q_id
stringlengths
6
6
title
stringlengths
3
299
selftext
stringlengths
0
4.44k
category
stringclasses
12 values
subreddit
stringclasses
1 value
answers
dict
title_urls
listlengths
1
1
selftext_urls
listlengths
1
1
5reo70
How can/do we know if mathematics and the concept of numbers to be correct/true?
How can/do we know if mathematics and the concept of numbers to be correct/true if they were first created by someone who is now dead, yet we keep on adding and discovering new rules.
Mathematics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6qtln", "dd6nhah", "dd6n5ag", "dd6pu5v", "dd73fq0" ], "text": [ "There's a lot packed into this. Most mathematics is based on a series of axioms called the ZFC axioms. That's the most common formulation of the foundation of mathematics (or at least it used to be, can't say I'm up with this and it's honestly way beyond my level). From those axioms we build up the mathematical constructs and concepts and building on that. How do we known numbers are true? There's a few different ways that could be taken. It could be a pretty deep philosophical question. What do you mean by 'true'? Do you mean do numbers exist independently of us? If there is a set of 3 planets were there 3 planets before humans arrived with numbers? There's a few different positions on this like platonism, formalism, nominalism. Every position has a few issues. I'll link a nice video [here]( URL_0 ) and [here]( URL_2 ) and [here]( URL_1 ) and [here]( URL_3 ). You could instead be talking about how we know mathematical results in general are true. That's related to something called meta-mathematics, which looks at things like why proofs are proofs. It also touches on philosophy of mathematics and logic. What I'm trying to get at here, is these are not silly questions they're very complicated and have a lot of thought put into them. In those sorts of things we try to establish what makes something valid. E.g., We might look at a shape and say it can't be a circle and a square at the same time. Then we would try and formalise a rule for why that doesn't make sense (it's a contradiction). Then we would try to use that rule on other systems to see if it works there too. Why would we think these things are true though? Probably the best reason is how well mathematics translates to useful stuff. If it weren't valid and reliable, would we be able to use it so effectively? If you want more in depth, I'd suggest posting over at r/philosophy or r/askphilosophers (I'm assuming this one exists)", "Because these concepts do not depend on anything to exist. They exist independently of, for instance, our universe an our existence. Mathematicians merely created forms to express them in a language understandable for people. What happens is that sometimes a mistake is made on some model, and corrections are made and distributed to better our mathematical systems.", "Numbers work however we say they work. Mathematics is a man made invention that is used to model the world. If it doesnt model the world we correct it until it does. Seeing as how mathematical models are almost always consistent its fair to say that they are working.", "If you take an empty bag and put in one marble, then another marble, then another marble, and then another marble. Then, you pour all the marbles in the bag into a bowl and if there are four marbles in the bowl, numbers are true. I'll butcher this, but here goes: What you're asking is like asking how do know red and yellow are true. Numbers are just ideas talking about something that is necessary for perception to be possible as we know it. Specifically, what we're talking about is that we can tell that things are different from each other. 1+1 = 2 only make sense if there are two things different to each other that together make a union of two different things. It's not that numbers are true, it's that we can't think about things we see and hear without using time, space, and other Categories of the Faculty of Understanding as its wonkily called in philosophy. You know that numbers are 'true' because you know your father is not your mother who is not you. Because you know that yesterday is not today. And yesterday is not today, and today is not tomorrow, then days are different to other days, and this thought alone contains 3 DIFFERENT days. Yesterday, today, tomorrow. If you're interested i recommend on reading up about Kant. Specifically work about his work on metaphysics (critique of pure reason). Reading Kant himself is a bit of a slog.", "**tl;dr** *The universe isn't based on math, math is based on the universe.* Math, like all sciences, is an interpretation of our understanding of things. We know that if we have a rock, and another rock, we have more rocks than if we only had the first rock. We need a way to explicitly express that, so we defined one. Every other mathematical concept is just an attempt at defining patterns we observe. These \"new rules\" are attempts at consolidating observable patterns (observable not necessarily being \"can see with your own eyes\") to our existing system of mathematics. In the case where that can't be done, we go back and change our definition so that it fits. Consider, for example, a dog. A dog can learn that when they sit in front of you, you will give them 2 treats. It will know that after the first one, there is another one. This dog probably has no concept of what we call mathematics, but knows that there is more than just the first ~~rock~~ treat." ], "score": [ 10, 7, 5, 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjS9dKx9-7RAhVKEbwKHQ1EDvwQtwIIGTAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvA2cdHLKYB8&usg=AFQjCNFo2JLh3krjQCR1VcjjlS_ttFyRLQ&sig2=_TDgH0IE7tMb6EojfD27yw&bvm=bv.145822982,bs.1,d.dGo", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee5NTQGCdiM", "https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjS9dKx9-7RAhVKEbwKHQ1EDvwQtwIIHzAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1EGDCh75SpQ&usg=AFQjCNH7nO-w_KxlIhKVSWa7HkOCa_Lt6Q&sig2=IFCWPHAvbDEDsPnHWSXMPA&bvm=bv.145822982,bs.1,d.dGo", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E" ], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rep1h
Why do people wake up at 3am? What's so special about it?
I've noticed that every time I have a bad night sleep, for example because I'm worried, I tend to wake up around 3 am. And it looks like it's not just me. In some cultures 3 am is known as Witch Hour or Devil's Hour. What's so special about 3am?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6otcr", "dd6t90o", "dd6wgzz" ], "text": [ "...I actually woke up at 0303 today. Spooky. Nah but there isn't anything special about that in particular. I work nights and to me 0300 is sleeping in until noon for the average person. There is also the bi-modal sleep model which might explain more. URL_0 Our biology might be wired to actually sleep for a few hours...wake up for a few hours then go to bed again. 0300 is a good time to wake up if the average person goes to bed around 2300. That gives 4 hours of sleep, about what is mentioned in the study in the article. This would be a good time to start breakfast (slow cooked oats anyone?), read a book (if light available), have sex, talk to your spouse, let the dog out and so on before going back to bed.", "I'm going to guess that it's confirmation bias, but happy to be proven wrong if there's any science behind this.", "I've always had a wacky sleep schedule - it's more like I take naps in a row. I used to do laundry in the middle of the night when I woke up and wasn't sleepy. It was great to wake up to tidy, clean clothes." ], "score": [ 23, 10, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-used-to-sleep-in-two-shifts-and-maybe-we-should-start-to-again" ], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5reqta
How can we talk about the universe being flat? Is it not expanding in all directions?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6nr5y" ], "text": [ "Flatness, in cosmology, refers to the shape of space and not its size. It's a geometry thing, related to questions like: are parallel lines always parallel, no matter how long they are? or, do the angles inside triangles always sum up to 180 degrees? You probably learned in school that the answers to these questions is 'Yes, always'. But that is only true if you're working in a flat space. Here's an example that might help you visualize what non-flat space can be like. Think of the Earth, a sphere. Consider the lines of longitude (which run from the North pole to the South pole) and line of latitude (which run 'horizontally' in rings around the poles). Let's draw a triangle: a shape made from 3 straight lines. Let's start at the North pole, and draw a straight line down to the Equator. Now let's make a 90 degree turn, and move in a straight line along the Equator, until we've gone 1/4 of the Earth's circumference. Now make another 90 degree turn and head straight back to the North Pole. Because you went 1/4th of the way around the Earth, you arrive facing 1/4 of a circle (90 degrees) from how you started. You're back where you started, you've made three straight lines, so that's a triangle. But the sum of the angles is 90+90+90=270 degrees, not 180! The Earth is not flat, and so you can get results that seem to go against 'classical' geometry. This effect isn't obvious on small scales: if you tried doing it just traveling a kilometer in each direction and carefully measuring the angles, you wouldn't notice (much of) a difference from 180 degrees. It's only on the larger scales that the effects are noticeable. We want to try to study the shape of the universe, to see if it's flat or curved, so astronomers have been carefully observing to see if we can figure it out (without having to actually travel huge distances)." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5reu6t
why are elements measured in half life instead of full life?
Chemistry
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6ohbv", "dd6p5ym", "dd6o3k2" ], "text": [ "**Analogy time: POPCORN.** (and a little bit about reliability too). Elements aren't really \"measured\" by half-life. They're measured by their count of protons. Hydrogen has one, helium two, and so on. Then the number of neutrons that's in there can be used to classify these elements further into isotopes. A hydrogen atom with one proton and zero neutrons is the isotope called \"protium\". With one neutron you get \"deuterium\" and with two neutrons, you get \"tritium\". And some neutron counts make an atom of that isotope much more unstable and likely to explode... which can change it into a different isotope, or even a different element altogether if some protons come out of there. Tritium, for example, is a lot more unstable than deuterium Those isotopes (not the element) have a property called a half-life, and it's a way of measuring how stable that atom is. Now for **popcorn**. Yay!! Throw some kernels into a pot with a little hot oil and continue heating it up. They don't pop all at once, right? Some start early, some start late, some never get around to popping at all by the time the others start to scorch and your family starts screaming at you for stinking up the house. So you can't really say \"This kernel takes this long to pop\" because it's so uncertain. It could be almost instant or it could happen much later. There's no reliability to the number you'd give. But what you CAN say is \"In this amount of time, half of the kernels pop.\" That's a pretty darn reliable number. And, getting back to our isotopes, you can reliably say \"In this amount of time, *half* of the atoms that are this isotope type will break down into other elements\".... in other words, \"half life\". But you CAN'T reliably say \"This is the amount of time when this isotope will be guaranteed to break completely down.\"", "Because the full life would infinity in theory. We can't say how long it takes until all the radioactive material in a sample is gone. We can predict when half of it will be gone. For example uraniuam-232 (an isotope of uranium with 232 140 Neutrons) has a half life of 68.9 years. That means if you have 1kg of it after 70 years half of it will be gone. Another 70 years later half of the rest will be gone leaving you with a quarter of a kilogram. This goes one forever in theory. Every time a half life passes half will have decayed leaving you with first 1/2 then 1/4 then 1/8 and so on. Mathematically this progression will never reach zero and go on until infinity. In practice of course since there is a finite amount of atoms in the sample at some point even the last atom will have decayed, but how long it will take until that happen is more or less impossible to predict and useless to know. What we can predict and want to know is how much of the original will be left at any given time. If you want to know for example when less than 1% of the sample will remain and 99% will be gone you can use math to figure out that 6.65 times the half life has to pass. Generally as a rule of thumb for every 10 time the half life the sample is reduced by 1000, so for example after 30 half-life times only a billionth will be left.", "There is no such thing as a full life. It is exponential decay so it will always approach zero without ever reaching it. Also using half life makes mathematical models for it very nice and easy to estimate for a human." ], "score": [ 9, 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rfdni
Why do some car manufacturers work under different brands instead of just one?
Edit: Thanks everyone for your responses, I can understand why its actually better with actual reasons now other than just figurative stuff :)
Economics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6rg2y", "dd6rsnm" ], "text": [ "Money. Different brands offer different features. For example, Nissan has the luxury Infiniti line while Toyota has Lexus. Different products marketed to different people. Most people do not know that a Lexus is a Toyota or vice versa. Same goes for companies doing partnerships with other companies to use the same platform for their cars. For example, Fiat selling the 124 Spider vs Mazda selling the MX-5. Same car / platform, different engine under the hood along with other differences makes the car sell to a different crowd.", "Because it allows them to tailor each brand to the needs of a different market segment and adjust their advertising accordingly. Different groups of people buy cars for different reasons. You are never going to be able to create one car that fits all those reasons (especially as some of those reasons might be counter to each other). But with different brands, you can have a car that is fit for the people who rarely use a car and just need something cheap and reliable, but also have a brand for people who use their car / van for work and need a car that is super reliable and capable of carrying a lot of equipment, while also have a brand for people who use their car as a status object and just want to show off how wealthy they are by owning it." ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rfe80
Why is the Dollar still so strong?
I mean the US dollar and recently (as in, post trump), sorry for the confusion.
Economics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6tme3", "dd6s8cs" ], "text": [ "When Nixon got us off the \"Gold Standard\" he made a deal with the Saudis and OPEC that we would offer them protection and military support and in exchange, those countries could only sell petroleum for U.S. dollars. It created a perpetual global need for dollars because any country that wants to purchase petroleum needs dollars to do it.", "Just pointing out, you should probably clarify what dollar. I assume you mean the US dollar, but there are many countries that refer to their currency as the dollar too." ], "score": [ 18, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rfhnb
What is equity and why is it important?
I'm trying to acquire some financial literacy and I've looked around for the meaning but for some reason I can't quite catch it. I feel like I need a better example from the reddit gods
Economics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6sy1r", "dd6z8k5", "dd6z208" ], "text": [ "Say you borrow $100k to buy a house. At first the bank \"owns\" the house as you haven't made any payments yet. But after a few years you have paid it down to where you only owe $50k now. You have paid off half, so you now have 50% equity. It's important because it represents *your* percentage of ownership.", "Basically equity means ownership. Others have explained what it means in the context of real estate and mortgages. In the context of companies, equity is basically synonymous to stocks or stock options, because those give you partial ownership of a company. It's typically used either as the opposite of debt (i.e. bonds) when discussing the financial situation of a company, or as a complement of salary when discussing hiring conditions at startups (which often give equity to early key employees).", "Equity is part of the basic accounting equation: Equity = Assets - Liabilities. Or, in non-accountant speak, equity is what you have minus what you owe. Say you buy a house for $100k with $10k down. You have assets of $100k (the house) and you owe $90k, so you have total equity of $10k. When you pay $40k in principal (not total payments, as payments include interest and other amounts such as escrow, PMI, etc), you will have equity of $50k (asset of $100k less loan of $50k). Equity in personal finance is same concept as \"net worth.\"" ], "score": [ 27, 4, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rflwl
How are fish able to withstand the tremendous pressure in the deep sea?
Last night, I was watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey on Netflix. Neil Degrasse Tyson was eloquently explaining how much pressure there is at the bottom of the ocean and how very few people have ever ventured deep because of this. He said something along the lines of the pressure amounting to about 50 jumbo jets being placed on top of you. So, how in the hell are some little fish and crustaceans able to survive this depth when we need ridiculously strong deep sea exploration vehicles?!
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6t6pu", "dd6u2mj" ], "text": [ "> So, how in the hell are some little fish and crustaceans able to survive this depth when we need ridiculously strong deep sea exploration vehicles?! Fish don't have big open areas of air inside them that need to be at 1 atmosphere. They are full of water inside and that can easily withstand the pressure of the water outside.", "Guess what... you are at the bottom of a big ocean with forces pressing on your body. Gasbag aliens floating at the top of the atmosphere might wonder the same thing, how you survive all the pressure. The 50+ miles of air stacked above you all the way to space has weight. This force is about 15 pounds per square inch... so when you're lying in bed, there's about a ton of air \"pressing\" on your body! But fortunately you don't have any vacuum space in your body. Your organs also contain air and incompressible fluids, so there's nothing for the atmospheric pressure to exert force on you with, and you don't feel the atmosphere. Likewise, there are no gases present in a fish at the bottom of the ocean. It's all composed of (relatively) solids and incompressible liquids, and so the fish doesn't feel anything unusual. There are effects at the molecular level, though, and some gases might start coming out of solution, so this would definitely affect the fish if you brought it near the surface. It's why deep sea fish won't survive being brought up from the depths." ], "score": [ 10, 8 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rfqmw
Insulin sensitivity vs Insulin Resistance and how this relates to fat storage/loss?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6v3or" ], "text": [ "Insulin resistance just means low insulin sensitivity. To explain how insulin resistance affects fat storage/loss, here's an ELI5 I previously wrote: Imagine a creature that burns two apples worth of energy a day to survive. If it eats less than two apples, it'll feel hungry. Without any insulin resistance, all the calories from the apples it eats will transfer fully to the cells in the body that require energy so when the creature eats two apples, it is content. Now, imagine that the creature has insulin resistance. This makes it difficult for the creature to make use of the apple's energy. Imagine that it has a 50% insulin resistance so that only half of the energy from the apples goes to the cells that need the energy. It eats 2 apples but only 1 apple's worth of energy goes to the body. The creature still feels hungry so it eats two more apples. Only then can the body feel satisfied because the energy of half of the 4 apples goes to power the cells in the body due to the insulin resistance. But what about the two apple's worth of energy that was not processed by the cells due to the insulin resistance? The body does not like to let go of nutrients so much of the energy from the apples will be processed into sugar in the blood. The excess sugar that is not being pushed into the cells due to the insulin resistance will circulate through the blood and causes damage throughout the body. The increased blood sugar is is one of the major symptoms of diabetes. Since the body did consume more calories than was normal, some of the excess blood sugar will be converted to fat. As the days go on, that excess fat will cause weight gain." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rfyen
How does the WWE determine who will win and who will lose, and do the wrestlers ever break from script?
Like how do you rise to the top of a fake sport? Is there some metric they use or is it just who the writers happen to favor?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6yd9k" ], "text": [ "WWE has a creative department full of storyline writers who plans the scripts in advance. They are heavily influenced by the top levels of management specifically Vince McMahon and Triple H however other people will also have some sway. The lesser wrestlers pretty much have to do what their told but top level talent like John Cena, Brock Lesner and the Undertaker have a bit more pull. Who wins and how a storyline plays out is generally decided based on how they want to tell a story and more importantly who can they use to sell merchandise. This in particular is why John Cena has the top spot, hundreds of thousands of kids around the world buy his merchandise and make the WWE money. As you can imagine this is a bit self fulfilling, you sell more gear, you get better story lines, you sell more gear, you get a belt, you sell more gear etc. It's also why the internet community can get very upset as they see actual good talent go to waste as the kids aren't buying their stuff and/or WWE isn't pushing them like they feel they should. Case in point Roman Reigns shifts a lot of merch but the vast majority of the internet wrestling community(ICW) dislike him. Talent can and do go off script. Generally this is dealt with very harshly backstage and can result in wrestlers being cut or given terrible terrible story lines as a punishment. Young stars are always told \"pay your dues\" ie accept the shit, show that you deserve better, don't try to stand on top of people who have worked hard to be in the industry and kiss ass to the boss(sometimes literally)." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rg27g
Why is toothpaste sweet if sweet things are bad for your teeth?
Many toothpastes have a sweet minty taste, but sugar is bad for your teeth and causes cavities. How do they get the sweet taste without it being bad for your teeth?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6xt0w", "dd6wvte" ], "text": [ "Your question makes an incorrect assumption. *Sweet things, even sugary things, are not necessarily bad for your teeth.* Sweet things are bad when the sugars or other chemicals that give it a sweet taste are capable of feeding bacteria in your mouth. The acids that certain bacteria produce then eat into your tooth enamel and eventually cause cavities. This is made worse by plaque - a \"biofilm\" of bacteria on your teeth that can keep those acids in close contact, give more bacteria a great sticky place to hide, and maybe even harden into tartar and help lead to diseases of the tissues around your teeth. Toothpaste removes lots of bacteria and loosens the plaque when used properly, and washes away clean as well. Even if it has sweetening sugar instead of some other sweetening ingredient that doesn't feed those nasty bacteria, that sugar is washed away when you rinse. And why is there sugar there anyway? Because people - and particularly kids - are more likely to use the product and to brush their teeth longer when it tastes good.", "Any number of artificial sweeteners. Xylitol, Sorbitol, Erythitol, Aspartame are all popular. You aren't supposed to swallow, either, of course." ], "score": [ 9, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rg4hw
Why do some have bigger or more visible veins on their arms than others?
Is there any significance?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd6yrmv", "dd7cgy8", "dd7357l" ], "text": [ "Usually it's due to a higher amount of blood running through the body, or, in general, a lower body fat percentage.", "I lost a lot of weight and now have a lot of veins on my arms. My uncle told me I was a tweakers dream. Uhhh....thanks?", "Most blood in our body is pooled in our venous system. The amount of blood we have is directly connected to our body weight. So if we're heavier our veins are more visibly filled with blood. On the other hand our superficial veins are in our fat directly under our skin, so if we have more fat they are harder to see. This is the reason that tall, slim(or athletic) men have the veins you can see best. They have a lot of blood but not a lot of fat in their body. The other factor is skin colour, if you're black then veins are hardly visible if they're not already bulging out of the skin level." ], "score": [ 32, 10, 8 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgfh1
Intermediate axis theorem
URL_0 What kind of magic is this?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd70h7i" ], "text": [ "[This explanation]( URL_0 ) from /u/crnaruka is higher level than ELI5, but I think it is still explained at a level that most people will be able to get the concept." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [ "http://reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3lf6x8/why_cant_you_spin_a_phone_around_each_axis/cv5scxb" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rghxe
How exactly does credit scoring work?
It has occurred to me that, although I'm pretty sure I have a good credit score (mortgage, two credit cards (used but always paid in full each month), savings, job, etc) but I have no idea how it's calculated. Also, what's the single best way to screw it up (i.e. what actions should always be avoided?)?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd72dpb" ], "text": [ "A credit score's exact calculations are proprietary algorithms owned by the credit bureaus -- they don't want people reverse engineering them and not paying for access, so the exact formulas are secret. But it is a combination of credit utilization (amount of credit used vs. credit line); length of credit history, number/variety of accounts; late payments; number of hard credit pulls. Credit Karma is a site that provides estimates of your credit scores and shows factors contributing to it, how you compare to the general public, and even has a tool that allows you to adjust factors and see how it impacts your score. The site is free." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgkh2
Why did Osama Bin Laden have so many brothers, but almost no sisters?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd760c3", "dd7hr9f" ], "text": [ "Statistically more likely that it's a result of female infanticide. Per Wikipedia, \"Female infanticide is the deliberate killing of newborn female children. In countries with a history of female infanticide, the modern practice of sex-selective abortion is often discussed as a closely related issue. Female infanticide is a major cause of concern in several nations such as China and India. It has been argued that the \"low status\" in which women are viewed in patriarchal societies creates a bias against females.... in regions where women are not employed in agriculture and regions in which dowries are the norm then female infanticide is commonplace... In seventh-century Arabia, before Islamic culture became established, female infanticide was widely practiced. This is attributed by scholars to the fact that women were deemed \"property\" within those societies. Others have speculated that to prevent their daughters from a life of misery, the mothers would kill the child. \"", "Actually Osama bin Laden's father's wiki page lists 56 children but only 24 sons. That leaves 32 daughters! URL_0 The sisters are not listed by name, they're likely not notable as being women in Saudi Arabia basically makes doing anything impossible sadly." ], "score": [ 11, 9 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgnh8
If games can now render almost perfect textures, why it is yet so difficult to have a nice looking shadow?
Technology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7242o" ], "text": [ "Shadows require redrawing the scene from the perspective of the light source to determine what is on top of what relative to that light source. When this redrawing happens the results get stored in a texture called a shadow map. This shadow map has a fixed resolution which is why shadows up close can look good but shadows far away can look patchy (just like if you stretch a texture over too much distance it looks good up close but terrible far away). If you have too many light sources this means you are redrawing the scene for each light source. This can be mitigated somewhat by only redrawing the parts of the scene that change but it's still an expensive operation." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgpqx
Why do contest rules state "no purchase necessary" and require a skill-testing question to claim prizes?
With roll-up the rim back in Canada, I figured it was an appropriate time to get this question, that's haunted me for years, answered. I'm hoping to get an explanation as to why the rules state that there's "no purchase necessary", yet you certain contests require you to purchase something to play (like a hot drink with roll-up the rim). I'm also wondering why a skill-testing question needs to be answered to claim a prize. Edit: Thank you all for the great replies and awesome stories :)
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd72n7c", "dd73e9p", "dd72e72", "dd7d2s7" ], "text": [ "The \"no purchase necessary\" line means that you're NOT required to buy anything to play. If you look at the contest rules, you can find instructions on how to play without buying anything, which usually involves sending a self-addressed envelope to an address, where they will mail you back a game piece or whatever is involved in the contest. The reason for this is to [circumvent gambling laws]( URL_0 ). If the amount of money you pay towards a contest directly affects the likelihood of winning (buying more lottery tickets increases your odds of winning) or the prize you receive (betting more money means a bigger payout), then it's considered gambling and is subject to the same regulations as a casino or the lottery. By adding the stipulation that customers don't have to pay anything in order to participate in the contest and can simply mail away for free game pieces, the contest is no longer considered gambling and companies can run their promotion in areas where gambling is otherwise illegal or without obtaining a gambling license.", "Most jurisdictions have laws against private lotteries, and that's where the \"no purchase necessary\" comes from. You really don't have to purchase anything from them -- read the rules and they will tell you how to play without a purchase. The skill-test question is part of Canadian law. Games of chance are prohibited, so winners will be required to go a skill test (a simple math question) so that it can be said it wasn't purely a game of chance (which we all know it is).", "Basically, if a purchase is necessary and all it takes is just buying a ticket, then it's a lottery. Many states legally consider lotteries to be something that can only be done by the government. So to avoid that, you can get an entry for free, and you have to jump through some test of skill, then it's not a lottery and just a contest.", "The skill-testing question is part of Canadian gambling laws. By earning the prize by answering the question, it is no longer considered a lottery, but a game of skill. URL_0" ], "score": [ 63, 11, 5, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweepstakes" ], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_testing_question" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgw0m
A person eats unhygienic food regularly while I eat hygienic food. Who has better immunity?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd73yai" ], "text": [ "This is partially genetics. What do you mean by unhygienic? Do you mean the food comes from a dirty source? Or is just generally unhealthy? If you mean better immune system, then without looking at genetics I'd say you. If you mean better immunity to certain food born pathogens, I'd say your friend. It's similar to how children should be allowed to play in the dirt to get used to certain bacteria and develop their immune system." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgw6l
Why does getting startled/Adrenalin rush make us panicked and less capable of clear and practical thought rather than more decisive and aware?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd740jw", "dd7dz8a" ], "text": [ "The adrenaline response is part of the so-called \"fight or flight\" response (sometimes referred to as the \"fight, flight, or freeze\" response). The fight-or-flight response is an instinctual, biological mechanism that prepares your body to either fight whatever is scaring you or run from it (or sometimes freeze in place). Rational thought is not a part of this behavior, because taking the time to think about what's going on might well end in one's death. Or at least it used to be that way, and evolution hasn't gotten the memo quite yet.", "Short version: it kicks in the animal instinct to act faster than you can reason. For an animal in a life or death confrontation, taking the time to think things over usually results in death. If a rabbit runs into a wolf, rather than try and outsmart it or hide from it, it's almost always going to be better to just run as fast as possible." ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgwim
Why does/did Fox own the rights to The Simpsons and Family Guy, shows that often deconstructed and even scorned traditional values?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7480m", "dd74bvj", "dd74dj2" ], "text": [ "So, the first and foremost thing to understand about Fox is that it's a large organization with a lot of channels. And, like almost all large organizations, it really only cares about one thing. Money. Fox News Channel (which came into existence fairly late in Fox's life) has discovered a niche where they can make money showing conservative talking points. The regular Fox channels have discovered a niche where they can make money showing the Simpsons. Fox has no political or moral ideology other than \"please watch commercials in between shows so we make money\"", "Fox News is the largely partisan, biased organization. Fox itself is a media company. And the one thing companies like better than adherence to partisan ideologies is money. Simpsons and Family Guy make money. In fact, Fox cancelled Family Guy when it *stopped* making money, and brought it back when AS proved it still *could* make money. And don't fool yourself - if there wasn't an enormous, near insatiable market for partisan media crap, Fox News would drop the act in a heartbeat. They do it because there's a market for it.", "Fox News and Fox entertainment are two entities and are not always aligned politically. The Simpsons, to name one example, sometimes mocks Fox News specifically." ], "score": [ 24, 6, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rgxpu
Why do bad words exist?
Seriously explain like im 5.
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd75b7b", "dd7b75i", "dd7d7i3", "dd777ao" ], "text": [ "Some people don't like to be reminded gross or bad things exist. Some people don't like you making fun of them, their family, their religion etc. So they don't use the words that do that. We end up using the words because words are used to explain to other people things like how we feel. If we feel *really* strongly about something, we may use a bad word so the other person is shocked and pays attention. They mean you feel so strongly you're willing to use words most people don't want to use.", "Well.... shit. I'm going to give this a shot. Psychologists say that about 93% of communication happens nonverbally, or with the body. but As people, we have a wiiide range of emotion and feelings, which is why you can feel very differently about very different things. As people, we respond really well, to the strongest emotions, like love, hate, happiness, and suffering/pain. Which is when why when I tell my friends: \"I fucking love you bro\" -or- \"I'm gonna beat the fuck outta you!\" They know exactly what I mean. Because they can read my body language/ energy and tell if I'm happy or sad or indifferent. But they can also tell based on what I'm saying, what I specifically mean. It's sort of a necessary clarification. *bad* words are very necessary to language in the same way your range of emotions, feelings, and instincts are. For that rough 7% of communication thats verbal, we need extremes. It doesn't matter the language, spoken, signed, extinct, written, they all have *bad* words. Words you *shouldn't* say unless the context and circumstances call for them. Because quite frankly if I couldn't speak my bitchass mind, about all the goddamn nonsense running through my motherfucking head; I'd probably lose my fucking shit! Edit : Bad words exist for the same reasons all other words exist. We need them.", "Bad words tend to be related to something that is/was taboo. For example, in English a lot of bad words have to do with sex, stemming from when religion was a much bigger deal and anything sexual was looked down upon. Another one would be in French (Canadian French at the very least), has it's bad words mostly centered around religion, Catholicism in particular. A few examples are calisse, crisse, and tabarnak.", "Vulgar used to mean common, or relating to peasants. The upper class had more proper words for unpleasant things, and so the \"vulgar words\" were looked down upon." ], "score": [ 19, 16, 6, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rh2ne
Why is it that when my feet are cold and I put them under my covers, they start sweating but they're still freezing?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7b9hk", "dd7shaz", "dd7g1f9", "dd7o307", "dd80qcd", "dd7p1xf", "dd80t0w" ], "text": [ "The control center in your brain for body temperature (the hypothalamus) is part of a different network than the sensory system for perception of heat (primary somatosensory cortex). The control center for body temperature is more concerned about the temperature in your brain and other vital organs; so if your core is too warm, you will sweat all over. The will happen no matter how cold your feet are. Cold feet is less of a problem than a brain that is too hot.", "I want the advice, but half the replies here are already deleted. How's a guy supposed to learn how to keep his feet dry?", "To build on what others have said, your brain cares a lot more about it's core temperature than the temperature of your fingers and toes. Other than sweating when too warm, or shivering when too cold, the primary method the brain uses to regulate your temperature is by deciding how much heat to lose through your extremities. Think of your hands and feet like radiators. There is a lot of surface area and they are usually in contact with the floor or with surfaces you are holding, so if you are too warm your body will send lots of blood to your hands and feet and they will feel really warm because they are purposefully radiating away lots of extra heat your body is trying to get rid of. (After you do a lot of exercise, feel how warm your hands or feet are, they are probably burning hot). Meanwhile, when you are too cold, your body restricts the amount of heat it sends to your toes and hands because (1) those appendages can handle cold temperatures a lot better than your internal organs, and (2) your brain knows heat that goes that far away from your core will just be lost right away because your hands and feet are exposed to the elements so it's not worth \"wasting\" heat trying to keep them warm. What's my point with all of this? **If you have cold feet, it's because your body is colder than it wants to be, not because your feet themselves are cold.** Don't worry about warming up your feet directly, that will help, but so will just putting an extra blanket over your body and raising your overall temperature. It's impossible to have cold feet while feeling hot in the rest of your body. Put on and extra sweater or blanket, then your core temperature goes up and your feet will warm themselves up real quick as your body shunts it's excess heat out to your toes.", "If your feet sweat, they will get cold. Some people (like me) have feet that sweat regardless of the temp if they cannot breathe. When your feet sweat and the temp is low, they will stay cold as long as they are wet. To combat this at work, I wear slip on dress shoes and take them off under my desk while sitting there, which allows my feet to breathe and stay dry, and thus warm. They slip on easily enough they most people never notice. When I ride motorcycles long distance I'll be riding 20 hours a day or more. Obviously removing my boots would be practical or safe, so I use anti-monkey butt powder between my toes, dri-max socks, and gore-tex boots. I've found this combination to work the best for me, but it is expensive. At home I wear real sheep fur lined slippers. So warm and cozy and they breathe, unlike the synthetic lined ones.", "The ice in your feet is melting. Alternatively its condensation like a mcdonalds cup. Alternatively your feet are claustrophobic and theyre just nervous.", "I've been fat for a few years in the past, and this happened ONLY during that time. Maybe it's a fat issue?", "I guess its weird that this never happens to me? My feet are always cold... my nose is always cold... I'm usually always cold... i keep my room in the mid 70s with a space heater while everyone else in the house is alright at 65. And in the summer I'm like \"ahhhhh, the sweet glorious feeling of melting in the sun....\" Im not sure but this might be proof that I am indeed a spawn from hell..." ], "score": [ 5686, 172, 58, 20, 11, 4, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rhizo
Is making porn still big business with all the free porn nowadays?
Economics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7bi4h", "dd7a9eb", "dd7c00q", "dd7dkpk", "dd7a4mw", "dd7n8ud", "dd7be2f", "dd841ai", "dd7d605", "dd7r2aa", "dd7dal0" ], "text": [ "Porn is still big business, though certainly not as big as it was. I managed a porn store for a few years about 4 years ago... and before I worked there, I thought the same... who is buying/renting these movies? As it turns out, lots of people. At least half our business was movies. I often asked our regulars, who I got to know a bit, why they were in 3 times a week getting movies when free porn of any variety one could want is available for free on the internet. Some were old guys who didn't \"get\" the internet (some of the old guys were still on VHS tapes, which we had very few, as DVD players were too modern and scary). Some of them were guys who were afraid their wives would find out if they looked it up on their computer, so they snuck DVD's in to watch when the family wasn't around. The rest were typically younger guys who would rent about 5 DVD's at a time, take them home, and rip them onto their computers as part of their collection. Even still, I don't really get it. I would think you would learn to use the internet and clear your history as opposed to wasting 100's of dollars a year on something you could get for free.", "I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but the big studios are still producing porn to stream online for a fee. People are paying to have access to a certain theme, actors, or studio. If you are asking about DVDs, yes. There are still people buying them. Think of rural areas that have slower internet speeds or older porn buyers who aren't tech savvy enough to get online, let alone stream video. It's a dying market but it's still there. In northern Texas right before the Oklahoma border, there are two big porn shops because Oklahoma's laws are too strict and it's popular with truckers .", "Porn Giants like PornHub and Redtube will purchase rights from well known companies like RealityKings, Brazzers, etc. In return, they make the video public but attach advertisements where the reap a profit greater than they paid for the video. In short, creators receive purchasing rights from platforms and platforms make money from advertisers (typically from companies that don't sell rights). Companies that don't sell their videos' rights still rely on platforms like PornHub for brand recognition.", "Without a subscription to a porn website its harder to find full length pornographic films. Usually they're just teaser clips. Paying for pornography will usually grant more feature length films. However, there are also websites that offer full length films for free. I think porn will always be a big business since people have fetishes and will always love sex. People will always pay to get their rocks off no matter how accessible it is.", "There was an article on Wired last year I think about how the porn business isn't as profitable as everyone thinks, I'll try to find it. Edit: found it: URL_0", "Nowadays people don't pay for online porn. They pay for all the \"luxuries\" and extra's from guaranteed hd videos, fast stream/dl, ad free to knowing you're surfing on a secured website that won't have 15 popups appear ect... But one of the most important thing: being able to find what the client wants fast and in a reliable manner. A new performer joins the porn scene of your particular studio ? You'll be the first to know about it. You want a video to fulfill your specific fetish ? You'll get a proper filtered list in just a few clicks. You want to know if a certain performer released new material ? You won't have to stalk their social media (if they have any) and search multiple website for confirmation... or wait X amount of time to find a \"pirated\" version of it... Now despite all that there's always exceptions to the rule, there's some performers who don't offer the package above because they decide to not sign with a larger studio or to go independent and do their own solo thing. Yet are able to make a living by having a few \"love fools\" who will spend ridiculous amount of money trough donations or tiered program a la kickstarter just for a signed picture or shoutout on a video. However if you've ever been on streaming websites non related to porn that shouldn't come to you as a surprise as some people are already willing to do that just for people streaming themselves playing games, cook, paint ect. Anyway i'm derailing here, the point being people rarely pay for porn anymore for what's happening in front of the camera but rather for how they get to experience it from pre- to post masturbation. Don't get me wrong everyone has a preferred performer but at the end of the day they can and will get replaced, sadly some believe that their genitalia are made of gold and hence are vividly against \"free\" porn and often end up quitting partially because of it but that's another story.", "Porn is less profitable than it used to be, but there is still profit in it. Porn makers have shifted to a subscription model like Netflix or Hulu. People do pay to have access to higher quality porn from protected websites.", "I own and operate a male bondage website that is entering it's 18th year online. The short answer is that it makes me less of a profit than it did 6 or 7 years ago. The \"glory days\" were like 2005, 2006 or so. I still make money but it's gone down 4 or 5 housand dollars a month from that high point. But I have a steady clientele that wants to see the updates every week and don'twant to wait til it's stolen and put up on someone's pornhub page. So thank God for those folks that want to support a site that gives them what they like regularly.", "Interesting topic. I thought about this myself when I realized I can watch, for free, full-length movies I paid hundreds of dollars for in the past.", "A lot of people are willing to pay for porn because paid porn tends to be higher quality than free porn. And if you have a strange fetish, it's likely that the porn is more likely to be paid.", "Why do people wait in line to see the latest Star Wars movie then they can see *Logan's Run* on Netflix whenever they want? People follow specific performers and series, and when something new comes out, they want to see it. Also, the industry *has* suffered of substantial decline since internet porn has become widely available." ], "score": [ 237, 116, 65, 16, 14, 14, 13, 5, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.wired.com/2015/10/the-porn-business-isnt-anything-like-you-think-it-is/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rhlpc
If gravity even bends light, is it possible a large enough object in deep space could bend our own sun's light enough to slingshot it back to us so that we're actually able to see ourselves out there in deep space?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7b13s" ], "text": [ "I don't know enough maths to give you the proper numbers, but yes on paper. In practice this object would need to be extremely massive (possessing lots of mass). An object with this much mass may not be possible, I don't want to try and calculate the Schwartzchild radius of such an object. That is, the object may need to be so dense that it would collapse on itself into a black hole." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rhsx4
How can Starbucks hire 75,000 refugees when hiring based on nationality and race is illegal?
Economics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7bzod", "dd7cljz", "dd7bo5b", "dd7cjnu", "dd7bxlv" ], "text": [ "Several things. First, the announcement, as I remember it, was that they'd be hiring 10,000 refugees across the world, not just in the US. So they wouldn't all be subject to US employment law. Regardless, refugee status isn't a protected class. Refugees come from every corner of the globe, and aren't all a single nationality, race, or ethnicity. As long as Starbucks in the US doesn't say something like \"we'll only be hiring Syrian refugees,\" or something similar, they aren't violating any laws that I'm aware of.", "It's only illegal if it's discrimination based on specific categories, as provided by statute. Starbuck's initial statement was that they would hire 10k refugees in all the countries they operate in. Within the US they said the emphasis is based on 'refugees who provided translation and other support services'. You could easily spin the defence as 'we're hiring based on service to our country'. To have a case you would have to have someone who was *not* hired (suffered a harm) based off their membership in a protected category, who can file suit. Then you need to prove it. This can be hard to do, unless you have an explicit thing saying that \"I'm not hiring/firing you because you're [X]\". Now, would the CEO's statement undoubtedly be used as potential evidence of unlawful discrimination? Of course. I would expect nothing else. However, until there's a damage, there's no case against them. (Also, I swear that number has been inflated. When I first saw it, it was '10k globally' now it's 75k?)", "Isn't that hiring based on social situation and status? I think that's a different thing to hiring based on nationality or race. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving preferential treatment to people who need the work to support their family in a desperate situation when hiring.", "Because not enough fat lazy white people will actually put in applications to serve coffee for minimum wage. They understand refugee's are more than happy to do this to have a roof over their heads and food in their families stomach's. So not only do they know they will receive the applications, the refugees are happier and more productive to be there making them the best choice anyway. You don't need prior skills or degrees to serve coffee, so hiring by \"skill\" in this case is fucking irrelevant and is just an excuse for paranoid people to complain about terrorist threats.", "Maybe some nationalities or races are have more refugees at the moment. But hiring refugees preferentially is not illegal. Most are hard workers sincerely desiring to do well. It is probably a good business plan and perfectly legal." ], "score": [ 18, 7, 6, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5ri04g
Why do many viruses that can kill you are hard to catch while less harmful ones are easy to catch but don't kill you
For example, HIV is hard to catch (you have to have a blood transfusion, sex with an infected person, etc) and it can kill you, but the common cold virus is easy to catch but usually won't do lasting harm.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7drlr", "dd7du35" ], "text": [ "Because doctors and scientists have focused a great deal of effort making sure that viruses that can kill/debilitate you AND are easy to catch do not spread. This is mostly done through vaccines that provide herd immunity. If most people are immune to the virus, it is much harder for the virus to find suitable targets to start an outbreak. However, the recent surge of anti-vaccine ideas has poked holes in the herd immunity which has caused outbreaks of viruses that should have been preventable.", "Viruses don't really want to kill you. If you die, all the viruses that are using you as a breeding ground also die. So most viruses that are super-deadly are young ones, that haven't had much time to evolve to spread themselves around humanity yet. Ebola, HIV, and such are all very new diseases. Older diseases, like the flu or the common cold, are much less lethal, so that the infected person can stay alive and spread the infection to more people." ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5ri3u1
At current rates, what effects will global warming have over the next 100 years?
Global warming is a popular topic right now and while most people understand the long term effects global warming has, they still don't see what will happen in the short term. Is there anything we should expect to see over the next 100 year period as a result of global warming occurring at the current rates?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7epcj" ], "text": [ "Nobody knows the answer. There are predictions, but they are all extrapolations. Those are the least reliable kind of predictions. In the long term, there will be very slightly more CO2 in the atmosphere. This will change the climate in many small ways, bigger storms, ocean current shifts, less polar ice and higher ocean levels. The magnitude of these effects is much less certain. Also, to foretell the future 100 years out one would need to know what humanity does. That's absolutely unknowable, given free will. Asking \"if we do nothing\" is ridiculous, as this is among the least likely courses of action. Generally, humans wait for things to get bad and then do something about it. The best guesses probably look something like that." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5ri8sj
Motion sickness. Why do some people get sick reading books in cars while others do not?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7g5py" ], "text": [ "Motion sickness occurs when your eyes, which are fixated on the still book, say you're moving but your vestibular system (contributes to balance and senses motion) says you are not, logically because you are sitting still relative to the car. The likely reason why the individual vomits is because the body says 'Since I'm not moving but my eyes think I am I must be poisoned and hallucinating' so you vomit to rid the nonexistent poison. Why some people are affected and others not is likely in part due to their sensitivities of their vestibular system. I've heard as you get older and your ear function deteriorates you are less likely to get motion sickness. Those more likely to be affected are the pregnant, very young, and those who suffer migraines." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5ri9yy
Why is space debris during interstellar travel at 35,000 miles/second + not an issue?
With all of the recent news surrounding interstellar space travel, one theme appears to emerge (the need for insanely fast speeds). We’re talking on the order of 20+% the speed of light. So let’s say theoretically, we (the humans) are able to accomplish this. Is space so empty, that nobody needs to care about floating debris? If we’re traveling at 35,000 miles/second+ we can sail away towards our goal for 20+ years and never hit stuff in between, how is this possible? What am I missing?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7g962" ], "text": [ "That's basically it, yes. Space is *unimaginably* empty. That's a literal statement, people just cannot correctly envision what 'infinite nothing' actually means. You could fly something the size of a cruise ship in a straight line effectively forever and not hit anything larger than a helium atom, as long as you pointed out of the plane of the ecliptic (i.e. 'up' or 'down' relative to our orbit of the sun and galaxy) rather than across it. That said, debris near to stars is a potentially serious problem; leaving our solar system and entering the destination one would need to be done at much lower speeds to avoid megaton-range explosions on encountering small bits of comet. You're not missing anything. Inside solar systems it's a problem. Outside solar systems, 'nothing much there' acquires a whole new level of accuracy." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5ric0e
Why aren't boats launched at an angle away from the water, so they don't almost tip over once they hit the water?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7jqvi" ], "text": [ "Almost tipping over doesn't matter. It might upset you but the engineers of the ship have it all planned out so that nothing bad happens. Goin in sideways actually puts less stress on the boat since all the energy is spread out across the hull at once rather than concentrated on the spot moving onto the water." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5riomr
How could the senate just refuse Obama's supreme court nominee?
A while ago Obama nominated a person for the supreme court position previously held by Scalia. The senate just said no because it was "inappropriate in an election year." How could they just refuse to do something like that?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7piyn" ], "text": [ "There's no rule or law saying they *have* to vote on the nominee. With the GOP in control of the Senate, they could simply refuse to schedule hearings, or vote on the issue. Without the Senate's approval, a new appointment couldn't go through. Since they didn't have, they just chose not too, gambling that a Republican President would be elected and appoint a justice more friendly to the GOP. It would appear that they won their gamble." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5riov4
How can a internet web address be bought and sold? Who are you paying when you buy one?
For example, I can't just create a website that uses the domain address of URL_0 . Reddit owns that address and pays for it - so who are they paying? How did the person they're paying obtain it in the first place?
Technology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7k3ql" ], "text": [ "There's a non-profit corporation, ICANN, that runs the global Domain Name Service. You can think of it like a phone book for the Internet- it maps names (like URL_0 ) to addresses (like 151.101.1.140). They give control of the top level domains (.com, .org, .uk, and some fancy new ones like .google and .xyz) to other companies, who in turn can sell them to you. When you buy a domain, it gives you control over that domain's entry in the Internet's global phone book- you can set that domain to point to any address you want. When a person wants to go to a domain, their browser goes to this phone book and looks up what address to go to, and sends a message to that address. You could, if you wanted to, run your own domain name server where you control all of the addresses rather than going through ICANN's system. But since everyone else is using ICANN's system, they wouldn't be able to see any of the things you set." ], "score": [ 9 ], "text_urls": [ [ "reddit.com" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5riufw
Self Harming
Why do some people have the drive to seek unpleasant physical sensations? I can understand people binging on instant gratification when they are depressed but I never figured out why some people seem to seek the opposite
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7l628", "dd84rs1" ], "text": [ "Well first imagine every single day you feel like shit mentally, so in order to redirect the pain you cut yourself to move the mental pain to physical pain. That's the case sometimes, some people do it for attention too. (Source: Am depressed, no self harm though)", "Just speaking for myself, there were a few reasons why I did it. It was a form of self punishment and self hatred. If I felt guilty about something I did/said or I was feeling like a worthless piece of shit then basically I gave myself what I thought I deserved. Guilt was a really big factor for me. It was also a way to literally 'get out' all of the mental pain I was in. I was in so much agony mentally that it was actually a relief to transfer that pain to my body in a physical way. Similarly, I would feel emotions so strongly (anger, sadness) that it would become overwhelming and I felt so out of control that I'd harm myself until those emotions became more manageable. I never felt a high in the way some people describe it. But, it does change your brain chemistry and it's very difficult to stop and substitute a healthier coping mechanism. I haven't found a method yet that matches the extreme of my self injury so it's still a constant struggle for me. It's been 3 or 4 years now and I'd still do it in a heartbeat if I didn't have a commitment I can't break." ], "score": [ 8, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5riwk1
Why do wealthy people form their own charities instead of donating to existing charities?
It seems relatively common for extremely wealthy people to form their own charities. Considering the amount of money that goes into hiring staff to run the charity and what not, this seems less efficient than just donating directly to a respected existing charity. Is there any justifiable reason for doing this other than controlling the money directly/ego? Edit 1: Grammer
Economics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7n5ri", "dd7upfn" ], "text": [ "Starting a charitable foundation allows the rich guy to accomplish a few things: 1). The moment the dollars get assigned to the foundation they are a tax deduction. This can simplify tax filings in the future. 2). A well managed foundation can invest those dollars tax-free. That way the \"profits\" can be distributed and the \"principal\" can stay intact. In other words, a lasting source of donations. 3). The foundation can use its influence to choose and guide the use of the funds if it's big enough. 4). It gets rid of people and charities continually asking. Just refer to your foundation. Comments- I'm not an accountant, a lawyer, or a rich guy. But even middle class people can do something similar. Some brokerage companies have a setup to create a charitable trust. ( I know Fidelity does). Operates in a similar way. Just smaller scale. Professional management on the investment. Your little fund gets managed with everyone else's, but the directed donations are by you. Say you have an unusually good financial year. Put a bunch in the trust. Get tax deduction.. you don't have the money but you save on taxes. And then can donate how you want over several years.", "You can use your foundation to employ family members and thus keep the money in the family." ], "score": [ 14, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rj05b
What is it about stepping into the shower that makes me want to pee?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7n5uc" ], "text": [ "It's mostly conditioning. If you often relieve yourself into the shower, your subconscious has started to associate the two. Same reason why seeing/smelling a delicious plate of food makes you salivate." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rj1co
How is it that so many moons in our solar system have several craters that were made by impacts of comets/asteroids but somehow Earth is almost untouched?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7nafo", "dd7mqhk" ], "text": [ "Our planet is often impacted, but there are a number of things that don't make this apparent. First, our planet has an atmosphere. Smaller objects that hit the planet often burn up completely due to heat generated by the compressed air built up in front of the object before it impacts the ground. Second, wind, water, and vegetation on our plant weather rock formations, so smaller craters created by impacts quickly become smoothed out and difficult to distinguish. Third, the plate tectonics of our planet gradually change the surface of the planet. So large impacts from millions of years ago may be sublimated back into the mantle or thrust up into mountains. Only large, relatively recent impacts have a lasting impression we can see today.", "Earth isn't untouched....we have oceans. They exist because comets (gigantic chunks of ice) crashed into the young Earth. Earth isn't uniquely safe from collisions - it's just that as time has passed, the gravity of large bodies in our galaxy has for the most part stabilized the orbits of most of the remaining objects large enough to be a threat. Collisions in general are far less frequent than they were hundreds of thousands of years ago." ], "score": [ 9, 8 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rj60m
Do prime numbers exist in different base number systems, like binary, hexadecimal, or base 60 that the mesopotamians used? And, are they useful for anything?
Mathematics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7nvrk", "dd7nu9r", "dd7nxol" ], "text": [ "Prime numbers aren't a part of any specific number system but rather an implicit nature of mathematics. Something is prime if and only if it is divisible only by 1 and itself, so the binary 11 is prime.", "Prime numbers are the same no matter what counting system you use. There aren't any numbers that are prime in base 10 that aren't prime in binary or hexadecimal or vice-versa. Probably the most immediate economic use for prime numbers is in encryption, where products of very large prime numbers are used because it is very difficult to find the original two numbers if only the product is given.", "I can't speak on the function or value of primes, or about ancient civilizations, as I'm not a mathematician or historian. But I can say that any integer number system has the same primes as decimal (base ten). 3 in decimal is the same value as 11 (read \"one one\", not \"eleven\") in binary. They're both primes, and both functionally identical numbers. Only the notation is different." ], "score": [ 12, 6, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rj67q
When cleaning, when should you use ammonia? When should you use alcohol? When should you use bleach?
Chemistry
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd82ps0", "dd84nnf", "dd87ucf" ], "text": [ "Aqueous ammonia (ammonium hydroxide) is excellent at breaking up organic deposits such as grease, oils, mildew, mould, soap scum, etc... It's a staple in glass, mirror, and window cleaners. Alcohol is a powerful disinfectant and organic solvent. Although it can be used as a household cleaning solution, it's not commonly used as such. Rubbing alcohol can be used to disinfect and clean things like needles, knives, jewelry, electronic contacts, etc.. It's more aggressive at breaking up deposits than aqueous ammonia but it's also harsher and more expensive. Rubbing alcohol is also flammable and evaporates quickly. As such, it's not a very ideal surface cleaner. However, it can be used to clean areas which cannot normally be washed or rinsed, such as cleaning spilled soda out from between the keys on a keyboard, where leaving little to no residue is desirable. Rubbing alcohol is outstanding at cleaning finished metal such as stainless steel and chrome because it easily removes fingerprints and oily deposits. It's also great at removing marker and crayon from painted walls and restoring whiteboards. Chlorine bleach is an extremely powerful and extremely cheap disinfectant. It's not a cleaner; it's used to kill virtually everything microbial in nature.", "Bleach is a disinfectant and should only be applied after the surfaces have already been cleaned. Eg: to clean a bathroom floor, first you go over and putty knife any large sticky objects, then sweep it, then mop with soap and hot water. Then mop it with bleach and water and leave the floor to air dry for about 15 mins. Alcohol, due do it's lack of surface tension, is great for creeping into narrow gaps and edges because it just creeps its way into tight spaces. I keep it in a spray bottle to disinfect food stuff, like wine and beer making supplies. Ammonia is great on glass, but I mostly use white vinegar, either picking (7%) or cleaning (10%) over the standard 5% for food.", "URL_0 This will answer all your questions, great film from Applied Science, very understandable" ], "score": [ 84, 8, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://youtu.be/HiL6uPNlqRw" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rj79v
How do plants that live in extremely cold Environments survive the winter if the ground their roots are in is frozen, cutting off their water supply?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd83yqx" ], "text": [ "Plants that grow in extremely cold climates (tundra) often have very short and shallow root systems that exist above the layer of permafrost. Here, the ground isn't exactly frozen. Another factor is that many of the plants in these environments are smaller/have less leaves. Moisture is lost depending on the surface area of the leaves; the smaller the leaves, the more moisture retained." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rjb0z
What really happens when water gets stuck in our ear? Where exactly does it get stuck and why is it so hard to get out?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8218f" ], "text": [ "Water has a property that causes it to stick to itself and to surfaces. This property is called surface tension. Fill a clear glass cup with water nearly full and wait a bit for it to settle. then look at it carefully. You'll see the edges of the water where it touches the inner surface of the glass to sort of curve up. if you carefully poured more water into that glass and then stopped just *before* it spills over, you'll see the top of the water curving *over* the top of the glass. this property of how water can stick to itself means that as you slosh around in water, that water will cling to the inner part of your ear and won't drain normally and then slosh around inside your ear and you can hear it. If you leave the water in, it'll provide a moist environment for bacteria to grow and give you an infection. if you do get water in your ear DO NOT USE QTIPS. those can add more bacteria into your ear and also push your earwax back in and cause further blockage. I normally pull my earlobe down and rotate my head with the affected ear pointed down and move my head up and down and around until the water drips out. I have also started wearing good earplugs whenever i go swimming because I got tired of getting water in my ear." ], "score": [ 26 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rje32
Why aren't utility companies more supportive of developing alternative energy?
Technology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7tmdd", "dd7tzox" ], "text": [ "I work for an electrical utility company as one of their engineers in the project management side. It is true that utility companies are first out there to make money, but it doesnt mean that they arent out to do the right thing either. We have a department solely to develop or gather new technologies or ideas on how to use more renewable and environmentally conscious methods, but cannot do so at the sacrifice of the current systems stability and current load. Also, a new project or a new site to even test doesnt come quickly, the engineering development to implement any plan be it a standard substation or something new takes years to develop from finding the right site within the network and obtaining the property, doing a full site investigation including any environmental impacts that can occur while at the same time determining the most efficient or cost effective way to build a site. Thats all just gathering the right information and that alone can take up to 2 years, I know of one site where its a standard substation and it has only gotten passed the environmental impacts after being in review for 10 years since the public fought it for so long (which didnt make sense considering we wanted to up the reliability in case of major storms for the same public fighting us). then the actual engineering of all the drawings and details, calculations, site design, and what not, which also needs to be reviewed. Now this doesnt mean that utility companies arent already doing this, what a majority of the public dont realize is that before even construction starts, putting together the whole package takes a VERY very very very VEEEERY long time as every detail has to be thought through, and a lot of things still get missed. So dont get discouraged, it takes time, it doesnt happen over night, it wont happen in 5-10 years, it will take a LONG time. but it will happen.", "Mostly because alternative energy sources are a lot like nuclear energy: cheap to run, but expensive to build. Conventional fossil-fuel based energy production has an ongoing cost: they have to buy fuel (coal, diesel, natural gas) to make electricity. But if they don't need the electricity, they can shut off a gas turbine or diesel generator and stop paying for fuel. If the price of electricity goes down, they can shut off a conventional generator and save money. Utilities can adjust the costs of conventional fossil fuel energy based upon demand. Natural gas turbines are especially good at this \"on demand\" production. But you don't have to buy fuel for solar panels or wind turbines or wave harvesters. They make electricity at the same price, whether you need it or not. But the interest on the loan that they took out to build them doesn't go down. The payments that the utility has to make on a wind farm or solar array stay the same, no matter whether the price of electricity goes up or down. The utility can't adjust their costs based on demand for their product (electricity). Also, nature is less than predictable. Clouds can block the sun, the wind can die down, and the ocean doesn't always have waves. They have to have spare generator capacity to fulfill the demand for power during those times. But if the utility has to have enough gas, diesel, and coal generators to fill the need for electricity without alternative sources, then why build the alternative sources at all? It is just another loan to pay interest on, to them." ], "score": [ 11, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rjgc9
How is Saudi Arabia on the UN panel, when they have beheaded more people than ISIS, in 2015?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7qvs3", "dd7ql4a", "dd7ty7b", "dd7swio", "dd7q12u", "dd83x1i", "dd888ri" ], "text": [ "Look under the sand there. Guess what you'll find? Lots of oil. A state can behead as many people as they want if without much objection if they have enough oil.", "This is a fairly broad explanation because the politics and culture of the subject are extremely complicated, but the short answer is this: Historically, Saudi Arabia was a powerful ally in the Middle East for the United States and its allies during the Cold War. The US provided Saudi Arabia with weapons to help to stabilize the ME by proxy and to protect the region from Soviet influence, their fairly stable government and commitment to capitalism made them critical to maintaining the balance that the US established. In modern times, Saudi Arabia is extremely important from a geopolitical standpoint. They control vast reserves of oil, and that has both made them fairly rich as well as given them a lot of influence over oil using countries like the United States and Europe. Beyond that, they also trade pretty heavily in weapons with other countries, especially the United States, and they have long been a very strong ally and stable nation state to the US in a region filled with more volatile governments. They act as a steady influence and key ally for US and more broadly United Nations involvement in the region, and as a result they are a valuable ally and are treated as such by the UN. So valuable in fact that the other nations of the UN are willing to overlook their more draconian laws and somewhat backwards view of human rights because their value outweighs the problems they cause. TLDR Saudi Arabia has been a valuable strategically to the United States and the UN in general for decades. Their oil reserves, stable gov't, and weapons trading with the US makes them important enough for the nations of the UN to overlook their HR abuses and sometimes cruel actions.", "The truth is, if you look at almost any nation in the UN, with a really big magnifying glass, you're going to find a lot of skeletons in their closet. Sure, Saudi Arabia is more prehistoric than a lot of other member countries. They behead a lot, women can't drive. They have some pretty outmoded ideas about a lot of things. There's a reealllly good chance they had some sort of involvement in 9/11, albeit minor, but, still. Except, they're not the only ones with a lot of skeletons. Russia has a ton. Disappeared journalists and dissenters, work camps. And China - need I say more? And then America. America is constantly teetering on the brink of a race war, so there's that. The UN isn't just \"this country does stuff I don't like so kick them out.\" Saudi Arabia has a lot of shit to work out. But as I believe the Iraq war should have proved, bombing a repressive regime to hell doesn't make the region like, super awesome suddenly. They have resources, and influence. So we work with them. The biggest, probably most difficult aspect of politics is negotiating and dealing with people whose ideas and culture you find repugnant. Dealing with their elites and knowing how badly the people under them suffer. But *because* we deal with them, diplomatically, we continually apply pressure to urge them into a more secular mindset.", "Why would that preclude people? The US still has the death penalty and executes people too. Few other first world countries do. Why don't we get rid of the US from the UN too? I think many people mistake the UN for something like Amnesty International. It's not a humanitarian charity. The UN is like parliament. It doesn't matter if some wanker thinks it would be good to kill every firstborn child, that the pyramids where built by aliens or that a couple of Jews run the world from the shadows. You get all sorts of people in a parliament and you get al sorts in the UN, with all sorts of beliefs. The moment you start excluding people for having different beliefs than your own is the moment it ceases to be representative. If the UN is not representative, it's not fair and countries will leave it (high chance of happening to African countries in the next few years).", "Many countries/politicians support the death penalty. It wouldn't preclude you from sitting on any UN council.", "Next up : why did we have a 60bn arms deal with them also?!", "US does the same thing, we just use lethal injection. What makes them any worse?" ], "score": [ 32, 30, 11, 7, 5, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rjkt0
why do our eyes water when we have emotions such as anger, sadness or even when we're really happy ?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8l5ym" ], "text": [ "There are several types of tears we are able to produce which contain water and oily compounds: 1. Those always present that keep our eyes moist. 2. Tears produced through irritation, rubbing intended to help flush the object out. 3. Tears produced during intense emotion. These have been shown to contain amounts of neurotransmitters. Your bodies way of dumping excess amounts of these/helping regulate itself. It's why people report feeling better sometimes after \"having a good cry\"" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rjsi6
What is Celiac disease exactly and what does it cause?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7yesi" ], "text": [ "Celiac disease is what is known as an \"auto-immune\" disease. This means that your own immune system incorrectly recognises a non-harmful substance (a food, an environmental factor, your own body part) as an invader to be fought off. When a person with Celiac disease consumes gluten, the immune system treats the gluten as a \"disease\" and tries to fight it. This causes inflammation of the small intestine, which is responsible for the symptoms of the disease; pain, cramping, diarrhoea, etc after eating something with gluten in it. A bigger problem is that longer-term damage to the small intestine can occur, which is bad both on its own, and because it can interfere with the absorption of other nutrients. At present, the only way to avoid problems is to have a gluten-free diet (or as close to it as possible)." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rjt4d
How does being married result in the married partners receiving more returned income tax?
And is this also somehow beneficial on the government's end?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7u1y2", "dd7szog", "dd7szx1" ], "text": [ "No one seems to remember that despite all the messed up shit our government does, we're still a democracy and the government is supposed to do what the voters want. Married couples receive tax breaks because married people want tax breaks and vote for people who make that happen. Partially it's a holdover from when women were expected to be homemakers instead of workers, but you still can't get far as a legislator if you're perceived as \"anti-family.\" I swear the problem with politics today is that so many people perceive government as an adversary instead of an instrument of their will.", "It only helps in cases where one party makes significantly more money than the other. Two people earning $50k each will pay about the same as they would filing married or single. If a couple makes $80/20k or $100/0k they might see a savings.", "People that are married can file jointly. Their incomes get added up on the return, but so do the exemptions and the limits for various tax credits. (This reflects the fact that married people normally pool their finances. They can file separately, but this has a lot of downsides because it would be easy for spouses to avoid taxation otherwise.) If only one of the couple works, that person is in a much better tax position than a single person with the same income. If the two both work, the benefits are not that much bigger than two unrelated people combined, but due to various rules the couple will usually come out on top." ], "score": [ 8, 4, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rjth1
Why credit/debit cards implemented chips
Technology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7tcxt" ], "text": [ "A swiped card uses a magnetic strip and the information contained on it is static, it stays the same every time, so if that same information is skimmed, it can be used by thieves until the user catches the fraudulent purchases. A chip, however is part of a process called tokenization. It has the same information but transfers it in a different way every single time, and the card issuer knows which way it will transfer it each time and will always transfer it in a different time. In fact is has been used very effectively around the world which led to fraud in the United States being a disproportionate amount of the fraud worldwide. So while an inconvenience, it is much less inconvenient than a stolen identity and stolen funds. It would also help if the United States would shift straight to chip and pin (i.e. Every transaction requiring a pin not just debit) instead of chip and sign." ], "score": [ 21 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rk0bm
What is the difference between relative humidity and dew point?
What is relative humidity and dew point? What is the differences?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7uusu" ], "text": [ "They are related in that they are both measures of the amount of water in the air. Relative humidity compares how much water vapor is in the air to how much water vapor the air could possibly hold at the current temperature. It is a measure of how saturated the air is compared to how saturated it could be. Dew point is the temperature at which the current amount of water vapor in the air would be the maximum amount. Since as the air temperature cools, it can hold less water vapor, there is a temperature where the air can no longer hold the water vapor it currently has. That's the dew point." ], "score": [ 8 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rk3qa
How do mathematical powers work?
Specifically, I'm looking for two separate explanations. 1. Why is 1^(k) = 1. Where k is some constant. If you have some extra time explain in a less ELI5 way as to why 1*k = k, thanks! 2. How do powers work on a more deeper level. I understand this: n^(k) = n * n * n * n... k number of times. What I want to know is as n and k increase how does this effect it if you were to look at it in the addition of groups. Meaning: 2^(2) = {2+2} 2^(3) = {2+2} + {2+2} 2^(k) = {2+2} + {2+2} + {2+2}... k number of sets. Now one last question that you can answer if you like! If you were to add 1/2 a power to the power would your answer increase by 1/2 the amount if you were to instead add 1. My guess is no, but I'm curious if there is a reasoning against this. Thanks, A Curious Calculus BC Student For those who are curious, I mainly want to know this at a deeper understanding so that I can work out a problem I've been doing outside of classwork that has to do with infinite series (we haven't gotten to them yet, but I've been working out some stuff with them... to be honest it's a lot of fun!). For instance here are a few things I've gotten out of this.. Σ(n+k), (k is some contant) the resulting partial sum is equivalent to the partial sum for n (or n^2, n^3... etc.) plus k*n. Σ(n+k) = (n^(2)+n)/2 + k*n Σ(k*n), the resulting partial sum is equivalent to the partial sum for n (or n^2, n^3... etc) multiplied by k. Σ(k*n) = k(n^(2)+n)/2 The one I've been trying to figure out it: Σ(n^(k)) My knowledge on powers isn't sufficient enough to help me with this. That's mainly due to my own lack of initiative to research it or inquire from my math teachers when I was learning more about them at an early age. Also! Please, don't spoil the fun with n^(k). ;) I'd rather figure it out myself, even if I find out that there isn't any valid pattern.
Mathematics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7xk0w" ], "text": [ "> Why is 1^k = 1 You're really asking 4 questions here. The first one is why is 1^k = 1 when k is an a natural number? And that's a pretty easy question, because we have 1^k = 1\\*1\\*1\\*1\\*...\\*1 (k times) = 1. ----- Here is the second question: Now, what about 1^k where k is an integer? Well, for exponentiation on negative numbers, we want to use the fact that (1^(k))\\*(1^(-k)) = 1^(k-k) = 1. Now if k is non-negative, then we have 1^(-k) = 1. ------ Here is the third question: Now, what about 1^k where k is a rational number? While, if k = p/q, then we have (1^(p/q))^q = (1^(qp/q)) = 1^p = 1. Now, this implies that (1^(p/q))^q = 1^p = 1. In general, for any x, we want (x^(p/q))^q = x^p. We make the choice that x^(p/q) should always refer to the positive root. So, this implies that (1^(p/q))^q = 1, and the only number that can be a positive root of 1 is 1. So, 1^(p/q) = 1. ------ Here is the fourth question: Now, what about for real numbers? Well, we can't use any of the multiplication conditions anymore, but we can use continuity. If you recall from your calculus class, continuity essentially means that you should be able to draw the function without lifting the tip of your pencil away from the sheet. More formally, continuity states that the limits should move through the function. That if x_n is some sequence with limit x, f(x) = limit (n - > infinity) f(x_n). So we force continuity upon the exponential. So, if r is a real number, we say that 1^r = limit(n - > infinity) 1^(k_n). Where k_n is some sequence with limit r. Now, the rationals are dense in the real numbers. This means that for every real number, we can find a sequence of rational numbers that approaches it. So, we can let k_n be a sequence of rational numbers that approaches r. Since each k_n is rational, limit(n - > infinity) 1^(k_n) = limit(n - > infinity) 1 = 1. So, 1^r = 1. Where r is a real number." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rk430
What do scientists mean by saying we might be living in a holographic universe?
I saw this article in reddit, URL_0 What does that mean? Thanks!
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd818p3", "dd7x386", "dd888oj" ], "text": [ "A few things led up to this. First, it's been considered that one way to resolve the issue of information loss in black holes is that the information isn't encoded in the volume of the hole, but the area. That is to say, small fluctuations in the event horizon- the surface- of the black hole carry all of the information for the entire hole. The rationale for this is somewhat involved, and hard to explain \"ELI5\", but... a black hole is as much information as you can cram into a given space. That concept \"as much information as you can cram into a particular space\" has a name, \"Bekenstein bound\". That bound is defined by the *square* of the radius of any region, not the *cube*... that means the area, and not the volume of a region defines it's total entropic capacity. So... if that's the case it's argued by some, since that's true of any region (not just black holes), maybe the universe itself is composed of information encoded on a 2D boundary, not within a 3D volume. In essence, we'd be like a soap bubble, rather than a softball. It doesn't *really* matter to you and I and our daily lives though; it doesn't imply some kind of unreality or ephemeral nature to things. All it says is that our perception of three dimensions is only valid on the macroscopic scales and very low energy levels we live our lives at.", "You know those [hologram stickers on old credit cards]( URL_0 )? Those are flat, 2-dimensional surfaces, but they are able to create a 3-D image when we look at it. The idea is the same with a holographic universe: the universe would really be 2-dimensional, it just encodes information in a way that makes it appear 3-dimensional. TLDR: The universe is one big flat credit card hologram sticker.", "I think this one is a case of over-interpretation of scientific language by laypeople. Colloquially we use the term \"hologram\" to refer to some form of 3d image or illusion without substance such as the ones on credit cards or 3d displays. Which leads to these \"uuuh, is our world just a simulation?\" type ideas. To a physicist it just means: some physical property inside this volume can be determined/reproduced by what happens on its surface. Somewhat similar to how I can determine the trajectory of a thrown object by only knowing its velocity and position at a single point in time. That doesn't imply that the remainder of the trajectory is \"just a simulation\" or \"not real\". The connection between these two terms is of course that you can use the physicists idea of hologram to produce a hologram in the 3d picture sense. This is due to wave phenomena such as light but also sound having exactly this property. If you can capture the wave field on some 2d surface surrounding a volume you can reconstruct what the wave field inside the volume looks like. Classic holograms work exactly like this. You bounce a laser off an object and bring it to interference with a reference laser beam and record the resulting interference pattern on a photographic plate. Which is like a fingerprint of the wave field. If you then shine only the reference beam back at the recorded pattern it reproduces the original wave field which our eyes interpret as an image of the object." ], "score": [ 109, 66, 15 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02763/hologram_2763844k.jpg" ], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rk5ec
What is the difference between burning active calories and burning resting calories, and what are the benefits of each one?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd81g5n" ], "text": [ "\"Resting calories\" are calories used by smooth and cardiac muscles. Those are the muscles that work even when you are laying in bed like a lump. \"Active calories\" are those used by the skeletal muscles and are generally the result of voluntary movement. As far as your body is concerned a calorie is a calorie, but likely you have no hope of making your intestines flex more vigorously in order to lose weight." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rk7fq
How does DNA even do things?
I get the basics, I think. DNA is made of four thingies, it codes for proteins that are important (?) And it determines what traits you have. And then it splits in half and replicates itself to form new cells. At least that's my understanding after a couple days of biology class and about an hour of google. Still not quite sure how DNA even tells the cell what to do, but I sorta have an idea of that. What I really don't understand and can't seem to find an answer to, is how does DNA work? As in, if there are only the four nucleotides, and they match up with each other in a certain way, then all the instructions must have to do with the order of the nucleotides, right? So how does a bunch of nucleotides in a certain order determine what your cells (protein thingies in the cell i guess) are supposed to do? What makes one order different from another? Unless I'm completely wrong and the order isn't even important.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7xnj3", "dd7yan4", "dd85zh2", "dd7yeof" ], "text": [ "Short answer: structure = function. The order of the four \"thingies\" in DNA determine the order of the joined-up LEGO blocks that we call a protein. DNA uses 20 different, specific LEGO blocks. For example, AAA codes for one type of LEGO, AGA codes for a different one, and so on. (There is overlap - each of the 20 LEGOs has several different patterns that code for it.) Due to the basics of physics and chemistry, each of those LEGO blocks acts in a unique way with respect to the other LEGO blocks around it. Certain parts of LEGO A attract and repel different parts of LEGO B, and ditto for C, D, E, and F. So at the end of the day, you've got this long string of LEGOs that folds into a certain specific shape, and that determines what the finished protein actually \"does.\" Proteins are kinda like very simple machines, and the order of their parts determines how that machine will behave, simply due to the rules of chemistry.", "DNA doesn't necessarily \"do\" things. It is acted upon by proteins. DNA is composed of the bases A, T, G, C. (A & T pair up and G & C pair up) Each group of 3 bases (example ATC), called a triplet. Codes for a particular amino acid. (Here's a chart URL_0 ) Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The organization of amino acids determine the structure of the protein. The structure of the protein determines it function. PS left out RNA to keep things simple.", "Imagine you're working with three different alphabets and you're trying to translate from one to the next to the next. Let's say DNA is the first alphabet. Each strand of letters in your DNA is transcribed to the second alphabet (RNA). Then that strand of RNA is translated in to the third alphabet - Amino Acids. So now you have a long strand of amino acids. Certain amino acids in that strand are attracted to one another and certain ones are repelled by one another. As the amino acids attract to one another this string starts to fold together in a specific way because of the specific arrangement of the amino acids. This gives the final product a certain shape. (Imagine lightly crumpling up tin foil creating specific shaped pockets in it) The resulting shape of the protein makes it do a certain job (function). For one example we'll use the protein catalase. It is an enzyme which has pockets in it, because of the way it folded, which perfectly fit the hydrogen peroxide molecule. The protein fits the molecule in it and separates the hydrogen peroxide into H20 and Oxygen. That is one example but all proteins perform a function determined by it's shape which is made by the attraction and repulsion of the charges of the amino acids which is a long strand of letters from alphabet \"c\" which is translated from RNA (alphabet \"b\") which is transcribed from DNA (alphabet \"a\").", "Your body is made of, among other things, proteins. Those proteins are absofrigginglutely amazing: many of them are actually tiny machines. When your muscles contract, you are actually forcing a tiny two headed protein to WALK down a \"wire\", stretching the muscle fibers, causing them to shorten and contract. Those proteins are made of chains amino acids. There are about 20 amino acids in your body and they all have a different shape. Put different ones together and the assembled protein will have a different shape. If the proteins don't have the right sequence of amino acids, the shape will be wrong and quite likely, the protein won't be able to do its job. Worse, the protein might actually do something *harmful*. You have machines in your cells that will follow instructions and grab amino acids floating around in the cell and link them into a protein. So, our body needs to be able to tell those machines which amino acids to grab. Here's where DNA comes in. There are four bases (ACGT). You're right that order matters. To get enough combinations, we have to put them in (at least) groups of three, because groups of two would only give us sixteen (4^2) different combinations (e.g. AA, AC, AG, AT, CA, CC, and so on), but groups of three (4^3) give us 64 combinations. As it turns out, groups of three bases (called a codon) is what our cells look for. So the TTT codon tells the cell to add a different amino acid than CCC (TTT = phenylalanine, CCC = proline). Because there are extra combinations, there is some overlap. Some codons code for the same amino acid (TTT and TTC both code for phenylalanine). Our cells start reading DNA, and transcribing (copying it into a different format) called mRNA. That mRNA then gets read by the ribosome and then a machine called a tRNA grabs amino acids and links them up. So a sequence that reads, TTT-CCC-GGG-AAA will get you a protein made of Phe-Pro-Gly-Lys whereas a sequence that reads TTT-TTT-TTT-TTT will get you Phe-Phe-Phe-Phe." ], "score": [ 33, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/aminoacids/dnacode.gif" ], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkdki
Why do people get mad when being told to do what they were already going to do?
Like when a guy walks out of the house with a shovel and his father walks by and says "hey! Shovel the snow!!"
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7xz21", "dd7ym72", "dd8ar5i", "dd8089v" ], "text": [ "Because people in general do not like being told what to do. When you are going to do something, and then someone *tells* you to do it, it robs you of the autonomy of the action.", "It changes a 'I thought of this' to 'I was told to do this' You don't get the satisfaction or credit of coming up with the idea, and the other person who told you to do it, even though you already came up with the idea before them, gets the credit and the satisfaction of believing you're doing their bidding. A bit petty, but that's why it irritates me.", "The phenomenon is called \"Reactance\" and describes a psychological defense mechanism wherein people react negatively to perceived limitations of their freedom to choose. By telling you to do something, somebody is infringing on your freedom to chose, you no longer choose to do something, you had to. People by and large react negatively to this and try to establish freedom of choice again often by acting out the expressed alternative of what they are being told to do. Since this is a very emotional reaction many people don't think about it and realize it didn't matter because it is what they wanted anyway. However reactance can be decreased by communication and personal relationships. You are less likely to react negatively to people you like, respect, etc. as well as to positive communication. Reactance can be used to manipulate people (pop psychology often calls it \"reverse psychology\", telling someone to do the opposite of what you want him to do) and is also behind such phenomenons as the \"Streisand Effect\". Let me finish by saying that, as is often the case in psychology, all this sounds incredibly obvious but is nevertheless something that has been extensively studied and empirically tested. It also goes without saying that it's not a foolproof mechanism, some people are less prone to it and obviously \"acting out\" doesn't always mean doing the opposite. You may well shovel the snow but just be pissed about it instead of happy doing it.", "Because deciding to do a useful or helpful task without being asked is considered thoughtful, so telling them to do what they have already decided to do robs them of that virtue." ], "score": [ 12, 11, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkg1u
How are mathematicians and astronomers able to predict solar and lunar eclipses thousands of years in advance?
Mathematics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7zrv7" ], "text": [ "Because it's simply a math problem involving physics equations. Consider a math problem from your school text book where there are a pair of train tracks leading from Chicago to St. Louis which is 250 miles away. A train leave Chicago at noon going at 50 mph while at the same time a train leaves St. Louis traveling at 75 mph. Where along the route would you need to be waiting to watch the trains cross each others path (an *eclipse*) and at what time would that happen? Solving such a problem isn't too hard, and since the planets follow a predictable path with a predictable speed too (as dictated by [Newton]( URL_0 )) you can solve for them too if you gather all the numbers about where they are and how fast they orbit." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Modern_form" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkisb
Why can negative emotions such as depression linger for years or a lifetimes but positive emotions (such as the honeymoon phase) seem to fade?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd851nm", "dd87rn4", "dd8b0yu", "dd80c6v", "dd83jhq", "dd7zm0w", "dd88bt1", "dd84quv", "dd8bu0c", "dd7zioj", "dd83fck", "dd88v4p", "dd84ln7", "dd8dvcx", "dd87zyh", "dd8ctd7", "dd842nc", "dd82t3m", "dd891be", "dd89cxe", "dd87tka", "dd84mk2", "dd88wov" ], "text": [ "I'd say the premise of the question is legitimate, but maybe just not posed in the most fitting manner, such as the ends of the emotional spectrum being exaggerated for point making but resulted in a loss of relativity. Simplified, the question would read, \"Why does human memory tend to recall or focus on negative emotions over positive ones?\" This is not only a legitimate question, but an accurate assessment. We are negative beings, by nature. Humans are fundamentally equipped with adaptation traits. This means constantly looking (even subconsciously) for ways to improve; never being truly and completely content. We always instinctively want to have more, go further, be better. In this, our brain finds ways to improve, which requires realizing and focusing on \"shortfalls\". That carries over to emotion. Negative events or circumstances tend to be recognized earlier and more vividly; they stand out for evaluation, often times getting cataloged as a warning, then we adapt our emotional behavior. When positive things happen, we accept them, but rarely do our minds flare up in a \"from now on let's do THAT\" sense. Positives do not excite our animalistic instincts. They do not cause our evolutionary core to pay attention to them. So, our brains will forever put a highlight on each bad experience, and it will remain more significant in our subconscious than many successes throughout our lives, affecting our emotions, moods, mental states, etc.", "My psychologist explained this. We need to remember danger/threat ( negatives) to survive. Positive emotions aren't necessarily necessary to survival. It takes time and practice to linger on the positives. We're just hard wired that way in order for human beings to survive.", "Mania is the psychiatric opposite to depression, it both can last for a long time *and* cause massive havoc in people's lives even faster than most depression would. Where depressed people get stuck in the thoughts about negative consequences, manic people don't see consequences at all. If it's fun, it's done. (strongly simplified, it varies a lot) Shopping sprees are very common. No regard for how much debt is amassed. Often people in mania aren't suspicious either, they happily give things away to anyone, or try the weirdest suggestions without any regard for their safety. During a mania things are awesome, but like depressive episodes, they don't last for ever, and coming back to the smoking ruins of one's life is harsh. That full throttle, unaware mania is relatively rare. Way more commonly people are aware that something is weird, but they have a hard time controlling themselves. Fighting to control urges to do things that will ultimately hurt someone is as hard as trying to get things done when the brain just doesn't want to cooperate at all. You know well what you *should* do, but the brain just won't let you. That happy emotions don't last is a security measure, shared between many animals, not just humans. The \"happy\" is just long enough to register as such, and then it's gone, motivating the critter to go and look for another thing that will cause the sensation. If it lasted longer, life wouldn't work out very well. If the bliss lasted for ever, people would eat one bite of cake and then starve because there's no urge to repeat the experience. Critters would be easy prey if sex left them high for hours. Positive emotions create strong motivation. The memory of that tree with the delicious fruit last year will be a strong enough lure, to search for it again this year, see if the pleasant experience can be repeated. Negative emotions better be stronger and even more memorable because bad things can get critters killed. Better be *too* afraid of the world, than not enough. Missing out a crop of fruit, oh well, happens, there's other food. Missing the snake on the trail can be a mistake you only make once.", "There are mental illnesses that are opposites of depression. They are described as 'manic' disorders. Most well known is bipolar disorder or 'manic depression', but there are others which don't have the depressive phases. In extreme cases, they can lead to violent behaviour.", "This is extremely misleading, there are hypermanic people that live in a near constant state of euphoria, shit that's what mania is. The premise of your question is just wrong. TL/DR: all emotions are fleeting, mental illnesses last forever. Source: hypomanic depressive diagnosed 7 years ago, ask me questions if you want.", "Depression isn't an emotion, it's a mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. It doesn't go away because it's not caused by you surroundings but by what's inside you.", "the question isn't flawed. we labeled depression as an illness because it was a sad/lonely emotion that didn't go away. if happiness never went away, we'd call it something else. we would cease to call it an emotion. I think people are focusing on labels and not the essence of the question. and manic isn't the opposite of depression. there's a difference between being happy and being manic. I believe there is a state of permanent happiness, but our egos are currently too strong to allow us to reach that state.", "This question's wording is flawed as has been pointed out, but there is an answer why people tend to focus on negativity over positive emotions. The simple answer is that humans are hardwired to avoid change and conflict, and this translates to considering every possible negative outcome when presented with new or dangerous situations. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense - if we take unnecessary risks we're less likely to survive and pass on our genes. There's a well-established school of thought in behavioral economics regarding this called Prospect Theory. Studies have shown that people are proportionally more likely to make choices based on avoiding a negative experience rather than the reward. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but if I gave you a puzzle and you got to choose between an electric shock if you lost or a chocolate bar if you won which would you choose? -------------------------------- I'd also add that our understanding of negative and positive emotions is incredibly biased and that if you want to go deeper you should dismiss these labels. A better way to explain the issue is risk versus reward - we'll take the easy way with little reward over the challenging with high reward because challenge traditionally represented credible threats to our ancestor's lives.", "The thing is, chronic depression isn't the equivalent opposite of chronic happiness. Just like there isn't really such a thing as chronic sadness. Depression is different from sadness, its more like an emotional numbness where you don't enjoy anything and struggle to find any motivation to do anything. The reason it can persist is because it doesn't ever (or at least rarely) spikes into any extreme of emotion, rather just a feeling of emotional deadness. For people who are reasonably mentally healthy, well adjusted and with a good life, their time is spent in a state of reasonable contentment, with the occasional spikes of joy/sadness in response to events and the feeling of desire moving us to achieve new things. Memories are strongest when they have strong emotional content, so very sad/happy/fearful/angry etc memories will make much more of a lasting impact, but general day to day memories (even those you consider happy) are more likely to fade. Consider this, if you were always on a chronic happiness high, how would you know? WHat would that even feel like? If you didn't really experience negative feelings, what comparison would you have to know that you were happy?", "Can you remember all the times you were treated badly by your parents? Can you remember all the times they treated you well? Good things are kind of \"expected\" you don't go out and hope bad things happen to you. The bad things that happen to you are unexpected and therefore much more impactful. You tend to remember the times your parents punished you over when they rewarded you. Same with depression and the constant rememberance of negatives with only a few memories of joy", "In an evolutionary sense, humans who were happy often and for long periods of time were less motivated to accomplish rewarding tasks. Those that had fleeting happiness were driven to do more and continuously do rewarding tasks to achieve happiness. That trait was far more successful than those that were lazy and happy.. Therefore it was passed down to the next generations until we arrive at the short lived positive emotions that we currently have. It's a sad state of affairs, but your brain is designed to make babies, not make you happy.", "it does... you just don't notice it. If you marry someone you love, 5 years later you still glad you are with them. If someone you love dies, 5 years later you are upset by it. Upset but not as upset like when you first heard of their death, just like you are happy 5 years later just not as excited as you were on the honeymoon. I believe humans have two states, happy and sad. If you are not sad then you are happy. Thats why when things get terrible you look back and think \"I was happy back then\" you just don't know it, or appreciate it.", "Since OP doesn't differentiate between clinical depression (a mental illness) and non-clinical depression (a mental state) I think we ought to treat this question as asking about non-clinical depression. Taken that way, this is a worthwhile question.", "It's because the feeling of happiness is basically a chemical reaction. We have to actively produce the chemicals which make us \"happy\" and when we're not producing them, we don't feel happy. It's not possible to keep producing these chemicals 100% of the time, they are usually produced in response to something, but it's perfectly possible to stop producing them. We feel unhappy when we stop producing them for too long (whether that's due to stress or clinical depression). The four \"happiness chemicals\" are dopamine, serotonin, endorphins and oxytocin. Off the top of my head - serotonin is your basic \"everyday\" happiness. (Having looked this up - I was slightly off - serotonin aims to keep your mood balanced, rather than making you happy as such, it just stops you from dipping too low into unhappiness, or soaring too high into mania.) Most antidepressants are SSRIs which mean they stop serotonin from being re-absorbed too quickly into the bloodstream and force it to do its job first. Endorphins are the ones you get from big rushes like adrenaline, doing something exciting, and also from certain foods and drugs. Chocolate releases endorphines, for example. Oxytocin is what they call the \"love drug\" because we seem to produce it in response to human connection and specifically in response to strong human connections like the birth of a baby and when we fall in love. We also produce this one in response to orgasm. I guess oxytocin must be one of the most long lasting, because you know that feeling of \"walking on air\" when you first fall in love with somebody. Dopamine is another kind of everyday happiness chemical but it's more in relation to motivation and keeping you on task, though it can be tricky - you can get dopamine \"hits\" in really nonproductive ways too like checking your social media again and again. I guess this is the positive reinforcement one. Dopamine production can also be impaired in people with depression which is why people with depression find self-care difficult - they don't get the sense of satisfaction from it that people who are not depressed do, so it becomes work for no gain. There's also some suggestion that people with ADHD suffer from a lack of self-production of dopamine which makes it hard to self-motivate, but are very receptive to external sources of dopamine - basically anything impulsive which gives you a quick, positive return.", "I have a difference in opinion, but it is perhaps because I am a counselor. The reason feelings such pain, suffering, and despair seem to persist for longer periods of time is because some people fail to develop healthy coping mechanisms and/or low resiliency. Coping mechanisms help people evaluate situations, accept them in a healthy manner, and allow them to move on. Maldeveloped or a lack of coping mechanisms, result in the creation of core pathologies (such as dissociation, withdrawal, even disdain) which prevent coping and prolong the suffering. Resiliency affects how you feel about and interpret the initial onset of the event, and how much it affects you.", "I would like to piggyback on the answer of /u/charliejwhiskey. I have suffered from anxiety and depression all my life. My first thoughts of suicide was at 8 years of old. I am 27 now...so basic math tells me that's 19 years. In the past year, I have finally begun to get a handle on my disease. I think that \"bad\" emotions simply...hits harder, if that's the right way to put it, than \"good\" emotions. A punch in the face will leave a lasting impression, while a gentle caress will be memorable, but the body and mind won't be on edge for the potential pain/injury of a punch to the face. I think that's the most important aspect of this difference. The impression emotions, or more specifically, events leave upon the brain of an individual. My mother screaming at me and beating me is terrifying as a child and, especially if it becomes a common occurrence, the mind *must* be aware of these potential danger else risk injury, or worse...Happy memories don't *force* our brains to prepare for future events in the same way. I think happy events create a sense of anticipation, but that's completely different than a sense of danger. Now, in the past year I've had some *reaaaally* high peaks and I'm beginning to see threads of similarity between my emotions of events of the past. By that I mean, I will look at at certain events and my heart will fill with joy as I remember how happy I was because of \"x, y, z\" in a similar way as I used to obsess about the traumas of my past. With all this said, I do think there are conditions for \"chronic happiness.\" I think to obtain and maintain \"chronic happiness,\" one must remember that *SOMETIMES* life just fucking sucks and that's okay and that when things do suck and a person feels the worse kinda of things, the person keeps in mind that \"this too shall pass.\" Just as happy memories fade or drift in and out of our consciousness and active memory, so too *CAN* negative memories. It's just about how one looks at and handles these memories. It's not easy, nor is it really simple, but it's definitely do-able. Therapy helps. 12 step groups of any kind have helped me tremendously. But in the end my journey's been mine all the progress and all the setbacks have been mine and mine alone. But to go back to the point, I think both positive and negative emotions fade and linger based upon the conscious AND unconscious mind of an individual. Happiness and depression co-exist. One cannot *be* without the other. One just feels worse, so it creates the illusion of permanence compared to the other.", "On a slightly related note - There is a disorder called Angelman Syndrome which isn't exactly chronic happiness, but having met somebody with the condition you could almost describe them as so. That isn't the only symptom though, it's sad and really interesting, worth checking out.", "Depression is an illness, not a \"standard\" state of being. One feels lingering sadness because they have depression. Please seek help if you need it--there are lots of different ways to treat it feel better :) Mania is sort of the opposite of depression, but you wouldn't experience it every day of your life. It's episodic.", "People have been taught to believe that life is about chasing pleasures and 'being happy' we have basically been taught or 'conditioned' to feel that life without obvious stimulation of the senses is 'bad' depressed people hardly ever feel 100% bad during their episodes; i can remember laughing whilst watching a show about a depressed guy (nhk) whilst being depressed but like some people who promote 'self help', depression can be a STATE OF MIND its easier to feel bad because lifeo obviously isnt fair and we were probably lied to when young but its as easy to build a healthy perspective of life that mitigates bad feelings ( it doesnt mean you will feel ''happy'' all the time)", "Have you heard about Mania? Mania isn't the same as \"happy\". The easiest way I can find to explain it is through comparison. Think about someone on stimulants (Meth or Ecstasy particularly). Upon ingestion, they get all this euphoria where they love it. They're drugs, they feel good. But once they start to wear off, each of the two take different paths. Meth is dangerous because the withdrawals are much less pleasant than X. You get violent, rash, loopy, and it keeps you up in that state much longer. X is kind of the opposite. You love everyone and everything, and you see the world for what it \"should\" be. But both share a similarity. The user has this feeling like he can fix things. The problem with meth is that since it's an amphetamine, it propels you on the course to \"do things\". Like Adderall, it gets you moving. X when it wears off, not so much. But you are still in a type of mania with both. With X, you are lovey dovey and think \"wow, all I had to do was be nice\" and you think problems like relationships are fixed. Unfortunately, Meth makes one think \"all I had to do was rob my mom's house and sell her TV\", because the thing you're probably trying to fix is to get a fix in the first place. With X, that's rarely an issue as you don't tend to want more that same night. It happens, rarely. Either way, you are totally delusional in these manic states. Jim Jones comes to mind too. Thinking that would be the answer to so many problems, and even with the obvious results in front of your face, being happy with what you are doing. Mania isn't very \"happy\" when you back away from those people, and manic people have this weird tendency to be persuasive in a very negative and subtle manner, because if you have confidence and look happy, why would I think it's a bad idea right away? The other thing is that I didn't really answer your question, because at the end, I have it too. Manic episodes can end in depression, and they typically do. When you realize all this happiness was unsubstantiated, and it was all a delusion, it's not a happy realization. It all crashes down. And then exactly what you're talking about happens. We remember the depression involved with the manic episode, and the after effects (fixing relationships because you were crazy, losing your job, etc.), but we don't remember the euphoria we felt in that mania. Just hard depression. Maybe it's part of our human nature to be survivors. To adapt, and fight. Whether it's the constant germs in our body we fight off even if we're not sick, the fact that success requires overcoming a problem, or failures of our past reminding us to keep up the hard work, it's difficult to explain. It's not a chicken and an egg theory, negativity comes first. We fight first, and THEN we win. There's no victory without a fight.", "There is. See [hyperthymic temperament]( URL_0 ). It is similar to a constant state of hypomania as seen in bipolar disorder.", "You remember the depression vividly so it won't happen again. The happiness fades quickly so you don't get too comfortable and move onto better times.", "Focusing on the past is part of depression. Focusing on the future is part of anxiety. Focus on the present moment is where joy is experienced. People have a hard time staying in the present moment." ], "score": [ 3220, 1991, 536, 303, 139, 75, 74, 60, 56, 28, 21, 13, 12, 9, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymic_temperament" ], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkl14
What is the purpose of the 4 digit extension on zip codes?
For example: XXXXX-YYYY What's the reason for the YYYY?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd80pev", "dd80ho5", "dd84cla" ], "text": [ "In many cases, the +4 can localize not just to your block, but to the correct side of the street.", "To put your mail on the right route. That ZIP+ number is very specific, down to the person and truck that delivers your mail. The 5-digit Zip is only specific to the Post Office branch level.", "In 1983, the Postal Service expanded it to create the ZIP+4 system, tacking on an extra four digits at the end of the old codes. These new digits identified an area—like a group of apartments or office buildings—or a high-volume mail receiver within a five-digit delivery zone to help with mail sorting and delivery. The sixth and seventh digits of a ZIP+4 indicate a “delivery sector,” like a group of streets, P.O. boxes, a group of buildings, or even a single high-rise building. The eighth and ninth digits designate a “delivery segment,” like a specific side of a street, a floor in an office or apartment building, or a specific department within a large office. Getting the public on board with the regular old ZIP codes had been hard enough (some people were annoyed they had another number to remember in addition to telephone area codes and their Social Security number, while others thought that being represented by a number was dehumanizing and un-American), so the ZIP+4 never caught on with people. Fortunately, around the time the expanded codes were implemented, the technology available to the USPS meant that people didn’t have to remember or use the full code. Automatic mail sorting systems apply a Postnet barcode to mail items that corresponds to a full code, and multi-line optical character readers can determine the correct ZIP+4 from the barcode and written address." ], "score": [ 8, 6, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkleh
Why hasn't anyone made a gaming console the way 6-CD changers were made, having multiple discs in the console at the same time?
Technology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd7zx45" ], "text": [ "cost, reliability, size. But probably mostly just not a necessity. CD changers would shuffle songs that lasted 4 minutes. Its reasonable to expect gamers to swap the disk between games since they are likely to play much longer." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkq5z
Why is it okay to stream or upload yourself playing/watching a game, but not a movie?
How is the creative content different? Why is one illegal but the other not? I didn't pay to watch or "consume" the content of the games on twitch, at all.
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd814go", "dd81rsr", "dd85fkt" ], "text": [ "Because the game involves sufficient input from the player to make it happen that it is considered a 'transformative work'. Films don't have that interactivity to make them go. A player's input is absolutely essential to a game in such a way that their gameplay is considered their own work. It's active whereas streaming a film is just passive.", "Streaming a copyrighted work is only \"illegal\" when the rights holder says that you can't. Right now, the only major video game company that places restrictions on uploading content with their games in it is Nintendo. Nintendo allows you to upload videos of Nintendo games to youtube, but in exchange requires you to relinquish ownership of your video (and they take all of the advertising money the video produces). While Nintendo currently doesn't prevent you from streaming their games, several years ago they did and they used that policy to shut down several large Smash Brothers tournaments. Other video game companies could prevent you from uploading their games to youtube or streaming them if they wanted, they just don't.", "Ok, you've got a mishmash of replies that goes from partially correct to wrong, so let me have a go. The bottom line is, of course, money (or the perception of it). But let's back up a bit. The main difference between a movie and a video game is that a video game is an interactive experience. It's an activity you're actually *performing*. Watching a movie is an activity, but it's basically happening *to* you. When you see someone play a game, it makes you want to try it. Furthermore, you can do it *differently* that the other person. You can do it *your* way and have a unique experience. When you see someone watch a movie, it does not make you want to watch the movie. So there's nothing in it for the movie studios. Letting you have their entire movie online doesn't benefit them. If would also likely bore the hell out of everyone, but that's besides the point. Let's look at another aspect: you can't really put an entire (modern) game online. You can't do an entire *Skyrim* playthrough video. Sure, you can do a \"look how fast I got through the main questline!\" video, but that's, what, 5% of the game? Plus, once again, if I play it, it won't be the same as when you did. Furthermore, note that there *are* popular youtube channels that thrive on movie commentary, and will show up to 20+ minutes of a movie! This is Fair Use and perfectly legal. If you *wanted* to stream yourself commenting on a movie, you *can* do it within the provisions of the law." ], "score": [ 14, 14, 14 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkr70
How do crematoriums ensure only the one person's ashes are in the urn?
I can't for the life of me think of a way to catch the ashes left over from burning a body without scraping a little bit of someone else with them. A little help would be appreciated.
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd84ady", "dd848x2", "dd83si3", "dd81gak", "dd81gql" ], "text": [ "In 2002 in Georgia, a small family run crematorium was found to have distributed urns containing a mixture of burned wood chips and dirt, while at least 120 rotting corpses were found piled in sheds surrounding the property. Apparently their furnace had broken down, and the family couldn't afford to fix it. The state of Georgia only had 2 officials to run crematorium inspections at the time, so the deception wasn't discovered until an unlucky jogger happened upon one of the decomposing bodies, spurring an investigation. [source (NYT)]( URL_0 ) Unrelated but interesting", "Mortician here! You are correct, while we do all we can to get as much of your loved one as possible from the retort (dude oven), there's no way we can get every bit out. So yes, a tiny bit of remains is the remains of someone else.", "Cremation remains are not ashes. They are pulverized remains of the skeleton, which isn't consumed by the pyre. The more you know.", "They cremate the people one at a time in a given section of the crematorium. They don't just pile in a bunch of bodies in a heap if they intend to actually keep each person's ashes.", "I had a friend that worked for a local pet cemetery and he said all the ashes are mixed up. In fact they would burn several pets at once to conserve energy." ], "score": [ 18, 15, 9, 8, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [ "http://www.metafilter.com/14859/Crematory-operated-for-years-without-burning-bodies" ], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkuh8
How can some people have an Eidetic memory while the vast majority of other people don't?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd82kqo" ], "text": [ "Because it's a myth. Memory is HIGHLY subjective and very easily influenced. Some people may have better recall, but \"perfect\"? They could just be convincing themselves of that, rather than actually possessing it. There is no proof to back up eidetic memory. But it's a common myth perpetuated by TV, Movies and books. URL_0" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory#Skepticism" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rky3p
Why/how do our eyes "lose focus" and get blurry? What's happening?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd844v3", "dd866er", "dd846hp", "dd84fz5", "dd8lf11" ], "text": [ "Basically it takes effort to focus your eyes, when you gaze off into the distance, not really looking at anything, your eyes realize they don't have to do work, and get a bit hazy. HOW this works is a bit more interesting, your eye lens is flexible, (even though you might have thought it was hard in that cow eyeball you dissected in high school) and is able to change shape by consciously or unconsciously changing the muscles in your eye. A rounder lens is able to focus on closer objects, as seen [here:]( URL_1 ) and a flatter lens is able to focus on things that are further away as seen [here:]( URL_0 ) EDIT: I will try to answer all your questions tomorrow, as I'm going to bed now.", "Let's start with the how. How this happens is that the lense in the eye is soft. It's shape and therefor its focal point (focus) can be changed by muscles in the eye. The more the lense is squeezed by these muscles the thicker and more convex it becomes, reducing the focal distance. When looking at something, the brain judges the distance to the object you wanna focus on and adjusts the muscles around the lense to put that object into focus. The focus point has to be just right for this to work. If its too close OR too far away the image won't be sharp and vision will be blurry. As for why vision sometimes goes blurry, there are lots of possible reasons, but I'll go over a few. One is simply tiredness, your brain is tired and can't quite controll its muscles. Your limbs feel heavy, you can't keep you eyelids from closing, this affects the muscles around your lense as well. One other reason is you're under the effect of some kind of substance. This might be alcohol, medication or narcotics. It's really too general to get into to as every substance causes different reactions in the body. Some prevent the muscles from contracting correctly while others distrupt the brains vision centre (located in the back of the head). Muscle fatigue might be the cause of blurriness. You've spent too long reading or staring at a monitor too close to your eyes. Just like most other muscles the ones around your lense can get tired, when they are it's harder to get them to do what you want. Tears or water directly infront of the eye. This is a topic of how light bends in different materials and that question has been asked before, with people giving far better explenations than I ever could. Here is one URL_0", "Additional question: is there any significant difference for those who can make their eyes lose focus willingly? I know a few people who are able to do this, and I'm quite curious in what exactly is going on!", "To some extent it is muscular and when you get tired, so your eye controlling muscle will slack or need a more conscious effort to focus. I know someone who experiences a struggle to focus / blurry vision when he is having a bad day, due to [myasthenia gravis]( URL_0 ) which is a condition affecting muscle tone in the face. So it can be caused by fatigue or many other causes of muscle weakness.", "If you find yourself not losing focus but somewhat just relaxing too often and not focusing, check your blood sugar level, that was one of the first sign of diabetes a friend had. It was happening at stop lights, he would just 'let go' of the focus." ], "score": [ 116, 6, 5, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://i.imgur.com/sIVIL54.jpg", "https://i.imgur.com/GKYvQgW.jpg" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r24r3/eli5_why_cant_i_see_clearly_underwater/" ], [], [ "http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Myasthenia-gravis/Pages/Introduction.aspx" ], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rkzt1
What happens to a fly when It gets inhaled it and doesn't get coughed back up?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd84goy", "dd83rn2", "dd85oez" ], "text": [ "Well obviously the fly would be eaten by the spider that is swallowed immediately afterwards.", "Probably not much since they're built to crawl through rotting flesh. Other than maybe scaring it, if that's possible for a tiny fly brain.", "Almost assuredly it will be blocked before getting too far down any airways. If it doesn't come back out, then it presumably has gotten punted to the esophagus to live its last in your digestive tract. Or it's taken up affordable housing in your nose." ], "score": [ 13, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rl9r5
How do items like peelers, graters, scissors etc. stay sharp but knives constantly need to be sharpened?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8og7w" ], "text": [ "It's not that they stay sharp, but for their purpose they don't need to be as sharp. They are also subject to lesser forces and materials than a knife, which might be used to cut a carrot one minute and a tomato the next. The knife's edge will also get rolled over and dulled by the cutting board/surface and how it is used. The degree to which this happens is determined by the metal used in the knife which can have different properties based on it's purpose (It's sharpness, hardness, and rust resistant properties are variable whereas the other devices are just regular old stainless steel so it won't rust). Lastly, scissors can be sharpened but most don't bother." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rlgzq
Why is it, that when we eat something spicy, like a Jalepeno, we have a harder time eating food that is hot (temperature wise)?
Sorry for the poor "scientific" wording. I've been out of school for YEARS now.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd87zvu" ], "text": [ "It's because the nerves that detect heat also detect spicy hottness and pain. So if something is spicy lets say 50% of these nerves tell your brain 'hey i detect something here' -your brain obviously knows that these are the hot/spicy/pain guys and thinks\"oh it's probably something spicy\" But when it's also hot the same food will trigger even more of these nerves and maybe 75% of your nerves tell the brain there's something, so your brain thinks oh it must benreally hot. Note: while a single nerve can only send \"yes something here\" and \"nope, all quiet\" many things can trigger it to say yes. (In this case heat and capsaicin which is the chemical tat tastes spicy. ) Luckily the brain gets way more information than one nerve and interprets a lot more information and the context to make the richt assumption about what's going on..." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rllq4
Why aren't fathers in the U.S. given an adequate amount of paid time off for paternity leave?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd88b8e" ], "text": [ "Mothers in the US have no legally mandated paid maternity leave. Workers in general have no legally mandated paid vacation or sick time. What makes you think fathers are going to be given time? The US has really fallen behind the rest of the developed world in how workers are treated. Unless you've got a strong union or a high-paying white collar job (eg - well funded Silicon Valley tech shit), you're pretty much completely fucked on this point. **edit:** made sure to note *paid* time off" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rlylw
How does Synaesthesia Work?
I came across a guy who can taste sounds? URL_0 How does this work? Can other senses be crossed?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8qruo" ], "text": [ "The ELI5 version is that there are pathways in one's brain for information about sounds and separate pathways for information about tastes - but sometimes those pathways cross, or touch each other, and end up spilling information into each other." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rm1ed
Why can we get blood clots from sitting for hours but not from laying for hours?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8beh7" ], "text": [ "Your body also isnt pushed up against rigid objects and your legs arent bent at angle restricting bloodflow while your laying. Also gravity is fighting bloodflow and it pools in your legs while laying down this dosent happen. In your legs you have one way valves and as you move blood is pushed up through them and works its way back to tbe heart. If you sitting still there isnt much to get the blood moving back up. Also you can get bloodclots laying. Long term hospital patients, bedridden people, and paralyzied people will sometimes wear a big preassure cuff on their legs that squuezes then releases to stimumate bloodflow." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rm31b
why do we have to open the windows when ascending and descending on an airplane?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8bj1w", "dd8bj8s" ], "text": [ "Most accidents happen on takeoff or landing. And in the case of an emergency landing it is important that the passengers know what happens outside and for the rescue workers to know what happens on the inside. This is also why the cabin lights are dimmed at night (so you get better night vision) and you are asked to not use any electronic devices (as they can be distracting).", "So that in the event of an accident, it is possible to see outside and see any potential dangers and also allowing outside rescuers to see inside. The vast majority of airplane accidents are during takeoff or landing, and are actually usually while on the runway itself, so it's useful to ensure a clear view of the side of the plane from inside and the inside of the plane from the outside." ], "score": [ 4, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rm954
Why do people riot when Milo Yiannopoulos shows up to speak?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8gbzr", "dd8cxry", "dd8om7y", "dd8lebz" ], "text": [ "Other answers have sufficiently pointed out why Milo offends people. Even so, to *riot* is a level of response above protest. I assume this question is in direct response to the Berkeley riots. In that case, it should be noted that according to Redditors claiming to be from the Berkeley area, the riots have been escalated by an anarchist group who are interested in causing violence at any protest in which they are able. Such people have been looking for opportunities to vandalize property regardless and are less concerned with Milo's actual message. [Source]( URL_0 ) It is of course impossible to know whether riots would have occurred in the absence of these people, but their presence seems to have amplified the demonstrations and should be included in any balanced description of why a riot has taken place at that location.", "Because far from being a mere conservative looking to have his voice heard, Milo chooses to deliberately antagonize those who aren't politically-aligned with him, then calls his detractors \"thin-skinned\" when they rightfully get offended. He's arguably done more to discredit the modern conservative party than any other figure in his field, which has earned him the ire of conservatives and liberals alike. Because of this, he's strongly disliked by the countless demographics which he's targeted/marginalized with his editorials, who oppose giving him any sort of public platform to promote his agenda. As a taste of Milo's style, he's [started college grants open to white men only]( URL_0 ), claimed [women would be happier in the kitchen, operates under the assumption that all followers of Islam are rapists,]( URL_1 ) and this is only what I found through about 5 minutes of googling. If you want more of the unbelievably crass material he's pumping onto Breitbart's front page, it's only a click away.", "The answer is simple and has nothing to do with Milo Yiannopoulos - there are groups of assholes who like to use any pretext to riot. No amount of controversy around Milo can possibly justify violent rioting. No normal person starts destroying public or private property when he encounters somebody whose views he disagrees with.", "First, you're mistaken to claim \"people riot\" in some general sense everytime he shows up. It's rare that anything like that happens, and it's debatable who is even responsible for the riots this time (protesters, anarchists, police provocateurs, etc...). Riots are simply a risk any time a large crowd gathers for any reason. Still, people do protest, for good reason: he represents a white supremacist/misogynist/bigoted wing of the right. As such, he advocates for actions and policies that are directly harmful to a number of vulnerable groups. He is also directly responsible for a number of illegal harassment campaigns of a long list of public figures, though less often himself, and more by directing his followers to engage in the actual harassment. He demonstrates the failure of the concept of \"absolute free speech\", since his own actions have nothing to do with free exchange of ideas, and instead focus on using speech to incite harassment, threats and intimidation of targets. It's the social equivalent of a DDOS attack. While the content of speech may be protected, harassment has never been legal or protected. The backlash against him reflects that. Someone whose main activity is incitement to harassment provokes others to be incited against him. Of course, his usual argument is that somehow he is the victim in all of that, and by pretending to be victimized he tries to gain sympathy and create the boogieman of \"bullying leftists\", despite at best the only real issue is that his own tactics eventually get turned around on him." ], "score": [ 14, 12, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5rkhv4/milo_yiannopoulos_event_at_berkeley_canceled/dd860tp/" ], [ "http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/breitbarts-milo-yiannopoulos-creates-college-grant-exclusively-for-white-men.html", "http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/27/10-things-milo-hates-islam/" ], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmcki
Herrera v. Collins - why a person convicted in the US cannot be freed, even if he can be proven innocent of the crime
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8dvf5", "dd8h443" ], "text": [ "I'm not justifying it, but ultimately the decision rests on the premise that courts typically do a good job in the run of cases, and err, when they do, on the side of letting the guilty go free than imprisoning the innocent. (Frankly, I don't find this contention supportable, but it was more honestly believable in 1993 than it is now.) On that basis, the court decided that justice is done better in the most cases by limiting the ability of defendants to retry their cases over and over again. It would mean courts would be swamped (more even that they already are) with motions for new trials and for verdicts to be overturned.", "> If you uncover new evidence that proves that you did not commit the crime, by any reasonable logic you should go free. And how do you determine that? If you uncover new evidence that *might* indicate your innocence then there would need to be a formalized trial to determine if that meets the criteria. If the right to such a trial was established then it would be secured regardless of the strength of the new evidence. We might imagine that a prisoner could somehow find new evidence 10 years after the fact that proves their innocence without a doubt, but in a practical sense it would mean that anyone could claim new evidence has arisen and hold up the process while they awaited a trial date, at which point they present something irrelevant and flimsy. It would allow the legal process to become hopelessly bogged down as someone could be convicted of a crime, exhaust the appeals process, and then continue the trial process indefintely as any time the Justice system finished it could be restarted by the convicted claiming \"new evidence\"." ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmdz2
What makes people heal faster than others?
If my brother and I get tattoos they heal in a week. If my boyfriend gets one he takes every bit of two weeks to heal. I have noticed that if me and my boyfriend have similar cuts or burns he takes longer to heal than I do. Neither of us have any immunity issues that we know of.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8emwt" ], "text": [ "Some factors affect the healing process and they may vary among people. How the wound has been treated and cleaned, nutritional status/intake, the state of the person's immune system are factors to healing. Also, people who have high sugar level/diabetics have slower healing." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmed3
If parallel universes exist, how come we are not being visited all the time by people who have figured out interdimensional travel?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8dhq6", "dd8jelb" ], "text": [ "Why would they be? Just because alternate dimensions exist doesn't necessarily mean that people can travel between them.", "Let's agree on a few assumptions, even though these might not actually be true: 1. There are infinite universes. 2. Travel between universes is possible. 3. Some percentage of universes contain humans that learn how to travel. Even given that, it's very likely we would never see a traveler. Not all infinities are equal. If there are infinite universes, and 1 in every 1,000,000 universes figures out inter-dimensional travel, and each universe that figures it out eventually travels to and interacts with 1,000 other universes before they stop (either thanks to war, or running out of fuel, or political pressure), then: 1/1,000,000 x 1,000 = 1/1,000 It would still be only 1 out of every 1,000 universes that gets visited by inter-dimensional travelers. There would be infinite traveling universes and infinite visited universes, but any given universe is still unlikely to be visited. And then imagine the odds that those universes developed a the same rate. That traveler universe might have never had the Black Death, or the Inquisition, or World Wars. They might be more or less scientific. They might have never had an Einstein or Newton. Maybe they're a thousand years ahead of us, so they visited us while we were in the middle-ages and haven't bothered to come back since. Maybe they haven't visited us yet, but will in our year 3000. Just because a thing might be possible, and because there might be infinite opportunities to do the thing, doesn't mean the thing will be happening continually." ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmhyh
How and what triggers gall bladder stones formation?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8rgt6" ], "text": [ "I'm going to take the long way around the barn just to make sure I explain it well. I hope it makes sense, but if not let me know. I'm not so great at responses yet because I normally just lurk. So you know how if you put oil and water together, it separates into two layers? But if you put a soap or a detergent with it, you can get the two to sort of mix? That's important. It's something called solubility. Solubility is just what will dissolve in something else, like sugar in water. But fats aren't water soluble. They won't be a part of water. Fats are something called lipid soluble. (Lipid is a fancy way to say fat.) They're like oil. In order to absorb things that have fat in them (think greasy foods but also lots of other stuff) you have to be able to absorb fats, but fats are sort of spectators on the side because the body absorbs water soluble stuff. Another reason this is important is because many vitamins are fat-soluble. So if you don't absorb your fats, you miss out on your vitamins especially vitamins A, D, E, and K. The way to solve this problem is to make the fats water soluble instead of fat soluble (like the oil, water, and soap earlier). This is done in a process called emulsification. Emulsification basically takes the entire layer of fat and puts it in tiny tiny droplets in the water layer thus making it relatively water water-soluble. The emulsifier, or the thing breaking it down into little droplets (think: the role of soap in the example), here is bile. Bile comes from the liver. It is made by hepatocytes (fancy for liver cell) and cholangiocytes (fancy for bile duct cells. Bile has all kinds of things in it, but the ones responsible for emulsifying fats are bile salts (BS) and bile acids (BA). They can get complicated so that's what we'll call them right now. When Bob comes from the liver between meals 50% goes to the gallbladder to be stored and concentrated while the other 50% makes its way down the duct system into the small intestine. In the gallbladder cells of the gallbladder called cholecystocytes concentrate the bile 100x. The reason it concentrates the bile is so that when you eat next time, the bile is more effective or more potent. Another reason is simply practical because the gallbladder only holds 40-50 mL. But when bile is concentrated there is another problem. When anything is concentrated it can be difficult to keep it dissolved. Can you think of a time where you put too much sugar in a drink and could not get it all to dissolve? This is the same concept. It refers to saturation points of a solution. The idea is essentially how much stuff can a liquid solution hold in it. When something becomes very very concentrated or potent, the liquid says it cannot hold it anymore. This increases the likelihood of dropping it just like a person carrying heavier and heavier weight. This is called precipitation in a solution. When bile salts precipitate out of the bile in the gallbladder they can undergo a chemical process called chelation with something called calcium. That's all fancy talk for how to make a calcium salt. Calcium salts are not soluble. Large clumps of these calcium salts are called gallstones. So why doesn't this happen to everyone? To solve this problem the gallbladder normally makes the bile acidic in order to keep the bile salts soluble. But this stops working when people eat more fat than they should because the gallbladder is overworked as it has to empty itself and start over more times than normal. So when the gallbladder stops working, you no longer get the acidic bile with better solubility. Now you have calcium salts and gallstones. Source: I have a B.S. in Biology and Chemistry, and I am working on my M.S. in Biology with a focus in medical science. We went over this yesterday in class." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmkcs
why is fascism considered right wing?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8f98m", "dd8fbb8", "dd8f5gt", "dd8idbn" ], "text": [ "Fascism is all about aggressive nationalism, corporate power, brutalizing criminals, suppression of organized labor and a fixation on military power, among other things. Those are all hallmarks of all right wing political parties, just taken further in a fascist government.", "That's a good example of the limitation of just using the term right and left wing to look at a government. Fascism is Authoritarian more than liberal meaning that it prioritise security, strong executive and swift action over individual liberty. In modern western country, those traits (but far from as extreme as fascist went) tend to be view as right wing. The right today want more security, strong executive and swift action. Let say that in that category the right today is center right on this issue. Socially conservatism. That's a clear right wing issue. Against everything that isn't view as normal, especially when it come to sexual behaviour. It's against homosexual, birth control, pornography. It also reinforce gender with the men doing the work and women taking care of the children. Abortion was usually illegal (exempt when view as inferior race, but that's another thing). Finally, it was highly nationalist. Most of these trait again we can see in the western world right wing. Of course to different degree. Where it become blurry is when it come to the economy. Fascism isn't the traditional left or right when it come to economy. They view themselves as a third option. A planned economy mixed with the productivity of capitalist. A planned (left) capitalist(right) economy we could say.", "Fascism is also nationalist and socially conservative as well, all traditionally right-wing positions. To be accurate, left-wing and right-wing are weak political definitions as they are way to broad and not really polar in all ways. More contemporary political categorizations, plot ideologies/positions along [two axis libertarian/authoritarian and economic left/economic right]( URL_0 ). In this quadrant, fascism would be in the top-center, that means high on authoritarian views but somewhat between economic left and right. Socialism (the Stalin-kind) would be top-left, in the same way Libertarians and Anarchists might be similarly to the bottom of the compass, but divided on the left-right axis.", "The terms right wing / left wing come from the French Revolution, where the Republicans were on the left side of the National Assembly, and the Royalists on the right side. The left was thus associated with republicanism, secularism, change, and liberalism; the right was associated with monarchy, religion, tradition, and conservatism. When socialists arose they got associated with the left, as they too were against the prevailing order. The United States was founded on very liberal and capitalistic principles. Defending those principles became associated with conservatism, especially after the totalitarian nature of socialism in practice became clear. This is where the assocation of right with individual liberty comes from, even though liberty was originally a leftist position. (The Founding Fathers would have been leftists in the French National Assembly!) Fascists appeared after the first world war. They were virulently against communists, and they were nationalistic, whereas the communists were internationalists. Clearly they weren't like those socialist leftists, so they were associated with the right wing." ], "score": [ 19, 10, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass" ], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmp5n
Does physical and psychological trauma to the body affect the ageing process of the brain? Also: Would stemcells (in theory) allow a brain to defy the ageing process completely if the brain did not require a body to survive?
Added clarification: If we found a way to transplant a brain into a fluid tank that provided everything the brain needed to survive like oxygen and nutrients, and the brain was given stemcell treatments. Could said person live forever (or at least for a long time, say a millenia) or would time still cause the brain to age and deteriorate? Related question: Does physical and psychological trauma to the body affect the ageing process of the brain?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8gv27" ], "text": [ "That's a very complicated question with some philosophical connotations as well as scientific. Much of the brain is dedicated to the control of a physical body, either directly or indirectly. The motor cortex directly controls the body - so what does this part of the brain do when it is not connected to a body? The nervous system is not only the brain, but also the spinal cord and nerves which go out to muscles, organs and skin. What is a brain without all of these connections? Even the higher centres of the brain related to personality, decision making, etc. are all fundamentally part of a process that is geared towards getting us to reproduce and pass on our genes. So what happens to a brain that cannot do this anymore? Is it even a 'person' as we would think of one? We don't really have answers to these questions. In terms of the physiology - theoretically you could keep the brain alive indefinitely, as brain cells don't divide. But again, what exactly this brain would be 'experiencing' is another matter entirely from just keeping a lump of cells metabolically active." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmpwz
What is a band and when does a band go from being a band to being an orchestra?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8fmvl" ], "text": [ "Usually, a band does not have stringed instruments. A band would consist of brass instruments, like trumpets and trombones, and woodwind instruments such as flutes, saxophones and clarinets. Orchestras are primarily made up of stringed instruments, such as violin, viola and cello. Brass and woodwinds are also sometimes included in an orchestra." ], "score": [ 9 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmqcg
What causes morning breath?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8n96w" ], "text": [ "I think its because your mouth drys out while you're asleep, and so bacteria that has a foul-odor is produced. Also if you smoke, and allergies because the mucus in the back of your throat can become a feeding ground for bacteria." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmrw9
What are the actual benefits to eating ones placenta?
I've been talking about this with friends and none of us can come up with a reason other than the fact they have nutrients in?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8gpl1", "dd8lj4n", "dd8g5xd" ], "text": [ "Despite the belief of the many health benefits of eating your placenta, there is no conclusive evidence that placentophagy provides any substantial nutritional value. In fact the preparation process (cooking the placenta or drying it for encapsulation) removes a large portion of its nutrients by reducing protein hormones and other things. Some suggest that the health benefits perceived by people who consume their placenta is caused by the placebo effect. Eating your placenta will provide you with about enough caloric energy and nutrition to make it to your next meal in the day (which is the most likely reason wildlife can be observed performing this practice as well).", "Midwife's assistant here. People use several arguments to justify consumption of their placenta. I will note that in my experience most mothers pay a doula or other person to dehydrate and encapsulate their placenta and consume it gradually in pills after birth rather than snack on it raw, though some people make a post partum smoothie with raw placenta. Here are the common reasons I here for consumption of placenta post partum; \"All mammals eat their placentas after birth.\" While true, this is most likely done to keep away predators. \"It helps prevent post partum depression.\" This is not proven. Anecdotally, it seems to have the placebo effect, and what are placebos best at treating? You guessed it, depression. \"It helps increase milk supply.\" I take issue with this argument. The birth of the placenta is what signals to the mother's body that it's time to amp up milk production. It signals the release of prolactin. If any parts of infarcts of the placenta are retained in the uterus it will negatively impact a mother's milk supply, so I don't see how re-ingesting placenta would help milk supply. \"It's ancient Chinese medicine.\" This isn't necessarily a good reason to do something. I think this is self explanatory. Here is a study that explores common reasons for placentophagy and the science behind it. URL_0", "That's about it. Nutrients. Granted, you could get the exact same nutrients from food, too. The placenta is there to provide nutrition to the *baby*, not the mother, and even then usually only before birth. Eating one's own placenta isn't terribly uncommon in the animal world, but that has more to do with the fact that resources can be very scarce than the fact that the placenta is somehow some miracle food." ], "score": [ 12, 7, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/Pages/062615-podcast-placenta-consumption.aspx" ], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmrwu
The Australian refugee agreement
Seen a lot about it recently but I'm not really sure what it is
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8kh9e", "dd8gpkd" ], "text": [ "Australia has had a problem for a number of years where refugees arrive by boat, generally from Indonesia. The people have made their way to Indonesia with the help of people sugglers who are paid hugh amounts of money by the refugees to get to Australia. The people smugglers are evil basteds. They put people in shitty old fishing boats that aren't seaworthy. There has been thousands of lifes lost at sea on the way to Australia. As the boats are in the Australian Search and Rescue Zone it is the governments responsibility to conduct the rescues and investigate missing boats. To try and stop people risking their lives to reach Australia the goverment made a policy that anyone that arrives by boat won't be granted a visa to stay in Australia. This to to discourage refugees from taking the risk of getting on the boats all together. The Australian Goverment then asked poor neighboring countries to setup detention camps to house the refugees that arrive by boat and aren't allowed into Auatralia. They are currently setup in Naru and Papua New Guinea. The Australian Government then had a problem.... what to do now? They had stopped the boats from coming but still had 1200 people that are genuine refugees that they can't allow into Australia because the boats will start coming again. The deal the Australian Government did with Obama was to take about 3000 South American refugees in exchange for the US taking the 1200 refugees in Naru and PNG. Australia is not against refugees, just the problems associated with those that try and come by boat. Most of the refugees are from the middle east including many from Iran, a country President Trump just banned immigration from for 90 days. It put Trump in a difficult position. On the one hand he has said Iranians are dangerous while at the same time being asked to honor the deal with Australia and accept upto 1200 Iranians as refugees.", "It wasn't possible (for a variety of reasons I'm skipping) for Australia to take in the certain refugees it was processing offshore. However, it was also making a drag politically that they were remaining. Something had to be done to remove them. The solution was for the US to take in the refugees for Australia (if the refugees wanted to go), which Obama agreed to last year. That's about it really. The issue for Trump seemed to be a) he called a ban on immigration specifically from nations many of these refugees came from. b) he didn't see what the US had to gain from it. So he's trying to make clear his displeasure at a deal he will (hopefully) still adhere to. I'm sure most people realise that Trump may not stand to gain anything by it, but he stand to lose an awful lot. It's one thing to be a dick to Mexico and China. It's another thing entirely to be a dick to one of your best friends/ally. That's why it's in the news (and because it's Trump being a dick and that gains a lot of clicks/views these days)." ], "score": [ 8, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rmtg4
Why Netflix makes shows either 23 or 42 minutes long even though there isn't commercial breaks instead of taking the full 30 minutes or 1 hour to their advantage?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8nyvg", "dd8mdtj", "dd8ldg4", "dd8g46v", "dd8mpag", "dd8g3h7", "dd8ozvv", "dd8m9nr", "dd8lgws", "dd8js1e", "dd8mjwx", "dd8nuxe", "dd8lo48", "dd8lccs", "dd8hs05", "dd8l7nq", "dd8mloq", "dd8pb66", "dd8r97q", "dd8t7rm", "dd8qna8", "dd8m00d", "dd8nawg", "dd8sm65", "dd8l3hy", "dd8swyf", "dd99ts6", "dd90x21", "dd8u6rg", "dd8qc4h", "dd8o1aa", "dd8pg2b", "dd942kk", "dd8om9g", "dd8yzph", "dd9a3af", "dd8sghj", "dd8rxpi", "dd8uogn", "dd8vpir", "dd8vcr0" ], "text": [ "The mistake you're making is assuming there's an advantage to using up \"the full 30 minutes\". Why is there an advantage to using a round number? Why use more time if you *don't need it*? One thing you might notice is times on Netflix shows can vary quite substantially. As an example, the latest episodes of House of Cards run from 42 to 57 minutes long. Traditional TV shows won't vary that wildly because each episode needs to fit snugly into the commercial slots. To illustrate, every recent episode of The Simpsons is either [21 or 22 minutes long]( URL_0 ) Since they don't have to weave in commercials, Netflix *wants* their creative staff to be free of formatting constraints. It gives the writers, directors and editors more freedom because they don't have to pad or cut scenes for set runtimes. They get to tell the story however they feel is best. Netflix feels this allows for higher quality programming. When you understand what they're going for, you see that \"using the full 30 minutes\" isn't more freedom - it's just a new time constraint, something they want to avoid.", "For any content that Netflix licenses/purchases from a third party, those shows follow industry standards of 23 min / half hour and 42 min / hour run times. However, any show that Netflix funds and produces can vary in length. They have no standard run times for their original series, so while shows can go up to the 30 min / 60 min limit, they allow the show the time it needs in order to complete the story. This is why run times of Netflix shows can vary by 7-10 mins from episode to episode (on an hour show). Source: Producer for Netflix shows Edit: Whoa, I step out for a 30 minute meeting and this goes wild. Yes, there are many levels of producer, but, fortunately for me, I am at the \"coffee-receiving\" level - for the record, I almost entirely get my own coffee. I work on Netflix original documentary series, but also had a position on Master of None. Edit 2: For clarity, I work in post-production, not development, so I'm not the source for pitch meetings, auditions, or in with the development team. RIP Inbox.", "There are definitely shows like Daredevil with varying lengths for episodes, ranging from 48 to 61 minutes each. So some shows will indeed take whatever amount of time they need to tell their story on Netflix.", "Most of what they make, they don't make. They only pay for it. So, production companies are still making shows that they can send out for TV, cable or Netflix. Also, who says that Netflix keeps the same business model in the future. Industry standards are there so that future use of a program is left as open to whatever will make money as possible. In other words....in 2019, you might see Stranger Things reruns on your local TV station.", "this is actually not necessarily true. My roommate's brother is a primary (oh gosh forgot the title, filmer, he runs the primary camera). He recently worked on a Netflix show and was telling us how awesome it was because they weren't constrained by time and that they could make episodes as long and as short as they needed to tell their story. It gave a creative freedom he hadn't ever had on a show before Like others have said, naturally most production studios are used to working in those confines, so it's very likely it's simply a habit. But Netflix does not enforce it", "because they can sell them to countries and tv stations that do have advert breaks fitting in neatly with their schedules.", "While other have pointed out that actual original Netflix shows do often vary in length; it's also important to note there is some element of the production/post production systems that are already in place that influence the running time: Shows have to be shot - there are already models on how to budget for and shoot a 40-50 minute program including pages per day to hit in a typical 5 day schedule, union rules (so many unions are represented on a shooting set!) and facilities limitations. Shows have to be edited - again models on how to budget for editorial, online and color correction, sound editing and mixing already exist. When you have varying running time for episodes far outside these existing workflows you often encounter overages or might even have trouble fitting you show into the workdays of your vendors (and again union rules that mandate professionals be booked on a daily or weekly basis that don't allow much wiggle to add a half day to finish that extra 12 minutes). So as much as it can vary; the whole production and post production world is largely ruled by scheduling and budgeting; and those are often based on numbers and workflows very much based on the typical commercial television running time ballpark so it can be a bit difficult to stray too far... Source: Post production professional", "Breaking TV into 30-60 minute chunks is done for the ease of scheduling and maintaining what goes into commercial breaks. Once we're out of the realm of broadcast TV with commercials, there's no such thing as \"the full 30 minutes\" or \"the full hour.\" A story takes as much time as it takes. If it takes 20 minutes, then make the episode 20 minutes, if it takes 35 then it takes 35. If one episode takes 300 minutes, then why not? If a show isn't reliant on airing commercials to generate revenue, then the notion that a show must either be 30 minutes or 60 minutes, and anything longer is a movie, just disappears. I just wanted to point this out in addition to everyone else's correct answers about syndication.", "Some episodes of Netflix's \"The OA\" are 50 minutes, while some are as long as an hour and eleven minutes or as short as 31 minutes. They're breaking the mold.", "It depends on the show. House of Cards and The Crown each have episodes of varying length, all the way up to an hour.", "In addition to the other reasons given, there's also the considerations of cost and form. Increasing episode length by 50% is obviously more expensive than not doing that, and there's nothing saying that a longer episode is inherently better. TV shows aren't hour or half hour long episodes cut down to 42 or 23 minutes, they're written to be that long and have been for a long time. A lot of shows will keep being made that way because that's how they've been made for decades and the people making them aren't freshly hired out of college by Netflix, they've been in the business for years. Oftentimes Netflix original shows will stray from exactly hitting TV time because they can, but they aren't going to dramatically change the episode length on a whim. There's also a lot to be said for creating within limits. Letting a creator go completely wild often ends in, well, the Star Wars prequels.", "There is one example where this strategy backfired. One of the chief reasons why Arrested Development bombed on Netflix was because the episodes were [too long]( URL_0 ) \"Part of the appeal of “Arrested Development” was its lightning-fast pace, and the sheer density of jokes crammed into each zippy installment. Creator Mitch Hurwitz was reportedly under pressure from Netflix to write longer episodes in order to “differentiate” this incarnation of “Arrested Development” from its leaner broadcast format, and the result, according to many observers, is a new season that, while still very funny, at times feels swollen and sluggish.\"", "Ohhh i kinda know this onw. The ceo of netflix said in a roundtable interview at THR that the majority of netflix shows do not have time limits given to the producers directors or editors due to their subscriber format so a lot of shows they produce are in fact not 24 or 42 minutes and a lot of show creators sometimes just aim for that target because that's the way is always been.", "If your whole premise is that these shows are meant for on-demand services only, there is no \"the full 30 minutes\" or hour to speak of. Those time ranges are as rooted in old network restrictions as the need for commercial breaks is.", "In addition to the reasons others mention, this allows the shows to be sold in syndication should Netflix ever wish to use that route.", "Some shows, specifically certain Netflix originals, such as house of cards or series of unfortunate events. Have episodes (not all) that go longer than even an hour.", "Because what is the point of making an episode exactly 30 minutes or 60 minutes when they aren't filling a time slot? The episodes are as long as the production wants them to be. filling out to a meaningless even 30 or 60 minutes would mean adding filler or cutting material they thought was necessary. Plus, if a show is 23 minutes long, it will have the benefit of being able to easily port to broadcast television, although i don't know if that is something they would do.", "I used to work for Netflix. Some of their original programming has been made available to Networks in certain countries that Netflix streaming was not available in. They are basically making their programs with the idea in mind that they could sell television rights for them in the future.", "A lot of \"Netflix Originals\" are only picked up by Netflix after they are already made, or partially made. So they might have originally been designed to be for a traditional TV network, and it's too late to change. Additionally, if something happens later where they want to sell syndication to an actual TV network, it needs to fit with their schedule. From our standpoint, of course we want our favorite show to have more running time, but from a distribution standpoint, it limits you.", "Sort of on topic, I always thought it'd be cool if Netflix ran a series based off a book, with each episode depicting 1 chapter in the book, regardless of length. 2 page chapter? Short episode. What does it matter, you can stop an episode anywhere you want and pick right back up, just like a book.", "As someone who watched the Netflix Marvel series first, and then the DC series on the CW, it's become painfully obvious when a show is written and produced to fit the time constraints of broadcast tv. The dramatic pause and suspenseful buildup that leads to a commercial break, and the 3-second recap after a return from commercial before action resumes. The plotline of the week getting all wrapped up in the final scene. Dialog that recalls past events, even though everyone should already be familiar with the details of that event. \"What happened to CHARACTER? Oh, you mean when EVENT happened? I know I've said this a hundred times already, but again, I'm sorry about TRAGEDY.\" The fact that Netflix shows don't have to fit into this mold makes them much better paced, better written, and more enjoyable to watch.", "Perhaps because commercials are a part of their future business plan when they have everyone captive???", "The potential to syndicate later on to tv. They could add commercials to fit into tv if syndicated.", "Why be constrained by time at all? In an on demand age there is no reason to conform to 30 or 60 minute blocks. That was for the TV guide era.", "Because they show those shows on TV in other countries, and those channels still run commercials. Almost all of Netflix's licenses are regional, so a show on Netflix US may not be on Netflix Canada and instead on a regular TV station.", "I think netflix is banking on also getting original content sydicated on other services and television channels. Other wise Their story structure needs work as well. Luke Cage and Jessica Jones really starts to drag toward the end if you watch the whole series in a short period", "**syndication**: Netflix is allowing for the possibility that its shows will be aired on other channels that will need commercial breaks. If you look carefully, you'll notice that some shows have \"chapter\" breaks, where the story intensifies and then goes black for a half-second. this is where an editor will put in the breaks.", "I watched in interview with Larry David where he spoke about how challenging it was going from writing Seinfeld on NBC, where you needed 22-23 minutes of material per episode, to writing Curb on HBO, which is a full 30 minutes. He said it was tough to come up with an extra 7-8 minutes in a story line and have the quality be consistent throughout.", "The OA had wildly different episode times. One episode was 20-some minutes long, while some were 90 minutes.", "Only the shows that started out on TV and got picked up by netflix are like this. The netflix originals vary in length.", "Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage all have episodes longer than 42mins. Netflix also doesn't technically \"make\" shows more so they host and pay for them.", "Because when the show is picked up by TV, and if one of the station is planning on scheduling the show on prime time than they would need time for commercial. That's why", "Watch Top Gear, a program produced for the BBC. The BBC has no advert breaks, but Top Gear is made with the breaks in mind so when it is shown on a channel that supports ads there are seamless breaks built in.", "It's industry standard, not 'Netflix\" doing it. Some writers are accustomed to writing that length. But, I've watched plenty of shows on Netflix where some episodes are 1 hour, some are 52 minutes, some are 43. With no standard in the same show. Your question doesn't correlate with reality.", "One thing that really stands out to me is the recent Netflix show The OA, some episodes are bordering on 70 minutes long and others are barely 1/2 hour. I kind of liked it that way. They told the story in the chapter sizes that made sense to them.", "Netflix is unconstrained by time as it's all on demand video, the Series of Unfortunate Events with NPH has drastically varying lengths. It seems they were more focused on being true to the books and ignoring how long or short the episodes are. (from the 4 episodes I've seen)", "It's so the shows can be bought and sold down the road by other networks that use conventional commercial breaks. Theyre thinking about long term revenue opportunities for the business. Think about how many different major television networks have broadcasted Seinfeld and Dick van Dyke, Happy Days, etc. over the years.", "Some of their shows vary in length. The shows that are standard length are probably shows created/owned by 3rd parties and licensed for use on Netflix. By using the industry standard length, they would reserve the possibility to potentially sell the show to a television or cable network in the future that would need to wedge in commercials.", "Netflix is the distributor not the creator. The production company is making that show for anyone to distribute, so if NBC buys the rights instead of Netflix, the show is still in a format friendly for current standards. Also Netflix could sell the show to syndication like how HBO sold Sopranos reruns to A & E years ago", "one thing i can tell you off the bat is that not all netflix content is produced exclusively for netflix. Often shows are made and produced then bought buy netflix, so the original idea was to sell it to a traditional network only to have netflix purchase the show for themselves. So its a matter of formatting and use.", "Because they only have 23 or 42 or 57 or whatever else minutes of content for that episode. TV shows usually need to include commercials, and need to fit on a nice clean schedule with all the other shows. Netflix shows do not... you can watch half an episode or a dozen episodes in a row any time you want. The other interesting thing about Netflix, is they don't have to build dramatic pauses before commercial breaks into the show. They might leave you with cliffhanger at the end of the episode, but the episode itself can flow however the creator would like it to without the concern of commercials. I expect to see even more variety in episode lengths, as creators experiment with the freedom they have more and more. Perhaps even choose your own adventure type shows with lots of shorter segments that you the view progress through as you feel the story should unfold. Additionally, as Netflix gets more and more content, and people become more used to it, they will be able to study what length of time viewers enjoy the most for an episode, and will adjust to meet that demand." ], "score": [ 15944, 4986, 2596, 2451, 268, 231, 178, 159, 154, 137, 80, 67, 42, 31, 27, 27, 15, 12, 8, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/episodes?season=28&ref_=tt_eps_sn_28" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/28/entertainment/la-et-st-arrested-development-season-4-episodes-20130528" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rn2fn
What is "dust" and why is it everywhere?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8i3y1", "dd8tsig", "dd9eyn1" ], "text": [ "Pollen, soil, volcano ash, skin flakes etc anything light and powdery that can be blown on the air and because of that it gets everywhere that the air circulates.", "everything is breaking down slowly. its a fact of entropy. dust is just the very small particles that come from that breakdown. these particles are light enough to float in the air. changes in the air such as a change in the temperature, pressure, humidity and turbulence mean that the amount of these particles in the air changes with time. when the air cant hold as many particles anymore it deposits them in a thin layer on any (usually horizontal) surface. since the adhesive properties of a surface with a high surface area are greater than that of a smooth surface more particles will stick to the surface rather than be reabsorbed into the air when the temperature, pressure, humidity and turbulence etc shift back. stuff like furniture polish contains an anti sticky substance to stop the dust sticking in the first place so that it can be reabsorbed by the air.", "Years ago I read a great book about dust. I recommend it. This: *The Secret Life of Dust* by Hannah Holmes > Some see dust as dull and useless stuff. But in the hands of author Hannah Holmes, it becomes a dazzling and mysterious force; Dust, we discover, built the planet we walk upon. And it tinkers with the weather and spices the air we breathe. Billions of tons of it rise annually into the air--the dust of deserts and forgotten kings mixing with volcanic ash, sea salt, leaf fragments, scales from butterfly wings, shreds of T-shirts, and fireplace soot. Eventually, though, all this dust must settle." ], "score": [ 55, 35, 12 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rn3tj
What happens if you only eat rarely/one small meal a day?
I know starvation/dehydration have their horrible side effects, but what would happen if a person just goes extremely long periods without eating?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8k4kf" ], "text": [ "An important thing to remember about fasting and starvation is that the only fuel that the brain can use is glucose. Other tissues can use protein, fat or glucose to get energy - but the brain can only use glucose. But glucose gets used pretty quickly by the body after a meal - this means that when we haven't eaten for a long time, there are very low levels of sugar in our blood and our body does everything it can do keep the remaining glucose around for the brain to use. So other tissues stop using glucose for fuel and instead use protein and fat for fuel, leaving all the glucose for the brain. When we haven't eaten for a while, we get this protein and fat by breaking down fat (for fat) and muscle (for protein). Therefore you will get thinner but you will also get muscle wasting. You will feel like you have very little energy as the body tries to conserve as much fuel as possible. It will take a lot longer than cutting out food entirely, but eventually you will die once there is nothing left to break down to make fuel. So all the glucose is used up and the brain dies." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rn43l
Why is it much easier to get our head/body parts stuck in places than it is to get them out?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8kn2w", "dd9ajcr" ], "text": [ "Kinda for the same reason a [broadhead arrow]( URL_0 ) is harder to pull out. Our heads are rounded (pointy) at top with nothing to snag but square off at our necks. coming back out you have to get past your chin and base of your neck. Also your nose which can get hooked on things, it's easy to compress it going down the bridge but coming out it's just an edge to snag and won't compress. Same principle that makes [these things]( URL_1 ) work", "If you apply pressure to a body part and cut off circulation, it swells. So the part inside the gap actually tries to get bigger when you squeeze it into something." ], "score": [ 27, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [ "http://www.bogenloewe.de/images/BO_10204_Mittelalterliche_Jagdspitze.jpg", "https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.net/screenshots/pics/2d1bb8151f167e063376a7f703f59a6c/large.JPG" ], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rn4wn
How can studies show that by keeping up with good habits, there's a percentage decrease in the chance of you getting cancer or a heart attack?
I'm mostly interested and how this is being measured rather than just for cancer and heart attacks; I am just using those two as examples.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8jsud" ], "text": [ "I'll give an example of a study to illustrate the kind of way that these sorts of things are done. Let's say you have 2000 people. Every year, you follow them up by giving them a questionnaire. It will ask things like \"how much exercise do you do on a weekly basis\", \"have you had a heart attack in the last year\", \"how many fruits and vegetables do you eat per day\", etc. There may also be measurements taken like BMI, body fat percentage, etc. After 10 years, you start to look at the data. Let's say there were 1100 people of the 2000 who went for a jog 3 or 4 times a week. Of these people, 1045 haven't had any heart problems in those 10 years. That means that 95% of those people haven't had heart problems. Let's say there were 900 patients who did no or very little exercise during those 10 years. Only 675 of these patients haven't had any heart problems in those 10 years, which is 75%. You can then make a comparison - 5% of regularly exercising patients had heart problems, while 15% of patients who did no exercise had heart problems. Of course the data will be more complicated than this. There will be a scale of how much exercise a person can do rather than a simple \"some vs none\". But the idea is that if you have a large enough group of people that do a thing compared with a large enough group of people that don't do that thing, then you can draw comparisons between those two groups, since you can assume that other factors will be distributed equally between the groups." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rn65n
Why can't we cut our body fat directly?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8lwfl", "dd8lwyz", "dd9lt7v" ], "text": [ "Fat is difficult for the body to process because it isn't water soluble, but stores energy very efficiently (compared to glucose, it stores about twice the energy per gram). It is stored in adipose tissue, whose purpose is to store fat and cushion/insulate organs. Because of those things, fat doesn't want to leave adipose tissue, and when it's forced to, it does so in small amounts to keep your blood from becoming lard. Fat is used for energy as a last resort, it's the least efficient aerobic process our cells use to make energy, and your body will start consuming your muscles before it starts consuming fat. This is why diet is so important to burning fat. If you keep taking more in, you can't burn it off, so it gets stored while your body burns off sugars and protein first. If you take too much of everything in, you end up storing some of everything as fat. Even if you work out, you're not likely to burn more than 2500-3000 calories per day, that should be your ceiling, if you're trying to lose weight, exercise isn't the thing that will do it best. You should definitely exercise, because it helps a bit and it's really, really good for you, but taking in fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight, and unless you're a professional bodybuilder or some sort of elite athlete, you are only in control of about 30% of the calories you burn at most. Even highly active hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa burn about the same number of calories daily as you and I.", "Liposuction is really for anybody who can undergo surgery (in general) with low or no risk. All liposuction is, is the vacuuming (general term) of fat out of the body, then the surgeon will normally cut and fold skin to make it look natural. Like a previous comment said, fat is just storage of energy (glucose in the form of glycogen, I believe). The easiest way to burn off fat is to increase the amount of energy needed to maintain your body by building muscle. Most diets have you decrease the amount of calorie intake in a day, but that does little to nothing for the long term except deprive your body of much needed nutrients (which may force your body to adapt by reducing the amount of those nutrients it needs, which is not a pleasant process). If you're trying to lose fat, you HAVE to exercise, there's no healthy way around it. You also have to eat. Eat protein to increase muscle production, eat fat (saturated fat, which is like animal fat, etc) to maintain hormone production, and DRINK WATER, ATLEAST ONE GALLON A DAY. Your body doesn't want to be fat, it just thinks it has store tons of extra energy (because you aren't eating right usually). And when I say exercise, I don't mean like 3-hours of bodybuilding everyday. 30-minutes of cardio (walking at first, then jogging when you're more comfortable) to increase energy consumption, lift weights to build muscle (which increases energy consumption). Look up good beginner workout for muscle building. Don't be afraid of going to the gym, no one is going to make fun of you, because you may not be benching your bodyweight, but atleast you're trying. If you have any questions, concerns, or want some more advice, feel free to slide into my DMs.", "There are some good answers here that address your question if you're asking figuratively. But, specifically because you mention liposuction, it's possible you mean it literally - why can't we just cut the fat away? I'll try to answer that question. The first problem is that every form of surgery has risks. We've gotten really good at reducing them, but we can't make them go away entirely. We're really good at anesthetic, but there's a chance of something going wrong when you're under. We're really good at sterilizing tools, but anytime you cut someone a lot, you're creating a chance for infection. Surgeons are trained to be very careful, but mistakes can happen, and nicking something could lead to a lot of complications. So if you can do something without surgery, doctors will generally recommend avoiding the surgery. The second problem is that fat isn't a simple, self-contained unit. Consider an organ like a gallbladder, which is removed fairly often. It's connected to the rest of the body by fairly well-defined points. It's got a clear boundary; you can literally pick up the gallbladder, unless it's already ruptured (and those are the more dangerous surgeries). Fat, on the other hand, is spread throughout the body. Think of a marbled steak, with fat running through it - a lot of your body is like that. There are some deposits that are relatively pure fat, but fewer than you might think, and generally well-connected to the rest of the body. The third problem is that you'd have to remove a *lot* of fat to have the effect you're going for. Again, let's consider common removal surgeries: gallbladder, appendix, kidney transplant. Those organs are small. We're talking no more than a few ounces. To have any meaningful effect on BMI, you'd have to cut out way more than that. We're talking 20 pounds, 50 pounds, 100 pounds. Why does the size matter? Because all that tissue had connections to your blood vessels, to the surrounding muscles, etc. which all get suddenly severed. Further, at the boundaries, you've got a bunch of dead cells or damaged cells - the cells that you cut through. It's essentially a massive internal wound. Your body can deal with smaller wounds - that's why we can heal after normal surgeries - but trauma on that scale would easily overwhelm your body's ability to cope." ], "score": [ 10, 7, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rn9ml
Why do we get nosebleeds, pimples, and eyegunk(I think that's what it's called, the yellow thing in your eyes when you wake up in the morning)?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8srnh" ], "text": [ "Nosebleeds can happened when your mucous membrane in your nose dries too much and cracks. The vessels in the nose are very small and close to the surface, so a crack in the membrane can also cause them to tear which causes a bleed. This is part of the reason that in the winter or in very dry locations nosebleeds can be exacerbated. The best way to deal with this is indoors to get a humidifier and when you're outside the home use something like Vaseline to keep the nasal cavity from drying too much. They also obviously happen in trauma which is a little more self-explanatory. Pimples are caused by infection of a type of gland called a sebaceous gland. Sebaceous glands are a type of non smelly sweat gland (smelly ones are apocrine) that are associated with hairs. (This is why sometimes if you pop a pimple you will see a fine hair with it, the pus had to come out through the hair canal where it was associated to the hair.) Because hairs come from inside the skin to outside the skin it can be easy for microbes (or Little Critters) to get inside and cause a little infection. This is why they always say to get the Dirt Off Your Face by washing it daily. When Little Critters get to your gland they can be detected by white blood cells. These cells give other white blood cells signals, and before you know it a whole Army of them is fighting on your behalf. Commonly, they eat the invader and then die. This is what pus is made of. Another way this can happen is a blockage in the duct of the gland. When the duct is blocked, the product of the gland cannot make it to the surface. So it builds up underneath. Yikes! Eye gunk is literally the same composition as snot from the respiratory and nasal system. The gunk is called rheum or gound, and it's normally produced by nose eyes and mouth. Blinking normally clears it away through your tear ducts, but not blinking allows it's build up like you see after sleeping." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rndar
Time dilation and lenght contraction.
If an astronaut is travelling near the speed of light, a trip which from our point of view takes one year, from the astronauts perpective takes only one hour. This does not make any sense to me.
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8nime" ], "text": [ "Time dilation and length contraction come from the fact that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. This means that if I'm standing still I see light as moving at the same speed as I would if I were moving at half the speed of light. Let's expand on this idea. If I'm moving at half the speed of light and I shine a flashlight in the direction I'm moving the light moves away from me at the speed of light. If I turn on the light right as I pass you and you are at rest you must also see the light moving away from you at the same speed, the speed of light. The only way this can be true is if time is running slower for me than it is for you. Now if time is running slower for me than it is for you then in one second, as measured by me, I will see a beam of light travel farther than it would after one second as measured by you. Since the speed of light must appear to be the same for me that means the length of things along the direction I'm traveling (that aren't moving along with me) must appear shorter than they appear to you." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rnddg
What happens if a skycam is hit in sports?
Is it possible to hit the skycam or its wire in sports like American football or baseball? If so, what would the resulting play be?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8ll29" ], "text": [ "One did fall during a [college game in 2011]( URL_0 ). However it was due to a malfunction rather than being hit. During the game (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I belive the outcome of the play would be the whatever the result is, as the camera would be considered part of the field. For example, if the quarterback hit the camera while throwing the ball, it would be ruled an incomplete pass. This is *very* unlikely as the camera is usually too high to hit accidentally, and usually stays behind the ball. If the camera interfered with the game on its own (like it broke and fell on a player during the middle of the play), then they would most likely replay that down." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://youtu.be/G2prhoIWe1Y" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rnmsj
What is the weird smell you get when you hit your head hard?
Has anyone had the weird smell right after you hit your head, get punched in the nose, etc? I can't describe it. It's like a fuzzy smell.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8mwn9", "dd8xeiz", "dd9gf8o", "dd8plpk", "dd9kcgd", "dd8wxrp", "dd9jmwh" ], "text": [ "I've never heard of this before and I'm a bit concerned about it to be honest. Head trauma is extremely serious, especially if you're having sensory disruptions afterwards. How many concussions have you had?", "Making an account to tell you GO TO THE HOSPITAL. You might have fractured the back of your skull!", "Thank you! I get this smell if I hit my head or land hard from a jump. It's not like I'm flying at things.", "Probably smelling the iron in your blood? I get nosebleeds from time to time and get that smell", "i know exactly what you're talking about. fuzzy metallic smell is probably the best way to describe it. i get it when i hit my head somewhat hard. i'm fairly sure it isn't blood or a fractured skull, i didn't hit my head THAT hard. i've always wondered what this is as well.", "I'm sorry. Ran my motorbike into the clothesline and held my breath for too long made people stare at me when I laughed out loud on the bus this morning. But ahem, cool now. Could be minor blood leakage inside your head making it's way to your simusea or the back of your tongue. That moght induce a cloying (fuzzy?) smell.", "For me, that particular smell is like the flavor of calcium tablets. Kinda chalky, so distinct to almost be chocolate milk but not quite... This flavor only appears when I've suffered extreme skeletal trauma, because I've experienced it from limb injury and not just from a large amount of force to my head. I remember seeing a commercial as a kid or teen maybe that was mentioning quantities of calcium lost through normal everyday activities like walking down stairs or such (osteoporosis awareness or treatment ad) and i remember instantly thinking \"huh, i guess that flavor is calcium\". I have no idea of the validity of that thought. There's another flavor i get with puncture wounds or extreme abrasions but its more metallic like blood and I kind of blame on my mind more than anything specific. Normally followed by a chill but that could be just from breathing more heavily suddenly." ], "score": [ 16, 6, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rnni7
What are those colorful dots you experience after putting pressure on your eyes?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8ndrf" ], "text": [ "They are called \"Phosphenes\" URL_0 Basically, the cells in the back of your eye that respond to light, also respond to pressure. Your brain thinks there's light, because the light sensitive cells have been activated. What we see as light is just our brain's interpretation of the stimulus from our eyes. When we physically stimulate cells that are usually only stimulated when hit by light, our brain can't tell the difference." ], "score": [ 36 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rnon1
How do doctors actually know someone has a chemical imbalance like depression?
Just curious, according to the mayo clinic, doctors will give a physical and psychological evaluation but do not, or rarely, perform a physical test to get actual definitive proof that one's brain is chemically imbalanced. If they don't actually physical prove individual's chemical imbalance, is it reasonable to assume most cases are misdiagnosed or not substantiated by scientific evidence, only the eye test.
Chemistry
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8nkgd" ], "text": [ "They don't. There really isn't a good way to actually drill a hole in someone's head and check out their serotonin levels. Instead, they look at the symptoms, compare it to other cases, and then make a prescription. If the medicine works, great! If it doesn't, they discontinue that script and try something else. It is not reasonable to assume that \"most\" cases are misdiagnosed. The \"scientific evidence\" they have is in matching the patient's symptoms against other cases. This is how most medicine works. If you walk into a clinic and say, \"Doctor, my knee hurts,\" he won't just cut your knee open to see if the bone is broken unless he has some reason to do so. Psychology and psychiatry are admittedly ambiguous and highly dependent on the patient's self-reported symptoms. That does not mean it is quackery." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rns6z
Why is it that while at work, I feel like I have to constantly use the bathroom, but at home at night, I rarely do?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8t96v" ], "text": [ "Two ideas: 1. You're staying hydrated better at work. I know I did when I worked in an office. 2. You're less stimulated and more aware of the need, so you have a lower threshold for actually stopping what you're doing and going to the bathroom. In short, I know the title says biology, but I doubt the actual answer is biological." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rnvur
Where did the first viruses come from?
I'm sure there are many theories on this, but I'm only interested in mainstream ones.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8v3fe" ], "text": [ "Honestly? We don't really know. Viruses are weird little things. We still can't even agree if they are alive. Unlike bacteria, which we can find fossils of, we can't really find fossils of viruses. Plus viruses can be difficult to locate even in living creatures, they are tricky things. Probably the most widely accepted theory is that viruses were once bits of a cell's DNA that somehow became independent. Bacteriophages (viruses that affect bacteria) are very similar to viruses that attack eukaryotic organisms, which indicates a common ancestor. There are many many theories, and I honestly don't know when, if ever, we'll get a definitive answer." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rnz7y
Why are people who handle pizza allowed to use their bare hands?
when ordering pizza by the slice or pie, people making the pizza are allowed to use their bare hands to handle the pizza. why are they allowed to do so? every other place where food is handled, the employees are wearing gloves. what makes pizza the exception to this? can't be that it's in the oven at a high temp so any germs get killed, but a lot of foods are heated as well.
Chemistry
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8q24e", "dd8q66g", "dd8qe4c" ], "text": [ "I'm not sure if there's a national rule for this, but in NY (which is what I found in a Google Search), it's not a law that you have to handle food with gloves as long as it's cooked afterwards. If you go back to the kitchen of many places I bet you'd see many people handling your food with their bare hands.", "Food servers, such as a cafeteria, are quite different from a food preparer. There are a lot of things you can't do when preparing and cooking food if you are wearing gloves. For instance, working around flames, if the plastic glove got too close to the flame it would melt the glove onto your hand and cause a very serious injury. Pizza is another type of food where you need the tactile sensation to press out the dough properly which wouldn't be possible with gloves on. So someone at a Subway, for instance, has no problem wearing gloves, as the only thing they are doing is using a knife to slice the sandwich in half, but I would venture to guess that 99% of chefs don't wear gloves. They do however, wash their hands very frequently, so there isn't much chance of any sanitation problems.", "> every other place where food is handled, the employees are wearing gloves. That's not true everywhere. [In Illinois,]( URL_0 ) only ready-to-eat food can't be handled with bare hands, like ice cream cones, sandwiches, and pastries. Anything that will be cooked can be prepared with CLEAN bare hands. In my experience, most cooks/food service workers/bartenders are diligent about washing their hands often. I once had to fire a guy from an ice cream shop after repeatedly telling him his nails were disgusting and customers could see that -- we even had a nail brush by the hand sink." ], "score": [ 11, 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/fdd/fdd_fs_tempfood.htm" ] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5roc4j
how can music make us feel so many different emotions if it's all just sound waves? Why do major progressions make us happy and minor progressions make us sad?
Physics
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8y409" ], "text": [ "I can't speak to the overall phenomenon, but \"just sound waves\" have been extremely important to humanity (and nearly every other non-microscopic species) thus far, so much so that we evolved ears and dedicated a portion of our brains to process and interpret them... Imagine you hear a tiger roar... or thunder from a lightening strike... or a nearby bush rustle when you think you're alone in the woods... or a baby crying... your favorite food sizzling in a pan... splashing and laughing on a hot summer day... you partner's voice... all of these are critical to our survival, and AFAIK the main reason we have emotions is to drive us to do things that will help us survive, and as a balance to pure intellectual thought... because sometimes there ate things that make sense for an individual that are aweful for keeping the species going... like killing each other and avoiding children... and emotions help solve these things... the laughter of a child warming you heart... just sound waves... making you feel good... is critical to our survival as for how this translates into music, I can only speculate, but much of it is learned and relative... what part of your life and or context you first/most often heard it in, who you were with, what scene in a movie it was paired with... but some of it seems inherant to humanity if not all individuals... think all the social implications of tribal drumming, a sense of rhythm as a useful life skill... and it's not hard to accept we like some and dislike others" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rogiu
the philosophy behind censoring hateful speech
With Milo Yiannopoulos having two talks on college campuses cancelled recently, I've begun wondering what words or great thinkers have laid the foundation that supports censoring free speech when it is hateful. I've grown up under the American idea of being able to disagree with someone's words, but defending to the death their right to say it. Did another specific philosophy come along that makes an exception for hateful/exclusionary rhetoric, or is this something else? Please keep this civil, and do respect each other's right to share ideas. Thanks!
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd93uvn", "dd8ukbu", "dd8ush5" ], "text": [ "> I've grown up under the American idea of being able to disagree with someone's words, but defending to the death their right to say it. A quote variously attributed to Descartes or Voltaire, but probably apocryphal. This wasn't, by the way, the original intent of the First Amendment. It was actually supposed to delegate matters of personal freedoms, including the freedom of speech, to the individual states -- it has since been interpreted quite differently. However, it doesn't exactly apply here, because the First talks about laws. Congress can't outlaw free speech. That doesn't mean a university is not allowed to cancel an event, especially if they fear it might cause a riot. I think -- speaking as a European -- Americans have probably lost sight of the fact that one person's rights may infringe another person's rights. For example, I might insist on my right to smoke wherever I damn well please, but what about your right to walk down the street without breathing in carcinogens? Or, as the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In fact, even in the US, speech is not completely free. If you tell lies about somebody, and those lies damage that person's reputation, they can sue you for defamation. The other thing is that words do actually have power. They can change people's world views. There are people who seriously believe that Donald Trump once said that if he ran for President he'd be a Republican because they're stupid enough to believe anything Fox says -- he never said anything remotely like it. There's a picture now circulating the internet of a blonde woman with blood running down her face, allegedly attacked by people demonstrating against Yionnopoulos: in fact, she's an actress showing off the excellent work done by the make-up artists for a movie she's starring in. Those lies -- for that is what they are -- shape how people see the world, and it's having a measurable effect. And yes, they are constantly being debunked and proven wrong (that's how I know they're lies: I checked up on them), but most people don't see any of that; or if they do, they refuse to believe it. This isn't a trivial matter -- people can actually die as a result of this kind of thing. The pizzagate \"scandal\" -- a total fabrication -- resulted in the harassment of the owner and staff not just of the pizzeria that was targeted, but other nearby businesses as well (even a bookshop), and some bands that occasionally played there; this harassment included actual death threats, and one gunman did actually make his way there and fired some shots (thankfully, nobody was hurt). The things we say have consequences. Now, I understand that it is extremely dangerous to start sanctioning government censorship. But somehow, people have to be made aware that the things they say and do don't happen in a vacuum. You can, in my opinion, have your rights, but only if you're prepared to accept the responsibility.", "It would fall under utilitarian morality for one. \"Hateful speech\" can be reasonably assumed to contribute to violent behavior, and thus preventing the spread of ideas that contribute to violent, destructive behaviors, you can reduce the total violence and destruction. AFAIK, this idea of censoring \"destructive\" speech and ideaswas the norm through human history. The idea of protecting speech is really more isolated to classical liberalism, which contends that the State is not a moral authority while men (humans) are generally capable of moral actions compatable with their own circumstance, and thus the State ought to be limited in its roll in society, lest a few unscrupulous men obtain abuse the power of the State. Free speech is an extention of preventing the State from deciding what is and is not acceptable.", "He has the right to say what he wants. He doesn't necessarily have the right to say what he wants where he wants. Like, he doesn't have the right to a stage and a microphone and an audience in a theater. Also, the protesters have the right to disagree vocally with his opinion. The government is not arresting him for speaking his mind. That's his right. That's what the freedom of speech is. If he writes a letter, a newspaper doesn't have to print it. If they publicly agree to print it, and later decide not to because people argued against it, that's fine. But if they decide to print it, no one goes to jail for it." ], "score": [ 13, 5, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rorcg
Was fighting in Ice Hockey allowed since the beginning of this sport, or was it introduced later - and if so how that happened.
I always wondered how it turned out. The first time I ever seen a fight in Ice Hockey game I was really surprised that referees allowed it to finish. I started questioning myself, if I was watching Hockey game where you score the goals or two guys fighting in a ring until the one falls on the ground. With time I started understanding why this is a thing in Hockey, but I still question how that began. So like in the title. I was wondering if fighting was in this sport since beginning or if it was introduced later. And if it was introduced later then how the process of that looked like? Cheers.
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8yr8n", "dd9lm5y" ], "text": [ "It's not allowed. That's why there are penalties for fighting. Fighting is a result, usually, of three things. 1. Get your team to raise their game. I'm willing to drop gloves and get into a fight. What are you willing to do to get our team back into the game? 2. Defend a team mate. That little a-hole just unloaded a dirty hit on my guy, I'm going to make sure he doesn't think about doing that again. 3. To pay the price. I need to fight him to atone for a bad play that hurt someone or nearly hurt. This one is a rare one. Hockey is a sport of passion and grit. Players are tough as nails and don't like having their ice disrespected. If you allow a player from the opposing side to disrespect your team once what's to stop him from doing it again? Even worse if the ref keeps missing it or doesn't think it's a penalty.", "Ice Hockey is brutal. Much more so than it seems. Ice is hard, the boards are rock solid, the puck is solid, heavy, frozen rubber. Everyone has a piece of hooked lumber and they all have sharp metal blades on their feet. The players move fast and there is body contact and it's crowded. So players take tremendous abuse, hockey is painful all the time, teeth knocked out, cuts stitched up and you keep playing. Now you get big men playing a painful, brutal sport and there is a broad range of ways to inflict extra pain, called a cheap shot. An elbow to the face can damage a person for life, but may be penalized in a minor fashion (2 minutes penalty) or not penalized at all. Fighting occurs in hockey, generally, when a player is playing over the edge and is hurting players regularly and certain players will take it upon themselves to curtail this behaviour. So if a player throws out a few cheap shots he may find himself in a fight. Or a player causes pain to a player who's having a rough night and suddenly he's in a fight. Or a player tries to injure a star player, more so if this star player is known as a sportsmanlike player or is known to shun playing to hurt others. In this case a player may fight this person as retribution. Or two players known for fighting fight just to see who wins, but that generally is a lot harder to explain." ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5row5m
why Americans still have as much apprehension towards Russians? Isn't the cold war over?
Other
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd8ya8w", "dd8ycr0", "dd8ydzw", "dd9089l", "dd92vx6", "dd953k2" ], "text": [ "Yes, the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union dissolved. That said, we've been at odds with Russia for a while now, given that much of the country's leadership is still a holdover from the Cold War. So why are we currently at odds with them? They tried and failed to invade Georgia in 2008. They successfully took a portion of the Ukraine under very scetchy circumstances. They supported Syria's government after its leader, Assad, used chemical weapons on rebels in the country. We were supporting some of those rebels. They violated or last nuclear disarmament treaty. They engaged in a low to moderately sophisticated hacking program in order to aquire and strategically release information on the US political parties.", "The ideological war may mostly be over, but that doesn't really change any of the existing conflicts of interest. It sort of doesn't matter which side has what system of government when the question is one of dominance in Eastern Europe. Or of proxy conflicts in Central Asia and the ME. Or of market share competition, or even resource exploitation. In a zero sum world where Russia still has its interests at heart and the US has its own it is expected that they do not align and that leads to conflict is accommodations can't be reached.", "- the cold war was a huge influence on culture - so much pop culture referencing Russia as the bad guys doesn't just go away or get forgotten - for 50 odd years Russia was THE bad guy, like how now \"Islamic terrorists\" is the new bad guy. - because the Russian and American governments have conflicting interests in parts of the world, especially Eastern Europe and Middle-East, and they still don't really trust each other to play fair. In related news, also because Russia invading Ukraine was scary. - because nuclear disarmament is scary if you think maybe there's a secret base with weapons they didn't tell you about in it. Once someone can blow you off the planet you never really forget that they could once do that and therefore probably still could do that if they really wanted to. - because Russia's faux-communist dictatorship is still very much at odds with American ideals of how governments should behave. - because of allegations of Russian intervention in the most recent American election are also scary.", "Yep. And yet they still do things like supporting bloodthirsty dictators and creating civil wars in neighboring countries. It's no coincidence that the countries Russia invades are the ones that want closer ties with Western Europe and NATO.", "It is difficult to justify spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined without having a bogey man out there to justify it. The MIC is big business as it the indirect input to GDP from the direct input of 4% that Congress set as a target. In my former state of South Carolina, the local paper did a study that about 20% of the state's economy depended on military spending. Self interest has funny ways of making people justify things and its easy to rehash obsolete threats since people live a relatively long time.", "A second smaller cold war started happening after Russia tried to gain back territory in Georgia and the Ukraine. It made Europe and the US nervous. Also Russia developed into an somewhat authoritarian republican oligarchy in the 2000's. Sadly its also the route the US is also taking since the election went haywire. Also there is alot of evidence that Russia and privately some of its citizens are responable in hacking and trying to interfer and influence the US election throuh propaganda. For these reasons alot of the US on both sides of the political aisle are highly aware of the risk the russians pose. The only major player who isnt benefitted from it and has alot of buisness interests there so its complex." ], "score": [ 26, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rpbnv
Why can we recreate sounds and images on our minds very well but not smells or tastes?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd98u62", "dd95g3w", "dd9fmw6", "dd9hgba", "dd9i78o", "dd93sik", "dd9g2bl", "dd9exot", "dd964sf", "dd9fk07", "dd9f9i6", "dd9nx0y", "dd9cg40" ], "text": [ "I can recreate smells and tastes, is that odd?", "That's a really interesting question. I'm not sure if I know the ultimate answer, but I can make an educated guess. When it comes to our senses, vision and, to a lesser extend, hearing are pretty dominant. What this means is that when we process the world around us, we rely much more on vision and hearing to know what's going on around us than, say, taste. This also means our mind's representations of the world is much more in terms of vision and sound and not so much in terms of taste. However, our brains aren't passively registering the world, but are rather busy predicting what's going to happen next as well. What's even more remarkable is that they are able to represent, or imagine, things that aren't even there at the moment. Those predictions are the most useful if we make them in the same way we register the world and, as said above, we mainly register the world visually and auditory. (This is not entirely true, we are also really good in senses like proprioception that play a major role in our action control.) This means that a big part of our brain is good at representing visual and auditory stuff and we have few parts that are very good at representing taste stuff. That's why it's harder to imagine taste or smell, because we just have fewer brain regions that are actually specialized in that. Edit: You might also say vision and hearing are dominant because of all the extra processing power we have for it. Why it actually evolved this way is another topic.", "I don't know about this, I seem to be able to recall smell and tastes very well. The difference in smell between green onion and yellow onion or the flavor difference in grass fed and corn fed beef. From when I was a child, I remember the smells of the various markets around Taipei and the pot stickers from a corner vendor as well as the smell of my grandmother's perfume and her chicken and dumplings from deep East Tx.", "As many others in this thread said, some people can do that with easy. Basically, some people are more visual, some people are more into sounds and melodies and rhythm, some about space and dimensions and some about smells and tastes. Try to cook more, smell to things. Smell to spices before you add them to food, smell to food before you eat it. Try to identify various smells and tastes. In time, you would be able to combine tastes and predict which could be nice together, almost feel the combined taste. Our world is quite visual. You are forced to remember images all the time. With music readily accessible everywhere, you might be well trained in music recognition and remember (and recreate from memory, such as whistling or humming) various patterns. But you are not forced to remember and recreate smells, if you are not working in food industry or you are not utilizing your smell in other way.", "Some people can indeed recall smell, tastes and textures, as well as sights and sounds. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who have no sensory recall at all, Aphantasia.", "My father explained this to me once: because the nerves coming from the smelling/tasting receptor cells don't connect through * insert part of brain in latin here *, so they are not remembered as well as sound or images, because their nerves connect through * insert part of brain in latin here *. Edit: so it can vary from person to person, but it definetely originates from the structure of our brains.", "Burning brakes..... singed hair..... burnt popcorn...... baked bread..... fresh cut grass...... Still don't smell anything?", "I don't have answer to you, but I can't 'see' pictures in my head nor 'hear' sounds in my head unless I am dreaming. When I 'think' of things, I don't picture anything, and I am unable to recall melodies but can instantly recognize a song when I hear it. So, to me, I figured this was normal up until a few years ago, when I started to realize it wasn't. So, when it comes to tastes or smell, I treat them exactly the same as seeing/hearing something - which makes it really easy for me to diet because its like 'not watching' a movie or 'not listening' to music.", "What's more sour a lemon or a lime? Did your mouth water?", "I didn't realize that was a thing. I have no problem accurately recreating tastes in my mouth... Though I suppose it's really the brain that's tasting the memory, not the mouth.", "I can recreate tastes a lot better than i can recreate images unless I am suuuuuper familiar with them.", "Does anyone recall the Magic School Bus episode where they're inside the nasal passage? Each specific smell had its perfectly shaped receptor that would activate it. I'd simply say: tastes and smells need their puzzle pieced together each time, while sights and sounds can have a glued together version once it's been completed the first time. That's the best I got for a 5 year old.", "i think seeing and hearing are more tangible, per se, and thus more relatable to the populous. they are most reliable as far as fact goes for sensation. vision: it's almost safe to say MOST people see things in the same dimension as everyone else. yup, that's a bus. i see the clouds in the sky. the stoplight is red. what is observed through sight is fairly constant even if we don't all see the same shades and hues. audio: even though people will disagree to no end about what music sounds the best, we can all hear why someone enjoys something (granted we are told which instrument to single out). while tone is opinionated, the fact is that a guitar is playing a high pitch. taste: a flavor serves a momentary reaction, fleeting as fast as swallowing. taste is brief and no bite is the same as the last. back to our ancestral days, taste was ultimately important in knowing what foods would be safe to eat-- like that bitter tastes were probably poison. now we're rest assured that what we eat will not kill us because that's how the food industry works (legal limits, you know?). touch: i might believe that this sense is upon the least useful as far as safety goes. touch is solely for the curious mind. you could pet a bunny and remember that it's soft so you'll always want to touch a bunny. how often will you get the opportunity to do so? some of the more common textures can be recalled more clearly like cotton of a shirt. smell: one of the strongest memory inducers is smell. remember that candle in your mom's old house? it was almost a cinnamon, vanilla, creamy... something.... but the smell is so specific that it must be the exact smell to actually bring back the memory. otherwise that \"tip of the tongue\" (nose?) phenomenon comes along when you can't actually pinpoint the memory. until it comes to something relatively constant (seeing, hearing), senses are momentary (taste, touch). the things we experience most often are things we can use to relate to those around us since taste and touch are (almost) COMPLETELY subjective and are infrequently satisfied senses. how often are you actively eating and touching and smelling things? more than you see and hear things? *Edit: TL;DR seeing and hearing are the most frequently utilized senses." ], "score": [ 524, 277, 118, 75, 47, 42, 31, 18, 11, 8, 5, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rpdvf
Why do our noses run when we cry?
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd9ktmg" ], "text": [ "When you cry, tears come out of the tear glands under your eyelids and drain through the tear ducts that empty into your nose. Tears mix with mucus there and your nose runs." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]
5rpgo2
How come if I start at a warm-toned light long enough it will look blue?
I noticed this when I was staring at the lights in my school's library while laying on a couch. The lights are a warm white, but when I stared for about 30 seconds they looked cyan blue.
Biology
explainlikeimfive
{ "a_id": [ "dd97g0n" ], "text": [ "This is based off of (at least in psychology) the opponent process theory. Your eyes, are able to process the three main colors of light, red, green, and blue, separately. As you stare at a light that may be a bit red or yellow, the receptors that take in these colors eventually become \"tired\" causing you to sense less of that color, thus seeing more blue. This same concept helps to explain colorblindness as some will only confuse one or two colors rather than all colors because only one part of the eye doesn't work right." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }
[ "url" ]
[ "url" ]