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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5sjpv9 | why are trans fats not completely banned by the FDA? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddflrbx"
],
"text": [
"Several ostensible reasons, such as the fact that trans fats are naturally occurring in some levels in many meat and dairy products, so banning them would mean banning those meats or diary items, which would be both difficult and cause a large uproar from consumers. Also, the federal government doesn't *really* have the authority to do so. They have had to jump through many convoluted hoops and make up laws by the seat of their pants to get things like marijuana made illegal, mostly because banning the possession of things like plants and naturally occurring compounds isn't actually an authority given to the federal government by the Constitution. They have gotten away with it by stretching some Constitutional provisions like the interstate commerce clause to claim that anything that *might* be transferred across state lines, or even something of which it could not be discerned if it crossed state lines or not is presumed to have done so, in order to give themselves the authority to ban things wholesale for the entire country. There is a reason why banning alcohol took a Constitutional amendment a century ago. Back then, things like what the federal government could and could not do were more well understood and taken seriously. Now, not so much. But the primary reason is much more simple. There is a hell of a lot of money in multi national companies, the same companies that sell hundreds of billions of dollars in products that contain trans fats. Those companies have a vested interest in making sure they're not banned, and have their lobbyists make that abundantly clear to their paid lawmakers."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sk7v1 | Why do we get hungover? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfp8lk"
],
"text": [
"Ethanol, known to most as \"alcohol\" causes your body to lose fluid. The body dehydrates, mainly because you go to the toilet a lot while drinking alcohol. This dehydration affects the fluids surrounding the brain and decreases blood pressure and flow to the brain. Those effects lead to a headache. LPT: When coming back home after drinking a lot of alcohol, drink a few glasses of water before you fall asleep. Even better: drink something isotonic (containing minerals and 1% of salt), like gatorade or isostar. You can also mix 1% of salt into water by yourself. Source: URL_0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.headaches.org/2007/10/25/alcohol-and-headaches/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5skbov | why can't you refrigerate and eat meat that has already been reheated? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfpvl7",
"ddfpucv",
"ddfpqx1",
"ddfpstw",
"ddgbih1"
],
"text": [
"You can, it just depends on how long the food spends out of the fridge. All food develops bacteria between temperatures of about 40F and 140F. Reheating refrigerated food brings it back into this bacteria-growing range, but it takes a while for the food to become dangerous to eat, and this time is not easily predictable, so it's a good idea to limit the number of times you reheat. As a rule of thumb I generally only reheat leftovers once, but I've done it twice and have never given myself food poisoning, but that's just me. If you have a large amount of leftovers scoop out only what you are going to eat and reheat just that much.",
"Cheers guys, I'll let my parents know they've screwed me out of many, many meals over the years!",
"You can. It just increases the chance of food borne pathogens every time you do it. That \"rule\" came about decades ago when refrigeration and preservation methods weren't as good as they are today.",
"You can. There is no issue in refrigerating meat that has already been reheated. That is a myth base loosely on the fact that risk of food born illness increases the older food is and the longer it is at room temperature.",
"taste won't be as good either and water loss most stuff will be dry . all leftovers should be eaten in a week or less and be contained properly and not left out"
],
"score": [
43,
33,
18,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5skfm8 | How do we know all snowflakes are unique, maybe there's such a large variety of them that it just seems that way. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfxu75",
"ddg1qki"
],
"text": [
"[They aren't]( URL_0 ) There are roughly 35 different shapes of snowflakes",
"\"The number of categories snow crystals can be categorised into has been steadily increasing over the years. In early studies in the 1930s, they were classified into 21 different shape-based categories; in the 1950s, this was expanded into 42 categories, in the 1960s to 80 categories, and most recently in 2013 to a staggering 121 categories.\" URL_0"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://thescienceexplorer.com/nature/snowflakes-are-not-unique-we-thought"
],
[
"http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/12/10/snowflakes/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5skkmi | Why are Human brain transplants nearly impossibe? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfs8w9",
"ddftfk3",
"ddfthkq"
],
"text": [
"Because it's very complicated to get everything joined up, apart from the problems of organ rejection that you get with any transplant. However, the first successful head transplant procedure has, apparently, been done on a monkey. The first human procedure is still in the future, but there is already a volunteer. The Wikipedia page is here: URL_0",
"The brain is really bloody complex, connecting to tons of really vital and sensitive things where even very minor damage can have devastating effects. They're not *fundamentally* impossible, they're just beyond our current abilities. As technology improves and we get more and more experience and data, that may very well change (after all, heart transplants were once impossible too). One issue when it comes to neurology-related stuff is that we have no good way to test a lot of what we'd like to. When it comes to heart, liver, lung, etc research we can use other mammals and reasonably assume that humans will work basically the same way. A rat's heart is mostly the same as a human's heart. But when it comes to brains, we diverge a lot, not just structurally but in testability -- we can't as reliably test how drugs and procedures affect rats cognitively, because cognitively they're just nowhere near our level. If a given drug or procedure destroys your capacity for language, well, kinda hard to learn that from testing it on rats. And this is obviously an even bigger problem for things like brain surgery, where it's not like you can do a 6-month trial and quit if it starts causing problems.",
"There's a lot of reasons. One, brains are really, really fragile. You can pull out a heart, shove it on ice, and heat it up and sew it in comfortably, because the heart is a tough peice of muscle. Brain tissue is extremely sensitive to lack of oxygen, and also has a lot of constantly running processes that shouldn't be stopped. Two, nerve wiring is a big issue. In order to perform the transplant, assuming that you can keep the brain alive, and trick it into not shutting down, you then need to reattach it to the spinal column. In a new body, with different wiring. Even if you manage to reattach all the nerves, they won't necessarily go to the same places. You'd probably go mad as you tried ordering your body to do something, and seeing a different response, and getting physical feedback for a different response as well."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5skv4z | Does alcohol tolerance come from your body learning to metabolise it more efficiently, or your brain learning to function better whilst under the influence, or both? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddft0re",
"ddfvv4o",
"ddfwo1n"
],
"text": [
"Both. Alcohol is metabolized into its non-toxic (less toxic?) form by enzymes in the liver. Once your liver realizes that it is frequently encountering this thing, it starts producing more enzymes which allow it to break the substance down more quickly. Furthermore, since your brain *technically* doesn't want to lose motor control to alcohol, the system of neurotransmitters which are affected by the presence of metabolized alcohol eventually compensate to lose less fidelity when encountering it. EDIT: It might incorrect to say it is metabolized into a less toxic form. I'm a little shakey on that - acetaldehyde and acetate are toxic substances, but that is nonetheless what the body does to the ethanol as it processes and prepares to excrete it.",
"Down-regulation plays a part in most forms of tolerance related to psychoactive susbstances. Basically, your brain reduces the number of receptor sites on neurons when they are repeatedly exposed to an abundance of neurotransmitters, so future exposure has less effect. This system also explains withdrawal. Once the neurotransmitter levels drop from lack of use the reduced receptor sites take several weeks to regrow and withdrawal symptoms are worst. Until the receptors up-regulate and return to normal, the decreased receptor sites struggle to take up what little neurotransmitters are now present.",
"I've always had an extremely high tolerance. It doesn't seem to be genetic considering the rest of my family and I've asked my dad about it. I can drink and realize I should not drive or do other activities that and such but there is no \"drunk\" feeling. Copious amounts of alcohol have been consumed to test this theory. I seem to process it quite quickly. On the one hand it's great, on the other I don't get to experience the fun."
],
"score": [
215,
20,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5skzrj | Expierencing Time Slowing | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfvewu"
],
"text": [
"This is a normal stress response humans have developed for survival. In situations where your body or mind is under a lot of stress, your brain processes more information than normal, and does so even faster than normal. Of course, things aren't actually going any slower or faster than usual, it's just that our brain is working so quickly that the rest of the universe appears to be slacking off. Our brain does this so that when we are in danger we have more 'time' to choose the best course of action for survival."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sl5y6 | What causes the "singing" when you drive over bridges or certain types of asphalt at high speeds? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg237k",
"ddgdr22"
],
"text": [
"Regularly- and tightly-spaced bumps, basically. Same principle at work when you run your fingers down the teeth of a comb, strum a washboard, or something like that. This is most noticeable on bridges with road surfaces made out of some kind of metal grid (to let water through and reduce weight, mostly). With regular roads, it'd be \"rumble strips,\" either across travel lanes to warn traffic to slow down, or on shoulders to warn drivers to get back on the bloody road. Every time the vehicle's tires hit one of these bumps (whether raised or depressed), there's an impact noise. Just like running over a stick. But do a bunch of those in tight succession, and the ear/brain starts to interpret the resulting sound as a musical \"pitch\". Musical pitch is directly related to frequency of vibration. That's all sound is, really: shock waves propagated through a medium (usually air), that are detected by organs in the ear, transmitted to the brain, and interpreted as sound. So the faster the car is going, or the closer the bumps are together, the more of these impacts there will be in a second, producing a higher frequency of vibration and thus a higher pitch.",
"Does anyone know what the result is to the tire? Are these strips bad for the tire/wear the tire? Sometimes during construction, you are almost forced to drive on them for an extended period."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5slasd | What is 'cringing' and why is it selective? | Why do some people cringe at certain things whilst others don't? I don't understand this feeling at all. I find a lot of things such as some TV shows almost impossible to watch because they are so cringey (not sure if that is a word) whereas my friends find these shows hilarious. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg1sal"
],
"text": [
"It seems you already know what cringe means considering you claim that you cringe during many TV shows. However, this was taken from Urban Dictionary: \"An extremely awkward, uncomfortable situation caused by a person, group of people or environment, causing extreme embarrassment.\" The true meaning is more in line with a cowering body movement due to fear. However, I more often hear it used in the former context. Answering your second part of the question would be a bit more difficult. It'd probably be answered better by a qualified professional, but it's likely akin to the same reason why you like one thing and your friend may like the opposite. It's probably closely related to how you were raised and what you were most consistently exposed to."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sldtz | Why do girls "sync up" their periods when they're around each other for a long periods of time? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfvzti"
],
"text": [
"They don't. You know how when you're sat in your car at traffic lights, and your indicator is out of sync with the indicator of the car in front? Then, after a while, they seem to sync up, but only for a while? Well, that's exactly what happens when girls live together. Each girl's cycle has a slightly different duration, and so even if two girls start off not being in sync with each other, the difference in their durations will mean that over time they will temporarily end up in sync, but then wait a bit longer and they'll drift out of sync again."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5slhog | What is the difference between a "drone" and a something like a remote controlled vehicle? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfxxho",
"ddg5u5q"
],
"text": [
"\"drone\" is just a scary new buzzword for something that's existed for decades. it was first applied to military UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and then applied to consumer toys because the media will do anything to drum up fear-views",
"In short, the difference is the amount of control and assistance the vehicle receives. **Remote Control**: does what it says on the tin. Like a cheap RC car. Forward, backward, turns-- does absolutely nothing unless you've got your hands on the controller. **Assisted Control**: Same as above, but now you might have a chip in your vehicle that allows it to continue doing something in absence of continued controller input. e.g Rather than your fancy flying UAV falling into the ground, it might have a microchip or flight controller capable of maintaining the vehicle in a hover without your input and regulating the motor speeds. There was another term for this method of control but I can't remember it off the top of my head right now. Most common civilian quadcopters are of this type. **Semi-Autonomous**: You give your vehicle an order to move to a waypoint, it moves there without further input. Many space rovers such as curiosity are of this type-- due to the signal lag between earth and mars not to mention low bandwidth capacity we send it waypoints far in advance. The vehicle knows enough on its own to follow the waypoints and-- if it gets stuck, to stop and wait for human assistance rather than keep going and burn a motor out. Flying wings used to map areas with composite images are of this type and US military drones like the predator are also likely of this type. **Autonomous**: As above, but now if the path to the next waypoint is blocked, the vehicle should be able to back up and try a new path to get to the waypoint without human input. Maybe it can catalogue points of interest on the route and stop to inspect them, close the solar panels and hibernate during a dust storm etc."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5slz5w | What determines if seeds grow to be a plant? | I had this really weird conversation with a colleague, and unfortunately, I could not give a good rebuttal. My colleague claims that not all seeds grow into plants because only a few of them are "ensouled" (I am German, he used the word "beseelt"). His example was that a lot of acorn fall of an oak but the do not grow into a new tree unless they are, well, ensouled. So, what is the scientific reason that not all seeds grow into plants? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg2xwr",
"ddg3dfd",
"ddh0zd9"
],
"text": [
"Many species of seeds have a dormancy that must be broken by either natural or man made means. You know, before they get their soul. URL_0 Other than that as stated above they have to dodge all sorts of environmental effects that prevent them from germinating. If they have the correct environment for germination then its insects and disease mainly that are the final hurdle.",
"It depends on a lot. Some of them need certain fungi, others need to be set on fire before they can sprout. Some need the right soil, some need a certain amount of water, some need to explode, some need to be eaten first, and some need enough nutrients. Genetics does not play much of a factor because they're tough and mutations rarely stop a plant from growing.",
"**ELI5**: Seeds can be unviable for germination, their embryos can get damaged by both predators and diseases or they can be under the influence of chemical excreted by other plants, which inhibit germination. It has nothing to do with \"ensoulment\". --- There's several reasons, I'll list a few: * struggle inside the seed * struggle between the seed and predators * struggle between the seed and diseases * struggle between the seed and other plants **Struggle inside the seed** A viable seed is a seed that is capable of germinating. You can think about it as how some sperms or ovules, even though fully formed, aren't viable to make a zygote because they carry \"errors\" with them. In a way, the development of the seed didn't ended up with the production of a viable seed. Naturally, parents have way more offspring than required, because not all of them will make it to full maturity and reproduction, the end goal of life: Self preservation. Testing for seed viability is common for farmers and plant producers, they take a set of healthy seeds (without disease or predation) and try to germinate them. Naturally, only a fraction of them will germinate, it happens with all the plants, there isn't a single plant species with a 100% germination rate. There's two reasons why a seed might be unviable: (1) it wasn't properly developed since the beginning, or (2) it is in dormancy. The first one is easy to understand, I'll focus on the second one. Dormancy is a state where the seed has all the conditions required for germination, but it doesn't happen. For example, some seeds require to have their shells weakened, some seeds require [forest fires]( URL_2 ) to germinate, some seeds have to chemically mature before being able to germinate, some seeds are inhibited by enzymes. **Struggle between the seed and predators** A seed has an embryo inside of it, if you've ever opened a [bean]( URL_0 ) or [garlic]( URL_1 ), you've seen it. Seed predators eat the seed and, sometimes, they can damage the embryo, effectively killing it. **Struggle between the seed and diseases** Seeds can catch diseases, mainly fungi. This is similar to predations, but more subtle and chemical. Fungal diseases can excrete chemicals that digest the seed and the embryo, inhibit the germination or even consume the seed and embryo. Again, if the embryo is damaged from the interaction, it won't germinate. **Struggle between the seed and other plants** [Some mature plants release chemicals that inhibit seed germination]( URL_3 ). In most of the cases, only seeds from the same species can germinate, the rest of the species will be inhibited. Thus a \"chemical war\" between mature plants inhibiting seeds begin. * If an acorn is unviable, it wouldn't germinate, even with the right conditions * if an acorn is predated, and the embryo is damaged, it won't germinate * If an acorn is damaged by a disease, it won't germinate * If an acorn is under the chemical inhibition of other plant, it won't germinate It doesn't stop there. Even if a seed is successful and germinates, there's still a long road to walk down: more predations, more diseases, competition for resource vs. its own species, competition for resources vs. other species, environmental events, etc. You can say, with ease, that from all the acorns produced by a single oak tree, only 1 of them will make it to the end, reaching full sexual maturity and reproduce."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_dormancy"
],
[],
[
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wla-vFHt2I8/VaV0Hwpk8uI/AAAAAAAAJP4/n35tJREu0DM/s1600/bean%2Bseed%2Bdissection%2Blab%2B%252811%2529.jpg",
"https://paddling.com/storage/images/articles/garlic5.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotiny",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelopathy"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5slzdq | Why by do we use exchange rates to represent value of currency (eg: strong vs weak dollar)? | For example, if 1 USD = 1.32 CAD, who cares? What's more important is what $1 can buy, right? If a candy bar costs $1 in the US and $1.32 in Canada, then the is no difference. How do we measure value of currency based on what goods we can buy after we exchange it? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg2804",
"ddg1kk7"
],
"text": [
"If you never leave your own country, and never buy anything not 100% made in your country, then it matters not at all. However, this is pretty much impossible, as pieces and parts are sourced from all over the globe, usually based on where the cheapest to get resources are. Example of how it matters: Imagine I own a Canadian business. I make some chairs, and I buy some chairs, and then sell them to Canadians. I make my chairs using Canadian materials, which I pay $100 CAD for, and then pay another $100 CAD to my workers to build it. I sell these chairs for $400 CAD to the Canadian public. I also buy some chairs form the USA. These chairs cost $100 USD for materials, and $100 USD for labor. I can buy them for $200 USD, and then I can sell them in Canada. However, I can't just sell them for $400 CAD. I have to pay for them in USD. But all my sales of these chairs are in CAD! I have to then go to my bank, and say, \"Please take the CADs, and pay this US company $200 in USD.\" The banks then need to figure out how much $200 USD is in CADs so they can pay the US company properly AND so I can price appropriately. If the exchange rate is $1.50CAD to $1.00 USD, then I will need to have my bank take out $300 CAD to pay the US company. To keep my margins equal, I will need to charge $600 CAD for that US chair. If the exchange rate is $0.50 CAD to $1.00 USD, then my bank only needs to pay the US company $100 CAD to cover the cost of the chair, and I can sell the US chairs for $200 CAD. If you were a Canadian person shopping at my store, which would you buy? The $200 US chair, or the $400 Canadian chair? Alternatively, would you buy the $400 Canadian chair, or the $600 US chair?",
"Because when you look past the price your paying at the register, the product your buying has its own inputs. Let's say (making up numbers), a jar of peanut butter costs you 1 USD, while the peanuts in your peanut butter can be purchased for 1 XYZ, and further, 1 USD can buy 5 XYZ's. Further, let's say all the other inputs to the cost of that jar of peanut butter cost 60 cents. So, it basically costs 80 cents to get that jar of peanut butter to the shelf in front of you Now, things get funky and XYZ currency \"strengthens\" relative to the US dollar and doubles in value. A USD can now only buy 2.5 XYZ's. however, since peanuts are still made in that other country and still cost 1 XYZ. This means that the cost to make that peanut butter has risen by 20 cents. Your grocery store can no longer sell it for 1 USD because there's no margin left in it for them. Looking at exchange rates at a single point in time doesn't really mean much, but over longer periods of time, while they don't affect you directly, they can influence the final price you pay at the register. Not sure if this was 5 year old speak, but I tried! :)"
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sm1az | The system for numbering interstate highways. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg1i6e",
"ddg79tc",
"ddg1en6",
"ddg1idr"
],
"text": [
"Primary routes have two digits. Odd numbered highways run north and south, with lower numbers in the west and higher numbers in the east. Even numbered routes go east-west, with the lower numbers in the south and higher numbers in the north. Three digit routes starting with an even number are loops within or around a city. Three digit routes with an odd number are spurs into a city. For such three digit routes, the last two digits indicate the primary route they are based on.",
"Also related... the US Highway System's numbering is the same way but numbers ascend east to west, and north to south as to not have them confused with the interstate numbers. Hence why in California, for instance, they have US-101 and I-5, and in Idaho, where I live, they have US-2 and I-90. Needless to say, it works well except towards the middle of the US.",
"Even numbers (I-10, I-90, etc.) run east-west, with the number increasing from South to North. Odd numbers (I-5, I-95, etc.) run north-south, with the number increasing from West to East.",
"In addition, three-digit US interstate routes are usually auxiliary routes (with the last two digits referring to the parent), such as a bypass around or through the city, or a short branch."
],
"score": [
282,
15,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sm3s4 | What would happen if a nuclear power plant was hit by an airstrike? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg2039",
"ddg2k43",
"ddg2v2l",
"ddgdo6r",
"ddg8lqh",
"ddgewag",
"ddgdhpk"
],
"text": [
"There is an emergency failsafe where the boroñ control rods are suspended by electromagnets. If there is a power failure, or any other disaster, they drop into the chamber and kill the chain reaction. So nothing happens... 99% of the time. You can get a fukashima situation, where things are not up to code, and you get a leak, and then everyone gets slowly poisoned.",
"Nuclear engineer here. The jet impact will not impact the reactor directly. The core will shut down, but the cooling systems may be impacted by the fires caused by jet fuel. Every nuclear plant in the US complies with the b5b rule, which requires procedures and portable equipment for ensuring you can restore core cooling during this situation.",
"No, the plant wouldn't blow up, in a massive nuclear explosion. It's actually very difficult to create a nuclear explosion, and you need some pretty exact conditions for it to go. Pretty much the worst that could happen is radioactive contamination, and spread of radioactive materials over the local area + radio active particles spread over a much wider area. Read up on the Chernobyl Disaster if you want an idea. That wasn't an air-strike, but it was basically caused by an explosion in the reactor. Effects, assumning your air-strike could actually hit the reactor, would be roughly similar.",
"Let us up the ante, lets tactical nuke this light-water reactor. Will the fissle material at the power station 'add' to the yield of the nuclear strike?",
"A) The core stays intact, only the cooling is affected: the reaction will be shut down automatically by the control rods and/or loss of coolant(moderator). If sufficient cooling can not be guaranteed, the core might melt and thus release radioactive material to the environment. Result: Potentially a lot of work cleaning up, especially the molten core. If cooling can be sustained the effects will be minimal. B) The core is hit directly and \"destroyed\": The reaction will break down due to lack of moderator and/or because the fissile material is distributed over a large volume. Result: Lot of work cleaning up, especially the uranium distributed all over the environment. It might be easier and \"safer\" (in terms of guaranteed results) to attack a chemical plant.",
"Used to live near one in the US that had tours.The dome /building around the actually reactor was designed to take an airstrike/up to and including a bomb filled 747 without failing. If it did take such an attack, the reactor would shut down automatically.",
"I'd like to offer a thought about how unlikely this situation would actually occur. Anyone who has the ability/technology to conduct a high precision airstrike would probably not do so because it doesn't offer any immediate tactical/strategic advantage. While we are allowed to attack \"Works containing dangerous forces\" under certain scenarios, it would be more advantageous to either occupy such a facility, or prevent its power from being distributed (such as the infrastructure the power travels along) The risks associated with an airstrike would outweigh any gain, to any rational military commander. However, and most fortunately, those people who aren't concerned with mass collateral suffering don't have a real capability of causing that much damage."
],
"score": [
151,
29,
26,
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smble | Law enforcement of reddit. Do Undercover cops have preset guidelines for crime they are allowed to commit while Undercover? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg5h51",
"ddg4jes",
"ddg7agy",
"ddg7xn9"
],
"text": [
"I remember hearing of a case involving conspiracy, and part of the legislation means 2 or more people (or more than 2, I'm not 100%) need to agree to commit the crime in order for it to be conspiracy. One of those was an undercover cop, and it was agreed that the officer had to have committed the offence of conspiracy in order to convict the other offender/s. So in this case, he was 'found guilty' of conspiracy, but was never 'convicted' because obviously he was undercover and had no actual intentions of committing the crime. EDIT: Another way of looking at it is possession. If an officer seizes a controlled substance and arrests a suspect for being in possession, the officer immediately becomes in possession of the controlled substance. Why isn't he arrested? Because he seized it! He has a lawful excuse (Being a police officer and lawfully seizing the controlled substance from a suspect) so despite 'breaking the law' he isn't because he is allowed to do so.",
"Pardons exist for a reason. Also, someone has to actually press charges for punishment to be levied. Typically this is the District Attorney or state/federal equivalent. If Law Enforcement has a proper working relationship with the prosecutors, the attorney simply won't press charges. This doesn't consider that it's not illegal to do most things in a crime syndicate. Riding around on a motorcycle with properly registered firearms acting like douchebags isn't illegal. Previous crimes for a 'resume' can be fabricated, as can references. Once you're in, actually committing crimes can be worked around too, making sure no 'innocents' are actually harmed.",
"Undercover cops on reddit are not going to reply to your request for information. Or are we...?",
"Every department is different, but the FBI has a [guidline]( URL_0 ) (pg. 33) which would represent what most departments do. Violent crimes and unlawful investigative methods are hard line not allowed. For pretty much everything else it depends on what the DA will allow and what will stand up in court."
],
"score": [
17,
12,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/guidelines.pdf"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smckn | How does refinancing work? | I'm a first time homeowner (well, I will be on Friday), and my husband has tried to explain to me how refinancing works, but it feels more like magic than an actual thing. He's from the mortgage business, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about, but I just don't get it. How do you get money out of redoing a loan? How can you use that money to pay for repairs or additions? Is there any reason you *wouldn't* refinance? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg7dng",
"ddg8ohl",
"ddg44vd",
"ddg469e",
"ddgddnm",
"ddgez6w",
"ddgc3dk"
],
"text": [
"Can someone provide an example that uses like...a $10 loan that was used to buy a lemonade stand or something? A lot of these explanations are using these terms I don't understand.",
"> Is there any reason you wouldn't refinance? 1. You have to pay closing costs every time you (re)finance. So, with the lower payments (and my next point), you need to consider how long you plan on staying in the house, and if the amount of money you're saving per month multiplied by how many months you expect to stay will cover the closing costs. You can pay them up front or have them rolled up into the loan; which of those choices is correct for you is difficult to say. 2. Unless you move up in the loan term (say, going from a 30 year to a 15 year), your term resets upon refinancing. So, if you're 5 years into a 30 year mortgage and you refinance into a 30 year with a lower rate, you're back to year 0, and you'll end up having a mortgage for 35 years. Your rate will probably be lower (after all, you probably aren't considering refinancing into a *higher* rate), and your payments will probably be lower, but now you'll be paying 5 years beyond what you were originally. You might end up paying less, you might end up paying more, you might need the monthly payment savings now more than in the future (say, if you just had a baby), future inflation may make it all irrelevant, it's really hard to give a generic answer as to whether refinancing for the same length is the proper move for everyone. As an example, in 2009, being about 18 months in on my original loan, I refinanced from a 6.25% 30 year loan to a 4.5% 15 year loan. This cut the expected amount of interest I'd pay over the life of the loan from about $100k to about $40k, while increasing my monthly payment by about $300. Since then, despite 15 year rates dropping occasionally into the 2.5% range, I cannot justify starting back at year 0/15. Even in 2014, when I was about at year 5, and refinancing into a 10 year note would still have kept me on track to pay off the loan in the same amount of time, the monthly savings weren't enough to justify paying closing costs.",
"Not an expert, so bear that in mind, but.... The way I understand it is that after you have some equity in your home (how much you owe is less than how much you borrowed), you refinance for the full value of your home or the original loan amount. You use part of that new loan to pay off the original loan, and you pocket the extra (the equity). I you're really good/lucky, you refinance for a lower interest as well, thereby saving yourself some money on the new loan.",
"Essentially, you're getting another loan. This second loan is for the same amount (or possibly a little more, if they allow you to do so) as your old loan, except this new loan is at a lower interest rate. The main reason *not* to refinance would be if you don't like the terms of the refinanced loan. Maybe the interest rate is variable or something.",
"You owe 10 gumballs to Billy every month, but Johnny comes along and says if you give me 5 gumballs right now, I'll pay off your debt to Billy and let you give me 9 gumballs a month instead. Of course Johnny is doing this all over the playground, and is slowly expanding his gumball empire by lending the gumballs he gets from you now to other kids which is why it makes sense for him to do it.",
"I want a house. It costs $100. I have $25. I get a mortgage for the difference. I'm financed for $75 or 75% of the house value (a common percentage). Five years pass and my payments have paid down the mortgage $10 so it's only $65. The house has also increased in value by $10 so it's $110. I could keep paying down the mortgage until it's gone or I can refinance. I arrange a new mortgage at 75% of the current house value (110*75=$82.50). So the new loan is bigger than the old (82.50-65=17.50) I can put the difference in my wallet. My mortgage is bigger but now I have $17.50 to spend on random things or invest.",
"You're just getting a new loan to pay off the old loan. Let's say you ought your house for 100k. You paid $20k and got a loan for $80k (80% loan/value.) Now a few years have gone by and your loan has been paid down to $70k. There's 25 years left on your loan. There are two primary scenarios really: 1: Your house is now worth $120k so you now qualify for a loan for $96k (80% loan/value.) So you get a loan on hour house for $96k and use that loan to pay off your $70k mortgage and put $26k in your pocket \"for repairs\"... (or that Corvette you always wanted.) 2: Your house is still worth $100k but now you have a $70k loan over 25 years (because five years have passed and you've paid it down.) You can refinance that $70k into a new loan. Maybe even lower the interest rate. BUT the new loan is over 30 years, so it lowers your payment because a $70k loan over 30 years has a lower payment than a $70k loan over 25 years. You'll just be paying for it longer. . Most people fall into the trap of focusing only in the payment, not on the loan amount. So they go \"if I refinance, I lower my payment\" and think it's a great deal. But you only did that by paying that amount for a longer time. Then the mortgage brokers sell you a new $80k loan, which would keep your payment the same, and give you the $10k you've already paid off in cash. But, again, you are going to have to make those payments for an additional five years. . Either way, there are lots of fees involved here. Let's conservatively assume the fees are $1,000. Well, that $1000 will either be added to your loan amount or removed from the cash you get back. Either way, you are paying it. In the common case where \"you keep the payment the same and take out cash\" you will get an $80k loan, use $70k to pay off the mortgage, use $1k to pay fees and get $9k in cash and add five years to your mortgage. So that $10k for repairs is really $9k because 10% is being swiped off the top for fees."
],
"score": [
24,
10,
8,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5smeoz | What exactly happened to r/politics? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg5adi",
"ddg5n0a"
],
"text": [
"Long time reader and occasional commenter on r/politics here. The 2016 election happened. Roll back to early 2015, and r/politics is a moderately left leaning sub that more or less mirrors Reddit's overall demographics. Then the Sanders/Clinton battle begins. Sanders is the clear favorite, as his positions cater to the young, white vote strongly. This begins a political civil war, in which the two sides of the left bicker over which candidate is better. The shit show that was the RNC primary gets largely ignored. This has the eventual effect of turning away moderate and right leaning voters, as it was frankly getting pretty extreme by the end of the primaries. With Clinton's upcoming victory, the remaining regular readers slowly coalesce around Clinton, especially as it becomes clear that Trump is taking the nomination on the Republican side. Moderate readers are slow to return to the sub as it's pulled pretty hard to the left at this point. The battle begins between Clinton and Trump with r/politics solidly blue and very salty over the primary. Due to the polarizing nature of the election, as well as the growth of alternate subs, like r/neutralpolitics or r/The_Donald, there's no balancing force to outweigh the liberal bias present. With the election over, the sub has continued to devolve, focused almost entirely on nitpicking the President's every action.",
"It's a combination of the dominant share of readers of that Reddit and the Reddit algorithm. I'm a moderate conservative, but I really do generally enjoy engaging with the other side. But views that don't conform to the Sanders-Warren faction of the Democratic Party in /r/politics will get downvoted hard and fast, which in turn means that the Reddit algorithm will bury them. I ultimately unsubscribed. No real point in taking 5-10 minutes to try writing out a serious conservative argument on any point when it's just going to get downvoted into oblivion almost immediately."
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smf9u | How come a CD can some times play perfectly, even though it's scratched like crazy? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddga4c7",
"ddg7zav",
"ddgc6k3"
],
"text": [
"CDs contain what's called \"error correction\". Think of the music as being a string of numbers. These numbers are basically the values of a line graph, which is just the shape of the sound waveform that gets played back. So the first point is a 0, then the next is a 5, then an 8, then a 5, 0, -5, -8, -5, for instance. That's kind of a sine-wave shape that I just estimated. It's typical of a sound wave. CDs contain that data. But they also contain *extra* data. There may be some data that says, \"the first 3 pieces add up to 13\". This is error correction. Let's say there's a scratch that renders the first \"5\" unreadable. Well, we can see there's a 0 and an 8, and the extra info says they should add up to 13. So even though it's partly damaged, we can tell it should be a 5 in the middle. Additionally, those different pieces of information are intentionally scattered around the disc a bit, so a scratch is unlikely to ruin enough of them at once to make it impossible to recover the missing data. The actual amount of information and complexity of the error checking algorithm is more complex than this example, for better resistance to missing data, but it's the same basic idea. Extra information to recover damaged portions.",
"EDIT: Please refer to the error checking and correction posts. Also, in pressed disks, it's not burned dye that holds the information, but indentations caused by pressing. What's still the same is that damage to the reflective layer is usually more disruptive than damage to the underside of the disk. That depends on how it is scratched, the sensitivity of the cd player, and the type of data on the CD. A CD is basically made of four layers, from top to bottom: - a label - reflective aluminium - the information layer (dye) - a protective transparent layer. When you want to put something on a CD it is translated to a long string of 1s and 0s. Next that information is burned in the information layer: A zero gets a small burn spot, a one doesn't get a burn spot. When a CD player wants to read the disk, it points a very small laser at the underside of the disk. When the laser hits a black burn spot (a \"zero\") the light is absorbed/stopped by that black burn and will never be reflected by the aluminium above. When the laser hits a clear spot (a \"one\"), the laser goes right through the information layer and gets reflected back by the aluminium. So, scratches to the upper side of the disk, damaging the reflective aluminium layer, are really bad: When the aluminium is damaged, the laser will never be reflected. Scratches to the underside only cause the disk to skip when it really changes the path of the laser or truly blocks it. So, (deep) scratches on the top side are usually really bad, scratches on the underside may not be as bad. Whether or not a scratched disk plays also depends on your CD-player. Some are really sensitive and can't handle a slight change in the strength of the light, some can handle it better. When your laser lens is dirty, so that the light level is already lower, the sensitivity to scratches may also increase(if you begin with less light, you don't have a lot of margin for scratches). It also depends on the type of data: You can skip a few places with music (missing a few 1s and 0s), but with data (CD-rom) your data is probably \"corrupted\" (you're missing information that is vital to the program or file; you need every one and zero).",
"u/Vesiculus wrote a very comprehensive answer. I'd like to add that audio CDs were designed to handle dirt and scratches: they contain a lot of error-correction data (extra data that's used to reconstruct the original if it wasn't read properly). And many players use oversampling, which reads the same data multiple times (2, 8, or 16 times, possibly more) and uses the result it got the majority of the time. Also, the orientation of scratches makes a difference. Data is arranged in concentric rings on the disc. Scratches that cross perpendicular to these rings cause only a small amount to damage to each, which is easily correctable. Scratches which are oriented so they wipe out too much consecutive data cause unrecoverable errors. (This is why manufacturers always tell you to wipe discs from the center to the edge.)"
],
"score": [
161,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smhk5 | Self-checkout machines have existed for at least a decade now. Why has the technology not improved at all over that span of time? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg88uw",
"ddgaz73",
"ddg9yhu",
"ddgar6f",
"ddg6ihn",
"ddgaj78"
],
"text": [
"Mind you, some grocery chains are heavily unionized and they have language in the contracts preserving jobs even with the rise in highly accurate automated check out systems. I'm willing to bet this is a major factor for some chains. Amazon GO is on the bleeding edge forefront obviously, but even Sam's Club is in the same sandbox with their scan as you shop app. You simply scan as you go with your smartphone and skip the checkout line completely. We are going to need a major overhaul in tech and social acceptance before fully automated grocery becomes the norm. We might even need universal basic income before it fully catches on, something I'm neither for nor against, but warily apprehensive.",
"The issue is that the people who make the purchasing decisions (C-level employees) never actually use the product. So the features that they find attractive (low price, sales presentations, a pretty case) have nothing to do with the actual product. At least with the cashier-operated POS, they have to care about efficiency since the cashier's time costs them money - but they don't pay customers, so screw 'em. Since the company that makes the self-checkouts knows that cutting costs, marketing, and a flashy package improve sales, but improving the actual product doesn't, it makes sense to spend your R & D money on the former. This is also why business-class software is almost universally crap.",
"Profit margins are also tiny in supermarkets. I'm not sure enhancing their POS systems to be more consumer friendly would be worth the hit to their bottom line to upgrade them every ten years.",
"I'll come from a different perspective: I use self-checkout machines all the time and I literally never have any of the issues you've described. So maybe this is more of a you-centric issue.",
"There are a range of them, some poor, some excellent. The likely culprit is that the really good ones are expensive. At my local Smith's (Kroger), they're complete crap. One block away at Walmart, they're extremely responsive and fast, allowing you in and out and I've never been buzzed by the security gates.",
"Of course, with the razor-thin margins grocery stores operate on their system upgrade paths are as slow as molasses. While there are scales designed to operate at high speeds (ie, stabilize very quickly once there's weight on them), they're expensive and thus not too popular. This is why your item will sometimes sit on the scale belt for several seconds while it decides what weight to report to the PC. There are also photoeyes on the belt that must trigger to tell the system you've put the item on there. If you put the item on the line too far down and miss these eyes (especially the first one right after the scanner), it throws everything off and the system will just keep telling you to 'put the item on the belt'. There are other sources of pain, like frost forming over the barcode on frozen items, a wrinkled bag making it hard to scan, etc. Source: I work with high-speed industrial material handling in e-commerce. Also, I grocery shop."
],
"score": [
33,
9,
8,
6,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smq6w | Why is it bad for us to take a shower during a thunderstorm? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg75fx",
"ddgdnpz",
"ddgb7f2"
],
"text": [
"The fear is that if lightning strikes your home and hits a water pipe it could electrocute you while you shower since water is a conductor of electricity. The odds are low.",
"They did a Myth Busters on this subject: URL_0",
"I imagine that metal pipes and wires in a building can develop a current through induction from the lighting. I experienced this first hand when I was taking a shower at a scout camp during a lighting storm in northern Wisconsin. I felt a shock on my back that threw me forward in the shower (I was fine). A few staff members also lost function of their electronics during that same lightning strike."
],
"score": [
75,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/shower-in-thunderstorm/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smsh1 | Why do we move around so awkwardly when giving a presentation/oral in front of a crowd/group? | So I was in an oral presentation earlier today and I observed that everybody seems to move from side to side, cross legs and look like they don't know what to do with their body/arms in general. Appart from anxiety (I guess), is there another "biologic/psychologic" reason? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg7vw0"
],
"text": [
"It's due to anxiety and stress. Good public speakers learn to overcome the anxiety and train their mannerisms to get over the anxiety/stress responses. But, most people have some stress when they present to large groups of people. The more practice you have with it and the more confidence you have the easier it is to present without showing signs of anxiety."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5smsmx | Why do people invest millions in startups with no definite revenue stream? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg7o5q",
"ddg9b5p",
"ddg8dv7"
],
"text": [
"It's a gamble. They are risking that investment (based on their judgment of the service or product being developed) in the hopes that it is successful and the returns are greater than their initial input.",
"Sometimes they find a business model along the way, such as Google -- AdWords are how they take in money hand over fist, but that wasn't created for years after Google's founding. Sometimes, companies are just hoping their feature or technology will be attractive to some other company so that they get acquired. And many are just dumb ideas that shouldn't see the light of day, and yet they still manage to get funded...",
"Venture capitalists do this with a variety of startups hoping one of them makes it big. If they do this for 20 companies and 19 of them fail, but the 20th gives them 100x their return on investment, it is still a great deal for them."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smzsr | Why is Betsy Devos considered unqualified? Genuine question, i stopped paying attention to politics | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg9fnw",
"ddgbdxf",
"ddgcg1g"
],
"text": [
"She is an education secretary with no experience working in education. No formal education, no professional experience. It's like assigning someone to run the military who has never fired a gun.",
"She's never been a teacher. She's never been a school administrator. Never served on an elected school board. It's not even clear if she has ever served in her own kids PTA. She is a rich lady from a rich family married to a rich man. Her father was a billionaire auto parts supplier. Her brother founded the military contractor Blackwater. Her husband is the heir to Amway, a company that made billions off of pyramid schemes. She's held positions on many corporate boards and done a lot of fundraising for Republicans. Her only real background in education has been in lobbying for Republican education causes like charter schools, voucher systems, privatization and \"school choice\". She's mostly motivated by a desire to strip funds from secular public schools to funnel that money into private Christian schools. She helped to oversee a charter school system in Detroit that most experts view to be a massive failure for students. During interviews with Congress and subsequently she has been unable to define basic educational concepts like \"proficiency\" (ie all students must master a set of basic skills, like learning their ABCs or multiplication tables, to complete each grade level) vs \"growth\" (ie it doesn't matter whether students learn a particular skill at a specific grade, so long as they are making a comparable amount of progress). She generally seems like dim-witted rich lady who would like to blow up the public education system to turn it over to for-profit private companies and churches, trusting that Jesus and the free market will solve all our problems.",
"**Reason 1:** She has never attended public school. She has never worked in a public school. She doesn't send her own children to public school. **Why does this matter?** The majority of students in the US attend public schools; and many areas of the country don't have alternative options (charter schools, etc) - this was actually a big factor for the two Republican senators who announced they wouldn't vote for her. She would be heading an organization with (in theory) no real understanding of the issues facing the majority of those under it's domain (public schools) **Reason 2:** She has no experience running a large organization, nor does she have experience in government. **Why does this matter?** As head of the Department of Education, she would be .... well, running a large governmental organization. It's safe to say this is outside of her wheelhouse. **Reason 3:** She was unable to answer very basic questions about fundamental educational theory and practice in her confirmation hearings (biggest examples: Proficiency vs. Growth, understanding of IDEA rules) **Why does this matter?** The hearing seemed to be a tipping point for her (towards the negative) - one could make the case that the fact that she lacks experience isn't a problem, so long as she's well grounded in theory and understanding. Her answers to some fairly simple questions seemed to highlight her complete lack of understanding of the educational system (she countered this with claims of \"didn't understand the question\", which may be true enough, but the whole hearing didn't reflect very well on her) This is only scratching the surface, but seem to be the biggest reasons cited."
],
"score": [
11,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sn0yq | How does seeing a therapist actually help someone who is having a hard time coping with a situation? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg9syt",
"ddgfy58",
"ddg9rhy",
"ddgc9ti",
"ddgbcyy",
"ddgh56w",
"ddgp38k",
"ddglrk9"
],
"text": [
"Yes, *if* you believe therapy is helpful, *and* the techniques you're given work on you and you've never tried them before. A lot of therapy is being able to talk through something and arrive at helpful conclusions. Depending on your issues, a therapist may give you exercises to work through to help arrive at causes, and solutions to your problems. In the end you do all the work. Therapists don't solve things, but give you techniques to help yourself. Not everyone has self-actualized their problems, and use assistance to find root causes of problems, and methods of resolution. It's not all just sitting around talking about your mother, unless your mother is your problem, then you may have to talk about your mother a lot.",
"There are hundreds of approaches to psychotherapy, but here are some common categories: - Therapies that change behaviours (i.e. how to stop doing things that don't help/harm your current situation) - Therapies that change thought patterns (i.e. getting over automatic thoughts like \"nothing good ever happens to me\") - Therapies that use past experiences to help you look at your current situation - Therapies that encourage some sort of self-awareness and acceptance So cognitive-behavioural therapy is a combination of thinking (cognitive) and behavioural approaches, acceptance and commitment therapy is a combination of CBT and acceptance, etc. How they work depends on the type of therapy. Some therapies are the stereotypical 'sit on a couch and talk about your childhood' to help the practitioner understand what's going on so you can look for commonalities and make healthier changes. The cognitive and/or behavioural therapies (CBT, DBT, etc.) that are popular today are forward-looking and focus on building coping skills rather than looking back and everything that brought you to your current state. What works in your exact situation depends on the problem you're addressing, your relationship with the practitioner, and your ability to do the legwork and try the practice that your practitioner 'prescribes.' There is a lot of evidence that *any* therapy approach is better than doing nothing. A lot of the healing is in the relationship between you and whoever you see.",
"There are a lot of things that are easy to spot for an outside observer. We humans tend to get stuck in our own patterns. To be able to have an overview that is not contaminated with emotion can be very insightful. In my opinion the best therapist is the one that can guide you in your own mind. There are many theories about this and a lot of opinions.",
"My therapist the first day said \"I'm not here to give you any answers. I'm here to look at the cards you were dealt and see if maybe there's a better hand there that you're not seeing. Later we might try to look for what would get you a better hand.\" It's a little like a coach. It's a neutral but knowledgeable person who can't do the work for you but can honestly help you become a better version of yourself.",
"The ultimate goal of a therapy is to increase your range of options. Often people only see one way of coping with a situation, for example getting angry, getting drunk, overeating, hiding away, whatever. Those things usually don't help at all, but if you don't know any better you simply have no choice. A good therapist can help you to find more useful behavior patterns, for example, try to understand the other side, don't blame yourself and/or don't blame others (that can be a tricky one :-) or avoid unrealistic expectations that lead to frustration. The new behaviour may be much better suited to cope with the given situation. It doesn't help always, but there's a good chance.",
"I can only explain it within the context I have used it professionally. I used cognitive behavioural therapy working with repeat offenders and drug/alcohol addicts. Put simply explaining the situation and changing the behaviour can teach them coping mechanisms or change problem behaviour which causes this issues. So: A client came in upset he had been mugged and this was used as a reason to use drugs. He didn't recognise he had been mugged as he was with a circle of peers who were thieves (this was leaving court for a burglary he had just been convicted of). He also didn't see that his drug use was the reason he had been with them people, therefore using it as a reason to continue using drugs was an illogical conclusion to anyone but himself. So I switched the context and asked for his thought on a different situation.... a colleague of mine who he saw regularly bring me a coffee each day helped themselves to my crisps because they were hungry and it had annoyed me. He said that I shouldn't be mad because I always took something from that person. Then the penny dropped. This didn't solve his issues, but it was a small step, therapy is lots of small steps on a long journey to change the perception of an event or attitude and behaviour of an individual.",
"It often helps to talk about your problems openly. But sometimes you don't have anyone to do that with, because you're afraid that the people close to you would be hurt by what you have to say, or that they would lose respect for you, or judge you. Or they might be directly involved and therefore not impartial. A therapist is sworn to protect your privacy, and it's their job to help you. Plus they have years of training in recognizing various psychological issues and how to best deal with them.",
"I'm a graduate student currently in training to be a psychologist, so my answer may be a tad self-serving. I'll start with the generality of therapy and move towards specifics. Therapy in general helps with a variety of situations due to the nature of what we call the \"therapeutic alliance.\". This relationship between client and therapist is one built, on the therapists end, by unconditional positive regard, genuiness, and empathy. As therapists we strive to build a real trusting relationship with our clients where they can enter our offices and reveal their core inner being free from worries of judgment or condemnation. This is much different than their every day relationships between friends and family. This can have a powerful effect on people. They can bear all of their glories and follies to us, their most hidden thoughts and feelings, the names of their demons and the wounds on their life and receive acceptance and understanding in return. This is the hinge on which everything we do turns, and the feeling that someone out there will listen to you and walk with you through your struggles is immensely relieving. Therapy helps because someone truly cares and will not abandon you or dismiss your suffering as less than it is. That being said, there are specific therapeutic techniques for certain issues. For Anxiety/Trauma/Phobias there is a wealth of evidence to support exposure, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and mindfulness can help a person overcome their appprehensions. For depression, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Interpersonal Therapy can help pull them out of the abyss. To dig into the why and how of these types of treatments would be an exhaustive effort. If you'd like even more specific examples then feel free to ask and I'll answer honestly as to the why and how certain treatments are effective. Edit: To specify, I won't give links to citations but I will credit relevant researchers that may be.of interest to particular disorders. Our knowledge is constantly evolving and our theories are consistently tested. Answers I give are NOT set in stone \"this is how it is\", it's more of \"current research supports such and such idea.\""
],
"score": [
33,
32,
18,
14,
10,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sn9ma | Why do cars on highways seem like they are moving in packs | With sometimes the faster cars in the later group catching up with the group ahead, interspersed with stretches in the middle with seemingly few cars on the road | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgeo3b"
],
"text": [
"Different reaction times among drivers, and people adjusting for that reaction time. Say traffic is moving all together. Then, one guy decides he needs to get off NOW. He slams on his brakes, then gets over. The driver 15 yards back sees this and cautiously slows down. Driver behind him does the same. Since the first driver started the slow down, there's now a gap in front of the next person back and a slight traffic bunching behind him. Now multiply times thousands. URL_0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sngh1 | why do vacuum cleaners make so much noise? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgifj5"
],
"text": [
"See URL_0 I've heard many times that they made quiet ones but they wouldn't sell because they didn't sound powerful."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k33ip/eli5_why_do_vacuum_cleaners_make_so_much_noise/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sngta | How/Why does an object's mass change due to velocity? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgil3n"
],
"text": [
"When the laws of special relativity were discovered, one of the predictions that the theory made was that objects would get more and more difficult to accelerate as the velocity increased. Newton's 2nd law says that F= mass * acceleration. So, in the early days after special relativity was discovered, people said that if the same amount of force was producing less and less acceleration, that mass must be increasing. At the same time, mass = energy * c^2 - and you are adding kinetic energy so mass is increasing. So everything makes sense. The problem is that this causes a lot of confusion. The \"apparent\" mass just doesn't seem to be useful for much. And, it's much simpler if we just accept that Newton's 2nd law is a useful \"rule of thumb\" which is accurate enough to be useful at low velocities, but is inaccurate at high velocities. And if we want accurate calculations at high velocities we need to use the Lorentz equations. So, these days, physicists tend say that mass doesn't change (usually calling it the \"rest mass\"), but instead use more complicated equations for acceleration and momentum, rather than sticking with the old Newton equations."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5snh89 | Why is so much water used when mining lithium? | Just recently heard about the lithium triangle and how Bolivia has begun mining lithium there from the salt flats, and it apparently takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce 1 tonne of litium. I can't imagine why it would take so much water for a mere tonne, why is this? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgfmi1"
],
"text": [
"Well, you need to extract the lithium from the ground. One way to do that is to drill a hole, inject water, wait for the lithium salts (the most common form in which lithium is found) to dissolve in the water and pump the brine (water + salt) back up. You can then evaporate the water to separate the lithium from the water. You need a lot of water to do this."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5snluh | How does America deal with a president who is diagnosed with Alzheimer's or schizophrenia during their term? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgei1c"
],
"text": [
"It's covered by the 25th Amendment: > Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. TL;DR: if the VP and the majority of the cabinet members declare the president unfit to serve, the VP takes over."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5snnhp | the difference in taste between people | I'm wondering if people taste the foods I don't like the same that I do and just like the tastes more, or if our taste buds process the flavor of foods differently. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgk6o2"
],
"text": [
"In college we did an experiment in the lab where we were told to lick a piece of paper that had a horrible taste on it. People could either taste it or not and it turned out to be a genetic difference. I can't remember the gene that was affected but this chemical taste is present in brussel sprouts. So that explains peoples adverse reactions to brussel sprouts and why I feel they're the most disgusting things"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5snoit | When receiving an injection, what determines where on the body the injection is to be administered (e.g. shoulder, abdomen, buttock, etc)? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgfnss"
],
"text": [
"Different injection sites are used for different things, there are 3 main types of injection Intravenous ( into a vein) Intramuscular (into muscle tissue) Subcutaneous (under the skin) In this order is the rate at which they are absorbed into the system, for a drug you want to be administered slowly I.e insulin you would choose subcutaneous, for steroids intramuscular, and for other medications such as morphine intravenous The actual location of injection is largely irrelevant, for an IM injection the only key points are, ease of access ( shoulder is easier than buttock) proximity to nerves/blood vessels (injection into a nerve can be excruciating, the wrong medication into a blood vessel can kill) and how easy it is to keep it clean post injection For an IV injection you want to choose a place where you can keep the patient steady and where the vein you're injecting into is visible, arm is usually chosen for this as veins are easy to identify and patient can simply rest their arm on a table to keep it steady For SC abdomen is usually chosen due to the large amount of fat in the area to inject into and the large surface area for repeat injections, never done a SC injection myself so I haven't really got a lot to say about this, although I had a diabetic friend in school who would inject into his abdomen as he found it very easy to reach and to control the rate of injection"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5so342 | What does the Secretary of Education in the US do? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgo03x",
"ddgn6yc",
"ddgmjfj"
],
"text": [
"They advise the President on matters related to Education and supervise the US Department of Education and its programs on a national level. They don't have authority over State and Local educational institutions. The US Educational system is a complicated mass of authorities at every level. Decisions relating to things like curriculum, funding, and the hiring and firing of teachers and staff are decided at the local level. Where I live, we have local school boards that do things like hire and fire the local superintendent, but funding decisions are made at the State and County level. Higher up, the State has a hand in deciding things like funding and curriculum, especially for State universities. At the Federal level, the US Department of Education influences local schools through things like funding grants, student loans, and Title IX enforcement. Money comes with strings attached, so if the local school or university doesn't comply with the rules, they don't get the money.",
"**Start Here:**US Department of Education ╚= > US Secretary of Education ╚== > Your State's Department of Education ╚=== > State Superintendent of Public Instruction ╚==== > Your local township Board of Education ╚===== > Your local township Superintendent of Schools ╚====== > Your local township Deputy Superintendent ╚======= > Your Kids Principal ╚======== > Your Kids teacher ╚========= > **Your Kid** TL;DR: Another overpaid bureaucrat who will do nothing.",
"[The Secretary advises the President on federal policies, programs, and activities related to education in the United States.]( URL_0 ) That person would have direct influence on funding and policy of how schools function."
],
"score": [
9,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Education"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5so5dr | How come when stars explode, they gush their matter out in 2 dimensions? | How come when you see pictures of recently exploded stars, they always explode away in 2 dimensions instead of everything going everywhere? Found a good picture from another subreddit. URL_0 | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgmdux"
],
"text": [
"Doesn't that image [look familiar]( URL_0 )? The spectral matter is chasing the magnetic field."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.coolmagnetman.com/images/fldmag1.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5so70e | What stops anyone (terrorists) from cutting the internet wires in the ocean and what would be the consequences? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgk4kq",
"ddgn1j4"
],
"text": [
"Nothing really. You could just cut the lines that lie on the ocean floor between continents. One obstacle is that they are hard to get to. Another is that it would take more than just a knife or cable cutter to sever them. As for what would happen, quite possibly nothing. The construction of physical plant is not like a string A-B-C, etc. but like an actual web. If the traffic is cut from one source, it just goes around the loop the other direction and you may not even notice. IN the early days, when someone would cut a fiber it could take a whole city down. Today you barely hear a click unless you are in some secluded place. So this doesn't happen because it would cost a fortune and come at significant risk and if you accomplished your mission it is possible that no one would notice.",
"Not only is the ocean deep, but the cable is trenched closer to shore and would require under sea digging. Further, these cables are the diameter of a dinner plate! They're composed of many different cables for power and data, and fibers and steel cable for strength and are load bearing. So it's not trivial to just boat up to one and cut it with a hacksaw. Even with an adequate ship and diving equipment or a dredge, they'll likely get caught while organizing - coast guards would likely take an interest in the assembly of such an operation and commercial class vessel. Can it be done? Yes. Likely? No. Consequences: They would be caught and arrested, and the cable would be repaired. Down in the deep, these cables are just lying on the ground, and are subject to pressure, currents, and rock, grinding away at the side. These cables are constantly being damaged and there are ships out there whose job it is to drag damaged sections up and repair them. A full cut might take a few more days than normal."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5so7j5 | The President's authority to deploy nuclear weapons. | Specifically: Does the President have unilateral authority to deploy nuclear weapons? Are there no checks and balances for this awesome responsibility? Further, how is the policy defined and how could it be changed. Is this solely within the President's purview or is congress involved? Finally, how long is it from order to deployment? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgkbbr",
"ddgnx9m"
],
"text": [
"The president is the sole initiator of nuclear weapons release. His decision must be confirmed by the currently standing secretary of defense. The president can fire the current standing secretary of defense, but cannot continue the sequence unless a new secretary of defense is placed in office and confirms his decision. From there every single soldier along the chain of command from the Pentagon general to the dispatch officer to finally the nuclear silo operator has to obey the command.",
"The president has unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons. He obviously isn't the one operating the weapons, however - the order has to be transmitted to the Secretary of Defense and from there down the military chain of command to the missile operators and pilots. These intermediate people are not allowed to veto the order, nor are they supposed to question it. Their role is purely organizational and logistical - the president selects a plan for weapons use, but he doesn't know which commands need to be notified to carry it out, which is the SecDef's job. But the SecDef doesn't know which units are involved or how to call them, so that's the general's job, and so on. People speculate that the SecDef (or some military person) might refuse to transmit the order at some point, but that is not supposed to happen and puts us in uncharted waters as to what happens next. This policy is a matter of military command structure based directly on the president's constitutional role as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. It was not created by Congress, nor is it in Congress's constitutional authority to regulate how the president chooses to command the armed forces. The system can change in two ways: 1. The president, SecDef, and military decide to implement a different command structure. This is something they could just decide to do any time, although changing it would be very expensive at this point, as all the authentication systems, which are reflected in written procedure, personnel training, and weapons design, would have to be redone. But if the president wants his orders to be checked and implemented in a different way, he could order that. It would get interesting if he later tried to bypass a system with more checks, since he would still technically remain the the ultimate authority on weapons use. 2. There could be a constitutional amendment limiting the president's authority as commander in chief in the context of nuclear weapons. Nothing else can really pose a legal check on the president's authority to order their use. The system is set up the way it is for two reasons. Firstly, because constitutionally there is no legal way to limit the president's authority over the military. Secondly, because any checks on the president's authority to use nuclear weapons weakens the credibility of the deterrent. Think of it this way: If Russia wanted to nuke us, they would hesitate because they know the president will nuke them back. But if both the president and someone else need to make that decision together, there is more room for them to speculate that they might not get nuked back. Even more so if Congress is in the loop. The time to carry out the order is classified and also depends on the competence of the people in the chain of command and weapons operators. But it would be insufficient to respond to a missile attack if it were much more than ten minutes, so we can safely assume it is less. EDIT: I can imagine Congress passing a law saying that first use nuclear weapons is an act of war and thus requires a Congressional declaration of war, as the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to declare war. But that would be very legally murky, as the Constitution also says the president is the command in chief of the armed forces and doesn't say what a declaration of war actually does or is necessary to authorize, if anything. But such a law might give the SecDef or someone else more of a leg to stand on, at least temporarily, if they decided to disobey orders. If such a law were passed, things would get very interesting and no one would really know what is legal and what isn't. EDIT 2: Much of my information came from [this blog post]( URL_0 ) and [its followup]( URL_1 ) from the blog of nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein. If you are interested in this sort of thing, I highly recommend you read those posts (and the rest of his blog!). I've actually seen him comment on /r/askhistorans as /u/restricteddata, so perhaps if this post becomes popular, he will grace us with his presence here as well."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/",
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/12/23/the-president-and-the-bomb-redux/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sogx1 | Why is it so common for kids to dislike vegetables | I had never thought about why kids are commonly averse to eating vegetables, and now I can't seem to think of a reason why. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgz7zi",
"ddgoh22",
"ddgmeh0"
],
"text": [
"Maybe it depends how it's prepared, I'm from europe and my entire family could make delicious vegetables, I always wondered why on earth in American tv shows/films/sitcoms kids hate vegetables 99% people I know love, exception is Brussels sprout, it's abomination and should be banned",
"Toxic plants tend to have bitter flavors. Kids who didn't eat the bitter plants had a better chance of not dying. As we grow up, our larger bodies can handle more of the toxins so our palette grows. A website: URL_0",
"Children naturally LOVE sugar. To a child, almost nothing is *too sweet*. Of course not all kids are the same and all kids do have a limit on how much sugar they can actually consume. However, children generally can handle more sugar pound for pound than adults. I don't know if \"pound for pound\" is technically accurate, but its the most simplified way I know to describe it."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.parentingscience.com/picky-eaters.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sonm5 | Why does the peak volume vary so much from different sources on the internet: music, videos, etc? Also why can't your computer/speakers artificially amplify the peak level? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgrplh"
],
"text": [
"It's actually more about average loudness than peak, but /u/swordgeek hit it - lack of standards. It used to be in some genres that musicians and/or engineers would push the loudness as high as possible into a peak limiter (therefore reducing dynamic range, which is a measure of peak to average loudness). This was done in order to stand out, for example, on the radio - when the radio is on in the background and your song comes on just a touch louder, it would catch people's attention. But then the [Loudness War]( URL_1 ) ensued, and that's because in music, film, spoken word, ...everything is pretty much left up to the mastering engineer (and artist, producer, etc) as to final loudness. However, a lot of services (iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, etc) are instituting their own loudness cap, such that if a video or song is louder than their prescribed loudness, their algorithm will detect that and turn it down. It's the beginning of the end of the Loudness Wars, since there's no point in absolutely crushing the life out of a mix that's just going to get turned down anyway. You might as well just have more dynamic range, which IMHO sounds better anyway. Read more [here]( URL_0 )."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://productionadvice.co.uk/youtube-loudness-normalisation-details/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sp2r6 | why are poor people in America fatter than rich people? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgqw2r",
"ddgru93",
"ddgr29t"
],
"text": [
"Cheap food is not necessarily good food. Working multiple jobs cuts into grocery shopping time and cooking time causing an increase in take out. Gyms and sports programs are beyond their means.",
"The answer is NOT that fast food is cheaper. You can eat healthy by going to the grocery store more than once a week or once every two weeks. Vegetables are cheap. Beans are cheap. Shit, sometimes even meat is cheap. The problem is access. It's much more difficult for someone without a car to take a bus multiple times a week to a quality grocer that likely isn't in their immediate neighborhood. They may even be working two jobs. It now takes a much more Herculean effort to obtain the same quality of healthy food that someone in an affluent neighborhood with a car has access to. I am NOT saying \"poor people\" are lazy. There are plenty of \"poor people\" that put in the massive effort to consume healthy foods on a regular basis. But it's much easier to walk a block or two to McDonalds or PopEye's or the corner deep fried place and pay $4-5 for a meal. Also education. If you don't know how to cook good healthy food or you were never taught that, it's difficult to start. I'm all over the place here, and there's a lot of systemic and cultural reasons why this occurs. So I'll stop now.",
"due to the amount of processing that we have for foods. cheaper = more processed. more processed = less nutrients, more fillers. less nutrients, more fillers = more fat/calories and less filling. more fat/calories and less filling = you eat more to feel full. you eat more to feel full = you get fat. that combined with a lack of proper exercise = obesity."
],
"score": [
15,
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sp4cw | Why do north and south contain 5 letters and end in "th", but east and west only have four letters and end in "st"? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgrl9o"
],
"text": [
"Just a trick of evolving languages. North used to be Nord (which spread to other languages where you'd see Norte), South used to be Sud (which is still the word for South in many languages like French and Spanish) East, for English, came from the germanic aust, which meant \"toward the sun\" West hasn't changed much in a long time, but probably came from the latin Vesper or \"evening\" (like it's evening when the Sun is in the west)"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spblh | how can baking soda be safe to consume if it's made from ammonia? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgt4vi",
"ddgtkn0"
],
"text": [
"How can salt be safe to consume when it's made from sodium and chloride? Go look up someone dropping sodium in water on youtube, surely THAT can't be safe to put inside your body, right? See, thing is, **chemical compounds** are different from simple mixtures or ingredients. So when you say \"x is made from y\" does that mean they put a scoop of y in, or did y bond with something else in the process and create something new? When two (or more) different atoms are bonded together, the resulting molecule doesn't have to act like it's creators. In fact, it rarely does! Our dear friend H2O for example: oxygen and hydrogen are colorless reactive gases at room temperature, combine them into a molecule and they're refreshing. Ammonia is merely nitrogen and hydrogen. Two atoms who are building blocks in a **LOT** of different substances, ranging from deadly to delightful.",
"Sodium bicarbonate is a salt composed of sodium ions and bicarbonate ions. Baking soda in today's age, doesn't contain ammonium. Old recipes might call for ammonium bicarbonate, which is like today's sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). I also want to add that ammonium and ammonia are different. Ammonium is made up of one nitrogen and 4 hydrogen, ammonia is made up of one nitrogen and 3 hydrogen. Ammonium is not harmful and is actually used in some water filtration. Ammonium is found in some salt compounds and hard to find in its pure form. Ammonium is toxic to plant life. Ammonia is easier to find in pure form and is toxic to consume. Ammonia is widely used in pesticides and cleaning agents."
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spe29 | A company buys another for $10 billion. Where does the money go? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgtk09"
],
"text": [
"The money goes to the owner(s) of the company being bought out. If Bill buys Sandra's company for $10 million, Sandra gets $10 million. Sandra may decide to share with her employees, and may be obligated to pay off debts owed by her company. In publicly trade companies, each shareholder will get cash, stock in the combined company, or both."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spljg | How does a hash work (SHA256, MD5, etc)? | Mathematics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgv44v"
],
"text": [
"Heres the very dumbed down example: You have a password. Like \"ABC\". Turn the letters into numbers: \"123\". Now apply a formula to it, for example: \"first number times 3rd number, plus second number times itself, plus third number times the first number plus the second.\" Thats the hash. So you get 1x3 + 2x2 + 3x1+2 = 3+4+5 = 12. Now, if someone steals the hashed password, all they get is \"12\". But how did they get to 12? Theres no way to know. Theres no way to work it backwards. Even if you know the hash, the best you can do is try EVERY password until you end up with 12. This is why simple passwords are easier to guess than complex ones."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5splx7 | The Great Emu war | Whats with the Emu war, why Australia went to battlewith the emus in the first place ??? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgwsd1",
"ddgvh2t",
"ddgvwxp",
"ddgwdas"
],
"text": [
"Almost 80 years ago some local farmers began having problems with the local Emu population. The Emus believed themselves to be King Tut and strutted around the area. They had a large population and needed the land more than a few measly farmers. The farmers recognized they were greatly outnumbered and called in assistance from the Australian Government. They sent in military aid in the form of a handful of soldiers and automatic weapons. The Gods showed kindness to the Emus and sent rain, slowing the soldiers down for a bit. On November 2nd the Great Emu war began. Soldiers set up a firing line, but because the Emus are so cunning they recognized this and stayed outside of the effective firing range of the enemy soldiers weapons. Local farmers were sent out to try and lure the Emus into the ambush, but the Emus knew the trap and broke down into small herds/teams to make themselves more difficult to target. Unfortunately nearly a dozens Emus lost their lives that day. On November 4th the Australian soldiers were able to successfully set up a ambush near the local dam, a place where Emus went to refresh themselves with drink and bathe. The Gods once again smiled upon the Emus, no more than 12 fell that day before the coward Australian soldier guns jammed, stopping their assault and giving the Emus time to escape. Various mistakes on the soldiers part gave great help to the Emus being able to outlast their opponents. On November 8th the Emus were able to successfully push back the Australians after a battle of attrition. The Australians wasted numerous resources on this engagement for little results. Because of their victory the Emus were embolden, and began attacking crops, they were looking to make the local farmers pay for their collaboration with the Australian soldiers. They came in the thousands, tearing up the country side. Once again in fear the farmers begged the government for assistance, after a 4 days rest on November 12th the Australian Government began military action once again. This time the Emus did not fair well, by December 2nd they were faced with a thousand dead and thousands more wounded and presumed dead. Since the end of the Great Emu war the Emus never once forgot the death and destruction that was inflicted upon them. Every few years the farmers go back to their government requesting assistance, the Emus are waging guerrilla warfare, coming out and attacking then retreating back. Some say the Emus are still out there today, planning, plotting, one day they will retake their lands and expel those who deny them, EW II is coming.",
"A group of emus were being dicks. Army told em to fuck off. Emus were like cash me ousside how bow dah. Army tried to cash the emus ousside. Decisive emu victory.",
"In 1932, farmers in Western Australia, already suffering from low wheat prices during the Great Depression, were having problems with migrating emus destroying their crops and damaging equipment. Many of the farmers were WWI veterans, and knowing how effective machine guns could be, requested assistance from the military. So the military showed up and shot a bunch of emus. They turned out to be more elusive than first thought, and it proved difficult to get the heavy machine guns close enough to be effective. But in the end, it was moderately successful, killing a few thousand birds. Conservationists weren't thrilled and labeled it the Emu War to capitalize on the inherent silliness of the whole affair. The government declined to repeat the operation in following year, instead instituting an emu bounty program that proved to be more effective.",
"It was basically a wildlife cull: there was an infestation of emus into farming land, which damaged the crops and reduced the yield, so there were attempts to reduce the population. Many of the farmers involved were re-settled WW1 soldiers, and they convinced the Ministry of Defence that machine guns would be the most effective way to cull. Cue a detachment of soldiers turning up with their machine guns, expecting to just start blasting away. Emus can run fast, and it's not easy to hit a small target that's rapidly moving away from you. So the planned 'cull' was rather underwhelming and unsuccessful, since most of the birds simply ran away. The concept of the military being outrun and outwitted by a bunch of flightless birds was so comical, the \"Emu War\" became a running media joke at the time, and has stuck since."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sppfy | How did Einstein's findings disprove those of Isaac Newton? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgwu4n",
"ddgwabv"
],
"text": [
"Technically they expanded on Isaac Newton's findings. Newton came up with mathematical rules that explained motion in every case that people knew how to observe when Newton was alive. Once humans figured out how to observe more stuff, especially super fast or super small stuff, we found some stuff that defied explanation using Newton's math. So Einstein suggested an upgraded form of Newton's math, which explained all the stuff Newton's math explained, plus also stuff that was super tiny and/or super fast.",
"They didn't... well... sorta. Basically, Newton's laws function at the speeds and sizes of everyday life while Einstein's explain at the really small and really fast. They are both mathematical models to explain how stuff works. [You can read here from someone who has a degree in this stuff]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2vbqat/how_do_newtons_laws_and_einsteins_theories/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spra6 | How do animals recognize members of their own species if they aren't self aware? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgx3aq",
"ddgwj2x"
],
"text": [
"Self-awareness aside, smell is the main resource of recognition for animals. A common practice at zoos or other animal centers for foster cubs is to impregnate them with the scent of the mother right when she's birthing a pack and she will recognize the foster cub as her own. Smell is the main recognition system but sight and hearing also play an important role. By experience, animals can begin making connections like \"my species smells like this and has this particular form\" so, when they see a form like that they regard as \"my own species\", they recognize it as a member of their species. The same goes for sounds, \"my species smells and looks like this and has this particular sound\", so they can begin recognizing member from their own species by more than just smell. A good example of this is dogs recognizing dogs on tv.",
"What makes you think that they aren't self aware? That's a weird assumption to make."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spy6p | How come during the 1950's, they were called 'Atomic' bombs, but were then called 'Nuclear' at the start of the Cold War? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh1zy7",
"ddgyc5o",
"ddhg8yc",
"ddgyhsz",
"ddh59hf"
],
"text": [
"They're all colloquial. \"Atomic bomb\" has historically referred to gun-type and implosion-type fission weapons first developed by the allies in the mid 1940s. In 1952, the United States introduced a new weapon which added a fusion reaction to the fission reaction in order to greatly improve energy output. These new weapons were of a fission-fusion-fission design and are properly called thermonuclear weapons. Colloquially these are called hydrogen bombs or H-bombs. Virtually all weapons deployed by the five major nuclear powers are thermonuclear weapons. \"Nuclear bomb\" is an umbrella term used to refer to all weapons that rely on fission reactions, fusion reactions, or some combination thereof in order to release energy. It recognises to some extent the fact that the public was greatly aware of the existence of these weapons but their details were shrouded in secrecy. Whereas a great deal of information about nuclear weapons can be found on the internet today, this was not the case during the cold war. It's also a politically convenient term because it is understood by everyone and has serious connotations. Politicians used (and often continue to use) it with wild abandon to spread FUD; Joe blow doesn't care what the CEP of a Russian MIRV is nor does he care about the yield of a W88. However, Joe very much cares that one does not land on his head and to do that he needs to be a good patriotic American rather than a commie bastard!",
"An atomic bomb works by splitting large atomic nuclei (fission) such as uranium or more usually plutonium, this releases quite a lot of energy. Hydrogen (Nuclear) bombs use an atomic bomb to ignite a nuclear fusion bomb - this is fusing hydrogen istopes together to form helium. This releases a lot more energy, especially as the neutrons released by the fusion part of the bomb makes the fission part more efficient.",
"The historical answer is that the term \"atomic bomb\" went back earlier than the weapons themselves. H.G. Wells talked about \"atomic bombs\" in his 1917 book, _The World Set Free_, and popularized the idea that you'd be getting weapons out of \"atomic energy.\" He didn't come up with the idea of \"atomic energy\" — he got everything he knew on that topic from Frederick Soddy's 1909 _The Interpretation of Radium_. Soddy's book predated Rutherford discovering the \"nucleus\" at the center of the atom, and thus used \"atomic\" exclusively. Anyway, when it came time to announce what kind of weapon the United States had dropped on Japan, the scientists said, \"you should call them nuclear bombs.\" The Army said, \"nobody is going to know what that word means, let's call them atomic bombs, everyone kind of knows what that is.\" The terminology stuck until the 1950s. The term \"nuclear\" started being used primarily in association with the phrase \"nuclear reactor\" (as opposed to the very antiquated \"atomic pile\"), and then was moved over into the weapons domain. By that time \"atomic bomb\" had been associated primarily with fission weapons but fusion weapons were also available, and \"nuclear\" was for whatever reason seen as a better way of bridging the two terms.",
"Atomic bombs refer specifically to fission bombs - which derive 100% of their explosive power from a fission reaction. Nuclear weapons refers to the whole category of weapons, including thermonuclear, neutron, and future hypothetical weapons.",
"/u/restricteddata can give you a better answer, but here’s my best shot: Members of the general public had heard of atoms but were not familiar with the terminology beyond that. Therefore, the bomb was explained in terms that they might understand: unleashing the power of the atom. It is more accurate to speak of splitting the atomic *nucleus*, and a few years into the Atomic Age it started to make sense to use the more accurate terminology."
],
"score": [
42,
17,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spzmd | After a certain age, no matter what you do you will always have an accent, why is this? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgyl8u",
"ddh5evc"
],
"text": [
"Everyone, regardless of age has an accent. There is no such thing as \"having no accent\". That is why.",
"It's called the critical period hypothesis: URL_0 Basically, it has been more or less proven that our language acquisition abilities decline sharply after adolescence. Let's say you move to a country that speaks a totally different language than the one you're accustomed to. If you move when you're a little kid, you'll learn the new language perfectly. If you move when you're a teenager, you'll become quite fluent, but you'll probably always have a slight accent. If you move when you're an adult, it will be virtually impossible to speak the language without an accent. It's not clear why this ability disappears with age."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sq0x7 | When and where in history did gold and silver first start to become a valid currency? How early did it spread as to become an almost universally accepted currency? | Just curious as to when, why, where and why silver and gold first started to become a valid currency by most people. How did such arbitrary metals become accepted universally as holding great value? Edit: I'm asking because it can't be as simple as "Me human. Me see shiny. Me like." | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh1kow"
],
"text": [
"Simple answer: around 700-600 BCE, somewhere in the Middle East. Nobody knows for sure, but strongest theory points to the Phoenicians being the first users of silver to create their currency. They weren't really valued intrinsically (aka valued for the metal itself). It's just that, when you're creating a currency to make trade a lot easier, a king or government (who is issuing the currency) wants: * A material that is relatively rare, so nobody else can flood the market with it. * A material that can be modified, with some special equipment that not everybody will have, so it can be associated with that particular ruler/government. * A material that is non-perishable and otherwise worthless. Metals like gold and silver work because they're rare and hard to work with, so you can't just have any old shmuck make their own currency. That's the problem with iron, by the way - every village will have someone who works with iron, and iron is extremely abundant, so it's unstable as a currency base. And over the years, Western society stuck to gold and silver because it was fairly stable. Until the 20th century, that is. Turns out the gold and silver standards couldn't keep up with population growth."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sq1dd | So do people see what we see in the mirror or what we look like in pictures? | On that note, how do photogenic people work? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgyy61"
],
"text": [
"Except for the left-right switch, you look just like what you see in a mirror. The 3-D effect is accurate. Pictures created a flattened view of you, which distorts the perception of your face particularly much. They are correct in the left-right sense, though."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sq2f7 | The meaning of double jeopardy in a legal case. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgzfsg",
"ddgznbb",
"ddgzjkl"
],
"text": [
"It means that you cannot be tried twice for the same offense. If you are cleared of a crime, the charges cannot be brought back against you a second time. I believe this was done to stop wealthy people from being able to bully poorer people with repetitive prosecution.",
"You can't be tried (by a jury) for the same crime twice. BUTTTTTTT you can be tried at a state level for a crime, proven innocent, AND THEN be tried for the same crime at the federal level. That is if you committed a crime that is illegal in all states.",
"It means that the government can't put you on trial twice for the same crime. If you're acquitted (not guilty) the first time then they don't get another chance. This prevents the government from repeatedly prosecuting the same person over and over until they get the outcome they want. It's one of the rights (US) specified in the Bill of Rights, specifically the 5th amendment. Other countries have similar prohibitions against double jeopardy."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sq5fw | How is 12% of population in some countries HIV positive? | According to the CDC, the risk of HIV transmission from unprotected vaginal sex is 0.08% per exposure. [CDC source]( URL_0 ) So if my math is correct, if a HIV+ guy were to go around and have unprotected sex 1000 times, he is likely to infect only two of his partners? I must be completely misunderstanding the CDC data, or people in some parts of the world are having a lot more sex than I assumed. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh3qr8",
"ddh6bdq"
],
"text": [
"Well there are a few things that contribute to high rates of HIV. 1) In countries with lower average wages condoms and other forms of protection are relatively more expensive. As such the rate of unprotected sex is significantly higher. 2) You don't die quickly from HIV. In fact HIV is a relatively slow process in which your immune system eventually shuts down. Even then you won't die until you catch some infection or disease that your body can't fight off. It takes on average 10 years for someone to go from HIV contraction to AIDS. After AIDS develops 1-3 years still remain depending on the level of treatment experienced. 3) Transmission is not a zero sum game. When a partner is infected the original host does not become HIV negative. Thus people who are HIV positive can infect other people, who go on to infect other people and so on. Even though your chance of infection stays relatively small per exposure, overall number of infections grow rapidly.",
"HIV is transmitted easiest when infected cells enter the bloodstream. The possibility for vaginal sex is low because the vagina is built to withstand the trauma of sex, and doesn't tear easily. Your colon, however, is not so resilient, so anal sex carries a much higher risk. Additionally, rape can cause trauma and tears and increase the risk of transmission versus consensual sex. And then there's needles, which carries such a high risk of infection, you can almost count on contracting HIV if you share needles with infected persons. Point is, there's many ways to transmit, and one person can unknowingly transmit to several partners before anyone is the wiser. In some countries, safe sex isn't a concept either, so there's just naturally a higher risk."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sqhb6 | Do fish go insane being in little closed off fish bowls, like a human might in isolation? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh67bm"
],
"text": [
"Apparently not. Fish have really small brains, and by human standards barely think at all. They're certainly not up there with dogs or pigs or octopuses."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sqj74 | What is actually going on when you are "in the zone"? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhao39",
"ddh4e6h",
"ddhdpe4"
],
"text": [
"* Chemical (adrenaline) and targeted brain focus to control adrenaline for release as required. * Physical exercise can stimulate and activate the 'zone' as required. * Breathing and heart beat are more intense and I feel a 'heavy syrupy flow/energy' permeate my inner body. * Source: Current Official Guinness World Record holder in strength/fitness events.",
"It is a state of consciousness, \"flow thinking\" is a cool thing and you can train yourself to be better at it. Edit: A continuous flow of uninterrupted intensely focused thought. Just pure focus really.",
"I don't know the scientific sources behind this but this guy explained in his TedTalk that rythmic breathing has a lot to do with focus and the \"zone\" Here's the [link]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
13,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_fFattg8N0"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sqm5j | Why can't we just breed more bees until there are enough to sustain the population? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh4c0w",
"ddh7058",
"ddh70m9"
],
"text": [
"Bees don't reproduce very quickly. You can't just \"breed more\" because it would take a while. It would also not solve the underlying problems, so you would have a lot of bees and then you would go to having very few bees very quickly.",
"According to my beekeeping friend: Domesticated bees have a huge list of genetic health problems as well as a high susceptibility to disease and are sensitive to the environment. They die easily. Breeding them takes a while too.",
"Bee populations are recovering from colony collapse disorder. There were multiple factors (mostly pollution and pesticides) that caused it."
],
"score": [
29,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sqnel | How could people afford to have 4 kids on 1 income and buy a home 50 years ago and today people can barley afford any of this with 2 incomes and less kids. | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh4ug8",
"ddh5mqb",
"ddhcolo",
"ddh86qq"
],
"text": [
"Because cost of living to wages ratio was balanced. Up to 1962, a family of four could live, albeit not fancy, on minimum wage. After that the cost of living surpassed minimum wage, and govt policy has made no effort to fix the gap, and if anything, plan to abolish min. wage altogether, making it impossible for people in service industry jobs to survive.",
"There's a few reasons. But a lot of it comes down \"keeping up with the jones'\". In 1973 the average house was around 1600 square feet. Today it's over 2600. 50 years ago, people didn't have smart phones, 80\" tv's, game consoles etc. They made most of their food from scratch. And, a huge one, the only debt they ever saw would've been maybe a 10 or 15 year mortgage. No debt means no interest means more money in your pocket. Unfortunately as society advances, so does the cost of living. Having access to internet is considered a necessity of life now. Obviously this isn't the only answer to the question, but it certainly plays a large part.",
"The difference comes down to a number of factors: * Inflation eating away at our purchasing power. * Planned obsolescence meant every 3 years you will need a new computer, printer and software. Every five years you will need another car. We didn't have or need computers 50 years ago. * Instant credit (credit card debt) to pay for the planned obsolescence and status/ego type things. Most of us didn't have credit cards 50 years ago. * Suburban sprawl for affordable housing resulted in staggering commuting costs to the urban centers where the well-paid jobs are. 50 years ago people lived where they worked. Interstate highways and commuter rail changed where people could live. * The women's liberation movement empowered women to have careers of their own rather than be stay at home moms. * Child care was needed in order to earn a second income and enable women to have careers, but child care and that second car to transport the kids and get to the second income source ended up eating most, if not all, of the wages of the second income. 50 years ago, there was no need for a second income, child care or a second car. * The increasing cost of a college education to get a good paying job and its debt burden. 50 years ago college was more affordable because fewer students attended college. Today it is mandatory to have a college degree to get a good job but you start out your career heavily in debt. With so many having a degree makes them a commodity that drive wages down.",
"Inflation has far outstripped the rise of wages. The dollar is just not worth as much as it used to be. When wages double, but inflation quadruples over the same period, then the worker loses 50% of their purchasing power. Why has inflation got out of hand? It's because we have run up such a huge national debt. The Federal Reserve has to print more dollars to make payments on our debt. The ever increasing amount of dollars in the world erodes their value. Unfortunately, raising minimum wage will not change this, as it does not address the inflation issues."
],
"score": [
23,
6,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sqo8e | How to video game developers "balance" different aspects of video games (e.g. The different fighters in fighting games, different races in strategy games, etc.) | Are there certain established theories of game balancing, or is it more trial and error? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh59a2",
"ddh5hzd",
"ddh582c"
],
"text": [
"It's a really complicated topic. Games like Go have been around for a damned long time and are still working on how to properly balance the advantage of being the first person to be able to move. So part of it is trial and error. In more complicated games (especially fighting games, strategy games, anything strongly multiplayer) often developers shoot for some amount of *imbalance* but with the tools available to counter any strength. Think about a game like chess for a moment (which is, for the most part, perfectly balanced). What happens to the strategies, the gameplay? It's rote, it's calculated, it's just a matter of remembering and executing on those strategies rather than coming up with them. The same thing happened with Starcraft. The closer it got to perfect balance the more it became a matter of \"who can more perfectly execute the strategies everyone uses\" rather than \"who can think and play strategically.\" And so we started seeing people winning based on their quicker reflexes and clicking, not on the core engagement of strategy. Many developers now (especially for games like League of Legends, or Hearthstone, or Overwatch) are balanced for imbalance. Some characters *are* more powerful (but only marginally), which creates an incentive for players of the metagame (basically, people who play enough to want to figure out the best way to play/counter other play) to figure out how to beat it. There's a lot more to it in specific elements (balancing for skill, and why the \"noob tube\" in Call of Duty games is actually a great thing for everyone; or balancing using RNG) but generally speaking game developers try to come up with a power curve for their game and then not deviate too much from that. If a gun fires faster, it should have lower damage per shot, and vice-versa. If a gun is slightly off that curve (fires faster than normal for a gun doing its damage/does more damage for a gun firing at that rate) it creates interesting play around countering that; if a gun is *way* off the curve, it becomes an optimal strategy and boring. Look up Extra Credits, they've done a bunch of episodes on the topic. Short answer to your question: it's a little of both, but a lot of it really is more solidified than just trying stuff out.",
"As /u/Byde said. QA. They're assholes. They will fucking ruin your shit. If there's a 20 step process to make something marginally unfair, they will find it, and they will rub your face in it. Then laugh as you try to find some way to make it seem ok. Once you commit your changes to the new build, they will laugh again as they show you that you missed something, and it only take 28 hours of effort to completely break multiplayer. Once you've wiped away the blood, sweat, and tears and QA has to spend more than a week of dedicated effort to make things completely unfun for the new guy dropped into the pit, your game is ready for release.",
"Rarely do designers and programmers get balance even close to right early in development. Months of test plans by QA and good developers who can bury their ego and listen to the testers' bugs and suggestions create a well-balanced game."
],
"score": [
15,
14,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sqpak | What dictates sexual attraction, and why do people have such varying tastes | Also, is it more experience based or more biologically based? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh5tta"
],
"text": [
"Thus far, certain genomes have been identified as being directly correlated to certain sexual preferences; homosexuality, bisexuality. That being said, nurture has also been proven to have an equally profound effect. Basically I'd say that we really don't have a solid answer, it's something that can be argued either way. What we DO know is that sexuality can be depicted on a spectrum, with infinitive different preferences, (think of the infinite number of colours on a colour wheel). Although this is the case, like most things, humans prefer to categorize using ridged, limiting \"boxes\". We tend to polarize and put things into oppositional binaries: black or white, gay or straight, male identity or female identity."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5srbfx | Why do doctors tell us to not eat after we brush our teeth and vice versa? | You'll often hear this after you've gone to the dentist, where he'll tell you to not eat because he cleaned them, and online where they'll say the same thing as the title suggests. Why can't we do that? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh9epr"
],
"text": [
"Basically because we attack the coating on our teeth with acids. If you 'rub' those in the damage done could be much worse. This is After you eat , not before , that doesn't matter."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5srekk | How is it that Wladimir Putin, in contrast to many big western nations, is so successful in keeping Russias middle and lower class 'happy', thus strengthening his position as president? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhaa3h",
"ddhiwrq"
],
"text": [
"* He has carefully orchestrated the Russian media to reflect favorably on his administration. * Within that media he takes on a carefully constructed appearance with lots of photo shoots like [these]( URL_0 ), appealing to the sense he is a strong virtuous leader. Compare that with the images you see of European leaders. * He has spent the past 15 years upgrading and modernizing the military, which fell into disarray under Yeltsin, and standing up to the international community to reassert itself as a superpower, and this is seen to increase Russia's standing in the world.. the people like to see this. * He strongly promotes policies that promote mining, gas, and oil exploration, which are an important part of the economy and act as leverage against Europe and the US, and again that translates to a strong economy and improved world standing. * Many Russians suffered during the 1990s economic decline under Yeltsin, and these years saw a huge consolidation of wealth among a small number of tycoons at the expense of the working class. Many Russians want to see a return to the days of the 1970s Soviet Union, which was a prosperous time for the working class. Putin is viewed as a leader who reins in some of those excesses and takes the country more toward what it used to be with strong leadership. Russia's culture is strongly militaristic and very conservative, much more so than the US, and he pushes all the buttons that appeal to \"traditional\" Russians. Combine that with TV channels that are essentially Fox News on steroids, and it's easy to understand how he has a wide base of support.",
"My friend is Russian, and older too. She told me that after the Cold War the nation was plundered and things got really bad for the average person. No jobs, everything corrupt, basic living very hard. Under Putin he may take from the State, perhaps, but he isn't robbing the place blind. My friend said Putin stop the corruption and the pillaging of the state and made it possible for the average Russian to have a job and go about their normal business. It makes sense. Those people who looted the state just wanted to get their money and get out. Putin actually wants something resembling a state to rule so you can't take out all the money and services."
],
"score": [
72,
21
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.theweek.co.uk/65714/vladimir-putin-at-63-the-macho-russian-president-in-pictures"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srjr9 | If I send a heater into space and turn it on, where does the energy form the heater go? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhb1gg",
"ddhax9u",
"ddhcb4i",
"ddhcpny",
"ddhauaz",
"ddhc26v"
],
"text": [
"Where does the heat from the sun go? You know where. It radiates into space until it hits something (a planet, Dyson sphere etc) and there it is absorbed. Most of it never hits anything. Ever. EDIT: Even our own atmosphere seems to be pretty transparent to the radiation being emitted by the sun. The air around you is warm because it is heated by the earth and oceans, which have absorbed the sun's radiation. That's why it gets colder when you go higher. If you put something black outside of our atmosphere, it will get hot real quick in direct sunlight. The hard vacuum of space has very few atoms. I know that technically they can be moving very fast and so have a \"temperature\", but does that come from being heated by sunlight? I doubt it.",
"Without air the only effective way to transfer heat is [radiative heat]( URL_0 ). If you've ever sat close to a campfire and noticed it felt distinctly cooler when you blocked the light with your hand, that's radiative heat transfer.",
"In addition to the other answers, I'm sure that a lot of the heat would be absorbed by the heater itself, causing it to very quickly overheat and stop working or even melt. Well, [assuming \"stops working\" is allowed]( URL_0 ) :)",
"Some of it is emitted into space as radiation. The rest is absorbed by the heater itself, which eventually overheats and stops working. Getting rid of heat in space is actually quite tricky. The ISS has to have huge external radiators to help it more efficiently get rid of excess heat. Without those, the station would quickly overheat.",
"It goes into space as infrared radiation - which is just another term for light that's below the red end of thr visible spectrum.",
"As heat is radiated into space you deal with something called entropy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and it states roughly that all energy seeks to be equal. As the heat is released it will travel until it hits something, or is just lost due to decay. It's just like water, it wants to everywhere at once, and so will dissipate infinitely trying to do so. The interesting thing is in space you're in a vacuum so there is no medium to carry the heat as on Earth where we are surrounded by a fluid, air. So heat just kind of blasts out like being emitted by a flashlight. Being so it can be blocked and absorbed as light is. Before anybody flames me, yes I understand heat is elctromagnetic light, but 5 year olds won't get that."
],
"score": [
45,
26,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation"
],
[
"https://what-if.xkcd.com/35/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srk1s | How were Eduardo Saverin's shares able to be diluted from 34% to 0.3%? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhcfxv"
],
"text": [
"Let's say the company has three shares. Each share holder owns almost 34%. Two shareholders (ie 66% of company) get together and agree to issue 297 more shares. These shares are distributed 99 shares each to each of two shareholders, and 99 shares to a new investor. So the original shareholders own 33.3%, 33.3% and 0.3% and the new investor gets 33%."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srl31 | How are animals trained to sniff out drugs? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhb5tu"
],
"text": [
"Basically the same way they are taught to sit or roll over Dogs have an incredible sense of smell (like super freakishly good) - the dogs that are selected to become sniffer dogs are selected as ones that show both a strong talent and desire for that sort of work. From that it's just a case of (in ELI5 terms) just repeating a series of tasks and rewarding them when the do it correctly. So they are given a little bundle of drugs to sniff out - if they find the drugs they get a reward, if they don't they get nothing. After a while they learn what the drugs smell like and that finding them will earn them their reward so they do it."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srory | Why do people use carpet in their homes? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhbsqk",
"ddhbuds",
"ddhbrbn",
"ddhfncn",
"ddhf03p",
"ddhcad1"
],
"text": [
"Carpets are soft to walk on, isolates against a cold floor, looks pretty and traps dust that would otherwise make the room dirty. It is much easier to pick up a carpet to clean it once in a while rather then having to go around cleaning dust of everything.",
"Wall-to-wall carpets or all types of carpets? Carpets are great for noise reduction and are often used as decoration. Wall-to-wall carpet is cheap, great as insulation, have high durability, and have easy maintenance. Compared to other flooring like wood. The main reason as to why it got popular in the first place(newer houses dont have wall-to-wall carpets) is the price and the fact that it is so easy to install.",
"Tiled floors are cold, carpets are warm and cosy. I prefer tiled carpet. If you spill something you cant clean, you can replace the tile easily.",
"I've gone from having wall to wall carpet to lovely original wooden floors. A carpet is actually easier to maintain (just vacuum, spot clean if you've spilled something) My wooden floors look lovely, and sure I can sweep them easily enough, but the wax/varnish is wearing off and putting that back on will be difficult! I can see why people swapped to carpets. Edit: can't spell...",
"Carpets are also aesthetically pleasing and immediately lift the appearance of the room. I'm talking about the carpet on a wooden floor in the living room.",
"Insulation, soft floor, warm. It is also cheaper and easier to replace than hardwood. If you have kids dropping toys on the floor, you want carpet and not wood. Tiles are cold."
],
"score": [
11,
10,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srotn | What is intelligence, and what does it mean to call someone stupid? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhbrnb",
"ddhegdw",
"ddhhilp",
"ddhc9m2"
],
"text": [
"This question is difficult to answer because what do you mean by intelligence? Do you mean possession of knowledge? Do you mean justified true beliefs that are actually false? Do you mean intelligence in the sense of being able to take care of yourself? Intelligence you may have acquired in school? Street smarts? Intelligence about a certain subject? You could call someone stupid because you may feel that person doesn't know as much as you do in terms of \"knowledge\", however, everyone you meet knows something that you don't so in a sense, they could call you stupid as well. It's a tricky question.",
"The ability to learn, value, comprehend, and properly apply knowledge, is what I consider intelligence. People don't understand that others may be intelligent in other areas of life. I can diagnose and repair cars, trucks, and airplanes, only because I am knowledgeable in those areas. But I can barely tell anyone about 17th century literature. The people who call others stupid are trying to make themselves seem more intelligent at the expense of others. Beware of people with quick wit, they may seem smarter, but if you slow down and listen, you'll find that they are just as dumb as everyone else. They will also try to steer the conversation into an area that they feel comfortable with. Take them outside of their comfort zone and they will be as lost as anyone else.",
"Hi! I'm a neuroscience PhD student, and I've done some research on individual differences in intelligence. First off, here's a good way to say what intelligence is: As you've pointed out, some people tend to have more of a general knack for a wide range of mental abilities. Generally speaking, people who are good at one type of mental task tend to be good at others. This indicates that there is such a thing as \"general intelligence\", because it suggests that all those different mental abilities have something in common. You are also correct to note that intelligence is associated in particular with how quickly someone picks things up across a variety of different domains of learning. In practice, however, it's important to note that how well someone learns things is heavily influenced by many things besides their innate intelligence. In particular, a person's existing knowledge makes a huge difference in how easily they learn other things in the future.",
"Intelligence is difficult to define succinctly but it is generally related to problem solving ability. As for calling someone stupid ? It generally means the speaker is socially inept. People can be relatively stupid - the bell curve of ability pretty much guarantees that. Calling someone stupid however is simply a sign of immaturity."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srtlg | If humans are omnivores, why do we have to cook food? | Note: This is my question, not my opinion/bias. I have seen this in many vegan arguments, where they'll suggest that humans are not omnivores but herbivores instead. One argument that caught my attention is "If we're omnivores, why do we need to cook meat when other omnivores and carnivores don't have to?". This was a very interesting question and can't stop thinking about it recently. Does it hold up? Is there any truth to it or is it a fallacy of some sort? Thanks. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhcja1",
"ddhcjpc",
"ddhddr7",
"ddhgz3l"
],
"text": [
"The two of them have nothing to do with one another. An omnivore is just something that eats plants and animals. We cook our food due to generational adaptations from evolution. When humans were first starting they used sharp rocks to scavenge, as technology advanced, so did fire. Fire was just a way for the humans to break down their food faster. It allows us to spend less time chewing our food and more time on diversifying the workforce. Humans eat sushi, its meat, its uncooked.",
"Could early humans have survived without cooking food, yes. Does cooking kill bacteria and make the food less dangerous to consume, yes. Have humans now evolved to where we are adapted to eating cooked food, yes. Can humans still eat raw meat, yes.",
"You can eat raw meat, a rare steak is just about killing surface bacteria because the meat isn't straight from the animal.",
"Humans don't *have* to cook meat. We choose to, because we *can* cook meat, and it provides us benefits. Uncooked meat can have diseases and parasites. Other animals are not immune to these. Many, *many*, wild animals are absolutely riddled with parasites and diseases. Cooking helps us avoid being the same way, and so we often choose to do so. Their argument is false on its face. Other omnivores and carnivores *can't* choose to cook meat, and as a result they *do* suffer the ailments we avoid. They don't enjoy some sort of magical immunity."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5srxz9 | If the first moon landing was 46 years ago why does going back there seem too challenging this far into the future... | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhcyvn"
],
"text": [
"It isn't \"too challenging\". There just isn't much point. We know plenty about the moon already and can get more research done by sending up unmanned probes anyway."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ss94t | I'm one of 30 people on a plane capable of holding 150+ people. How does the airline justify the expense to fly us 30 an hour and a half? | Even if we all paid $200 for this leg (Southwest), that's a mere $6k. (And in reality, I paid $250 for the whole trip, this leg included) Is that really enough to cover overhead and fuel or are flights like this loss leaders in "getting people where they need to go"? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddheppt",
"ddhene5"
],
"text": [
"Probably not Airlines do often charge more for less popular routes and they do have to spend less of fuel and wages (they don't need as many flight attendants) on a flight like that. But Airlines work on averages - they don't know beforehand how many tickets they are going to be able to sell on a flight So for that particular route maybe 8 out of 10 flights make a profit and 2 are like yours and don't. But they keep all 10 flights because they don't know which ones will make them money or not - but overall that route averages out to be profitable. But sometimes they will run flights at a loss just for the sake of being able to say that they cover that particular route They also may be making a lot of money on the connecting flights so can afford to have routes that lose a little bit of money because they make it up on other flights Sometimes they also need to shift planes to other locations so they are happy to only have a few passengers because it's still better than flying the plane there empty",
"To add to the other comments, airlines will often overbook a flight where they can, knowing that some people won't show up, so it could be that more seats were paid for than used, or that they cover their costs on another flight."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ss9k5 | What is the primary difference between Julian Assange and Edward Snowden | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhfn7p",
"ddhf8bu",
"ddhmt02",
"ddhien1",
"ddhqzfc"
],
"text": [
"In simplest terms imo, Snowden stole all the info and data himself to inform the public. Assange receives stolen/leaked data and info from other people who have forwarded it him to so he can publish it to inform the public.",
"There are lots of people who support Snowden's actions because he exposed information about unethical (and which many argue illegal) activities of the US government—particularly those involving the NSA and electronic surveillance. Snowden gave this information to responsible journalists who then filtered the information before publishing the key evidence exposing government wrongdoings. The main difference with Assange is that he repeatedly demonstrated that he has a political motive and agenda. He selectively chooses what information to release—targeting specific political adversaries/enemies—and then chooses to release it only when it's advantageous and likely to have the greatest impact (i.e. cause the most amount of controversy and harm to that person's reputation and career). Also, Assange has released a lot of data dumps that are not filtered or only minimally filtered and contain data (e.g. innocuous private emails) that are irrelevant and have no significance.",
"Hey. I am an Air Force 1N3. Do some research if you want to know who I actually work for. Snowden almost completely destroyed the US foreign signals intelligence enterprise by revealing near all of our sources and methods. People for the most part only know about the PRISM debacle. Losing that had almost zero operational effect. This guy did far more than reveal information about metadata collection. He told the Russians and Chinese pretty much everything we were doing to collect signals intelligence. In the words of a certain 4 star general, he \"burnt the house down\". He took our most sensitive secrets and revealed them to our adversaries and caused catastrophic damage to our national security. This man is not a patriot. He is a traitor. His actions in regards to prism were debatable- his turning over wholesale of our entire SIGINT system as well as our partners was treachery plain and simple. Manning/Assange on the other hand caused very little long term damage as everything he spilled was plain SECRET and limited mainly to the tactical level. Aside from making us look bad and possibly putting some assets in danger he did not do much damage. The agency doesn't like to talk about anything to the public and has done a terrible job engaging with the public to educate them on the while Snowden story and tell the people the truth about the extent of his damage.",
"Assange is a journalist, reporting information, whereas Snowden is an insider information, reporting actual data first-hand of criminal activity by a government (USA). No one with any sense or logic finds Assange to be a hindrance to reporting leaking.",
"Jullian Assange shares information nobody is supposed to possess that he is given by others. Edward Snowden shared government secrets from his workplace he was not supposed to share."
],
"score": [
18,
15,
12,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssaqj | If you coated a pane of glass with sunscreen and lay beneath the pane in the sun, would you be protected from the sun? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhflft",
"ddhetqf"
],
"text": [
"Small bit of alternate explanation but most glass would filter out the UV even without the sunscreen.",
"Sunscreen is just paint that only blocks UV. Zinc oxide (the white stuff) used to be a form of sunscreen, and it was also in paint. What you propose would work, though white paint would be more durable. Sunscreen is designed to absorb into your skin, so it probably wouldn't make a good glass coating for very long."
],
"score": [
34,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssc4x | How does DNA in semen work? | When someone is running a DNA test on a semen sample, where does the DNA actually come from? Does the DNA come from the actual sperm cells? Because that raises a bunch of new questions. Like does a man who has had a vasectomy not have any DNA in his semen? And if I remember right, a sperm cell contains only half of the father's DNA. So does each sperm cell have different parts to make up the half? And if so how would they be able to match that DNA to another sperm cell from the same person? If they all have the same half of the father's DNA, how do the same person's kids come out so different? If the DNA in semen doesn't come from the sperm cells themselves, where does it come from? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhf974"
],
"text": [
"> Does the DNA come from the actual sperm cells? Yes. > Like does a man who has had a vasectomy not have any DNA in his semen? Correct, because there are no sperm cells in his semen. > And if I remember right, a sperm cell contains only half of the father's DNA. So does each sperm cell have different parts to make up the half? Yes. > And if so how would they be able to match that DNA to another sperm cell from the same person? Not sure about this, but you could use a statistical approach since they will have DNA segments in common. Another way would be to compare the sperm mitochondria which has its own kind of DNA and would be say from cell to cell. Mostly you would compare the sperm cell DNA to the full DNA of potential suspects to see what is the best match."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ssdfd | if we say an atomic clock is wrong 1 second for every 1 000 000 years, have we actually a better way of measuring time? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhfe7p",
"ddhsfy0",
"ddhmh4r"
],
"text": [
"Yes, two atom clocks. You do not know which one is right but it gives you an indication of how accurate they are.",
"Not necessarily. But if you put ten atomic clocks in a room and come back and check them a year later, you can see if they have drifted apart, and use that to estimate their accuracy over longer periods of time.",
"1 sec/million years is orders of magnitude less accurate than the cesium clock in Boulder. It's something like 1 sec/15 billion years"
],
"score": [
17,
15,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssfuj | Why do humans seem to be the only species that look after their weak populations? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhft68",
"ddhsbw8",
"ddhtrsr"
],
"text": [
"Humans are one of a small minority creatures that exhibit *altruism,* the behavior in which members act for the good of most/all members of the group, not just their own good. This increases our ability to survive, because a group of people is like one giant, ultra-flexible organism.",
"In evolutionary terms, fitness is about how suited you are to the environment, not how physically strong you are. In that sense, someone like Stephen Hawking is not weak. He is a noted scientist, bestselling author, TV personality, and multi-millionaire. The fact he needs the help of others to survive is no different than how a queen of an insect hive needs workers to bring her food. We are fortunate to live in a society where people with serious disabilities can still lead productive and independent lives. That developmentally disabled kid who bags your groceries is quite possibly leading a more independent life at a higher standard of living than their great-grandparents. They might not be the strongest in the herd, if they live in an environment that allows them to flourish, they are not weak, either.",
"Looking after the weak has been documented in many apes, elephants, cetaceans (whales/dolphins), canines and a few other animals. Care for the sick, deformed and injured is not unique to humans."
],
"score": [
19,
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssj7r | Why do people block out license plates in photo posts when plates are seen in the public all the time anyway? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhgd2y",
"ddhltvq",
"ddhmek8",
"ddhkytp",
"ddhlscr",
"ddhi5on",
"ddhlt8m",
"ddhizbm",
"ddhs38w",
"ddhqvk2",
"ddhnb9p",
"ddhr0dv",
"ddhjhpv",
"ddho3tf",
"ddhm0xo",
"ddhpwo5",
"ddhmbzn",
"ddhnum8",
"ddhmibp",
"ddhltz2",
"ddhr2c6",
"ddhn96r",
"ddhrtfi",
"ddhpy3b",
"ddhs1vs",
"ddhpr04"
],
"text": [
"If you could see the plate number in the picture, you could figure out who it is. Same as if you see a text and look up the phone number, you now have the identity of the person who said it. It is a courtesy to hide the identity of the person you took pictures of and protects you from implicating them in something they don't want to be seen doing.",
"Let's put it this way, a reddit user submits two types of content, their car in whatever sub it belongs, and their butthole in whatever sub it belongs. Now lets say their boss or friends or family also browse car subs, or butthole subs, maybe one day they see said car and plate and think \"oh I wonder what else employee/friend/family likes to post about\" Next thing you know you're at a family intervention or being fired because you like to post your butthole all over the internet.",
"The question has mostly shifted to \"How can I get personal information with only a license plate number?\" but I'll try to answer your original question. I'll assume you mean in the US. As far as I can tell, people block personally identifiable information from pictures out of respect for people it would help identify. When you post a picture on the Internet you have to assume it will be available for **all to see** for **all eternity** (an oversimplification but you get the point). And although a situation can seem very innocuous, the fact that a given vehicle can be identified as being at a specific location at even an approximate time can have a huge effect on some people's lives. Governments can use this kind of information to track people. In (civil) court cases this can be used to prove a person's location at a given time - this could be used in divorce cases, for example. Just because it's not extremely easy for the average joe to identify someone from a license plate now does not mean it will not become easy in, say, 10 years time.",
"Faces are seen in public all the time but, for the same reason as license plates, they are blurred out to retain privacy. You cant gain personal information from a face but someone somewhere could recognise who it is. Same with plates.",
"I'm still confused by this also. People always post their vehicles for sale on Facebook (America) and have the plate blocked out. It doesn't make sense to be a privacy thing if you're posting it on your personal Facebook page which gives anybody enough detail about yourself already. Just seems like another monkey see, monkey do type thing.",
"Identifying this information is used to look up people and commit identity fraud combined with other timing and geo-location info. People driving often have no time to do this but passengers do. By law while on the road other drivers must be allowed to see your plate but online there is no such law. If it was the law you could cover your plate people would.",
"Its common courtesy, you may as well ask \"why do we blur peoples faces out on CCTV yet we have our faces on display in public all the time\". The fact is people have a right to privacy. In my opinion; without explicit permission, you shouldn't share anyone's face, license plate, or any other personal details",
"People often hide plates when showing off car modifications that 'may' not be the most legal where the poster comes from... just a thought...",
"One day while in the car with my aunt, we were pulled over on the freeway. About 6 cop cars were behind us, had made all traffic stop 50 yards behind us, and had their guns drawn. When they approached the car, they told us that our car was reported stolen. They hesitantly searched the car, during which they discovered the front and back license plate differed by one letter. Someone had stole my aunts back license plate and replaced it with one that was reported stolen. They presumably put the one they stole on their car. how they found my aunts car I have no idea, but I guarantee you they knew how to find it",
"A few reasons. First off, plates are unique. Even if you don't intend to track someone down, you could confirm if a given car is one in your neighborhood based on the plate. This could be a safety concern if used maliciously. Second, while some government records are restricted, other records are not. For example, if you work for an oil change company you might be able to look up customer info by plugging a plate into your system. Third, since there are government databases, you may be concerned about what they see. If a January 2017 local car blog article talks about your custom car with aftermarket exhaust and you just moved to California, you might have reasonable concerns that California DMV could investigate or fine you even if you've brought the vehicle back into compliance with local regulations. Likewise, if a photo of your car appears in a news article about a local store sit down for criminal activity you'll be concerned that it might be investigated, even if you were parking to enter a different business.",
"I agree with the OP here. All the comments in this one and previous ones provide hypothetical things and ideas. There's no links to actually look up and tie personal information with just a license plate in any of the comments. Please, someone that knows, provide some hard evidence or link to what we can do with a plate number",
"About a year ago I took what I thought was an amusing picture of the parking lot where I work. There were no indications of the company I work for in the shot. We do not have vehicles with our name on them but one of the cars in the picture (the license plate of which was visible) is registered to my company. About 20 minutes after I posted it someone commented with the name of my company. Ever since then, I block out the plates.",
"Privacy. Seeing in public is a less than 30 seconds window if a still image is saved one always has that information. Moreover, some people (criminals) might have someone on the inside working at vehicle registration departments. If a criminal see's a car they wanna steal/parts they need it will be easy for then to get further information about someone based on the plates (address, name, etc. etc.) TL;DR: **Privacy** mate, if you got an ID number or something it's easy to connect that ID to all information (or stalk) the owner/item through databases",
"Be a trailblazer and post your license plate photo. Whether you do or not you will have your answer.",
"Done here to avoid cloning cars. Say you're driving a black ford focus and a pic is shared with the plates. Somebody could Google that car and see that pic then put that number plate n their black focus. It's unlikely to draw attention from cops ( like it would if they saw a plate belonging to a red Mercedes on the focus) and it means the criminal avoids tickets / speeding fines / parking fines. Pretty common to also cover up the plate at car shows for the same reason",
"I work in the news! We tend to use shots of cars in stories about speeding, drivers using their mobile phones etc. Quite often the shots we use while we talk about these stories are just generic shots of traffic, if we left the number plates in then we could be sued for defamation as the number plate is enough to identify the drivers and the shots of their car in a story about speeding implies that they're criminals.",
"I'm thinking if plates were just a simple search away drivers would become much more courteous. Thoughts....",
"Your home address is clearly visible to public too. But you would not want it posted on reddit would you?",
"One example would be if you race your car. Some manufacturers will void your warranty if they find a photo of you at a race event. This includes grassroots stuff like autocross.",
"It is an easy way to associate a screen name with a car id. You can search a person's reddit account for other personal information and use that with the license plate to find them. In day to day life all you really know about a car and license plate you see is what that person looks like. Much harder to track them down.",
"As a former PI in the states, the only way to get personal info from someone's plate is if you have access to the information by being law enforcement or a licensed PI. Then, anyone who accesses the database has to log in their info and all the information they accessed. That way, if the info isn't used for official duties, they can see who accessed it and hold them accountable. So as an average citizen, no, you can not get any personal information.",
"But seeing the plates in person in public is one thing. Having it posted online possible without permission for a lot more people to see is different. Yeah if I saw you plates In person without enough effort into could find your house. Now what if a crazy on the Internet decided they hated you because you didn't have the right hubcaps on your car and then showed up at your house. Sure it's an extremely long odds of that happening but why take the chance when you can obscure that info in seconds these days.",
"I think it has to do with 'sight density' ...In other words, throughout the normal day how many people at one time will see a license plate? Furthermore, even fewer recall it. Compare that to a popular, or even average Reddit post and the 'sight density' has skyrocketed in comparison.",
"One reason is to stop your plates being cloned. A criminal that wanted to make a stolen car look legal can go online and find the numberplate of a genuine identical car, get a set made up and drive around in the stolen car but would appear registered, insured and MOT'd if it triggered a number plate camera.",
"Because people who don't like you could easily file a complaint against your plate #. I know it's normally public, but people don't normally go out of there way to find out that info. Now if I or someone else posts a photo of my car to Facebook, it's much more likely in that moment that somebody (think a crazy ex) may file a complaint (or worse) especially if they are jealous of the car you drive.",
"People are arguing whether or not you can or can't. So here's a more definitive answer. You can get access to databases that private investigators use to perform skip traces on people and find them using license plates. Some industry exclusive databases like IRB requires you to have a PI license which, depending on state, may cost up to $10000 (basically a business licensing fee). But others, like Locate Plus, doesn't as long as they openly advertise that they open their database to non-profit organizations, churches, casinos, universities, real estate agents, etc. Other less intrusive databases like Auto Data Direct has less stringent requirements for access. They'll all obviously require some sort of fee. Obviously, if you do this, that's your problem. I'm not responsible if you go to jail for stalking your ex-girlfriend."
],
"score": [
3314,
185,
101,
90,
24,
24,
21,
20,
14,
13,
11,
10,
10,
9,
7,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssnj5 | How do postal services between two nations work? Since postage is paid in the originating country, who pays for the movement within the destination country? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhpohi",
"ddhhbyc"
],
"text": [
"The destination country essentially delivers the mail for free. At the end of the year, if the mail exchanged between countries was about the same, they call it a wash. Both countries benefit from being able to easily exchange mail, and it is not worth the effort to figure out exactly who owe who what. If there is a large imbalance, like there is between the US and China, the country sending more mail will pay the other one at the end of the year. There is a UN organization that manages this, although some countries come to their own agreements.",
"In theory, roughly equal amounts of post are sent in both directions and it all works out. The money paid in the originating country pays to get that item to the destination country and also to deliver another item which was sent from the destination country. In practice, it won't always balance. Postal services make payments to each other for any significant imbalance in the volume of post sent each way, either based on the number of items or the total weight."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssqni | Why does protesting work? You see massive nationwide protests when there is civil unrest, but why can't the government just ignore it until the protestors give up? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhjc3d",
"ddhhtu1",
"ddhrqs0",
"ddhhy0z",
"ddhi5ua",
"ddi5w0x",
"ddhztrk",
"ddi0bn2",
"ddhtfle",
"ddhzyau",
"ddi4vbn",
"ddixzyu"
],
"text": [
"Protesting isn't about getting the government or entity you are protesting to change because of the protesters. They will always be dismissed as a minority opinion and troublemakers. It is about getting a larger group of constituents (the ones who would never actually go to the protest) interested with the issue. It is about attention and media coverage and creating a groundswell. You hope by having 100 people show up you get 5000 to write their congressman. You hope by staying in place for a month that you get 50,000 to care. In short you hope to influence a larger group, create pressure.",
"The government *can* and often does ignore protesting. Plenty of protests have happened where nothing was done about it. Members of the government sometimes do respond because the (US) government is elected. If you ignore the protests of your constituency, you are risking not getting elected next time around.",
"Not all protests work. It's about the impact they have on the public, more than the entity they protest against. In Milan, in Italy, the public transport company employees were asking for better conditions, to no avail. They organized a strike, which lasted for less than a day, but that was enough. The economy of the city, which is the most important economy in Italy, was struck so hard that the transport company gave in to their demands. There wasn't even need to go on the street shouting, they just didn't show up at work, **none of them**, and the municipality told the company to fix it...",
"depends on the government. in a republic, the gov is supposed to represent the population. obviously a huge portion of the population showed up to protest, so the gov must be doing something wrong. however try to mass protest in a non republic and you could just end up getting arrested or shot. ever hear of Tiananmen Square incident? you get machine guned and rolled over by a tank.",
"Government does ignore protesting many times, or even counters them by using police/military force (as seen in protests around the middle-east and other third-world countries). There are many discussions on whether protests work or not, but this of course depends on the cause claimed by the population and the nature of their government. In general however people protest to show to their leaders (who are often picked by the people themselves, at least in democratic nations) that they are unsatisfied with their decisions. Many people also feel that protesting is at least *trying* to change something, as opposed to not doing nothing and watching the government get away with poor management.",
"As a french I've made my share of demonstrations, a few comments with my french bias (but most of them are generic for democratic countries) - In most of the case the government, the corporation, the whatever don't give a shit about protest. I've read that there is like 1500 demonstration a year in Paris, obviously most of them are 3 hippies asking for piece and free love or 2 nazi asking to deport the ~~jews~~ muslim - Big protests are a place where some people go for the festive aspect, teenager having an excuse to skip school, student going there to smoke pot and ask for the peace, worker bored of the machine wanting to do something else, and demonstration are full of [happy people singing for a better world]( URL_0 ) - Big protest are a place for political activist to do some networking, *you are interested in global warming, that's great we're organizing a conference where African peasant will talk about how the climate change affect them* which let political group hiring new members and spreading their ideas (As I became older during demonstrations I don't buy drugs to a weird punk but books from various think-tanks) - It's a way for parties and union to show their relative strength which is important for the various elections - When you are representing 1 000 000 people who accept to leave their home to go protesting on Sunday morning you have a certain credibility to talk in the medias and can at least get appointment with government officials, sometimes it's possible to negotiate something sometimes nothing, As an elected body you have to think about these 1 000 000 voters - Usually after at most few weeks, the protest stops, worker have to earn money, students have exam to pass. -",
"Protesting disrupts economic activity. Keeping money flowing is what congressmen care about. if traffic can't move around or if people aren't working or shopping, that gets the government's attention. (Ideally, it also gets people more involved in the democratic process etc, but mostly it's about disrupting economic activity) this is a simplification and arguably cynical, but i do think it's the root of successful protests. Incidentally, this is why \"free speech areas\" are bullshit: a protest that's out of the way and invisible is not going to succeed.",
"Your protesting isn't changing anyone's mind. And that's fine, because that's not the point. You are letting people know, your government, and more specifically politicians that have power over this issue that these issues matter to voters. Because people who protest are damn near always voters as well. The more people they see out on the street marching for whatever, the more likely for them to say, wow... All of those votes could be mine if only I would ______. Tl;dr Protesting lets politicians know that stance is a viable position and shows them that voters care about these issues.",
"Occupy wall street was ignore by the government as well as the media. This protest happened for many days by many people but it was ignored like nothing happened. URL_0",
"Why Civil Resistance Works by Erica Chenoweth is a really good dive into the theories of how and why civil resistance is effective, or rather more effective than violent protest.",
"Most protests don't work. The entire concept of \"peaceful protesting\" people use today, where a bunch of people wave signs and avoid disrupting anything is a huge misunderstanding of the civil rights era marches, which were highly disruptive to the economies and infrastructure of their local cities. Even then, those peaceful marches were mainly \"peaceful\" by comparison to the outright violence used by other groups, and the threat of more militiant winds of those civil rights organizations. So, in a sense they were the \"good cop\" in negotiations with the government. You're absolutely right: if a bunch of people just show up, wave signs around, say their slogans and go home, absolutely nothing will get accomplished. At best, you can use the contacts gathered from the people who get involved, their donations, and their baseline committment towards other more useful activities.",
"For the most part, it really doesn't, and that's rarely talked about. We notice when it does, and notice less when it doesn't (which is more often), which through confirmation bias leads us to (wrongly) believe that it's a lot more effective than it is, and more often. In reality, protest of any kind needs to be unusually prominent (usually meaning very large scale) or sustained or widespread to get meaningful attention from anyone who's in any position to effect any actual change that it calls for. Most of the time, it's reported on the news but shrugged off by decision-makers as just a bit of whining (which, let's be honest, is often the case), if they even know about it at all (which they often don't). In terms of energy and time invested to meaningful gain derived, public protest is often the least efficient way possible to get desired results. However, it does have its place, so I'm not knocking it. Just pointing out that as a go-to tactic, it's usually (but not always) misguided. Decision-makers will commonly tune out small-scale protest as fringe-group whinging. Because, as I said, if often is. To get real results, you need at least the implication of a large-scale movement of some kind -- something sufficient to have real democratic effect. Decision-makers aren't doing this because they're assholes who don't care, but because let's face it, humanity as a whole is kind of childish and reactive, and they're trying to deal with it the way parents do. If you jump every single time the two-year-old screams, you'll never get anything done, and the kid will never figure out how to solve things on their own. There must be reasonable balance between what's really called for and what's just someone's bored complaining. College kids, especially, are very good for manufacturing drama. (Anyone tempted to downvote me for saying that, spend a few years living in the shadow of any urban college, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.) There's even a very reliable market built around that well-known effect: Glenn Beck didn't schedule and publicise a book event walking distance from Brown because he was unaware that they'd likely protest it. He was counting on that free marketing, and he got it. None of which is to say that protest is pointless or that decision-makers are all good and decent people. Some protest really does work, and plenty of decision-makers are assholes who need it. But by and large, the majority of protest I've ever seen is cathartic street theatre with little or no productive value, and sometimes the opposite. If the public's not largely already on your side, you can earn a lot of new opposition by blocking roads and irritating people. Historically, public protest was a show of force, demonstrating that large numbers of citizens were ready to Do Something about something they objected to. Before modern times, that had real and immediate political effect because it was, in essence, a possible rehearsal for civil unrest and violence. For the better part of a couple centuries, though, it's pretty much inconceivable that any mass of people could really threaten 'government' in the way that they used to. What *is* true in our time, though -- and wasn't in those earlier times -- is that *very* large-scale protest demonstrates a very real *democratic* threat, and is therefore taken seriously."
],
"score": [
355,
112,
75,
12,
9,
9,
8,
8,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6_7Mbp76jU"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssqtu | What causes alkaline batteries to leak when mixed with other types of batteries? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhtzx5",
"ddhrlov"
],
"text": [
"All batteries of the same size pretty much always put out the same voltage regardless of what they're made of, so I think it may be a case of the other batteries may leak and they just copy-pasted the same safety warning. Those cheap \"Heavy Duty\" batteries you see in dollar stores are I believe Carbon-Zinc or Zinc Chloride batteries, an older, cheaper battery technology that has a lower capacity, and, more importantly, leaks when it is fully discharged. If you mix alkaline cells with these cheaper ones, because their capacity is lower, they will deplete first, but because the alkaline batteries will still have power left, your TV remote might still work, but one of the batteries is rotting it's guts out and is a out to spray acid all over your lap because, of course, you lost the battery cover. Its most likely a warning because if you mix battend types, one type may start leaking when it dies, but you won't be warned by all the batteries running down.",
"Alkaline batteries will eventually leak even when used with identical alkaline batteries. A better question might be \"Why do alkaline batteries sometimes leak?\" (IDK)"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssqzn | How Much More Would Every Americans Have to Contribute to Make Social Security Solvent for Another 100 Years? | We often hear a lot about how Social Security is going to collapse because it is underfunded, and I've never been able to get a simple answer on roughly how much we'd all have to give out of our paychecks to right this ship. I know it's not an exact science, but does anyone have a pretty basic answer? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhhyki"
],
"text": [
"It's not really a question of how much more to contribute it's a question of can the govt stop taking money from it to fund their other projects. Congress would also need to pay back the amount of Money it took from it. Here's an article I found from the Washington times explaining it better than I can. URL_0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/drew-johnson-simple-steps-make-social-security-sol/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ssrop | I always hear about mathematicians and scientists trying and succeeding to find more and more digits of Pi. How are they actually FINDING more digits of a number? | Mathematics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhi458"
],
"text": [
"Usually finding more digits of pi is done as a computing exercise or just for the sake of breaking records; there's little to be learned by just finding more digits. As to how they do it, there are numerous series that sum to pi. The simplest is 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + ... = pi / 4. This sums incredibly slowly, but it's an easy series to compute. An interesting one is the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula which is notable in that it allows you to compute the Nth digit of pi without having to first compute all digits before it. There are other series that converge even faster which are used for generating huge numbers of digits."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sss8k | Why do livestreams always have a small delay but group calls (on skype for example) don't | We can show our screen to everyone who's on the call (on skype) and it doesn't have a delay, then why do livestreams of games, for example, have that delay. Isn't it almost the same thing? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhi738"
],
"text": [
"Well, for starters, a video game stream is sending the data to sometimes *hundreds* of viewers (or more), whereas you're just sending data directly to your Skype contacts. In addition, the Skype video is likely nowhere near as high quality as the video game stream. Also, there often *is* a delay - a slight one - when you're using Skype. You just don't really notice it since it's maybe half a second tops. There are streaming sites out there that do have a much shorter delay than many of the mainstream streaming sites, too."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sstpc | Why does food taste worse when you eat a lot of it at one time? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhtb6b",
"ddhwtz3"
],
"text": [
"It is because of your brains reward system. If you eat the same thing over and over again then the pleasure you feel from the taste diminishes making you switch to another food source.",
"Your body makes food taste \"worse\" as you continuously eat in order to protect you from overeating. Your body does so by creating more leptin (hunger inhibiting hormone) and reducing the production of ghrelin (hunger inducing hormone). It's basically your body's way of following the \"law of diminishing marginal utility\"."
],
"score": [
20,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssvan | Why can't news stations (CNN, NBC, CBS) sue the President for defamation when he calls them fake news or says they don't cover certain stories? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhjeob",
"ddhjbtb",
"ddhs39q",
"ddhn5ak"
],
"text": [
"First, it would be a poor public relations move -- it would make the media look petty and thin-skinned to attempt to sue the President over negative tweets. This would likely damage, rather than help, the media's credibility. This would play directly into the President's strategy of marginalizing and denigrating the media, and thus not be to the media organization's benefit. Second, to win a claim of defamation, the person or organization filing the claim (the plaintiff) has to prove that there has to be some harm or injury done to the plaintiff by the defendant's defamatory statements. That would potentially be difficult for the media to quantify, and, if they did, then again they would be playing into the President's strategy of marginalizing and denigrating the media, painting themselves as having been weakened or harmed by mean tweets.",
"If they were to sue for defamation they would have to be able to prove that the allegations are not true. It would then be a long trial where they would be arguing about every story they have aired where they were wrong or a bit biased. Even if they think they will win such a trial the focus during the trial would be on their mistakes and not the defendants mistakes. So even if they win the trial they are likely to lose their viewers confidence and therefore lose money. This is the problem with suing for defamation. If you sue someone for calling you a whore then the trial will be all about your sex life and the way you behave to see if it is reasonable for the defendant to think you are a whore or not. Not a lot of people want to go though that.",
"In addition to what others have said about such a lawsuit being likely to fail and bring negative publicity to the news station, it would also harm the organization's ability to do its job. Part of a news station's job is to ensure that it has access to important/newsworthy people like political leaders. If a news station sued the president, the president and perhaps other politicians might get upset and refuse to participate in interviews, debates, etc. on that network. Such a lack of access would hurt the news station a lot more than they could gain from a lawsuit.",
"The problem is the \"fake news\" has become a vague term that can describe a variety of reporting, not all of it necessarily \"fake\" as most people would understand it. Some reporting is deliberately fabricated, but most fake news, in my opinion, is more along the lines of deliberately irresponsible journalism. It involves taking any rumor and spinning it into a story that fits your preconceived narrative, without making in effort to verify whether it is true. While it is good that social media outlets and the general public are becoming more aware of fake news, an unfortunate side effect is the term is being applied to legitimate journalism that someone disagrees with. Someone making such an accusation has two legal outs. They can point out that \"fake news\" can simply mean low quality journalism, and they can find past stories where the new outlet was wrong, and say they sometimes do publish \"fake\" news."
],
"score": [
49,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ssxo6 | How can companies say their energy saving light bulbs will last 20 years? | How do they test them as i imagine they haven't been left on for 20 years as that would be impractical and they weren't invented that long ago. e.g. LED bulbs. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhjyvj"
],
"text": [
"LED's have been around since the 1960's. they've been used in all kinds of industrial and commercial applications as instrument signal lights. using LED's as lighting instead of signaling has been around for a decade already in industrial and commercial. it's only recently in past few years that it's reached consumer. as for testing, it's not needed to leave them on for 20 years. you run thru an accelerated test for 30 days, then project the component wear results. if the projected time of failure is beyond 20 something years, that's good enough to say it'll be guaranteed for 20 years."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ssyti | What's the difference between UBI and unemployment/welfare checks? | Aren't they both guaranteed income? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhjwca",
"ddhjpa7",
"ddhjqtl",
"ddhjqos"
],
"text": [
"Unemployment checks require that the receiver actively is looking for a job. It is common to require a certain number of rejection letters each week to get a full payout. Welfare checks often require regular doctors visits and if possible regular treatments to get better. UBI on the other hand does not have any requirements at all. You can even be in full work with a million dollar yearly steady income and still receive UBI on top of that. Of course you do not have to work that much before your taxes is greater then the UBI.",
"UBI is awarded to everyone automatically. No hoops have to be jumped through, no proving you are looking for a job, no proving your job does not pay enough, no proving you are disabled, etc.",
"With unemployment/welfare you only get the money if you don't have a job, and there's usually other conditions like you have to actively be looking for a job, can't have too much money in savings and so on. With UBI you always get the money, even if you have a job or aren't looking for one. The theory is there's no overhead in figuring out who's entitled to what because everyone is entitled to it.",
"Welfare requires you to jump through administrative hoops in order to get the money. Welfare also isn't meant to be a long-term solution, but a means to make ends meet while you search for a new job. The idea of the UBI is to give *everyone* the money, no hassles, no questions asked, and then recoup the money from those who didn't actually need it at tax time. The amounts being thrown around for UBI are also much larger than for welfare (figure $200 per person per month on Welfare, vs. $1000 on UBI)."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ssz9q | If all motion is relative, how can there be an absolute speed limit? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhndgt",
"ddhl1rl",
"ddhm4pc",
"ddhk6n8"
],
"text": [
"In fact, all the counter-intuitive results of relativity theory are a product of your very statement! First of all, the starting point for relativity theory is often worded as 'all motion is relative'. But actually, a better wording would be 'The laws of physics are the same no matter how fast you are moving'. So a physicist here on Earth and an astronaut in a rocket moving away from Earth at 80% of the speed of light can use the same physics to describe how the universe behaves from their point of view, and each can simply assume that they themselves are standing still. If the astronaut's spaceship emits a photon forward, both the physicist and the astronaut will see this photon moving away from them at the speed of light, neatly according to the laws of electromagnetism. Another one of the laws of physics that holds for both the astronaut and the physicist is 'No object can move faster than the speed of light'. But what would happen if I put Lenny in a spaceship going left at 80% of the light speed and Roger in a spaceship going right at 80% of the speed of light? Surely, Lenny would see Roger as moving right at 160% of the speed of light? This is where a bad assumption sneaks in, namely the assumption that because 'motion is relative', we can simply add velocities together. But this assumption is simply wrong. If you go through the math of relativity theory, you'll find that Lenny sees Roger moving right at 97.6% of the speed of light, which is neatly under the light speed limit set by the laws of relativity theory. So, relativistically, 0.8+0.8 = 0.976 (previous example), and 0.8+1 = 1 (photon example). Relativity can be counterintuitive at times :). TLDR: The absolute speed limit is obeyed relative to each possible observer moving at each possible speed. Relativity has complicated math which allows this to work without problems or paradoxes.",
"All motion is relative and yet light speed is the speed limit. This implies that the speed limit is relative too; nothing can move faster than the speed of light from any perspective. In turn those two points implies that the speed of time is relative and different points of view can have different measures of how fast time moves. It also means that distances are relative to the point of view and that different points of view may not agree on if an event is simultaneous or not.",
"Because the time is also relative. When you observe an object going from A to B while you stand still, it's speed is measured relatively to your own speed. And in the object's point of view, the time passes in a slower rate relatively to your own time. Since the traveler's time slows down when the speed goes up, at some point the passing of time would come to a halt. The speed that makes this happen is an universal constant, which we call *speed of light*. Light itself does not have mass. Therefore, it always travel in the maximum possible speed, which is the speed when the time stops. For a light particle (photon) point of view, there's no such thing as time. An observer riding on a photon would see the beginning and the end of the universe at the same time.",
"You might find some of [this]( URL_0 ) discussion interesting, since that's pretty much exactly your question. Really, though, what about motion being relative precludes a maximum speed limit? And really, the main point to take home is that it doesn't really matter how paradoxical *any* of it is, when it's experimentally shown to be the case. Motion *is* relative - it looks the same from my perspective whether you're travelling towards me or I'm travelling towards you, from a physics standpoint - and also, light goes at light speed (and no more or less!) and no matter can go faster than light speed since light speed is the speed of cause and effect."
],
"score": [
52,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192891/if-all-motion-is-relative-how-does-light-have-a-finite-speed"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5st26u | What are the differences between regular operating systems and real time operating systems, and why aren't all operating systems made to be the real time kind? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhllw1",
"ddhohrq",
"ddhkyo4"
],
"text": [
"The key feature of a real time OS is that if a request is made, it **will* complete in X milliseconds or less. Everything else is secondary to that. If the computer is controlling a self-driving car, it is going to read data from sensors several times a second, making adjustments each time. Those adjustments have to be made before the next reading comes in, an unexpected delay means the computer might react too slowly and cause an accident. > why aren't all operating systems made to be the real time kind? Because it is a very limiting requirement. Imagine a pizza place the guaranteed 30 minute delivery, or you get a million dollars. They would have to have dozens of delivery drivers sitting idle, just in case they got a whole much of orders at once. Compare that to a 30 minutes or it is free guarantee, where they can guess how many drivers they need, and occasionally give out a few free pizzas if they are wrong. A real time OS has to have enough resources available for the worse case scenario at every moment. A regular OS can use its resources more efficiently, because taking a few extra seconds to load your browser isn't going to cause a multi-car pile-up during rush hour.",
"/u/kouhoutek really nails it, real-time isn't the good thing it kinda sounds like, it's very limiting. But as a side note, many computer and OS designs let you have your cake and eat it too. For example, inside your cell phone there's the \"true\" OS, which isn't real time and uses a scheduler. And then on a *smaller separate computer* is the OS used for the LTE radio. This one IS real-time, and it shares a chunk of RAM with the main system. This way, you get the benefits of a multi-tasking OS with a scheduler, and the real-time benefits of never missing a radio signal.",
"The main benefit of a real-time operating system is providing a predictable amount of time that it will take to perform a particular task. A regular OS utilizes a buffer to allow dozens or hundreds of processes to run simultaneously but the end result is that the results of how long it takes to process the task isn't consistent. A processor can only process so much no matter the operating system, so it's not real-time in the sense that everything you want to happen just happens when you want it to. Generally they're only used in cases where there is a very high value in having predictable results, such as aerospace controls, and various industrial uses."
],
"score": [
15,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5stets | What's the difference between an Electric Guitar and the ordinary kind? | I know ~nothing about guitars. | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhn7ii"
],
"text": [
"A normal guitar has strings that vibrate at a rate determined by their length and tension. This vibrates air directly but more importantly transfers vibration to the body of the guitar, causing the hollow interior to resonate and vibrate air. Vibrating air is sound. An electric guitar has \"pickups\" which are electromagnetic sensors that detect the movement of the guitar strings. The signal from those sensors is translated into movement of a speaker that produces sound. In an electric guitar the body of the instrument is not relevant to producing sound so it could basically be anything, as long as the length and tension of the strings is maintained."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5stgc6 | Is there a plateau of how energized you can get by caffeine? | In other words, if I keep drinking coffee will I reach a point where I no longer feel an increase of caffeine effects? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhnxqn",
"ddho4v1",
"ddhumz6"
],
"text": [
"Well, yeah, it's called a heart attack. But seriously, it's all relative and personal, as drugs like caffeine affect people differently. Personally, the first cup is a big boost, second in a short period is about half as much, 3rd about half of that. If I've chugged my 4th, I'm mega-boosted but also spending that time jittering on the shitter rage pooping.",
"Caffeine doesn't really give you energy, it just tells your brain that you're not tired when you really are. This is why you crash from it. One part of your brain goes \"hey, I'm tired\" and sends out tired chemicals. Another part of your brain receives those chemicals and goes \"yup, we're tired\" and effects your body accordingly. But caffeine can block the second part and make it think \"nope, actually we're totally awake.\" But all those actual tired chemicals are still hanging around, so when the caffeine wears off, it all hits you at once and you're super tired. You can't just keep going forever on just caffeine, because your body and mind definitely are still exhausted even if you don't feel it. Sleep deprivation will fuck you up. Eventually, you will just straight up collapse, and possibly have other complications depending on how long you were awake and how much caffeine you had.",
"Caffeine isn't energy in that it doesn't have calories by itself. Often it is combined with sugar in drinks. The way I understand caffeine is that it causes your blood vessels to increase in size slightly and raises your heart rate and blood pressure. More blood and hence oxygen is able to reach your brain and muscles. Your heart rate and blood pressure affect how \"awake\" you feel, as both are lower while you sleep and rest. Eventually, your blood pressure and heart rate increases from caffeine aren't going to feel just as \"awake,\" but anxious, jittery, hyper-sensitive, etc. It isn't a plateau but instead a peak that is not sustainable for extended periods of time. Your body, which needs rest in order to function, will override the caffeine with forced rest - you will just nod off. Edit: grammar is hard."
],
"score": [
23,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5stikt | Why Futbol medical staff still use 6 man stretchers and not carts to quickly get on and off the field? | URL_1 instead of URL_0 | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhpwl7"
],
"text": [
"There's people who go to university to learn how to manage the grass at these types of stadiums. They generally don't let vehicles of any sort on the grass at stadiums. It's a major issue for them and they invest a lot of time, energy and money in maintaining it."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5stlgn | How is a country like Saudi Arabia not considered a place that sponsors terrorism by the USA? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhwvk8",
"ddhrkht",
"ddhqqyg",
"ddhz4q2",
"ddhqcnx",
"ddhrk10",
"ddhzlkb"
],
"text": [
"I'm having trouble figuring out why every one of my comments in this thread that simply offers links to instances of the KSA supporting terrorism is being downvoted. I understand why the U.S. doesn't designate them as terrorists. They're strategic allies. But you guys are doing some interesting mental gymnastics to defend who? The Saudi Royals? Islam? Hillary? Obama? Prince Bandar? W. Bush? Trump? I can't even tell anymore. Try to move past whatever your narrative is. The KSA is a brutal dictatorship, oppressive of women's rights, and yes a state-sponsor of international terrorism.",
"The KSA has been pretty arduous about making sure there are no state-ties to any groups considered terrorist by the US. You don't call a *place* a state sponsor of terror, you call a *government*. If we were calling *places* state sponsors of terror, there would be more countries off the list than on it. Those on it would include allies like, obviously the KSA, but also the UK and Germany. And the US itself.",
"They are considered so but it's too expensive to call them out on it. The us and UK make a lot of money through oil and arms deals so will never say anything and if a country like France or Germany did say something like that they could potentially harm relationships with the UK, US and whoever else stands to gain from the Saudis. When they are poor as shit and have little to no european allies then countries will be free to take action. Until then there isn't much point",
"It should be. The problem is Saudi Arabia funds and spreads Wahhabist/Salafist Terrorism (aka Petro-Islam or the \"gold standard\"), leaving little room for less strict interpretations of Islam. You can't have an Islamic Reformation if Petro-Islam is considered the gold standard. From Wikipedia: > **Wahhabism has been accused of being \"a source of global terrorism\"**, inspiring the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and for causing disunity in Muslim communities by labelling Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates (takfir) and justifying their killing. It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts. > **Saudi Arabia funded an estimated \"90% of the expenses of the entire faith [wahhabism]\"**, throughout the Muslim World, according to journalist Dawood al-Shirian. It extended to young and old, from children's madrasas to high-level scholarship. > This spending has done much to overwhelm less strict local interpretations of Islam, according to observers like Dawood al-Shirian and Lee Kuan Yew, and has caused the Saudi interpretation (sometimes called \"petro-Islam\") to be perceived as the correct interpretation – or the \"gold standard\" of Islam – in many Muslims' minds. > The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism",
"politics/history is complicated and there are long standing economic, political, and military ties that would not be good for the US if saudi arabia was suddenly put on the state terrorism list and those ties were cut.",
"John is selling bread, vegetables, and beer to Mike. Mike beats John's little brother, Timmy. Timmy goes crying to John, and says \"Mike beat me!\" John tells Timmy \"I'm sorry, I cannot call out Mike on this, otherwise we will not have anymore money to live.\" The day John starts selling to Mary and Joan, making more money than he makes from Mike, he will probably call out on Mike, and ditch him. Or just wait for the day Mike has no more money...",
"The US and the rest of the planet is fully aware of Saudi Arabia's involvement in spreading Wahhabism. Nobody, including the US, acts against the kingdom because they sit on several trillion dollars worth of crude oil, is home to the two holiest sites in Islam and can wield oil like a weapon and cripple any economy. They're essentially helping the US fight a trade war against Russia by depressing the price of oil."
],
"score": [
162,
121,
38,
12,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5stlwv | If vitamin D is necessary and important and one of the best sources for it is regular exposure to the sun, then why also are we told exposing ourselves to the sun is dangerous? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhow7n",
"ddhovgt"
],
"text": [
"Because both are, annoyingly, true. UV light is a vital component in the body's process that kicks off the production of vitamin D. UV light is also consistently capable of causing cancer to *eventually* pop up (it does take quite a while) in skin cell samples. Ugh, right? Usually the people who end up getting skin cancer are those who *work* outdoors, or those who go tanning like, all the time. The best thing you can do is be sure to get *some* sun, but not go overboard and remember to put on sunblock if you're going to be out for a while.",
"In the long run exposure to a lot of sun raises the risk of skin cancer significantly. It is best to wear Sun Screen during long periods outside. Yes sunlight helps activate the precursors so you have enough vitamin D. People who dwelt in Northern latitudes eventually are fair skinned for this reason. Most people do not get skin cancer. All people die."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sto9j | Why is it a reflex to self-grab a wound? | On the other hand, why do we oppose others touching our wounds? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhpc2k"
],
"text": [
"Holding it together long enough for blood to start scanning it closed, blocking the smell of blood from pervading the air and bringing more threats down, keeping foreign matter from entering the wound, preventing the movement of the skin around the wound, etc. There are lots of positive ends that are served by grabbing a wound, so a reflex to do it would be strongly selected for."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5stw9v | The new discovery of a white dwarf pulsar | Why is this significant and what is a pulsar? Did they just make a term from something unknown to exist just yet? From my quick Google it seems it's just a white dwarf gaining matter from another star? Please correct if I'm wrong :) | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhrd52"
],
"text": [
"\"The beams radiate outwards from the pulsar’s magnetic poles. Think of it like a huge lighthouse in space spinning really fast. Each time the beam hits the atmosphere of the red dwarf, it speeds up electrons there to almost the speed of light. This interaction is what causes the red dwarf’s brightness to flicker. It suggests that the star’s inner workings are dominated by its neighbor’s kinetic energy — an effect which has never been observed before, not even in similar types of binary stars.\" A white dwarf is a relatively small and not very energetic star. Pulsars require a lot of energy, and it's interesting that its kinetic energy is enough to whip up pulsar-level energy from the cast-off mass of its partner star."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5stxnd | The moon is not a planet but a natural satellite ? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhrlun"
],
"text": [
"Planets revolve around the sun. Moons revolve around planets. The moon is a \"natural\" satellite because unlike the satellites we launched into orbit, it got there through natural means."
],
"score": [
20
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5stzu1 | When burning a CD, does a 4x vs a 1x write speed change the quality of the end product? Is there anything different about a 4x vs any other speed other than, speed? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhx220",
"ddhu9h9",
"ddi110g",
"ddi612a"
],
"text": [
"I always thought this harkened back to the old days of CD burning, where buffer underruns occurred frequently. A buffer was created for the data being burned, and if the buffer emptied before the burning process is complete, it would fail. Burning at a slower speed (1x) meant you didn't empty the buffer and cause problems. However if your PC could handle it, you could attempt to burn at faster speeds (4x).",
"The crystalline surface of the CD will turn opaque when hit by the laser at the right power and frequency. That's what makes the 0's and 1's that would be later interpreted as digital data. Depending on the quality and materials used in the CD, the period of time that the laser has to be applied on a fixed spot varies. When each spot requires less exposure to the laser beam, less time would be needed to burn them, thus increasing the average burning speed. It is wrong to assume that slower burns provide better results. Actually, good quality CDs and DVDs *require* more speed (less beam exposure) otherwise the media would get damaged. Ideally the media should be burned at the manufacturer's recommended speed. No more, no less.",
"I worked at a mastering studio for a while where we produced pre-master CD's for mass duplication (this is a step below the \"glass master\" disk) and we always burned them at 1x. The writing mechanism has digital error correction which is applied to the data stream being burned. The faster you send/burn data, the more errors are being processed and corrected midstream. A slower burning speed supposedly cut down on the amount of errors being transmitted and corrected, resulting in higher data fidelity and less digital \"noise,\" dithering, and/or artifacts (noise being \"error corrected data\" not actual audible sound) EDIT: just want add that this was strictly for master quality disks that would be used to reprint large volumes. when it comes to making consumer quality copies or something for your personal consumption, the difference is negligible and undetectable.",
"My car radio can read 4x written CDs but not 16x written ones, so there's definitely a difference in the quality. Slower = fewer write errors, faster = more errors. Normally you shouldn't notice a difference though."
],
"score": [
24,
21,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5su1vc | What is the purpose on limiting the amount of stock trades you can make if you do not have $25000? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhu386",
"ddhu8ep",
"ddhzv8j",
"ddhu9xk"
],
"text": [
"That rule only applies to pattern day traders. The reason is that the SEC thinks that people with more than $25,000 in their brokerage account are experienced traders who know the risks and can absorb the losses. The rule is enforced by the brokerage, and they tend to err on the side of caution. The rule is only supposed to apply to margin account, but they sometimes apply it to cash accounts as well. Again, this is only for day trades, buying and selling a stock in the same day. There is no limit to the number of stocks you can buy or sell on a given day, so long as they weren't purchased and sold on the same day.",
"The SEC's logic for Pattern Day Trader margin accounts, is that day trading is a risky investment strategy, so the higher account minimum allows the trader to better absorb the ups and downs of day trading. It also allows your money to be used instead of the brokerage money after you sell a stock and the money hasn't \"settled\" yet.",
"Its more about ensuring you have the funds to make the trades, and that you aren't using the money from a previous trade that hasn't finalized. The 25000 is an arbitrary number, this number could be higher or lower in the future.",
"Trading fees can get expensive, and the market is volatile/difficult. Until you have a certain amount of money the stock market is more dangerous than advantageous. Also, if you lose everything in the stock market, there's no backstop to insure your losses, so you're out all your money."
],
"score": [
31,
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5su6dg | Rule 19 of the United States Senate and how it pertains to Elizabeth Warren's reading of Correta Scott King's letter | Edit: Coretta* | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhu2zg"
],
"text": [
"Rule 19 includes: > No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. In more plain terms that means Senators aren't allowed to insult each other (the idea is to promote debate of the merits of the argument rather than the merits of the speaker). The Senate has long been a place of very refined debate style (they established many of these rules after there were fist fights and duels threatened on the Senate floor). While society has gotten much less formal, the Senate maintains its traditions. Corretta Scott King wasn't a Senator so speech that would be entirely appropriate for her to use as a private or public figure (ie not libelous) may not be appropriate for a Senator debating on the floor to use (because Senators agree on certain restrictions to their behavior as a condition to enhance the level of debate in their chamber). Since Sen. Sessions is a member of the Senate until he would be confirmed as Attorney General, the rules protecting him from other Senators continue to apply during his confirmation hearings. Further, Sen. Warren is welcome to speak outside of the Senate floor about Sessions in any non-libelous terms she wishes. The Senate's rules only apply to debate in the Senate. In practice, the Senate's rules mean that one merely needs to couch an attack as a compliment. For example: \"[Reality] doesn't stop bombastic arguments, nor should it. I love them myself. I love to see the distinguished senator from Massachusetts get up there and everybody's almost positive he's going to blow a fuse before he's through. He has a right to do that, and I admire him for doing it. I admire the way he supports his special interests. And I love my colleague, as very few in this body do.\" Is one of many examples of an attack that's phrased as a compliment and complies with the rules."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5su7hv | Why are patients put on antibiotics every time they have dental work after they have had a knee replacement? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhu0gh",
"ddhx4o1"
],
"text": [
"your question is oddly specific. How often do you have knee replacement and dental work done? Generally speaking, antibiotics are issues to dental patients that have poor dental hygiene, which puts them at an increased risk for infection. If there is any direct relation to the knee surgery, it is also due to the increased risk of infection.",
"Because when dental care is done bacteria from the mouth are often released into the blood stream for example if your gums bleed then there is a good chance bacteria will get in. Now bacteria that survive can attach to surfaces inside the body like heart valves and implants like knees and form bio-films which can grow and cause local and systemic infections. Bio-films are really hard to kill with antibiotics because they only work on the surface bacteria and don't penetrate into the sheet of bactera. The only real way to get rid of them then is to go back in and replace the implant. So the short answer is to prevent needing to replace implants and prevention of internal infections by killing bactera early before they can attach and form bio-films."
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sugwr | How do we know we aren't in a simulation? What is the science behind the studies and how do we know that science isn't just programming? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhvq3c"
],
"text": [
"This isn't a theory that is currently testable by science; it's more a philosophical issue than a scientific one. As humans, all our perceptions are filtered through our senses as nerves. Per the [Brain in a Vat]( URL_0 ) scenario, we have no objective way of proving that our sensory input is 'real'. As such, science has no real way of attacking the \"Universe is a Simulation\" problem, as any tests we run would, by definition, have to obey the rules of the simulation (aka the laws of physics). If I were designing a simulation and didn't want the AIs I put in it to be able to know its a simulation, I simply wouldn't give them access to the source code."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5suj10 | Power usage by smartphones is progressively growing, but battery capacity stays relatively same. Why? | To clarify the question: we've seen impressive changes in their processing power, display size and resolution. However, there's little to no development of battery cell capacity. Why is that? *Edit*: Thanks everyone for the answers! | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhwalz",
"ddiexzb",
"ddhwfke"
],
"text": [
"Circuits in the phone follow Moore's Law (transistors double every ~18 months). The more transistors a phone has, the more power it uses. Moore's law says that number keeps increasing at an exponential rate. Even with good efficiency technology, that means power usage grows very fast. Battery technology is a more linear scale for many reasons. Most have to do with the difficulty of material technology and energy storage. We haven't yet discovered a set of technology that allows batteries to increase at the same rate as transistors. One thing to note in your statement though is that battery tech isn't staying relatively the same. It's actually improved quite a bit over the last few decades, and especially with the discovery of Lithium Ion technology. It just hasn't kept pace with the power that a computer could draw if it wanted to.",
"Smartphone power consumption isn't really increasing by that much. Newer processors actually have less power consumption despite being more powerful. When new processors come out they can can increase efficiency by shrinking the size of the transistors. (upcoming processors are using the 10nm process, which means the transports have 10nm wide gates) They can also increase efficiency by adding specialized hardware like video decoders and low power background processors. Screen technology is trickier, increased resolution does increase power consumption. But they are also moving to more efficient screen technologies like OLED (additive display, each pixel lights itself) instead of LCD (subtractive display, white backlight and filter to let some colors through). Also, software makes a huge difference. A well optimized device like the Pixel or iPhone will yield much better battery life than phone running on bloated crapware. About more energy dense batteries, how responsible is it to add more chemical energy to a device that already bursts into flames far too often?",
"For smartphones, power is king. People will buy phones because they run fast, because they can play high def videos, etc. So a huge amount of research and development goes into smaller, stronger components to give a device lots of power. And of course, plenty of development goes into other power-using components - screens, sound, etc. But as for battery.... people don't really go nuts for battery life. For a lot of people it's a consideration, but for many, it's pretty secondary. People don't go into a shop asking for the longest-lived phone, they go in looking for the most powerful phone, the highest-def display, etc. So battery consideration is a little lower on the list for most developers - it wouldn't hurt them as much to put a weaker battery in compared to marketing a lower-resolution screen with better battery life, for example. And on top of that, battery capacity is harder to improve than the other components - we're getting really good at making smaller electronics, but batteries are a chemical thing, so it's a different beast to make them small and still hold lots of power."
],
"score": [
15,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.