, this was already answered. well, I guess this can be helpful if you know what you, the student, have to pay.",
"Other countries could easily accomplish this and other social programs by simply raising [income tax to 42%](_URL_0_) on any income above $60,000 per year, which is the level in Germany.",
"Economist here. There is no such thing as free. They are just making college payments compulsory for everyone regardless of whether they use it or not.\n\nThe system used by the US was fine until universities realized the government would subsidize them raising tuition to ridiculous rates by lending to students.",
"Norway has had free university since we built our first one. Or, not free... I pay $30 per semester. The state pays the salaries of th professors and their research. With also some private money as well",
"In France, University after high school are free (maybe ~400€/yr for insurance that a lot of student don't pay thanks to the scolarship)\nPrivate Business/Engineer school are expensive though (4000-20000€/yr) but public one are good and free and they have a national recognition (that some private don't have)\nSo you can become a doctor only paying for your food/rent etc... But studies are very hard (that's how they don't end up overwhelmed)\n\nAnd all of this are available thanks to ... ... ... TAX(s) (education is the first source of expense) (46 billions € + 26 for superior(?) studies)\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSorry if I'm not clear enough (I'm a bit in a rush)\n",
"They know that the [top tax rate has no bearing on economic growth](_URL_0_) and set responsible tax rates.",
"In Spain public universities cost a minimum of 750€/year (more or less). The price goes up if you have to repeat a course. For example, the first time you study Maths II the price is ~70€, the secont time its ~140€, the third ~350€. It caps at the forth time (I dont know at what price).\n\nYou can aply for grants though, if your income is low or your marks are high, or a mixture of both.",
"Swedish universities are free for citizens. Loans are available with good rates for living expenses. ",
"Taxes. All of these social programs still cost money. That money comes from increased taxes. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your perspective.",
"This thread is full of radical misinformation on the nature of college funding in America and other countries and already people are talking about more general government funding like the military.\n\n\nIn theory college is available quite cheaply and in given \"Western Country X\" a single-payer (free, tax based) system of college would probably not reach beyond 5% of GDP (and that's huge! nearly a trillion in the US, 250billion in Deutschland). Hence why most Western Countries are able to do that. \n\nUS college costs come from:\n > At the better universities, research facilities, sports, and high profile professor acquisitions all present costs exponentially higher than routine costs\n\n > I read a stat (for american unis) recently about how the ratio of academic (professor) employee to support employee (janitor/secretary) has exploded, i.e. what used to be 1:1 is now 1:4 so like, your given hour of college learning now has an overhead with a huge upside bias. \n\n > > How does Europe avoid this? Well for instance, I get health insurance from my university, of all fucking places, this being America. I'm sure in total at least 50 people get a paycheck at this 15,000 student uni to handle health insurance. In Europe this is you know, being handled by the actual government at all times. \n\n > Haven't read on this, but I would assume Euros dont do all this \"online learning\" or other alternative approach nonsense. These efforts have a \"long tail\". You have to employ a lot of people to get new infrastructure up and running.\n\nFinally, college education is at an all time high in the US. Colleges are in low supply and loans are not. As a corollary to this, colleges are paying for construction costs to expand, often a very big cost. \n\nEveryone in this thread is pathetically ignorant. ",
"Have a generally strong economy and high taxes. Also have a well structured education system- Germany doesn't try and send everyone to universities, instead it also has very strong technical/vocational training starting in high school to create highly skilled workers who wouldn't necessarily thrive in a university. In comparison, in the US everyone is told to go to college and take out huge government subsidized loans. Many universities as a result have bloated budgets with way too many administrators. My guess is many US universities also have a lot more \"amenities\" like nicely manicured campuses, gyms, student activities, sports, etc. ",
"\"Universities in the US just raised their tuitions by 5%\"",
"Ain't nothing free - taxpayers are paying for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.study-in.de/en/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany#mediaviewer/File:Income_Tax_Germany_2010.png"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.economie.gouv.fr/budget-2013"
],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10kawg
|
why apple released ios 6 maps when it obviously wasn't ready for release.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10kawg/why_apple_released_ios_6_maps_when_it_obviously/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6e6n66",
"c6e75hw",
"c6e9q3h"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
31
],
"text": [
"The official story is that Apple wanted voice navigated maps and Google could not deliver. However, Apple and Google have a relationship that is growing more and more hostile. Ever since Apple sued Samsung, and Google stepped in to protect Samsung, and sued Apple. ",
"Sorry for not summing it up, but for me this blog post clarified why. Sometimes businesses have to do business centric decisions that aren't user centric _URL_0_",
"Because google refused to license turn by turn, which was a HUGE feature. Apple had been trying to get turn by turn built in for years but they could never come to an agreement. Also, google changed it's pricing from wholesale licensing to pay-per-use, which would make the maps more expensive. On top of that, google started adding ads to their search results.\n\nApple was also getting nervous that google was collecting user info, so they made their own.\n\nBasically they had 2 options:\n\n1. Go another year without turn by turn, potentially losing users to android. Pay more for maps in the meantime as google advertised to their users.\n\n2. Buy a bunch of mapping services, develop their own maps using third party data like tomtom or osm. Wait for the kinks to work themselves out through user reports. \n\nThey chose option 2. It's really not that hard to grasp."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/09/23/apple-maps/"
],
[]
] |
||
2slyen
|
How is light that is as old as the universe travelling to us from 13 billion light years away?
|
I'm having a hard time understanding how EM radiation can simultaneously be as old as the universe and also 13 billion light years away from us given that the universe was born from a singularity and has been expanding ever since. Wouldn't that mean that there would have needed to be something that emitted that radiation 13 billion light years away from Earth's current location when the universe was born? Obviously this makes no sense because shortly after the big bang the universe hadn't expanded enough for anything to be 13 billion light years away from anything else. I feel like I must be missing something.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2slyen/how_is_light_that_is_as_old_as_the_universe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnqq7jn"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The universe was opaque until ~300,000 years after its formation. So the light from the CMB is around that age. \n\nNow, imagine an infinitely long ruler. Pick any marking on that ruler and place yourself there. When the universe became transparent, a photon from 10cm from you gets sent in your direction, but due to the universe expanding, the space between markings keep increasing. \n\nYou and the light source are both still at the original markings, but the expansion has caused that 10cm to become billions of light years. When the photon eventually reaches you, it must appear to originate from that marking which is now far away. \n\nP.S. There is no center of the universe. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
75fdqo
|
why is the minimum age for ‘adult’ medicines usually 12? not 18 or 21?
|
There are some medicines which are meant for adults right? They usually say “this medicine is supposed to be for 12 years and older” or something like that. Why 12 but not 13? 15? 18? 21? I get with alcohol being 18-21 due to alcohol doing some serious damage to a kids body, but again, why 12 to medicines meant for adults?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75fdqo/eli5_why_is_the_minimum_age_for_adult_medicines/
|
{
"a_id": [
"do5s1xs",
"do5t44a"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"Because a lot of pharmaceuticals are dosed by patient weight. At 12 years old you are nearly full size.",
"It's just a rule of thumb to avoid overdosing, even if it's exact same active ingredient nobody is going to tell you to cut exact part of the pill to create a proper dose of the medicine for the child's weight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1297ym
|
How long after sperm enters the egg does it take to create the DNA for the baby?
|
I was wondering, when does life start? I know this question has been tried to be answered by many. I was trying to break it down to another question.
How long after the sperm enters the vagina and then enters the egg does it take to create the first cell that has all the DNA of the baby?
Is there anyway to test this?
and
Is this a reasonable indication of a start of life. (I know this might be a loaded question. I just want to know if I'm actually completely off in my thinking)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1297ym/how_long_after_sperm_enters_the_egg_does_it_take/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6t9osy",
"c6t9p7b"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The term you're looking for is the \"zygote\"; this is the first cell that properly has all 46 chromosomes. In general, this takes about 12 hours to form after the sperm cell has entered the ovum.\n\nAs to whether it's the \"start of a life\", I guess you'd have to define what life is. Both the sperm and oocyte prior to fertilization are \"alive\", and the zygote that's made is also \"alive\". Perhaps you mean \"human life\"? Well then you'd need to define a human.",
"Let's get some terminology down here. \"Baby\" isn't the correct term. It takes 9 months in humans, more or less, to form the baby. A fertilized egg (ovum) becomes a zygote, or if you prefer, an embryo. \n\nIn terms of timing, there are a number of steps. There is sperm fusion with the ovum and then a cortical reaction to prevent further sperm fusion. In humans, only after this happens does the ovum actually undergo its last (second) [meiotic division](_URL_1_) to generate the second polar body and the haploid pronucleus. The sperm pronucleus and the ovum pronucleus move close, their nuclear membranes dissolve, the genetic material groups, and a nucleus forms. This forms the zygote. The zygote starts to divide shortly afterwards.\n\nThe zygote then undergoes many cell divisions (to form a blastocyst) over the next few days before it implants in the uterine wall around day 9. Only successful implantation leads to a pregnancy. \n\nIn terms of timing of this, [this paper](_URL_0_) looks at embryos generated by a standard technique of *in vitro* fertilization called intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Since the sperm are injected directly into the ovum, they can observe events with precise timing. They looked at 93 oocytes that formed two polar bodies (and thus went through the second meiotic step) every 2 hrs for 20 hrs and then several times over the next few days.\n\n > Out of the 93 normally fertilized oocytes, 21 extruded the second polar body at 2 h after micro-injection (23%) and 63 oocytes at 4 h (68%). Pronuclei appeared as early as 6 h after ICSI in 16 normally fertilized oocytes (17%). At 8 h, 75 (80%) oocytes had two visible pronuclei, at 16 h 92 (99%), at 18 h 76 (82%) and at 20 h 63 (68%).\n\nThe second meiosis event happens as soon as 2 hrs, peaking at around 6 hrs according to their figures. Pronuclei are seen by 8 hrs and by 16 hrs almost all oocytes had 2 pronuclei. These start to merge shortly afterwards. By 20 hrs, they observed 11% already at the 2 cell stage. On the next day, all except 3 were at the 2 cell stage or beyond, with most at the 3-4 cell stage. \n\nSo the tl;dr is that it takes a bit longer than 16 hrs after fertilization for the pronuclei to start to merge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/9/1743",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis"
]
] |
|
rhj0a
|
What connection is there between the esophageal sphincter and your ears?
|
Is there any nervous system or other connection between the esophageal sphincter and the area on both sides of your neck that run up it and behind your ears and into them? What would the reason or mechanism of why a person would experience pain in that region when getting an esophageal spasm? Is this "referred" pain from the vagus nerve? btw what exactly is "referred pain" - nerves nearby misfiring?
And why would drinking ice cold water which presumably cools the esophageal sphincter halt the pain in the region and that referred parallel neck/ear pain?
I know it's a lot of questions and this isn't asking for medical advice, it's genuinely trying to understand the biological connection between the parts in this circumstance. Thanks :)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rhj0a/what_connection_is_there_between_the_esophageal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c45uvg3",
"c46asxm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Are you referring to the upper esophageal sphincter or the lower?",
"Alright here we go.\n\nThe esophageal sphincter is innervated by the [vagus nerve.](_URL_2_)\n\nThis nerve does also have a branch called [Alderman's nerve](_URL_0_) which goes to the exact region of the ear you're referring to.\n\nThe vagus nerve is well known when speaking of referred pain, and would be the link in this case.\n\nReferred pain is not well understood but the [wiki](_URL_1_) page has some information about theories, and some explanations for it.\n\nThe best way to explain the feeling you're asking about is likely to compare it to brain freeze. \n\nDoes this answer your questions?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderman%27s_nerve",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referred_pain",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve"
]
] |
|
rgmpb
|
farting and its relation to poop.
|
Besides providing us with countless hours of comedy, what purpose does farting serve? Why do they smell identical to the shit that I would imminently blast out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rgmpb/eli5_farting_and_its_relation_to_poop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c45nv7i"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
" > what purpose does farting serve?\n\nFarting serves the purpose of releasing excess gas in your digestive system. These gases are generally produced by (beneficial to you) bacteria that live within your digestive system\n\n > Why do they smell identical to the shit that I would imminently blast out?\n\nA human perceives smell by directly having relevant particles enter the nose. When you smell poop, you're detecting poop-particles entering your nose. When you smell farts, you're detecting those same poop-particles entering your nose."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3iybpu
|
Why did none of the southern states have ballots for Lincoln in the 1860 election?
|
I found something odd [here](_URL_0_) where it looks like that none of the states that later became the CSA had the option to vote for Lincoln, why is that?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3iybpu/why_did_none_of_the_southern_states_have_ballots/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cukrkyd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Something to keep in mind is that printed, government-supplied ballots happened relatively late in our political process. In 1860, one would vote by writing out a ballot for a candidate or slate of candidates, or alternatively by using a ballot that was printed in a newspaper or similar publication or handed out by a candidate's supporters at the polls. So Lincoln not appearing on ballots in the South is fairly normal; he was so unpopular there that few people would have dared to write him in or publish a ballot for him. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860#Results_by_state"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
414mp0
|
Can somebody explain possible reasons why "Super Luminous Supernova" differ from the garden variety supernova?
|
Supernova Type 1a, as we well know, are used as the standard candela for determining distance in the universe. They're effectively the same no matter where they occur. Type II supernovae are variable due to the nature of the original star's range (8-50x more massive than our own).
What could possibly cause a supernova to be super luminous? I tried to imagine several possibilities.
The one that seemed most logical to me was a scenario that involved a trinary star system comprised of two white dwarfs and a third star. The two dwarf stars sapped off and split the mass of a third star, but their individual masses were below the critical amount which would allow them to collapse individually. The third star gets cannibalized fully. After the two engorged white dwarf stars' orbits degraded, their combined mass would exceed that of a Type 1a supernova, thereby creating a far larger explosion.
Anyhow, please enlighten me, because I'm just spit-balling here as I sit at my desk and daydream about things other than the mundane.
edit: added a word.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/414mp0/can_somebody_explain_possible_reasons_why_super/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyzna2d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I mean... the best source is probably [the paper](_URL_0_) itself.\n\nBut, **TL;DR** we don't really know yet. It seems too energetic for most models, so the theorists will need some time to adjust.\n\n > Only within the past two decades has the most luminous class of supernovae (super-luminous supernovae, SLSNe) been identified. Compared with the most commonly discovered SNe (Type Ia), SLSNe are more luminous by over two magnitudes at peak and rarer by at least 3 orders of magnitude.\n\n > The power source for ASASSN-15lh is unknown. Traditional mechanisms invoked for normal SNe likely cannot explain SLSNe-I. The lack of hydrogen or helium suggests that shock interactions with hydrogen-rich circumstellar material, invoked to interpret some SLSNe, cannot explain SLSNe-I or ASASSN-15lh.\n\n > Another possibility is that the spindown of a rapidly rotating, highly magnetic neutron star (a magnetar) powers the extraordinary emission. The total observed energy radiated so far (1.1 ± 0.2 × 10^(52) ergs) strains a magnetar interpretation because, for P ≲ 1 ms, gravitational wave radiation should limit the total rotational energy available"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03010"
]
] |
|
3uxhup
|
if earth's orbit is elliptical, how is it that summer occurs when earth is furthest from the sun, and spring and fall, when earth is closest to the sun, is cooler than summer?
|
Additionally, how is is possible that the tilt of Earth, as minor change of distance from the Sun as it is compared to the changes of distance from it's Orbit, can still produce a hot Summer for the Southern Hemisphere in the late months of the year?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uxhup/eli5_if_earths_orbit_is_elliptical_how_is_it_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxik5qw",
"cxik820",
"cxik82n",
"cxikelg"
],
"score": [
3,
12,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The difference in temperatures between seasons isn't due to being closer or farther from the sun, but by the fact that you are tilted away from the sun in the winter, so you get less direct sunlight. And the amount that we are closer to the sun during the (northern) winter because of the elliptical orbit only results in the earth getting a bit more energy from the sun (less than 10% more) because of how big the orbit is.",
"The change in orbit is more or less negligible. You're talking 3 million miles out of about 91 million miles, about a 3% change. \n\nThe tilt of the Earth 23.4 degrees. Now think about shining a flash light directly at the wall. It makes a spot right? If you tilt the angle around 30 degrees what happens? The spot stretches out, it covers twice as much ground as it did when you were pointing straight. \n\nBut the flash light didn't change its power level, the 'spot' is still delivering x energy to the wall, over twice as much area. So any individual 'unit' of that spot is receiving half the energy it was before. \n\nWhile not the only factor, that's a big one. Any given spot on the surface in winter is receiving far less energy than it does in summer. ",
"The Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, but it's *really* close. It's aphelion (furthest distance of an orbit) is 152 million kilometers, while it's perihelion (closest distance of an orbit) is 147 million kilometers. While 5 million kilometers sounds like a lot, in astronomical terms that is very little. Mars for example has a difference of 43 million kilometers.\n\nWhen the Earth tilt, the side closer to the sun receives more sunlight for the same surface area, and the light has to travel through less atmosphere before hitting the ground. That has a far greater effect than our relatively small variation in orbit distances.",
"This is one of those misconception things that gets printed in textbooks and then circulated around. \n\nThe eliptical nature of earth's orbit does not coincide with the seasons. If it did, wouldn't the whole world experience the same season at the same time? \n\nWhat actually causes the seasons is the procession (wobble) of the earth as you mentioned, but for a slightly different reason. What happens is that as the earth tilts your hemisphere towards the sun, it receives a greater than average amount of energy causing a summer for that hemisphere. Now, at the same time the other hemisphere is tilted away from the sun and receives less than an average amount of sunlight causing a winter.\n\nAs you move from the equator to the poles of the earth, the amount of sunlight becomes more extreme, which helps cause the large swing in temperature between seasons. \n\nIf there were no wobble, there would be no seasons because the earth would always recieve an average amount of sunlight everywhere. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7wtxhx
|
-why is that if you get distracted, your muscles become weaker?
|
I did some experiments, and I found that after verbally distracting people, their grip strengths had a massive decrease than if they were focused. I can't seem to find any explanation on the web, and I'm hoping you guys might be able to explain it to me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wtxhx/eli5why_is_that_if_you_get_distracted_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"du39w4f"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Grip strength is a voluntary muscle movement, therefore by distracting them you are taking their mind off that action and so the signal to it will be decreased. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
295ex1
|
What unified the Austrian-Hungary Empire - Religion, Culture, etc.?
|
It certainly wasn't linguistics, and I'm suspecting that it was religion. The Austrians and Hungarians were Catholic, and so were the Croats who were part of the Empire. Bits of Italy and other Catholic nations were as well.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/295ex1/what_unified_the_austrianhungary_empire_religion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cihstdc",
"cihtdke"
],
"score": [
20,
5
],
"text": [
"It was conquest! Always conquest.\n\n The Austrian Empire, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, had its roots with the Habsburgs, and the Duchy of Austria. Austria and Vienna lay on trade roots coming east out of Italy, North out of the Balkans, and South and East out of the Baltics/Ukrainian steppe. Throughout the Renaissance and Early Modern period, this made Austria wealthy and powerful. The Habsburgs, Austria's ruling family, also gained tremendous political power across most of Germany, they became the Emperor of all of Germany. Austria used this power and prestige to spread their rule across southern and eastern Germany. They joined the thrones of Bohemia and Hungary to the Austrian one, giving Austria de facto rule over the area, while northern Italy was drug into Austria through a series of wars, and an advantageous marriage in Spain, which for a time unified the Austrian and Spanish thrones. \n\nBut all this power, wealth, and prestige also made Austria a target. It waged several notable campaigns against the Ottoman Turks, who after toppling the Byzantines continued to push north through the Balkans. Austria continued to strengthen its southern border, as well as Hungary's southern border, to prevent [serious Turkish invasions](_URL_0_). Thus Austria began to see itself as the traditional defender of Christianity in the Balkans, as well as the defender of Europe against the Islamic Turks. \n\nSo really, Austria, and later Austro-Hungary, was a polyglot empire because Austria expanded in such a haphazard and seemingly random way. The most important connecting thread was always \"what is best for the Habsburgs?\" who sat at the top of the whole pyramid. In the Renaissance, it made Austria a dynamic political and military power, which hung a curtain across southern Germany. But following the Thirty Years Wars, and especially after the Napoleonic Wars, the multitude of nationalities, religions, political and social ideas, and ethnic alignments all made Austria a strange and unhealthy nation. The Habsburgs continued to rule as if the Austrian Empire were still the \"Habsburg Lands\", which you sometimes see printed on older maps of the Renaissance. This led to the breakdown of Austria, which really culminated in the July Crisis of 1914, which directly caused the conflict which would destroy the Austrian (at that point Austro-Hungarian) Empire in 1918. ",
"Are you talking about the 16th century event of \"unification\" under a Habsburg monarch, or the event of the 19th century organisation of the Empire into Austria-Hungary?\nOr maybe are you asking in general what was the reason why so many different nations stayed together for so long?\n\n\n(I just want to here mention that i can't speak for the Bohemian part of the Empire, but mostly for the Croatian and i suspect Hungarian part.)\n\nWell anyway, generally speaking one of the main reasons is the threat of the Ottoman Empire. After the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 Turks conquered a large part of the then independant Kingdom of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia and the last Hungarian king died without an heir. With the prospect of the Ottoman (Muslim) conqest, the nobles in the wesern parts of the Hungarian Kingdom elected Ferdinand Habsburg of neighbouring Austria (later Holy Roman Emperor) as the king to protect them. (Not to say that all Hungarians chose Habsburgs over the Ottomans. Quite the opposite, many supported the Ottoman backed Hungarian king in a kind of civil war)\n\nWhat followed were several centuries of fierce continuous wars, skirsmishes and border conflicts between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans for the area. For the nations on the borders, the Empire's protection was desperatly needed despite all the bad things it brought with it, and as such few attempts of splitting up were ever considered.\n\nIt lasted until around beginning of 18th century (e.g. we can take the marking point the 1699 treaty of Karlowitz) when the Ottoman threat was almost gone and most of the areas of old kingdom back in Habsburg hands, and by then we already have a well established state that the strict feudal system of law and inheritance made de jure right of Habsburgs which few had the power, legality or will to attempt to dissolve.\n\nSince then fast forward couple of decades and with Enlightment, Apsolutism, rise of citizenry and later nationalism, Napoleon, ( and with the outside threat of Ottoman Empire gone) the Empire entered into a series of years of political turmoil, which eventually resulted in formation of Austro-Hungary dual empire. Still then and there, as you noticed, were not so many common factors between the nations in the Empire and I would say the long tradition of the Empire had been the main reason why no main political party thought about dissolution of the empire (together with the fear of being fiercly prosecuted for the mention of it of course) It needed a world war to finally break it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna"
],
[]
] |
|
6io37x
|
why is it so much easier to spend money than to earn it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6io37x/eli5_why_is_it_so_much_easier_to_spend_money_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj7q00d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because most employment will only pay you a set amount for an hour's work, limiting you in how much money you can make in a span of time, but you can never exhaust the human race's output of purchasable goods. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8lf3k2
|
What is the process for a new atom or element to form, specifically from the beginning when there was only hydrogen and helium?
|
If all matter began from hydrogen and helium, how did we end up with 120+ elements? Is it possible to create a specific element by mashing x amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons together? Obviously I know this is not how it works **AT ALL** but how could other elements form from just 2 elements?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8lf3k2/what_is_the_process_for_a_new_atom_or_element_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzf54y4",
"dzgnh0d"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
" > If all matter began from hydrogen and helium, how did we end up with 120+ elements?\n\nThere are 118 known elements, and some of them don't occur in significant amounts in nature.\n\n > Is it possible to create a specific element by mashing x amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons together?\n\nYes, although there are typically easier ways of producing a given element. We have many different kinds of nuclear reactions in our arsenal, and many stable (or nearly-stable) nuclides that we can use as a starting point.\n\n > Obviously I know this is not how it works AT ALL but how could other elements form from just 2 elements?\n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is a chart of most of the currently-known elements, with the primary production mechanisms shown. In these astrophysical sites, like neutron star mergers and supernovae, there are complicated networks of many nuclear reactions and decays happening. They produce many different isotopes of many different elements.",
"Stars fuse hydrogen into helium until they run out of hydrogen. Then the star begins to fuse helium until it runs out of that. The heavier the product of a fusion reaction is, the less energy is released by that reaction. Eventually, the star produces iron, a reaction that yields no energy at all. The energy produced by fusion pushes outward on a star’s outer layers, preventing it from collapsing. Once iron is produced, the energy propping up the outer layers dwindles and those outer layers are drawn toward the center of the star by gravity. The outer layers rush inwards fast enough that for about a second, there are temperatures 50% higher than the star’s normal temperature. This increased temperature allows fusion reactions that can’t take place ordinarily. This produces a wide range of elements heavier than iron. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg/2000px-Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg.png"
],
[]
] |
|
2ial7v
|
why do we try to keep people in vegetative states alive, who are not going to recover?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ial7v/eli5_why_do_we_try_to_keep_people_in_vegetative/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl0d19j",
"cl0d3yj",
"cl0d7pr",
"cl0hcqv"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"There's several reasons. It's the medical team's ethical and professional duty to maintain the person's life; they have a duty of care to the patient. It could be considered medical negligent or even murder/manslaughter if they ended the person's life. Also, they can't say for sure whether the person will recover or not.",
"* doctors can be wrong about whether a patient is in a vegetative state\n* family members are often in denial about the prospects of the patient to recover\n* it is conceivable that some future medical breakthrough could help some people in vegetative states",
"Usually it's because there is some hope of possible recovery. People hear stories about patients coming out of a coma after many years or suddenly springing to life and being able to talk [after being given certain medications](_URL_0_) or listening to certain music, for example. It really comes down to the Next of Kin not wanting to let go and forever lose any possibility of recovery.",
"Honestly, I think it's because we don't deal with death well. I've worked in healthcare for about 8 years and have seen a lot of very dead but still living people that are only still alive because their family won't let them go."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqUG3guq4Jk"
],
[]
] |
||
fahc23
|
why is it in the ingredients section, producers use ingredient a and/or b? do they know what they are putting in the food?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fahc23/eli5_why_is_it_in_the_ingredients_section/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiy3f6o",
"fiy3q97",
"fiy5h6e",
"fiy6mhb"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's usually because they may have switched ingredients, or different factories use different products for the same purpose. So instead of different wrappers this covers then all",
"They either have multiple facilities with different suppliers or they alternate as the market price fluctuates.\n\nThey do know internally what went into what batch for traceability purposes, but they don't want to print different labels.",
"Most business will have alternates available to continue producing their product in the event that:\n\nA) The first option becomes unavailable.\nB) The price of one option becomes too high.\nC) The availability is regionally specific.\n\nBecause they know they will change the ingredients sometimes, they print both versions on the label to avoid having to make label changes when they change the ingredients.",
"It's cheaper and easier to print a million labels that all say the same thing than it is to print half a million labels with ingredient A and half a million with ingredient B.\n\nTypically when you see alternative ingredients on a label, it either means that different production centers use slightly different ingredients, they have products coming from different suppliers, or they've changed ingredients and they're using up their old ingredient while they transition to the new one. It could also be that they change up ingredients based on market price - substituting one veggie for another similar relative when the price goes up too high, for example.\n\nSince the consumer doesn't know which batch they have, it can be helpful (for allergies, for example) to list both, to be extra safe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a1xnvz
|
how having a good lawyer can get you out of serious charges.
|
You always hear about rich people being able to avoid jail time/convictions for serious crimes that they 100% committed (ie OJ for murder).
How can having the money for a good lawyer effect this? Isn’t the evidence just the evidence?
Edit: I guess what I’m really asking is:
The evidence is all laid out. Each side gets to make its arguments about the evidence however the jury and judge are still able to interpret what happened on their own.
So when a defendant is on trial for something serious like murder and it is very obvious they committed the crime, how can a lawyer get a judge to give the defendant a lesser sentence when it is precedent that that crime is X amount of years in jail???
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1xnvz/eli5_how_having_a_good_lawyer_can_get_you_out_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eatkca0",
"eatkemu",
"eatkfzv",
"eatkvvn",
"eatmliy",
"eav7wph"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
18,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's sort of like asking 'why hire a plumber, when any idiot with a wrench can do a pipe fitting?' Maybe so, but a professional is probably gonna get you better results.\n\nSo it is with lawyers; there are many particularities in the legal system that a good lawyer will know how to navigate/exploit, that a bad/overworked lawyer (i.e. public defender) will not.\n\n(that said the OJ acquittal was much more about incompetent prosecution than anything else)",
"Evidence is only as strong as the arguments you can make about it. A good lawyer can come up with some crafty arguments that a poor lawyer cannot; they can also probably argue about it more effectively. If you pay well, they may be able to spend more time on your case which will help them discover new evidence. ",
"The system has a lot of red tape that requires a lot of hands to do things. Someone forgot to sign off on a custody chain document, a tried police offer mistypes a report or something is left out when it should have been locked. The more money you have the more resources you have. \n\nHigh price lawyers have investigators, (typically ex-L.E.O.s) and teams of people that review every detail of the process and go the extra length. All this is billable hours and as long as the client can afford it they will throw man power till something comes up. Most people who are guilty get off on these types of technicalities because a public defender or middle to low class citizen can not afford to go to these lengths. \n\n",
"Evidence is available, but it's almost never the perfect video of the actual crime, with close-ups of their face and their photo ID while they commit the crime. Because nobody is that stupid (well, only a few are).\n\nSo usually it's a matter of convincing a judge and / or jury that the couple straws that you have as evidence are proof, beyond any doubt, that the crime was committed by the person. For example you have some deformed bullets of a certain caliber that may be from a gun of the same type that the person has purchased earlier, maybe some hair, or blood that was recovered, maybe a dented vehicle, etc.\n\nThe lawyers still have to convince the judge, and they have to do it while the opposing lawyers argue against every single thing that's said, and discredit any single piece of evidence with examples from the past of how vehicles got dented or hair got into places in otherwise innocent situations, etc.\n\nThe better the lawyers, and the more money is spent on their fees, the longer time they can spend digging through past cases, gathering examples of (similar) evidence where the person was actually innocent, and pulling arguments from previous lawsuits in the past that can discredit whatever story the opposing lawyers are trying to \"convince\" the judge / jury of.",
"A quality legal team can do a number of things that affect the outcome of a trial. Each piece of evidence can be challenged. Did the police gather it legally and did they maintain a proper chain of custody? If you can get evidence thrown out or just appear to be tainted in the eyes of the jury, you weaken the prosecution’s case. \n\nHigh priced legal teams will also bring in their own experts to argue the validity of evidence and testimony. \n\nTop legal teams also include jury selection experts to try ensure the friendliest possible jury. \n\nFinally, comprehensive legal teams will investigate the crime and provide alternate explanations for the crime. \n\n",
"In addition to the other answers, much of the law depends on precedent. If a higher judge ruled a particular way in a past case, that sets a precedent. \n\nE.g. Roe v. Wade or Arizona v. Miranda are Supreme Court case precedents that essentially tell lower judges how to rule. \n\nBut most precedent isn’t quite as well known. And there are, literally, millions of them! If your attorney can find a precedent that makes an argument in your favor or dismisses a particular piece of evidence, etc., then they can make a big difference. \n\nBut finding the right precedent to make such an argument is like looking for a needle in a haystack. But a lawyer with more experience and more experienced staff and more staff is more likely to find that argument while the public defender with less staff and resources will likely never find such an argument. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
drpogv
|
the interstellar medium is hot? 54,000 degrees f? how is this possible?
|
A recent finding from Voyager 2 per this [National Geographic article ](_URL_0_). Isn’t temperature a function of molecular motion? But isn’t the interstellar medium a near vacuum? I am so confused.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/drpogv/eli5_the_interstellar_medium_is_hot_54000_degrees/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f6kbe0n",
"f6kdni0",
"f6ldptd",
"f6mvo9g"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Key phrase: **near**-vacuum. The interstellar medium is so thin that it can be treated as a vacuum for all practical purposes, but it’s not a perfect vacuum. It contains the occasional particle, and such particles can be measured to derive a temperature.",
"To think of temperature as average kinetic energy of molecules even it is not exactly the thermodynamic definition of it.\n\nThe important part is average kinetic energy of molecules and not the total kinetic energy per unit of volume or something similar. So if each of the very few particles you have out there have a higher kinetic energy you have high temperature.\n\nCompare warm water and air at the same temperature. A hair dryer might have air at 140 F (60C) and it feel nice and warm on your skin but if you would submerge you hand in water at the same temperatur you will get burn damage in a few second.\n\nSo it is quite clear that energy and temperature is not directly but depend on the medium. The same way hot air contain less energy per unit of volume then water, the few particle in vacuum contain less energy then air at the same temperature.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWater contain 4.12 J/(cm\\^3\\*K) compare to air that is at 0.0012J/(cm\\^3\\*K) and a perfect vacuum would be 0J/(cm\\^3\\*K) . The number is energy need to increase the same volume a degree, the exact unit is not important just that for water you need 3400 times more energy then for air. So the energy difference per unit of volume and degree is a lot less between air and and a near perfect vacuum then between water and air.\n\nSo we are used to huge energy difference at the same temperature down here on earth. For near perfect vacuum it is just even lower the air.",
"To add to this F is a measure of temperature not heat. Heat is measured in Joules not F. The interstellar medium has high temperature but low heat - like the way a spark has a higher temperature but less heat than a bath",
"The notion of temperature starts to break down in near-vacuum conditions. \n\nTemperature is often expressed as an average of molecular speed when you have a bunch of molecules bumping into one another, they transfer momentum back and forth and that keeps most of them close to that average. But in a near-vacuum, molecules only collide infrequency. A cubic meter of space in the solar system might have a million atoms and molecules in it, but they aren't interacting, they are just zipping past each other. Since many were set loose by violence processes in the sun, they are going really fast and keep going really fast. We can apply the same maths we use to feature temperature in a closed, interacting system to produce some number, but it doesn't really mean the same thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/interstellar-space-weirder-than-expected-nasa-voyager-2-reveals/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cymo2s
|
what would it take to change an atom?
|
What would it take to change an atom into a different one? Say, lead to gold? Is it possible with today's technology?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cymo2s/eli5_what_would_it_take_to_change_an_atom/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eysxbsg",
"eyt6m1l"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, bombarding with neutrons is one of the ways, but it's really slow.\n\nThe same process happens when iron is created in the star's core. It starts collapsing so quick that the elementary particles are being crammed inside the atoms, changing iron to heavier metals like gold and uranium.",
"What sort of element an atom is depends on the number of protons in its core.\n\nAny atom with 79 protons will be gold and any atom with 82 protons will be lead.\n\nAtoms are made up out of three things: Protons and neutrons in the core and lectrons in the shell orbiting around the core. Protons are positively charged and electrons negatively while neutrons are neutral. A core with a certain number of protons will sekk out to have the same number of electrons obrinting around it to even out the charge. \n\nElectrons orbiting around the atom especially those in the outermost layer determine chemistry, which is how we mostly deal with stuff around us. \n\nTo figure out what element you have to you have to look at how the electrons around it make it react and deduce from that the number of protons in the core. \n\nGold and lead differ by three protons. \n\nAtms also have neutrons in their core which are basically like protons without the charge. Having more or less neutrons does not matter for the question whether or not something is gold or another element. A different number of neutrons means that an atom is a different isotope of the same element. Different isotopes can have different degrees of stability. Instable atoms decay radioactive to turn into a different element. \n\nSo to turn lead into gold you would have to take away three protons from every atom of lead. \n\nThe easiest way to do that may be to simply add protons and neutrons until it radioactive decays by itself into gold. \n\nThis is complicated by the fact that we normally would add protons in pairs as an alpha particle. \n\nGetting from 82 to 79 by adding 2s and hoping for the best is non trivial, but possible in theory. \n\nIn practice you would waste a large amount of energy to end up with a small amount of gold that is most radioactive and won't last long. \n\nSome isotopes of mercury and platinum are better candidates for transmutation into gold by means of radioactive alchemy, but it would still not be an easy or profitable thing to do. \n\nDigging the stuff out of the ground is cheaper and less likely to give you cancer than trying your hand at creating a nuclear physics based philosophers stone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ileqr
|
what's so great about kevin bacon?
|
Why is he such a popular celebrity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ileqr/eli5_whats_so_great_about_kevin_bacon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuheic0",
"cuhem25",
"cuhf06w"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not so familiar with him myself, but just by the sheer volume and variety of films he has done, it's easy to pick something you like. Try typing \"bacon number [name of another actor]\" into Google, it will quickly became apparent just how well connected and involved he is.",
"He's usually part of large ensemble casts -- that's why the \"six degrees\" game is so easy with him. He's been on screen with pretty much every other big Hollywood name.\n\nHe also doesn't always play the good guy. A lot of his protagonist roles are ant-heroic. He also doesn't stick to just blockbusters -- Kevin Bacon has starred in a few controversial indie films as well.",
"You need to see \"Death Sentence.\" Directing is kind of meh, but his acting, and story is phenomenal. Also, hes in a shit tone of movies with a lot of famous actors. Hell, even his acting debut was in Animal House, there are ton's of famous actors in that movie alone: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/fullcredits/"
]
] |
|
czxrmd
|
why does a standing bike fall down but a moving bike does not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/czxrmd/eli5_why_does_a_standing_bike_fall_down_but_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ez3nyo4",
"ez3o24r",
"ez4803p",
"ez4p1bo"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The spinning wheels act like gyroscopes to stabilize the bike. The heavier the wheels and the faster they spin the more stable the bike is.",
"The moving bike has the contact point of the front wheel behind the centre of rotation for the steering, so it naturally straightens out, this tends to push a bike towards a position where it is stable.\n\nWhereas for a standing bike theres no motion, so the steering movement causes no force to stabilise the bike.",
"It's not just gyroscopes that others have mentioned. In fact, this actually plays a very small role, and it is still easy to ride a bike where there is a counter rotating wheel designed to eliminate all gyroscopic effects. \n\nIt does play a role in a normal bike, but only when you're going very fast. The main advantage the gyroscopic effect gives is making it easier to control the steering. \n\nThere are several mechanisms in play. Indeed you'll sometimes hear that scientists don't know how bicycles work, but that isn't really true. \n\nThe reality is the maths just gets quite complex. \n\n[minute physics has a great video which answers your question](_URL_0_)\n\nEssentially, bikes are designed so that the front wheel will automatically turn into the direction it is leaning, pushing the bike into an upright position again if it is moving forward.\n\nIf it is not moving forward, it will fall over.",
"The force that the wheels generate while the bike is moving is called centripetal (not centrifugal) force. Basically, what it says is that when you apply a rotational force around an axle, the force makes the axle point perpendicular to the rotation. So the bike's wheels literally force the bike to stay upright as they rotate perpendicular to the wheel's axle. I'm sure Wikipedia can explain it better, but hope this helps"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo"
],
[]
] |
||
9h1sio
|
Do we know why there is nothing left of the Circus Maximus in Rome when compared to many other structures from the area?
|
While most buildings from that era are literally in ruins, some have survived remarkably well. So why is the Circus Maximus so completely gone when it was such a popular place? Or is it gone *because* it was such a popular place?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9h1sio/do_we_know_why_there_is_nothing_left_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e68kmsw"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"Contrary to popular belief, more of the Circus Maximus survives than one might think. The \"floor\" level of the race track is now about 10 meters below ground level, and has never been systematically excavated. The *spina* (the central median of the track) was partially dug in 1587 on the orders of Pope Sixtus V. They were looking for the great Egyptian obelisks which had once adorned it, and found two of them: the bronze age granite obelisk taken by Augustus from Heliopolis, which now stands in the Piazza del Populo; and the massive, 522-ton obelisk originally quarried under Thutmosis III (1500-1450 BCE) for the temple of Amon at Karnak, and now standing in the Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano. In modern times, the starting gates at the west end were briefly excavated (1908) and then reburied. \n\nThere have been two major excavations of the still-extant seating on the east end (1930 and again 1979-88), which revealed a confusing series of Trajanic and later rebuildings. It was, apparently, a structure which underwent frequent renovation. From those excavations it also seems apparent that the vast majority of the highest banks of seats, which remained above ground level, were robbed out in the early Medieval period and taken elsewhere, probably for building material. Seats for 250,000 spectators' backsides is a lot of marble, after all. \n\nThe last races were held in 549 CE by the Ostrogoth Totila. Thereafter, the structure seems to have fallen quickly into disuse. In the early Medieval period, the area was used as grazing and farmland, and the seating structures were converted into a variety of industrial works. The whole area was cleared out and put in its present, relatively cleared state in the early 20th century.\n\nWhy hasn't Italy excavated more of the Circus? First, there is not much new to discover there which is easily accessible. Second, money, which Italy does not have much of these days, especially for archaeology. Third, the space is popular and frequently used (I saw Sting perform there in 2004).\n\nWhy do [some structures](_URL_0_) survive so well, while others virtually disappear? The christian church played a big role in the preservation or destruction of many ancient monuments. If it became sacred to the christians, it generally survived and was maintained; if not, then most places lacked the will or the funds to upkeep large and useless old pagan edifices. The local attitude towards preservation, for whatever reason, also played a role, as well as their access to sufficient building materials.\n\nUnfortunately, two of the best and most recent sources are not in English. One is Marcattili, *Circo Massimo : architetture, funzioni, culti, ideologia* (Roma : L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2009); the other is Polt, *Circus Maximus : das gesammelte Werk ; Geschichten, Stücke, Monologe und Dialoge* (Zürich : Kein & Aber, 2002)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/search?biw=1904&bih=962&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=zMuhW6PMLYXosAevh5qABw&q=maison+carree+nimes&oq=maison+carree+nimes&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i8i30j0i24l2.4037.4659..4755...0.0..0.196.764.0j4......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i67j0i30j0i5i30.itVBFr_1gtg"
]
] |
|
3midoi
|
Did Vikings prefer sword and shield or two handed in the battlefield
|
What did Vikings used in the battlefield more and why?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3midoi/did_vikings_prefer_sword_and_shield_or_two_handed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvf9kfj"
],
"score": [
39
],
"text": [
"The favorite weapon set would be spear and shield, usually with some sort of knife or - if you could afford it - sword in case you needed to get more up-and-personal.\n\nFighting in the Viking Age relied heavily on shield walls - tight lines of men standing close together and protecting each other with their shields, much like the earlier Greek hoplite phalanx. And just like a hoplite phalanx, the most useful weapon was a spear - it gave you reach, was ideally suited for quick hard stabs, and could (depending on the size of the spearhead) be lighter and quicker than a sword (Viking Age swords tended to be about 2.5lb / 1.1kg; a spear with a moderately sized head and a light ash or hazel shaft could weigh less and be balanced more ideally for a thrust). Most importantly, spears gave each fighter the reach to support the person on either side, and to reach gaps between shields to the right and left instead of being forced to try to get around the shield immediately in front of him. Swords are much less useful in this style of fighting.\n\nThe goal of a shieldwall, however, was to push through the other side's formation and get them broken into smaller groups (and hopefully terrify them into running away), at which point swords and long knives (seaxes) might become more useful (though I've seen a fair number of early medieval wounds in the back from spears, so even then they continued to be useful).\n\nAnd of course, spears can also be thrown. Some were designed specifically to be javelins, but many more appear to have been rather versatile (so you could use it either way). And we have textual accounts of warriors starting off a battle by throwing spears, but keeping one back to use when the fighting became hand-to-hand (the [Battle of Maldon](_URL_0_) is particularly worth a look, if you want to read a great war poem with good descriptions of Viking Age fighting).\n\nSpears were so common that viking age stories like Beowulf refer to especially reliable soldiers as aeswiga ('spear warrior'), and whole people groups as the 'Spear Danes.'\n\nThere were other options besides spear and shield - we have people buried with axes that were pretty clearly designed to work better as weapons than tools (some made for use in two hands, toward the end of the Viking Age), and there's a Pictish stone carving showing a warrior with a spear in two hands instead of the more typical one. You don't really see 2-handed swords in this period, however, perhaps because the metallurgy required to make such a long and strong piece of steel was still in its infancy in western Europe, but likely also because the shield remained such an important point of a warrior's social status, enabling him to fight in the shieldwall and, in some early medieval law courts, a required proof of his good social standing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.battleofmaldon.org.uk/poem_0.htm"
]
] |
|
19itto
|
in the 1960s did most normal Russians still claim to believe in communism's superiority?
|
"claim to believe in communism" I phrased in that way so people wouldn't go on my back about how Stalinism isn't really communism in the answers
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19itto/in_the_1960s_did_most_normal_russians_still_claim/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ogtm7",
"c8ojukh"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"When talking about Russian perceptions of Communism you have to be careful who you're talking about. I think at no point besides perhaps late 1917 would peasants have positive opinions of Communists, and that was simply because they weren't the Provisional Government. The Peasants, like most of the Russian Empire, did not get along very well with the Bolsheviks during their rise to power and the 1921-1922 peasant revolts against Lenin were particularly brutal affairs. The status of workers is more controversial, they by and large believed in Communism but not Bolshevism and this brought the Workers Soviets into a series of brutal confrontations with Lenin's forces during and after the Civil War. What the former ruling elite, nobility, clergy, and conservatives thought of Communism is rather obvious.\n\nStalinism and its measures such as forced collectivization and the great terror undoubtedly contributed to mass resentment against Communists, particularly among those ethnic minorities that suffered the worst under Stalin (Ukrainians, Baltics, Belorussians). These regions became hotbeds of anti-Communist activity, so much so that they initially welcomed the Germans as liberators (though life under German occupation was soon discovered to be hardly preferable). \n\nI think the heyday of Communism among the Soviet Empires various populations would have been the Khrushchev era in any regard, particularly the early 60s. De-stalinization, economic improvement, a spirit of national unity (not achieved among all obviously) following their victory in WW2, and relaxing repression. I wouldn't say this meant the majority of the population \"believed\" in Communism, past experiences with Communism always made the Soviet people weary of Marxists. However there was certainly a spirit of \"things are getting better\", which unfortunately was undone with Brezhnev and the era of stagnation.\n\nThough it needs to be said Khrushchev was hardly a messiah or a liberal-democratic ruler. He was a Stalinist who renounced Stalinism mostly because of his own personal trauma/disdain for Stalin and never lost the thuggishly banal ruling policies of Stalins inner circle. He did however make a number of wise decisions (along with other unwise ones, such as the invasion of Hungary and Cuban Missile Crisis) which probably helped him rule during the Soviet Unions peak.\n",
"This is not exactly the answer, but looking at Russia's \"performance\" might tell us something about how the state was appreciated by Russians, and where the image of \"stagnant crappy Russia\" comes from. \n\n**1921-1960**\n\n[This graph](_URL_13_) shows the development of both the US and Russia from 1921 to 1960. In 1921, most of Russia wasn't industrialized and living conditions were much lower than conditions in the US. But in the next couple of decades, life expectancy and income per person rise dramatically. In 1960, the average Russian has a life expectancy and income per person that is similar to Italy and Israel, and close to Belgium and France. The difference between the US and Russia is way less than it was in 1960. \n\n\n**1960-1982**\n\n[The next graph](_URL_1_) shows the development of Russia, compared to Italy and Israel. Israel is the small green dot. Life expectancy keeps rising in Italy and Israel, but it stagnates in Russia. Income per person increased way more in Italy in Israel (and income per person is measured on an exponential scale in the graph!). \n\n**1989-1999**:\n\n[Here you can see](_URL_2_) that many countries all over the world keep 'progressing', while Russia falls back, eventually resulting in living conditions similar to those in Turkey, completely incomparable with Italy and Israel, while they were once 'equals'. \n\n**Conclusion**\n\nUntil the 1960s, Russia was actually a very dynamic place that showed lots of progress, and I'm sure it impressed a lot of Russians. People became wealthier and healthier. The country left the pre-industrial paradigm where most people were farmers, and they encountered cars while they followed the space race. \n\nBut while the rest of the world 'continued', Russia was 'stuck'. The country would start stagnating in the 60s. The stagnation turned into outright regression in the 90s: while it was similar to 'developed countries' in 1960, it was incomparable to the West in 1990 and the following decade. \n\n**Source**\n\nI used [Gapminder](_URL_8_) for the data, it's very useful to take a look at the 'trajectory' of Russia. \n\n**TL;DR:**\n\nRussia in the 1910s: [A crappy pre-industrial place](_URL_0_)\n\nRussia in the 1960s: [A](_URL_3_) [relatively](_URL_15_) [modern](_URL_9_) [place](_URL_10_)\n\nRussia in the 1980s: [Hurray](_URL_4_) [for](_URL_11_) [thiry](_URL_14_) [years](_URL_5_) [of](_URL_7_) [stagnation!](_URL_6_)\n\n**Disclaimer**\n\nI know the images are exaggerating. \n\n**Justification for spending too much time and energy on this post**\n\n[Procrastination](_URL_12_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p19_00021065.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/3pS3YTB.png",
"http://i.imgur.com/dlTGaBI.png",
"http://i.imgur.com/tE2QR80.jpg",
"http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/russianvillageoftheearly1980s/russianvillageoftheearly1980s-40.jpg",
"http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/russianvillageoftheearly1980s/russianvillageoftheearly1980s-32.jpg",
"http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/russianvillageoftheearly1980s/russianvillageoftheearly1980s-38.jpg",
"http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/russianvillageoftheearly1980s/russianvillageoftheearly1980s-36.jpg",
"http://www.gapminder.org/world/",
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7E9nhQ5x7D8/TpHy88YDuuI/AAAAAAAAQqY/wKwTuxSFJbI/s1600/Moscow+1960+%252811%2529.jpg",
"http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H3QNzuIZiQc/TpHy_XB75sI/AAAAAAAAQqk/wL5QE2fjsGU/s1600/Moscow+1960+%252814%2529.jpg",
"http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/russianvillageoftheearly1980s/russianvillageoftheearly1980s-21.jpg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P785j15Tzk",
"http://i.imgur.com/MdUbfEf.png",
"http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/russianvillageoftheearly1980s/russianvillageoftheearly1980s-29.jpg",
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ioUDekIjQO0/TpHy0hF9k6I/AAAAAAAAQp0/LVWX9ykfH48/s1600/Moscow+1960+%25282%2529.jpg"
]
] |
|
23iui1
|
why does hot chocolate mix/powder stay dry even when milk or water is poured on top of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23iui1/eli5_why_does_hot_chocolate_mixpowder_stay_dry/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgxf8sm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Water likes to stick to itself. That's why the surface of water and water droplets is smooth. \n\nPowder are full of little tiny holes. For water to go into the holes it would have to make a little spike of water. The water would rather stick to itself then make the spike."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2xkybe
|
at what point does the flow of air on an object go from cooling it down to heating it up due to friction?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xkybe/eli5_at_what_point_does_the_flow_of_air_on_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp106zd",
"cp10mek"
],
"score": [
23,
6
],
"text": [
"Never, it isn't friction but [air compression](_URL_0_) that heats the object. \n\nAs for at what point it out-factors the effect of the air whisking heat away, it depends on the shape. Basically a 'bad' aerodynamic shape will squish a lot more air than a 'good' aerodynamic shape, which will allow the air to flow around it without getting too squished.",
"The \"cooling\" effect of flowing air occurs in two scenarios: when there is evaporation on the surface of the object (a wet towel hung in the wind is cooled down); or when the temperature of the flowing air is cooler than the object (essentially just constant heat exchange). Unless evaporative cooling comes into play, air flowing over an object cannot make the object cooler than the air itself. \n\nAir friction is constantly heating up an object. When wind blows on your face, air friction is transferring thermal energy to you, albeit a minuscule amount that is dwarfed by the other cooling effects. \n\nAn object heating up or cooling down when it moves through air is basically the sum of Air friction + heat exchange + evaporative cooling (if any). Whether the object heats up or cools down depends on a lot of variables like its shape, its original temp, its speed, temp of air, etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://what-if.xkcd.com/28/"
],
[]
] |
||
bgdpcu
|
the cause of the geometric patterns formed in sand with a tone generator
|
I've see several videos in which someone pours sand, or maybe salt, onto a plate connected to a tone generator, and as the frequency increases, the patterns become more complex. Can somebody please explain to me why/how those patterns are formed and what determines their shape/pattern as the frequency increases?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bgdpcu/eli5_the_cause_of_the_geometric_patterns_formed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elk40h7"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"[Standing waves](_URL_2_)\n\nIf you shake a string at right frequency \"knot\" points will form that stay stationary. \n\nThis is due to the wave created by the shaking and the wave reflected from the other end interfering with each other.\n\nVideo: Standing waves on a string _URL_1_\n\nObjects that are more complex than a string will have different kind of standing waves on them. They too will form knot points that are stationary (or move only very little).\n\nExamples for a circular surface: _URL_0_\n\nThe sand will move away from the areas that move alot and accumulate on the stationary areas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrations_of_a_circular_membrane#Animations_of_several_vibration_modes",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xCmtYXewdk",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave"
]
] |
|
esskzv
|
Commercial kitty litter was invented in 1947. Where did house cats pee and poop before then?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/esskzv/commercial_kitty_litter_was_invented_in_1947/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffc8s33"
],
"score": [
41
],
"text": [
"If your cat was an indoor cat, you would likely provide them some sort of absorbent material. In the 1922 *Feeding and Care of the Domestic and Long-Haired Cat*, the following advice is offered:\n\n > Each room should also contain a fair sized granite pan, partly filled with sand or sawdust. I prefer saw dust as it does not hold moisture as long as sand and is free from fleas. \n\nSimilar advice was offered in the 1921 *Your Dog and Your Cat, How to Care for Them: A Treatise on the Care of the Dog and Cat in the Home*, with the author writing that:\n\n > A pan of sawdust, sand, or torn bits of paper should be kept in some convenient place for their use in attending to their functions. They must have free access to this if they are to be clean with their habits.\n\nLikewise, the 1889 *Our Cats and All About Them* reminds readers that:\n\n > Always have a box with dry earth near the cat's sleeping place, unless there is an opening for egress near.\n\nI do find amusing how much the authors of these old manuals strive to *avoid* directly stating what these are for. It is clear enough, of course, but the language is still euphemistic, speaking of 'their functions' and 'moisture'. Vague allusions to the 'cleanliness' of the cat are common too, such as the 1895 guide which notes:\n\n > The cat is an excessively cleanly animal, and when housed should be provided with means for remaining so. A small box, or -- what is better, as it can be well washed -- a galvanized flat pan such as used for roasting meat, should be placed in some well-ventilated corner out of sight, and kept filled about an inch deep with sand, clean earth, or sawdust. Perhaps the latter is preferable, as it can be burned. The litter should be changed frequently.\n\nAlso going on to note that for kittens, a bed of peat-moss litter has the \"desired effect\" of teaching them cleanliness, when changed at least once a day.\n\nWhile hardly a scientific survey of the literature, I found in only a single book, 1887's *The Cat* , reference to actual product in noting that the creature is \"*guided by a peculiar instinct to scratch up earth for the purpose of hiding their excrements*\" and that indoors even will do their best to avoid the carpet, \"resort[ing] to cinders or coal-dust\"*. They go on to note similar ways to accomodate this as others did, writing that:\n\n > It is a good plan to have a large flower-pot saucer - the larger the better, but not less than fifteen inches in diameter - kept in some suitable corner, with a little clean garden-earth or sand in it. It need not contain much earth and it can be changed at will; but should not be allowed to become foul as to offend the cat.\n\nWriting advice for owners of \"catteries\", that is, breeders with large collections of cats, the most practical advice in 1901 *Domestic and Fancy Cats* is simply that:\n\n > Sanitary arrangements in these catteries are not so difficult, for the free access to the outside runs, if cats have been trained to habits of cleanliness, will be readily sought for and discovered by them.\n\nBut recognizing this isn't always possible, the author continues:\n\n > Still it may be desirable to provide receptacles, and I know of no better than the large stoneware pans supplied by Spratts Patent, or zinc trays can be mate whatever size and shape is desired. Opinion varies as to what these are to be filled with. I have from the earliest period, and down to date, been an advocate of dry earth; some however consider sawdust as far and away the best, and only a few years ago I was informed by a large breeder that if earth and sawdust be placed in separate receptacles, sawdust will be selected by the cat. Be this as it may, I am still open to conviction of is efficacy, over Nature's deodorizer. An efficient deodorizer or disinfectant should always be kept at hand, such as Izal, Sanitas, Jeyes', or Lawes', which rank above most others. \n\nGoing back further into the 19th century, there is even stronger emphasis on the *cleanliness* of the cat, with an author in the 1870s writing that:\n\n > Cats of the right sort never fail to bring their kittens up in the way they should go, and soon succeed in teaching them all they know themselves. They will bring in living mice for them, and always take more pride in the best warrior-kitten than in the others. They will also inculcate the doctrine of cleanliness in their kits, so that the carpet shall never be wet. I have often been amused at seeing my own cat bringing kitten after kitten to the sand-box, and showing it how to use it, in action explaining to them what it was there for. When a little older, she entices them out to the garden.\n\nOf course, they later go on too note that a cat will *literally die* if they get too dirty, writing:\n\n > I have known cats take ill and die from having their coats accidentally soiled beyond remedy.\n\nThis might be a bit excessive, but this emphasis on the 'instinctive cleanliness', as countless guides in the late 19th to early 20th century noted, was the \"natural virtue which renders pussy so generally a favoured intimate of the household\".\n\nSo the sum of it is that there was no one solution offered, but there was certainly a general consensus on the necessity of providing an indoor place for relief, and while the advice varied as to the specific material, be it sawdust, earth, or otherwise, it ought be something absorbent and changed frequently.\n\n**Sources**\n\n*Feeding and Care of the Domestic and Long-Haired Cat* by Ellen V. Celty and Anna Ray\n\n*Your Dog and Your Cat, How to Care for Them: A Treatise on the Care of the Dog and Cat in the Home* by Roy Henry Spaulding\n\n*The Cat, A Guide to the Classification and Varieties of Cats and a Short Treaties Upon Their Care, Diseases, and Treatment* by Rush Shippen Huidekoper\n\n*Domestic and Fancy Cats: A Practical Treatise on Their Varieties, Breeding, Management and Diseases* by John Jennings\n\n*Cats: Their Points and Characteristics, with Curiosities of Cat Life, and a Chapter on Feline Ailments*\n\n*Our Cats and All About Them: Their Varieties, Habits, and Management, and for Show, the Standard of Excellence and Beauty* by Harrison Weir\n\n*The Cat: Its Natural History; Domestic Varieties; Management and Treatment* by Philip M. Rule\n\nThis is just a sampling of texts out there, but you can find them and more on _URL_0_, HathiTrust, and Project Gutenberg.\n\nAfterward: Looking through a lot of old books about cats and trying to find more references, I had to share one false positive hit for \"sawdust\" which ended up being about a ship's cat:\n\n > Tuesday was flogging day; and to add, if possible, to the terror of the condemned wretch, after the gratings were rigged and the man stripped and lashed thereto, sawdust was sprinkled on the deck all round, to soak up the blood. But at every flogging match\n\n > > “There sat auld Nick in shape o’ beast,”\n\n > at least in the shape of Tom the cat, who would not have missed the fun for all the world. There on the bulwark he would sit, his eyes gleaming with satisfaction, his mouth squared, and his beard all a-bristle. He seemed to count every dull thud of his nine-tailed namesake, and emitted short sharp mews of joy when, towards the middle of the third dozen, the blood began to trickle and get sprinkled about on sheet and shroud. Though I never disliked Tom, still, at times such as these, I really believed he was the devil himself as reputed, and would have given two months’ pay for a chance to brain him. When the flogging was over, Tom used to jump down and, purring loudly, rub his head against his master’s leg.\n\nTom seems like *kind of a dick*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"Archive.org"
]
] |
||
7eslg9
|
why were there tons of super giant creatures like dinosaurs a few million years ago, but there aren't now? why did everything shrink in scale? even a lot of bugs were much bigger then. did earth's gravity change?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7eslg9/eli5_why_were_there_tons_of_super_giant_creatures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq74nzq",
"dq751cb",
"dq75fop",
"dq75kli",
"dq75ymi"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The prevailing theory is that our atmosphere had a lot more oxygen in it at the time (right now it's just over 20%). This let animals grow larger, especially with the scale of insects. Since most of them don't have a true respiratory system, they take in oxygen through their skin/exoskeletons. By having more O2 in the atmosphere, that made it easier to sustain larger size.",
"That's an interesting question. The one thing that has not changed, however, is earth's gravity. \n\n\n\nAs for insects the case is fairly well understood. Insects don't have lungs the same way we do, their respiration is more dependent on passive diffusion. This limits their size as smaller things have a greater surface to volume. Thus they could evolve bigger forms only in periods when the air oxygen concentration was higher. \n\nAs for dinosaurs the answer is more complex. By far most dinosaurs were not very big. But we tend to notice the ones that were huge and spectacular. Nevertheless, the biggest animal ever to grace the planet is alive today: the blue whale. ",
"That's not necessarily true, there's about 5-6 different whale species that are bigger than any dinosaur to ever exist, most notably the Blue Whale which absolutely *dwarf* even the largest dinosaurs.\n\nThere are certainly plenty of big insects today as well.",
"There's a few things to consider\n\n- Not everything shrunk in scale. Elephants are large. The blue whale is still larger than any dinosaur we have yet to discover. There are still plenty of creatures around today that are comparable in size to the dinosaurs. \n\n- There were smaller animals around during the time of the dinosaurs as well. There is a preservation bias when it comes to this. Larger animals are more likely to leave a trace we can find (i.e. it's a lot easier to find a T-Rex sized fossil than it is to find a chicken sized fossil) so it \"appears\" that there were much more larger creatures back then.\n\n- Time. Dinosaurs evolved over millions and millions of years. It's kind of like a long term arms race between predator and prey. Prey grows bigger, so predators grow bigger, so prey grows bigger, and so on. Larger creatures were much more susceptible to the mass extinction events that we think wiped out a lot of the dinosaurs - and there simply hasn't been enough time since then for larger creatures to evolve again. \n\n- Like /u/GenxCub pointed out. There was more oxygen is the atmosphere allowing animals (particularly insects) to grow much larger much more easily\n\n- /u/Phage0070 also raises a big point. The spread of humans has had a major impact both of the populations of megafauna and flora that existed at the time and the ability of new species of megafauna and flora to evolve. Humans put a massive strain on the natural resources of pretty much the entire planet and there simply isn't the \"space\" any more to fit large species. \n\nThere's probably more things that I can't think of just at the moment but the simple answer is: There is no simple answer. There's multiple factors that effect how species will evolve and it's a combination of all of these that allowed dinosaurs to evolve to the sizes they did millions of years ago and it's a different combination of these factors that has prevented this from happening in the modern age. ",
"There weren't exactly \"tons of super giant creatures\" during the age of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs as a group were around for 180 million years, that is a lot to pick and choose from. Larger dinosaurs are more likely to leave fossils, more likely to be found, and your are more likely to have heard of them because they are cooler, giving the impression they were all giants.\n\nBut make no mistake, there were plenty of chicken-sized dinosaurs as well. Concluding most creatures were large from a few exceptional dinosaurs is like saying Chinese people are tall because of Yao Ming."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
en497e
|
Are the any dinosaur hybrids ie (like the mule is a hybrid of a male donkey and a female horse)?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/en497e/are_the_any_dinosaur_hybrids_ie_like_the_mule_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fe09cgy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"animals in the wild hybridizing naturally is pretty rare, and a terrestrial animal becoming a fossil is also (in the scheme of things) pretty rare\n\nit's certainly possible but i've not heard of such a thing - which makes sense, as finding any evidence would be incredibly unlikely"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
s1uvj
|
the united states' corporate taxes, and why ours are the highest in the world.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s1uvj/eli5_the_united_states_corporate_taxes_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ah3bg",
"c4ah4xw"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"The American tax code is like swiss cheese. There are so many loop holes that in order to actually **make** money off of it, you need to raise the overall tax rate so high that it outweighs the loop holes. ",
"The US Statutory tax rate is 35% but it is a meaningless number. The effective rate that corporations actually pay is usually far lower. Sometimes zero or even negative when you factor in subsidies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2fqp0o
|
Thoughts on "The Forge of Christendom" by Tom Holland?
|
I've recently read through The Forge of Christendom and while I found it an extremely enjoyable read I do wonder how reliable it is as a work of history. This could just be a lack of experience but I've found that narritive driven histories aren't as accurate and work better as introductions/ sparks of interest to the scene than detailed looks at the period.
What is the general consensus on this book and Holland as an author (assuming he's done more works of history)?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fqp0o/thoughts_on_the_forge_of_christendom_by_tom/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckcm9nj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm working through Tom Hollands 'Persian Fire' and he is very honest in the forward about the amount of embellishment and speculation in the work.\n\nI'm reading this with a few other people, and while they find it significantly more enjoyable to read, we all feel that we're reading exactly what he said, speculation and embellishment. I don't know if that helps here at all.\n\nHopefully a historian will hop in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
19yy8k
|
what exactly is the bridge of the song?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19yy8k/what_exactly_is_the_bridge_of_the_song/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8skni6"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There are two ways to define the \"bridge.\" A little music theory 101:\n\nThink of how your favorite songs are built. There are choruses (which sound the same each time) and verses (which sound a little different each time). They might be put together like this: ABABA, with A being the chorus and B being a verse.\n\nHowever, to spice things up, sometimes songs throw in another element - a \"bridge.\" This is a section different from the chorus or verse to make things a little more interesting. So if I wanted to add a little variety to my song, it might go ABACABA, with C being the bridge. \n\nLet's look at an example - Weezer - If You're Wondering If I Want You To. This is a good example of simple song structure. It goes BABACA, with A being the chorus, B is the verse, and C is the bridge.\n\nThat's how the term \"bridge\" is usually used in modern music, at least. There's another meaning for this term. It can also mean a part of a song that leads up to the chorus. Example: Michael Jackson - Billie Jean. When the verse changes noticeably and he says, \"People always told me / be careful what you do...\" that's the bridge. It's getting you ready for the chorus. \n\nAlso, with this other definition of the \"bridge,\" in the Weezer song, when he starts saying, \"When the conversation stops...\" that part is the bridge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
26bxor
|
how does a temp agency make money?
|
Ok I've been unemployed for a awhile and have had some mixed success over the past few weeks. I've recently turned to a temp agency for help to find work. I've been to a couple job interviews for temp positions and I have started to wonder. How are they making money this way? I am not paying them, and I doubt they are non profit, and if they are even non profit have to make some money to keep the doors open? So I am guessing the companies that hire people from the agency are paying the agency but I honestly do not know.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26bxor/eli5_how_does_a_temp_agency_make_money/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chpkqax"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Company pays temp agency $15/hour-head. Agency pays worker $8/hr"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1srplj
|
how does using a debit/credit card work when used internationally?
|
Considering currency conversions. When using an ATM in another country would the account balances reflect a balance converted to the new currency or will it remain in terms of your home currency?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1srplj/eli5how_does_using_a_debitcredit_card_work_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0jrxo",
"ce0juho"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It displays in the currency of the ATM. So in the US its Dollars, in England its the Pound, in the Eurozone its the Euro and so on.",
"With a credit card, there is no balance of course. The currency is all in terms of the country you're in. The credit card company converts it and you see the amounts in your home currency in your monthly statement or on their website. Sometimes there is a fee, but generally this is actually the cheapest and best way to convert currency. Much cheaper than those booths/stores that convert it for you.\n\n\n\nNot sure about debit cards."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3lxqik
|
how does the volkswagen emission software work?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lxqik/eli5_how_does_the_volkswagen_emission_software/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cva77no"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"VW and Audi included software that could sense when the engine was being emission tested. Once a testing situation was detected, the engine was electronically governed to operate in a manner that would pass emissions testing - this would come at the expense of performance. \n\nWhen the software detected normal operating behavior (daily driving), the safeguards were removed and the vehicle was allowed to pollute at 40x the allowed limit. The final result was increased MPG's and performance at the expense of reduced air quality. \n\nA comprehensive FAQ can be found on [Jalopnik](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-dieselgate-volkswagens-diesel-cheating-c-1731857018"
]
] |
|
46c4zy
|
what is bio chemistry, and what do bio chemists do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46c4zy/eli5_what_is_bio_chemistry_and_what_do_bio/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d03xs2c",
"d03z08f"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Biochemistry is, simply put, the study of the chemical reactions that underlie biological systems. Think of the way proteins are formed, or how glucose is broken down into ATP. Besides academic study and aid of related fields like pharmacology, biochemistry has a lot of industrial applications nowadays, such as the development of compostable plastics or biological remediation of pollution.",
"At the tiniest level everything is made up of atoms. Imagine them as simple Lego building blocks. Some things are really easy to make, like building a wall out of Lego bricks, but living things are VERY complex. \n\nA living cell is like a crazy complex Lego machine that has all sorts of moving gears and machinery that can put itself together.\n\nBio-Chemistry is the study of those crazy complex machines, what pieces they are made up of and how those pieces can connect to each other, again like a Lego brick.\n\nBio-Chemists do that actual studying. They try and figure out what the pieces are and find new ways they could connect. They try to build different machines by swapping some of the pieces out and seeing what happens.\n\nThen they try and see how useful their new machines are for doing things in the real world.\n\n/u/TokyoJokeyo explains some of the uses for this in the real world."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
qh46x
|
why are astronomers now using radio telescopes more than optical ones?
|
Can you give me the best reasons for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qh46x/eli5_why_are_astronomers_now_using_radio/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3xk763",
"c3xkaeb"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Light and radio waves are the same thing, photons. \n\n\n\nOptical telescopes were used in the past because they were easy to make, and you don't have to process the image, you just take the photo and then look at it.\nRadio telescopes pick up light in the 'radio' range of the light spectrum, the data needs to be processed and interpreted for us to 'see' what they are looking at.\n\n\n\nWe use Radio telescopes over Optical telescopes for certain things, because radio frequencies have a longer wavelength, and have less chance of interacting with things, or getting blocked. It's basically easier to pick up a radio signal than visible light. (Think of how radio can pass through the walls in your house to reach your stereo, but your tv remote doesn't work if someone walks in the way)\n\n\n\nThere are many types of Telescopes, including Infrared, Ultraviolet, xray, etc.",
"Are you talking about deep space telescopes, like the hubble?\n\nThere's a thing called [redshift](_URL_1_) which relates to the ever expanding universe causing the frequency of photons hitting our sensors to decrease to the point of falling below the visible spectrum, requiring modern telescopes to look for infrared frequencies or below.\n\nBut since you're five, [here's a site](_URL_0_) with some really great videos that make it all pretty while it's explained :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.deepastronomy.com/astronomy-videos.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift"
]
] |
|
3v5kic
|
how do recoilless rifles work?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v5kic/eli5how_do_recoilless_rifles_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxkgrh4",
"cxkptd0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When the round is launched, it blows expanding gas out of the back of the tube. This balances the expanding gas that blows out of the front, along with the round.\n\nIt can't be used in tanks and the like because the back of the tube is literally where the crew sits. It would kill everyone inside.\n\nIt's also just not necessary. The weight of the tank takes the brunt of the recoil, along with other systems designed to minimize it.",
"Half the energy of a round goes out the front, half the energy goes out the back leaving nothing to affect the gun. In a simplified regular gun all the energy goes out the front leaving the same amount to push back the gun. \n\nNewton's third law for each reaction there is an equal but opposite reaction."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3q130z
|
why do night vision cameras cast a shadow?
|
I was watching this earlier:
_URL_0_
It made me wonder why these cameras cast a shadow behind objects, in a straight line from the camera.
ELI5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q130z/eli5_why_do_night_vision_cameras_cast_a_shadow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwb4t9z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Many night vision cameras use an infrared lamp to illuminate the scene being recorded. You can't see that light, but the camera can. Hth."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDGpHvwA4No"
] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.