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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5ww873 | What makes it possible to control a touch screen while lightly hovering your finger over the screen? | I just realised that I was still able to control my phone's touch screen by pressing the screen, and raising it about two millimeter above the screen, so this was quite a surprise to me. Thus I was really curious to understand the phenomena further. I'm case this is not doable under normal conditions, ill precise thst I've been using a S5 neo and eating bugles for a while now before noticing the effect. I'm eager to understand this phenomenon and hear from your thoughts in the comments, thanks in advance for the reading and the answers. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deda2sb"
],
"text": [
"The way most modern touch screens work is the folowing (very simplified): The phones screen creates a magnetic field. Your finger (or basically any conducting object) changes that field when it is inside of it. The screen then calculates where those changes happened and therefor have the position of the touch input. And since the magnetic field is a bit bigger than your screen, you can also change it if you are not directly touching the screen."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wwas4 | Evaporative emission system for cars. | I'm a mechanic, and one of the few things I can never seem to wrap my head around, no matter how many times it's explained to me, is the evaporative emission systems. More specifically, how vacuum works in the fuel tank, how the valves release pressure, and what purge valves even do. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedcd5m"
],
"text": [
"The evap system is for controlling evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons. The gasoline in your tank evaporates just like water off the ground on a sunny day. Unlike water however, the vapors from gasoline are harmful to the environment. So what we like to do with these vapors is capture them and use them. One part of the system is the charcoal canister that captures these fumes for later use by the engine. This is where your purge valve comes into play. When this valve opens it is subjected to engine vacuum created in the air intake and the stored vapors are pulled into the engine to burn along with the other gas."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wwbe1 | What's actually making those ticking noises when your car cools down after being shut off? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedamou",
"dedan0a"
],
"text": [
"A lot of it is because metal likes to expand when it gets hot and contract when it cools down. The borderline microscopic expansion and contraction make lots of little stress points while the material essentially fights itself to either push itself out or pull itself back into shape, and they go \"ping\" and \"tick tick tick\" sometimes when the pressure is suddenly released, kind of like canning jar lids you can press the tab in and out to go \"clack clack clack\" as it flexes. It makes popping and pinging noises while it's warming up, too, but you don't hear those because the engine is running and you're driving. Wood burning stoves, furnaces, pretty much anything with drastic heat cycles will do this, too.",
"The metal cools off and contracts, and it moves during this. All the spots that hold it in place, like screws and bolts hold it via friction, and force slowly builds as it cools. Eventually it overcomes friction and quickly moves. The fast movement is what makes the noise. It's similar to earthquakes, a slow gradual force moving plates, but friction prevents movement at the faults. Eventually it overcomes friction and it moves with an earthquake."
],
"score": [
22,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwbny | What is the immediate protocol for if a U.S. president tries to sieze absolute power? | That's treason, right? I know impeachment is obviously protocol but the process takes time, are there protocols to prevent abuse of power until impeachment proceedings are completed? Is there an agency that has the jurisdiction/authorization to make an arrest? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedabyw",
"dedc0a7",
"dedd7ik"
],
"text": [
"Seizing power in that fashion would require use of force - which requires giving the military illegal orders. Either the military would obey and that's more or less that, or the military would disobey and take the president into custody.",
"The military would be required for such a move and it is sworn to refuse illegal orders such as you propose. It is possible to remove a President if the Cabinet votes he is unfit for duty, but lets assume that they would be in on it because they are hand-picked by the President. Next you have Congress charging the President with treason, which could technically occur fairly quickly. There isn't anything the President can do to \"seize power\" like a golden lever that auto-wins. The actions of Congress are mostly irrelevant in this situation anyway because even if they officially remove the President from office what does that do exactly? It is already the case that the President is leading a subset of the military who are fighting it out within the country; it isn't like a military coup is going to suddenly decide to follow *this* legal procedure. The bulk of the military is going to assault the private military serving the President (however much that is assumed to be, which is realistically almost nobody) and each state is likely to consider this an emergency and call up the National Guard. The Guard is made up of lightly trained locals and will be operating under the command of the local state Governor, defending the state and citizens from what is going on. Even if the President pops up with his private military and goes \"Haha, I'm in charge!\" there would be 1.4 million armed military forces ready to oppose them, even ignoring the rest of the US military proper.",
"The President *can't* do so; it's not within his powers as detailed in the Constitution. He'd have to have both Congress *and* the Courts in his pocket, which is very difficult to do (particularly in the case of the Court system). In such a situation, the SCOTUS would intervene and say \"lol no you can't do that,\" at which point it comes down to individual governmental employees as to whether or not they comply with the Unconstitutional power grab. On paper, Congress would also probably impeach and convict in relatively short order, at which point the President no longer has any authority. Granted, this all relies on the parties involved working as intended, but it's rather difficult because you'd have to get a huge swathe of essentially all governmental agencies to comply with the President. But for the sake of argument; if *all* of that did fail, and the President took power in such a manner, we have the 2nd Amendment, and the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and *both* wars in Afghanistan (and, as more of a stretch, the Revolution that *founded* the nation in the first place), seem to indicate that militia can be particularly effective, even against much larger and more advanced military forces, in irregular armed conflicts. Granted, if *Total* War was on the table, the US military would still win, and win handily, but that would involve absolutely gutting the US military's ability to actually function in the first place. It would have to kill itself in order to win the war."
],
"score": [
9,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wwcbr | How does a police officer prove his radar reading was specifically for your car when there's hundreds of cars whizzing by on a busy highway? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedbcwe",
"dedkpzc",
"dedkq5d"
],
"text": [
"They point it at your car. They can observe you are moving faster than the other traffic and they stop you under their own judgment. In court their judgment is generally considered to be reliable evidence that a particular motorist was behaving incorrectly.",
"Kinda related.....LIDAR guns have a sight on them with a crosshair that show exactly what the gun is pointed at.",
"A radar can be set with a \"gate\" so it only reads the vehicle, say, more than 300 yards and less than 325 yards away. If you are the first car to enter that gate you are the target. Cars coming in later while you're still there cannot be individually measured accurately. The officer learns how to use the radar and that is one of the many options available. There are techniques for almost any situation, coming or going, moving or stopped. (Also laser instead of radar can pick out anyone, anywhere.)"
],
"score": [
21,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwf1e | What powers do the "One Ring" and the Rings of Power give ? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedb62l"
],
"text": [
"The Rings power is not exactly explained in full, that was kind of the point of Tolkein's magic system - magic does really subtle things, and is very \"story\" driven rather than mechanical like a Vancian system (think DnD). In general, the Rings of Power responded to their wielder granting them what they truly desired. For Men this meant extending their lives beyond the norm... though at the cost of spreading their souls so thin they became Wraiths. For Dwarfs it meant aiding them in expanding their hoards of wealth to enourmous degrees... which then attracted Dragons. Elves were able to craft three more powerful versions which helped them preserve their realms and magic, Lothlorien and Rivendell are both products of the Rings, and they don't have an inherent defect. The One Ring exibits this power as well, giving Hobbits (who just wanna be ignored) the power to turn invisible... though this comes at the price of shining like a beacon in the unseen realm where Wraiths and Sauron can see you. The big secret was that all of the Rings made their users vulnerable to mental manipulation which was basically Sauron's main trick. He created the One Ring to focus all of his considerable power into controlling the minds of the ringbearers. Men were corrupted, dwarfs proved immune by being basically clockwork creatures mentally, and the Elves were just too mentally powerful"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwfh4 | why do so many people film cellphone videos in portrait mode? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedbf7p",
"dedes4d",
"dedb5qn",
"deds05z"
],
"text": [
"Because that's how you hold a phone when doing most other things. It doesn't occur to them or they don't care. It's easier to hold a phone one handed especially with how huge phones are these days.",
"1) That's how people hold their phones 2) They're usually filming something that goes up and down, like a person, or a tree, or whatever, and they feel (rightly) that portrait orientation makes the subject fill more of the screen, and landscape just adds useless information on the sides of what they're trying to show. 3) People are usually close to what they're filming, so turning the phone on its side gives less framing, top to bottom, and they feel like they're cropped in too far, and don't want to step back 4) They consume videos on their phones mostly, and feel that most other people do too, so if they (and others) are going to view the video in portrait orientation, they should film it that way. I remember back to the days when dumb people were resistant to widescreen movies because \"They add stupid black bars to the top and bottom and you lose a bunch of picture\". It's like that.",
"If they are trying to be stealthy it makes sense, most people don't hold their phone sideways unless they are taking a video.",
"I just plain forget to turn it sometimes. Portrait mode is how I hold my phone for everything else, sometimes I just forget I have to flip it the other way. When I realize I've recorded in portrait mode, I get annoyed with myself."
],
"score": [
11,
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwfr0 | why do you get a bruise when something is "suctioned" onto you? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedbmd1"
],
"text": [
"Bruises are caused when tiny blood capillaries are ripped and the blood leaks out under the skin. They can be ripped by an impact or, in the case you mention, when a vacuum is applied. The vacuum removes the air pressure that normally squeezes in on your body all the time. Your blood vessel pressure remains the same, and that's too much for the capillaries to contain without the air pressure squeezing them. A few of them break, and blood leaks out to form a bruise."
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwlpv | Could a very steamy shower and closed door cause a person to asphyxiate from too much steam and too little oxygen (being pushed aside by the steam)? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedclzp",
"dedclv5",
"dedgfr0"
],
"text": [
"Nope. Water vapor occupies space between gaseous molecules like carbon dioxide and oxogyen. You could have an area of 100%water vapor if it occupied a space that didn't have any other gasses in it before but if not the gasses would mix almost evenly.",
"Quite simply, no. The human lung has evolved to operate successfully in even the wettest air environment. The steam pushes aside only a small percentage of the air & oxygen; you still get plenty.",
"Water dissolves in air, the same way that sugar dissolves in water. The sugar can never push out the water, until the non-dissolved portion starts to occupy the space. in your scenario, this would mean that water is flooding the room and not just steam."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwlrr | Why mobile banking apps are so far behind in functionality compared to internet banking. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedcmh7"
],
"text": [
"They don't need to be. Most mobile banking apps are capable of doing 90% of what you need to do for online banking - you can check your balance, transfer funds, deposit a check, pay a bill, etc. The more complex functionality, like opening a new account or applying for a loan, is done very rarely and requires more input, so it makes sense to put those on the website only."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwovn | When launching a space satellite, how do they keep it in orbit, rather than just shooting it straight out away from earth | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedcznh",
"dedd1jm"
],
"text": [
"[Newton's Cannonball]( URL_0 ) > Newton visualizes a cannon on top of a very high mountain. If there were no forces of gravitation or air resistance, the cannonball should follow a straight line away from Earth, in the direction that it was fired. If a gravitational force acts on the cannonball, it will follow a different path depending on its initial velocity. > If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth (A/B). If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude, it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit, just like the Moon (C) > If the speed is higher than the orbital velocity, but not high enough to leave Earth altogether (lower than the escape velocity), it will continue revolving around Earth along an elliptical orbit (D) > If the speed is very high, it will leave Earth (E)",
"Rockets taking things into orbit go straight up (relative to the surface) and then turn sideways. They give the satellite so much \"sideways\" (again, relative to the surface) momentum that, as Earth's gravity pulls the satellite back down, it continuously misses and, instead, falls around the Earth. That is, it goes into orbit. Most of a rocket's fuel is spent achieving that \"sideways\" momentum rather than on just going straight up."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cannonball"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwqcj | How was it decided that clocks move "clockwise"? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deddjj9"
],
"text": [
"The way the shadow moves on sundials in the northern hemisphere. That's really all there is to it. People were used to reading sundials, so when clocks were invented, it was a natural choice for the hands to move in the same direction as the sun's shadow."
],
"score": [
53
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wwr0d | Math: In Poker, when trying to evaluate how likely it is that you will make the best hand by the river, it's assumed that the cards that'll make your winning hand are still in the deck, when they could have actually been dealt and folded already. Why is this? | Explanation of the Problem: In Poker it's assumed that if you have an open ended straight draw for example - let's say you hold 5 and 6 and the Board is J 7 8, with 2 cards to come. So now you need either the 9 or the 4 to make the best hand and you can calculate your chance of doing so by taking the number of outs (the cards that make your winning hand) and multiplying this number with the number of cards to come. Since there are 4 Nines and 4 Fours that we don't see in the Deck, we have 8 outs. So 8 x 4 = 24. It's about 24% chance that we make the best Hand by the River. But why is this calculation assuming that our Outs are still in the Deck? Wouldn't it be 'safer' to assume they might have been dealt and mucked, so that you take your number of outs and substract the cards dealt to the other players from that, or something like that? | Mathematics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deddy0m",
"dedjidx",
"deddn6a",
"dedefx3",
"dedej7p"
],
"text": [
"When drawing a card the odds that it will be any one particular card are 1 in 52. The odds that it will be **somewhere else** are 51 in 52 - that somewhere else could be still in the deck, mucked or in someone else's hand. Where that card is doesn't change the statistical odds. Excepting of course that the odds reduce based on the number of cards you can actually see (so if you can see your two cards and 2 already on the river the odds are reduced to 1 in 48) But you still don't know where the other cards are going to be - they could be anywhere and the odds of them being in any particular place are still the same. You can of course guess based on what you **think** the other players have been dealt. But it would only be a guess. How good of a guess it will be it what separates good poker players from the rest of us.",
"When figuring the total remaining cards in the deck, you only subtract the cards you can see...your hand, your opponents up cards, and the visible community cards. Let take your example, and assume it is Texas Hold 'em (no up cards), with six players. We can group the cards as: * seen - 5 (your hole cards + the flop) * dealt but unseen - 10 (5 x 2 hole cards) * undealt - 37 (52 - 15) Since you have 8 outs, the chance of hitting on the first card is 8 in 47, and on the second 8 in 46, which is a little better than 1 in 3. Why did we us 47 and not take into account the dealt cards. Well, we actually did. It is possible all the outs were dealt, and you actually have a 0% chance of hitting. It is also possible they are all still in the deck, and you have a 8/37 + 8/36, or a little over 2 in 5 chance to hit. You don't know which situation you are facing, you use the odds that consider all possibilities, which is what the first calculation does. Here is another way of looking at it. Imagine you are playing alone, and before playing the river card, the dealer discards 10 cards. In term of probability, that is the exact same situation as dealing 10 cards you can't see beforehand.",
"Because you don't know what's been dealt and folded so you have no way of knowing what those cards are to factor them in.",
"If we burn a card, what value is that card? It has the same probability of being any card in that deck. Even if it's one of our outs, we don't know that. What of we burn the whole deck and leave one card to deal? What is the value of that card? It has the same probability of being any card in that deck, because we don't know what cards were eliminated. So we cannot discount that our remaining card could be any card. So the probabilities are always the same for each card regardless of where they go.",
"Lets break the odds down to easier to digest numbers and see what happens. Lets say we have 10 cards (A - 10 of hearts) and we want to know the odds of pulling a 5 of hearts on a single card deal. The odds of that are 1 in 10. Now if I deal a card to Bob as well as you, and then with out looking you both discard the card and draw a new card. The odds are still the same, a 1 in 10 chance of you having the card. You just are randomizing which card you are choosing. The only way to change the odds is to increase the knowledge or the sampling size. In your poker problem, you are able to increase the knowledge by the amount of cards on the table, and the amount in your hand. The rest are unknown, so they for all purposes must be part of the statistical cards, even the ones discarded."
],
"score": [
9,
9,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wx0wp | Why do businesses always form in Delaware | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedfzl1",
"dedgali"
],
"text": [
"Delaware has both favorable laws for corporations _and_ very well established case law regarding corporations. It benefits a company to be based in Delaware both because of the favorable laws and because, if you are sued or engaged in other legal activity, you are able to predict with high accuracy how those lawsuits will play out.",
"Taxes. Delaware does not have a state corporate income tax for corporations that are based in Delaware but do no business in the state. Basically, if you operate your business entirely in, say, Iowa (the state with the highest state corporate income tax), but put your corporate headquarters in Delaware, you don't have to pay any corporate income tax. There are other tax laws in Delaware that make it very attractive to corporations, but that's the big one. They also have other laws favorable to business. They have a special court system set up for business law. This court hears all cases brought by shareholders against companies. This court also does not use juries, so all decisions are made my the judges who sit on this court. This court tends to give MUCH more favorable rulings to businesses than jury-based courts around the country."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wx2mm | Why are darker colors "dominant" genes whereas lighter colors are "recessive"? | Mainly, it feels a little like a chicken/egg question to me - are they dominant because they show up more? Or do they show up more because they're dominant? And what happens at the cell level for that to happen? Thank you! :) | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedicym",
"dedl8nn",
"dedn6nb",
"dee7sue"
],
"text": [
"Darkness in humans ([skin color]( URL_2 ), [hair color]( URL_3 )) is tied to [melanin]( URL_0 ). All shades of skin and hair color is based on the type and amount of melanin production. Producing melanin was very advantageous early in human development as it protected us from [UV radiation and folate depletion]( URL_6 ). As we migrated into lower sunlight environments (away from equator), having lighter skin color started to become more advantageous. It allowed for vitamin D synthesis which is [critical for a variety of reasons]( URL_5 ). To decrease the amount of melanin in the skin, one of two genes mutated. One for the [European and one for Asian lineages]( URL_4 ). Lighter skin tones are based off inhibiting/lowering melanin production. And then you have soulless gingers like I am. We barely produce melanin, but produce pheomelanin, the substance that colors all the [fun parts of the body]( URL_0 #Pheomelanin) SFW.",
"Skin color genes don't really operate on a dominant/recessive scale. Very few things do. There are many that code for skin color, and a pale person needs to have all couple dozen of them code for not producing much melanin. Biracial people exist because the genes aren't dominant or recessive. If they were anyone with a dark skinned parent would be just as dark as them instead of having the skin color that the various pale coding and dark coding genes add up to.",
"Dominance and recessiveness are much more complicated than most people realize. First, darker colors are not always dominant, far from it actually, but they are dominant at higher rates than others, and there's a reason for that. Our genetic traits are the result of the expression of genes (IE transcription of RNA that codes for specific proteins/enzymes), because this is the process that ultimately results in phenotypes, the molecular properties of of these gene products can influence what phenotype we ultimately \"see\". If one of your matched chromosomes codes for, say, a light colored hair pigment, while the other codes for a dark colored pigment, simply because dark colors cover up light ones, the darker color would be \"dominant\". This is merely one instance in a sea of various special cases and genetic properties, but it should give you an idea",
"Biologist here Dominance and recessive have absolutely _nothing_ to do with how common a gene is in a population. It also has nothing to do with how evolutionary beneficial a gene is. For example, polydactyly (extra toes) is a dominant trait in cats, but is still quite rare. So dominant _genes_ don't necessarily show up more. So what makes a gene dominant? Well, you get two copies of a gene, one from each parent. We call these copies \"alleles\". If a particular allele is dominant, you only need one copy or it to produce the result. I'll do a specific example with albinism to explain one common reason why this happens. So you've got two types, dark colored and albino. Dark colored is dominant over albino. But what does this mean on a genetic level? If you have two of the dominant allele (remember, everybody has two, one from each parent) \"DD\", you are dark. If you have two recessive \"dd\", you are albino. And if you have one of each \"Dd\", you are dark and look exactly like a DD. That's what dominance means and that's all it means: if you have only one copy of the dominant allele, that trait looks exactly like the trait in someone with two copies. So why does this happen? Well, a gene is just an instruction telling the cell how to do something. For dark-vs-albino (and some other similar traits) the \"D\" dominant allele is a working instruction for producing melanin, a black pigment. The \"d\" allele has an error in it that means the instruction doesn't work. A pigment cell with DD reads the working instructions from the gene and makes melanin until it has the desired amount. A pigment cell with dd reads the nonworking instructions and can't make melanin, resulting in a pale cell. But a pigment cell with Dd reads both working and nonworking instructions. You might expect this to lead to an intermediate state with _half_ the right amount of melanin...but it doesn't. Why not? Well, the cell wants a certain amount of melanin, and it keeps making it until it has the right amount. It just reads the working instructions twice as much until it reaches that amount. Another way that dominance and recessive can happen is like this: Say your cell needs to build a wall out of tiny bricks. The dominant allele \"B\" is broken, it is an instruction for making spherical bricks. The recessive gene \"b\" is a working gene that makes nice square bricks. If you've got \"bb\" your cell makes a nice wall out of nice square bricks. If you've got BB your cell can't build a wall at all because you can't build a wall out of a bunch of spheres. If you've got Bb, you _also_ have a cell that can't build a wall, because it's churning out 50% spheres and 50% square bricks, and you can't build a wall out of that either...the whole thing collapses just as if it was 100% spheres. So in that case \"no wall\" is dominant over \"wall\" because BB and Bb both produce \"no wall\". Of course cells don't actually make walls out of bricks, but they do make things out of proteins and the same sort of issues can arise that way."
],
"score": [
21,
6,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Pheomelanin",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Genetics_of_skin_color_variation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hair_color#Genetics_and_biochemistry_of_hair_color",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Light_skin",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin#Advantages_of_light_skin_pigmentation_in_low_sunlight_environments",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_skin#Advantages_of_dark_skin_pigmentation_in_high_sunlight_environments"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wx67m | Is it possible for a nuclear bomb to ignite the atmosphere on fire? If not, why did physicists think it was possible? If so, how? | I've heard multiple times through the years that scientists working on the Manhattan Project were legitimately concerned the first atomic bombs could destroy the world by lighting the atmosphere on fire. Obviously it never happened, so is it still a legitimate concern that a freak occurrence like this could happen? If not, why did they think it was a possibility back then? If so, how exactly do they expect it could happen? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedhezs"
],
"text": [
"> Obviously it never happened, so is it still a legitimate concern that a freak occurrence like this could happen? No, the idea was sparked by the realization of nuclear fusion of hydrogen. The ocean or perhaps even the atmosphere might set off a self-propagating fusion reaction. Of course it can't but they needed to run the math to know that, and doing so wasn't the easiest of things so the idea could be kicked around a bit before being dismissed."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wx6g9 | How do night contacts work? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedhpxe"
],
"text": [
"My understanding is they reshape the eye. The degree of how concave or convex the lens of the eye causes near sightedness or far sightedness. Sleep contacts temporarily shape your eyes back to neutral."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wx7bi | Other than admission fee and parking, how do zoos make money? | Do they receive lots of donations or grants? Sponsorship? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedvb3k"
],
"text": [
"I've seen fundraising black tie dinners for $100 a plate for zoos, and here we have colorful giant fiberglass penguins all over the city that I believe raised the money to make a new penguin habitat. Local businesses bought them to attract customers. Google \"Tulsa penguins\". I've also seen memorial bricks where you get a brick engraved and put in a wall or floor in the zoo. Memberships too. Tulsa won America's favorite zoo and got a grant from Microsoft (zoo tycoon promotion). Personally I think Oklahoma city has a better zoo, but there's more $ and civic minded people here so they won the email campaign to get their members to vote. In short, creative hustling."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wxgaj | How does coffee work? | Why exactly does coffee make me feel more awake than before drinking it? I know there's caffeine in there, but what does it do? Thanks. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedkb4l"
],
"text": [
"One of the main ways that caffeine works is by blocking a chemical called adenosine. Adenosine is produced naturally by some of the body's energy-creating processes, and when it hits the nervous system, it sends your body a message \"Get some rest.\" Which is one of the reasons you feel tired after working, exercising, etc. Caffeine blocks adenosine from getting to your nervous system receptors, so your body never actually gets that sleepy message. It also stimulates your organs to work faster and harder - which is one of the reasons you often have to go to the bathroom after a few cups. So it blocks the sleepy receptors and speeds up a lot of your body... all of that combines to make you awake and active."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wxghu | How does Google manage to parse every page on it's database and show our search results on them in miliseconds? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedl8hc"
],
"text": [
"In fact they already have parsed all pages in the planet and created a database of relevant words and how these words relate to the pages. By doing that they have created a rank by words and what pages to show. Then they measure the distance between words and incorporate that in the rank. For example: a page talking about \"water bottle\" and another talking about \"water gallons per bottle\" both contain the words \"water\" and \"bottle\" but in the second case the words are more distant and will produce a different rank if that search is done. Another think that is incorporated in the page rank is the number of links of important pages to a given page and what words are used to link. A link \"water bottle\" that links to a page, will increase the rank of that page, if the link is from a trustable source. To make things fast they have millions of computers spread worldwide, so the results come fast."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wxh56 | How can siri or any other voice recognition software tell the difference when someone says your or you're, or its and it's? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedjr61"
],
"text": [
"It determines it by context. If you just said that single word it would just have to pick one or the other, but as you add more information it can make a determination which is more likely. If you watch siri you can actually see it do this in real time. It will put a first guess for the word, but as you continue to talk prior words will change given new information."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wxkd8 | Why are political views and parties called left/right wing? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedksdp",
"dedkpw6"
],
"text": [
"This goes back to the French Revolution. Before the revolution, members from different classes would very occasionally meet when called by the king to advise him. The assembly of the different classes (also known as estates) was called the *Estates General*. The king called a meeting of the Estates General shortly before the revolution. Those who were generally opposed to the monarchy and supported revolution sat on the left, while the more conservative monarchists sat on the right. This seating arrangement continued when part of the Estates General declared themselves the National Assembly and started the revolution. Ever since then the left has been associated with liberal policies and the right with conservative ones.",
"Because after the French Revolution the conservatives (people who wanted France to remain the same) sat on the *right* side of the Parliament House thing, and the liberals (people who wanted change) sat on the left side. They hated each other, so they sat on opposing sides. That is why republicans/ conservatives, even while having generally different views from the 1700s are called conservative/right. TL;DR: it's because it's where that sat after the French rev. Right= conservative, left = liberal"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wxo2g | Why do some people grind their teeth at night? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedr0f4",
"dedxxz2",
"deekl6q"
],
"text": [
"I grind my teeth when I'm stressed, during my GCSEs at high school my mum and dad split up as he was having an affair and it got so bad my jaw would lock and I couldn't eat, ended up going to the ENT specialist with an emergency referral from my doctor, turns out I have over developed jaw muscles from it. I've done it since I was about 5, living in a 3 bedroom house with 4 siblings, one who was sexually abusive was difficult for little me, and I didn't sleep much because my sisters would complain about me grinding my teeth.",
"My tooth grinding is bad enough that I have to wear a brux guard when I sleep. There are many causes attributed to tooth grinding, ranging from stress to lack of exercise to overuse of substances like tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol. It has also been posited that a partial blockage of the airway while sleeping is the cause, and that bruxism helps open the partially-blocked airway.",
"My girlfriend used to suffer from depression due to a number of horrible things that happened to her growing up and then in adulthood. I believe this contributed greatly to her forming teeth grinding in her sleep as a habit. Since she has been in a relationship with me, the teeth grinding has slowely been reduced. Occasionally when she is stressed due to whatever, she will grind her teeth and it wakes me up. I rub her tummy, back, arm, etc if it does not stop right away. It seems to relax her and she stops grinding. I've told her I do this and she thought it was the weirdest thing ever. But she told me to keep doing it if it helps her stop grinding her teeth. Hope this sheds some light on the situation."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wxo6z | Somalia has a GDP of around $6 Billion, Bill Gates has a net worth of roughly $86 Billion. What stops the mega wealthy from just moving to an impoverished country and literally buying it to become a monarch? | I tried posting this in AskReddit but people were more interested in flaming me for asking a "Dumb" question than actually answering anything. A few clarifications: I understand that it is not legal / possible to actually "buy" a country. Their constitution's would prevent it. But surely someone who was that wealthy could buy up enough of the land / resources / businesses to kind of force/bribe their way into leadership and take control? What stops someone who's mega wealthy from going into a country and paying their military more than their current government is to take control? People are motivated mostly by money after all right? IE: Why fight and die for a country thats paying you x$ every week when someone else is offering you 2x$ to just not fight anymore. | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedlh9o",
"dedlpvb"
],
"text": [
"GDP is Gross Domestic Product. That's how much revenue the country PRODUCES, not how much the country is worth. Just because a company for instance makes $1 mil a year in revenue does not mean it's worth 1 year's revenue.",
"Wealthy capitalists have tried to buy control of large amounts of land and resources from poorer countries in the past. They usually weren't interested in governing, so it's not exactly the same, but it's pretty close. Often what happens is those countries then nationalize that land or those resources (i.e. let the central government take control of it) and the capitalists get kicked out. Money can only take you so far when people with guns show up. To get more specific about Somalia, let's say Bill Gates found willing sellers for half of the land in the country. What's he going to do with it now? It's not particularly productive land as shown by the GDP. Bill Gates also has to follow Somalian law, so he can't just do whatever he wants with the land. If he starts doing things that piss the people or government off enough, they may take the land back by force. He could hire a private army, I suppose, but that would start creating an international incident."
],
"score": [
14,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wxqc3 | How/why are feelings of sadness and anger connected? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedpkmi"
],
"text": [
"Anger is considered a \"secondary emotion.\" Meaning that we feel another feeling first. This feeling is usually fear or sadness. By getting mad, we are able to protect ourselves from the people or situation that causes our sadness or fear. We can then deal with this feeling of sadness or fear later when we are no longer is emotional or physical danger."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wxrrr | What actually happens to the mobile phone networks/cell service when there is a large scale emergency or disaster? What do the networks do? | I've read that mobile networks possibly allow calls to be free, or turn certain service or features off so there isn't any unnecessary strain on the network in the event of large disasters etc. What's the deal? Edit: Sorry about the whole flair thing guys, I'm on the Reddit app & don't know how to do it. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedn3zv"
],
"text": [
"Its been a while since I worked in telecomm infrastructure but I'll take a stab. > I've read that mobile networks possibly allow calls to be free You're talking about the rule that says all cell networks have to allow emergency 911 calls to any mobile subscriber regardless of plan status. Yes, even if you don't have a SIM card you can make a 911 call. > or turn certain service or features off so there isn't any unnecessary strain on the network in the event of large disasters etc. If a 911 call is made and the network is already at capacity, then the network will start dropping other calls to ensure the emergency call goes through. Obviously in an exceptional case like 9/11, the cell towers around the WTC and the Pentagon I'm sure were stressed. When you make a 911 call with your cell, it starts to channel battery into boosting your signal and ensuring talk time (so good buy Instragram app). Since they work \"similarly\" to cell networks, the emergency responder radio networks can be adjusted in real time. The \"cell\" or repeater for downtown Manhattan FD/PD/EMS was on top of the WTC. However some vehicles carry mobile repeaters to provide coverage. The radio vendor (Motorola) had an emergency infrastructure truck on site in a few hours to provide missing coverage downtown. The groups/teams/platoons of radio subscribers can be regrouped on the fly as needed, or networks of radios can be merged - this is what happened in DC, when you had emergency vehicles from 3 different counties responding; the radio networks were reconfigured to allow intercommunication."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wxtmg | How do We Remember? | Like a computer can store information in the form of a specific set of 1s and 0s. Does our brain do something similar, or how does it all get recalled into a memory? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedy3qj"
],
"text": [
"When you experience something, neurons in your brain fire. That is a disgustingly simplified explanation but it'll do for now. Anyway your neurons fire chemicals called neurotransmitters, and these neurotransmitters bind to receptors on nearby neurons to create a signal. When an event happens that is stored as a memory your brain strengthens the connectivity of specific neurons. When you remember something it is because the event was stored as complex chemical/electrical signals found in complex neuronal networks in your brain."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wxuvz | How do we have "...94 million Americans out of the labor force"? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedna07",
"dedn5bp"
],
"text": [
"This number is technically true (which might a first for Trump) but nonetheless misleading. The 94 million statistic includes retirees, full-time students, full-time parents, and the disabled. In other words, he is counting everyone who doesn't work... Including the ones who don't want to or can't. This is not the same thing as talking about people who are attempting to find employment but cannot. The number of genuinely unemployed people is around 7.4 million. URL_0",
"Unemployment does not refer to the number of people not working and this is a common source of confusion and debate. URL_0 > People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities: > Contacting: > An employer directly or having a job interview > A public or private employment agency > Friends or relatives > A school or university employment center > Submitting resumes or filling out applications > Placing or answering job advertisements > Checking union or professional registers > Some other means of active job search"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://fortune.com/2017/02/28/trump-congress-address-misleading-labor-force/"
],
[
"https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wxzz3 | Why are TnT and Nithroglicerin explosive while toluene and glycerol are stable and what makes them explosive | I was wondering why do these compounds produce such powerful exothermic reactions as opposed to other substances. | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedoxzy"
],
"text": [
"The key part of the molecules are nitro compounds. Those are two or three oxygen atoms bound to a nitrogen atom, which you can see quite well in [TNT]( URL_1 ) and [Nitroglycerin]( URL_0 ). These can split into nitrogen and oxygen under stress or heat. This oxygen can then react with carbon and hydrogen atoms in the molecule. So whenever you have a molecule with a lot of these nitro compounds, chances are good that it's highly flammable or explosive."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zGp_cZHNuZk/TWq1OJqrehI/AAAAAAAAAAc/jPaBG9OGUq4/s320/NG%2Bdash.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Trinitrotoluene.svg/1000px-Trinitrotoluene.svg.png"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wy2m5 | Why are roof shingles so small? | It doesn't seem to make much sense that a surface that you want to be impermeable to have so many seams. Wouldn't several large shingles be better than hundreds of small shingles? I can see how the smaller ones are easier to work with and have more aesthetic appeal but then I would expect to see some alternative roofing options that offer a larger tile if there wasn't another reason for many small tiles. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedpkv1"
],
"text": [
"A larger tile is going to be subject to a lot more force from wind. It would need to be thicker to avoid breaking if wind gets under it. It also takes more to hold it in place. When it does get damaged, it's more expensive to replace a large tile than a small one."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wy7d7 | Why is it so much easier taking two steps at a time going up a stairwell, but so much more difficult (and scary) doing the same down a stairwell? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedqx0g",
"dedzqvd",
"dedsngv"
],
"text": [
"Because if you fall forward while going up the stairs you're only going to fall a short distance before you hit the steps in front of you and risk of injury is quite low. This gives you more confidence in your movement and allows you to move quicker and with more agility. If you fall forward while going down the stairs you're going to fall a long way and potentially hurt yourself badly, your brain recognises this risk and pays extra attention to your balance and movement rather than speed.",
"When going up a stairwell and taking 2 steps at a time, you can put your foot on the next step without moving your center of gravity much or at all. You can place your left foot while still standing normally on your right foot, completely balanced. When going down a flight of stairs, this is harder to do. You have to balance on a bent leg with your center of gravity off-centre. URL_0",
"You are extending your center of mass further forward when you skip a step. This means you're leaning into the staircase when going up and leaning away from the staircase when going down. A person's eyes are fixed more or less straight ahead when going upstairs (people don't often look up), but gaze is fixed downward when going down stairs. So that lean is in the direction of a significant distance downward that you're focused on."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/58juXXQ"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wyeat | Why are smartphones getting thinner and thinner? | Is there any reason apart from aesthetics? Why aren't smartphones ignoring this in favour of a larger battery? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedtjxb"
],
"text": [
"The market has said that all else held equal, they want thinner phones over doubled battery life. Every phone has to have some sales niche. Some will be designed favoring battery life over thickness, others will be extremely thin and lightweight. Tablets can be phones too if you're looking for maximum utility over bulk or battery life. It's all a cycle, and today the market says thicker phones."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wyhgf | When people smoke cigarettes, they put it between their pointer and middle fingers, but when people smoke joints, they use their thumbs and their index fingers. Why is this? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedtf7i"
],
"text": [
"Part of it is, commercially made cigarettes are strong enough to be held with 2 fingers on the filter. Hand rolled cigarettes or joints need to be held differently. Part of it is culture, in western countries, \"everyone\" knows how to hold a cigarette. Mostly because that's how you see others hold it. In Cambodia I saw old villagers covering their mouth, like you would when you cough, with the cigarette held between their ring and middle finger. Sort of like [this]( URL_2 ) Even in western countries, in some old black and white movies, some people can be smoking cigarettes \"joint style.\" URL_1 URL_0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_P1aSfh7IEUE/TMg87wcBdLI/AAAAAAAABGY/gZKbyBTL9KU/s1600/casablanca+cigarette,+bogart.jpg",
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/80/a2/66/80a266f1408e4aefd417b99c15992ff0.jpg",
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/02/49/d0/0249d02b7412163f0ce3d0f2cf0b11b4.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wyk5z | When you rappel down a cliff, someone has to hold the rope at the bottom. How does the first person get down if this is so important? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedtwxa",
"dedtt4v"
],
"text": [
"It's not. They can easily go down the rope. The belay man is just there to provide a second set of eyes and stop the descent if the other person begins to fall. It is entirely possible to descend solo, it's just that the first person takes on more risk in doing so.",
"The person at the bottom is for safety, not a requirement. They can stop you if you slip and start to fall. Similar to not needing a lifeguard to get in the water."
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wyn8k | What would it take for us to be able to (assuming it's ever possible) create a spacecraft capable of going even half the speed of light? Also, is constant acceleration feasible in terms of space travel? | *assuming it's even possible | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deduped"
],
"text": [
"The problem is that you have to carry your fuel with you, so to do this you would need a fuel source so efficient that even a miniscule amount can provide massive force to accelerate the spacecraft *and* the unspent fuel. No fuel source currently available to us can accomplish this. Unless we discover new substance with nearly magical properties, this will be impossible."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wyo0k | Why is it that men and women tend to take off their shirts differently? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deduqux",
"dedwy24"
],
"text": [
"Men's T-shirts have broader shoulders and more armpit space. Women's T-shirts are shorter and stretchier. I tend to roll mine also to protect the structure/stretching of the shirt. URL_0",
"It probably is both in part due to different shapes/sturdiness of men's versus women's fabric, and learning how to take off clothes when you're a kid and watch adults do it. Personally, I don't take off my shirts the way other women do it. I pull my arms out of the sleeves one at a time, then pull it off my head by sticking my arms out the bottom and pulling it up."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3702170/Social-media-goes-spin-Tumblr-user-solves-mystery-guys-girls-remove-shirts-differently-s-cut.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wyoe2 | What's the difference between Apple Juice and Apple Cider? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedzbbk",
"dedur0f"
],
"text": [
"To quote from the Simpsons: If it's clear and yellow, you got juice there, fellow. If it's tangy and brown, you're in cider-town. Now,of course, there are two exceptions...",
"URL_0 > according to its Department of Agricultural Resources, \"apple juice and apple cider are both fruit beverages made from apples, but there is a difference between the two. Fresh cider is raw apple juice that has not undergone a filtration process to remove coarse particles of pulp or sediment. Apple juice is juice that has been filtered to remove solids and pasteurized so that it will stay fresh longer. Vacuum sealing and additional filtering extend the shelf life of the juice.\""
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_cider"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wytc2 | when you are sick and you swallow and your ears crackle, what is actually happening in your ears? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedw3is"
],
"text": [
"You've got a tube that connects your inner ear to your throat called a Eustachian tube. Normally this tube is pretty much open, except for a 'door' on the throat end to keep stuff out. When you've got a cold, the tube can get infected and it gets swollen, so even if the 'door' opens it can't equalize pressure between the ear and throat. And, if there's an infection there could be fluid in the tube as well, which moves around when you swallow because they're attached. So, what you hear is the eustachian tube trying to do its job, but it's too plugged-up or fluid-filled to work properly."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wyv9z | Why does Mexico get cane sugar Coca Cola while the U.S. gets high-fructose corn syrup Coke? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedwvnl",
"dedw8d7",
"dedwavh",
"dedwecr"
],
"text": [
"The US limits the amount of sugar that can be [imported]( URL_2 ), leading to a [higher sugar prices in the US]( URL_0 ) than in the rest of the world. That difference in price means that for many products made in the US, corn syrup is less expensive than sugar, but elsewhere sugar is less expensive than corn syrup. The reason for this is, Florida has a number of wealthy sugar farmers, and Florida is a key state for [both party's]( URL_1 ) election hopes.",
"My guess is because Mexico doesn't have literally tons of rotting extra corn because of farm subsidies.",
"Agricultural subsidies make corn syrup cheaper to produce in the US than regular sugar. This is not the case everywhere in the world, so many other areas use cane sugar.",
"You are kind of dancing around a myth. Most, if not all. coke sold in Mexico is Corn Sugar. Including once made their. 'Cane Sugar' soda is a marking ploy leveraging peoples ignorance about sugar."
],
"score": [
20,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://sugarreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Wholesale-refined-sugar-prices-US-vs-world-1-10-13.png",
"http://www.attn.com/stories/652/you-wont-believe-how-much-control-big-sugar-has-your-life",
"https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/sugar-import-program"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wz0qx | Why does old plastic go yellow? Will that happen to plastics made recently too? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedxpim"
],
"text": [
"A chemical called bromine is added to plastic as a flame retardant; it's usually white/colorless, but when exposed to UV light for a long time it turns brown/yellow."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wz1zd | Why do we compare defence budgets between countries? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedxzl6",
"dedxyjg"
],
"text": [
"It's not necessarily the dollar (or other currency) amount that country spends on defense that's significant, but rather the overall percentage of their gross domestic product. Out of all the profit a particular country makes as a whole, how much do they dedicate toward capabilities of war. This is further scrutinized in alliances such as NATO. NATO countries have agreed to spend equally on defense of the community. Understanding that each country is different, of a different size and capable of producing different exports and revenues, instead of assigning a dollar amount for all these nations to spend, they agreed on a percentage of GDP to spend",
"There aren't many things that are made in more than one place. You can buy a missile from a US company that's not at all the same as a missile you can buy from an Indian company. The US stuff is very deluxe, albeit very expensive. Defense budgets are about jobs, force projection, international relations, and (perhaps as a side line) fighting wars. The US won the cold war with the Soviets by raising the level of spending necessary to remain competitive to a point where the Soviets couldn't afford to stay in the game. No shots were fired."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wz2pa | If you had a solid sphere with similar size and mass of the Earth and bored a hole from one end to the other through the center and dropped a penny into the hole, assuming the sphere's gravity is the only acting force, what would happen to the penny? | Some of my co-workers are under the impression the penny would go back and forth between the earth. I'm under the impression that eventually the penny would find equilibrium in the center. Are we both totally wrong? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedy2fv",
"dedy52d",
"dedyh6e",
"deemcx9"
],
"text": [
"Is there air in the passage? If there is, eventually air resistance will slow the penny until it is still in the center. Is the sphere rotating as the earth does? If so, rotational velocity will drive the penny into a wall and it will eventually be slowed and stop in the center due to the collisions (unless your hole is right along the axis of the rotation). Otherwise if there's no air and no other forces but gravity, your coin will gain energy as it falls towards the center, then lose an equivalent amount as it rises on the far side, ending at surface level, rinse, repeat. About 84 minutes round trip.",
"If there is no air in the tunnel, and the penny doesn't otherwise lose energy because of friction then it would keep falling back and forth. If the loses energy because of friction (for example air resistance), then the penny will bounce back, but slightly less each time, eventually settling in the centre. The scenario is pretty similar to a spring or pendulum.",
"Another interesting point, if you created 3 similar tunnels starting at the north pole, one to the south pole, one to brazil and one to canada, if you had a train on a rail (no friction), using gravity alone they would all arive at the other side in the same length of time.",
"Assuming no air, no spin and no magnetic field (eddy currents will create a counter force to the movement), two things will happen: * It will fall back and forth for eternity. * Inflation will gradually make it almost completely worthless. On the other hand, the uniqueness of this specific coin and it's cirumstances, would make it very attractive to collectors, so it might actually be worth a lot, and increase in value over time."
],
"score": [
25,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wz3nl | How does my key fob only work on my car? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedyfib"
],
"text": [
"the fob sends out a signal that acts like a password only your car knows. if it recieves a signal with the wrong \"password\" it wont respond, so as long as nothing goes wrong each car should only respond to its paired fob to prevent someone from duplicating the signal to break into your car, it generates a new one periodically, but someone who knows more than me will have to explain the specifics"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wz4nv | Whydo developers still use Unreal Engine 3 if Unreal Engine 4 is available? | Both were also released 2 years apart so I'm not even sure if there is a monumental change in features. I do understand that they are freely accessible and new is usually better hence my confusion | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedynsa"
],
"text": [
"Former game developer here, Principally the reason to stay on a given platform is either because of licensing or because you're invested on a particular version and there are breaking changes if you upgrade. So what is more important? Upgrading your engine and fixing what breaks or using the engine you have because it works right now? Does the investment yield a return? What are the financial and technical risks? A more mature platform that is actively developed and supported is going to be more stable than a newer platform that doesn't have as many miles. The other reason you see old engines come out for new games is that those games started development before UE4 was even available. Unless you're Duke Nukem Forever, you don't abandon your platform once a new version becomes available. Studios don't have the time or money, most of the time."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wz54m | Why do oysters create pearls and yet other shellfish don't? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedyrq8"
],
"text": [
"They do. Oyster pearls are just the highest quality because they're so round. [Here's one produced by T. gigas, which is a clam.]( URL_2 ) [These ones came from scallops]( URL_0 ) and [these aren't really pearls but a pearl like production from a snail.]( URL_1 )"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.karipearls.com/images/my-collection-of-scallop-pearls-21792114.jpg",
"http://www.internetstones.com/image-files/shell-of-melo-melo-snail.jpg",
"http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/embed/public/2016/08/24/world-largest-natural-giant-clam-pearl-philippine-palawan-island.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wz6r7 | What happens in our body at the exact time when we fall asleep? Where is the border between consciousness and unconsciousness? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee19t8",
"deeipny",
"deejkhg",
"deelyy7"
],
"text": [
"There is no \"exact time\" when you fall asleep. Falling asleep is a gradual process where brain activity across many different areas of the brain slowly shift into sleep over many minutes.",
"Your brain activity can be measured in waves, these waves are measured by an EEG. When we are awake and active, our brain produces beta waves. When we are deeply relaxed but still awake, we produced alpha waves. Theta waves define the first sleep stage. You could say that you could base the moment you fall asleep on the appearance of theta waves. Stage 1 and 2 have them, if you woke somebody up in these stages they may say they weren't even asleep yet, you've probably experienced that feeling before. Stages 3 and 4 become deeper sleeps and the brain produces delta waves. These are the longest waves and signals a deep dreamless sleep. After you move through stages 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, a person generally goes back through the stages backwards except instead of stage 1 they go into what's called REM sleep. REM stands for rapid eye movement and that is what characterizes this sleep stage, you may have witnessed this in someone else. This is the stage where you will dream. This whole cycle takes about 90 min. You will continue cycling though the stages this way but REM stage will get longer and the time you spend in stage 3 and 4 will get shorter as the cycles go by. I apologize if this is messy, I'm exhausted and on my phone. Looking forward to cycling through these stages myself in a moment",
"It's called the Hypnagogic State Fun fact: It's where Salvador Dali claimed to get a lot of his inspiration from. He'd try and paint in this state. \"Hypnagogia is the experience of the transitional state from wakefulness to sleep: the hypnagogic state of consciousness, during the onset of sleep. Mental phenomena that occur during this \"threshold consciousness\" phase include lucid thought, lucid dreaming, hallucinations, and sleep paralysis.\"",
"I had this weird moment during my yoga class last week where I was laying in savasana and I was kind of awake w my eyes closed but also dreaming at the same time. It was surreal. I don't really know how else to describe it."
],
"score": [
44,
37,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wzdb7 | Why do women get their tubes tied when men get their vas deferens cut? | Wouldn't it be more reliable and easier to just cut the fallopian tubes? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee1ji3",
"dee0kh3"
],
"text": [
"It's just euphemisms. The two surgeries are essentially the same type of surgery, but the vasectomy is far easier simply because the surgical site lives outside the body and is easier to get to. Imagine that you have a garden hose and you want to make sure that nothing goes through that hose because you don't want your garden to grow. To make sure that nothing gets through the hose, you tie a shoelace really tight around the hose to squeeze it shut. To make extra sure, you tie a second shoelace around it a little farther down. To make super extra sure, you cut it between the shoelaces. Since your hose is self-repairing and you aren't sure your shoelaces are going to hold, you cut out and throw away a little bit of the hose between the shoelaces to make super duper extra sure that the cut ends can't ever get close enough reattach. Bingo! Vasectomy/tubal ligation.",
"The Fallopian tubes are typically cut when a woman gets their \"tubes tied\". The most common procedure is to tie off the tubes on either side and then cut out the intervening tube. By tying on either side it prevents bleeding."
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wze6z | Hitler's rise to power. | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee4isz"
],
"text": [
"First, let me just say that, by necessity, this is going to be a crib notes version because to explain in detail would take more time and space than is available at the minute. At the time when Hitler first came to the forefront, he'd already been active in the political scene in Germany for some time. The mood in Germany, and most of the world thanks to the Great Depression, was grim. The depression was world-wide, impacting nearly every nation, but it hit Germany particularly hard and millions of people were out of work, and there was not much hope on the horizon...and on top of that, Germany's humiliating defeat in World War I was still fairly fresh in the minds of most Germans. Germans lacked confidence in their weak government, known as the Wiemar Republic, and they did not hold out much hope that things were going to improve in their lifetimes. These conditions provided the perfect climate for someone like Adolf Hitler, and his party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (or Nazi Party) to rise as a new leader. For all of his faults, Hitler was a powerful, spellbinding, charismatic, and persuasive speaker who attracted a wide following of Germans desperate for change. He promised these disenchanted people a better life, a new and glorious return to the hey days of Germany. The Nazis appealed particularly to the unemployed, young people and members of the lower-middle class (store owners, office employees, craftsmen, farmers, etc). The party's rise to power, as these things go, was rapid and seemed unstoppable. Before the depression, the Nazi party was fairly well unknown, winning only 3% of the vote in the Reichstag elections of 1924. In the 1932 elections, that number jumped to 33% of the votes, more than any other party. In January of 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor, the head of the German government, and many Germans believed they'd found a savior for their nation, a man who would restore them to greatness. (Sounding familiar?) Hitler seduced a nation desperate for change, desperate for hope. It was not his intellect, not his personality that put him in place to become one of the most powerful men in the world. It was his ability to speak. He was a fiery impassioned speaker and although he was known to be a cold presence in person on a one-to-one basis, in front of an audience, he was a master of words, able to milk and audience, shape it, make them feel whatever he wanted them to feel. But let's briefly backtrack. In June of 1919, the Treaty of Versailles ended WWI, following the German defeat. The victorious powers (the USA, Great Britain, France, and other allied nations) imposed severe terms on Germany. Germany, under threat of invasion (and take over) was forced to sign the treaty. Among other provisions, they were forced to accept responsibility for the war, and agree to reparations, limit their military to 100,000 troops, and transfer some of their territory to their its neighbors. The terms led to widespead discontent and wounded pride in Germany. One of the ways Hitler gained support was by promising to overturn these terms. A decade later, in October 1929, the Great Depression was in full swing with the stock market crash in New York. The plummet in the value of stocks brought a rash of bankruptcies. Widespread unemployment spread throughout the United States. This Great Depression sparked a worldwide economic crisis. In Germany, 6 million were unemployed by June of 1932. Economic distress was widespread and contributed to a meteoric rise in support for the Nazi party. As a result, they became the largest party in German parliament and the most powerful. In July, they won 40% of the vote. But in the November elections, they lost almost 2 million of those votes as confidence waivered slightly. They won only 33%. As a result, Hitler agreed to a coalition with the conservatives. This is what led to Hitler being appointed chancellor of Germany in a government dominated by conservatives. (Familiar?) This was essentially the end of democracy in Germany. Guided by racist and authoritarian ideas, the Nazis began abolishing basic freedoms and sought to create a \"Volk\" community. In theory, this didn't sound bad; a \"Volk\" communitiy would unite all social classes and regions of Germany...behind Hitler. In reality, the Third Reich quickly became a police state, where individuals were subject to arbitrary persecution, arrest, imprisonment. In the first months of his chancellorship, Hitler began a concerted policy of \"synchronization\", forcing organizations, political parties, and state government to swear allegience to him and the Nazi party, in line with Nazi goals, and placing them under Nazi leadership. Everything from culture to the economy to education and law came under greater Nazi control. Trade unions were abolished, workers and employees and employers alike were forced into Nazi organizations. By mid-July of 1933, the Nazi party was the ONLY political party permitted in Germany. The Fuehrer's will became the foundation for government policy. The appointment of Nazi party members to government positions increased Hitler's authority over state officials. Absolute obedience was expected on every level of the Nazi hierarchy, and Hitler was the Master of the Third Reich. In the first of several false flags, Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag (German Parliament) building to assume extraordinary powers. He convinced the German president, Paul von Hindenburg, to declare a state of emergency and constitutionally protected freedoms were suspended across the board. In 1934 (June), there was a purge that later came to be known as \"Night of the Long Knives\". It was a purge of the Storm Trooper (SA) leadership and other supposed opponents of Hitler's regime. More than 80SA leaders were arrested and shot without trial. Hitler claimed this was response to a plot by the SA to overthrow him. In August of 1934, Hindenburg died. Upon his death, Hitler took over the powers of the presidency in addition to the powers granted him by his chancellorship. The army swore an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler. Hitler's dictatorship is well under way. His official title is now, \"Feuhrer and Reich Chancellor\". Over the next several years, Hitler and his SS army quickly moved to make Germany into a one party dictatorship and persuaded his cabinet to declare a state of emergency, granting the Nazi police the power necessary to enforce his will, limiting individual freedoms, including freedom of the press, speech, and assembly. Individuals lost the right to privacy, meaning officials could freely read their mail, listen to their phoen calls, and search homes and vehicles without warrants. Hitler relied on terror to achieve his goals. Lured by the wages, the feeling of comradeship, and the striking uniforms, tens of thousands of young jobless German men put on the brown shirts and high leather boots and set to work, inflicting the Feuhrer's will on the populace. The SA and the SS stood in front of Jewish-owned businesses throughout Germany to inform the public that the proprietors were Jewish. Anti-Jewish rhetoric began flowing in the form of graffiti on store display windows, across doorways. The Enabling Act gave the Nazi party the ability to enact legislation by decree. Hitler was allowed to make legislation that violated the Weimar Constitution without approval or argument from the parliament. They suspended the licenses of the Jews in service industries (doctors, dentists, etc). They prohibited Jews from taking the bar exam. They used claims of overcrowding in schools to limit access for Jewish students to education. They taught the youth to love Hitler, obey authority without question, and hate Jews. By 1934, Jews were prohibited from slaughtering animals, which prevented them from obeying Jewish dietary laws. Nearly every aspect of Jewish life was subjected to arbitrary legislation. (cont)"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wzr2y | Why do fish swim relatively vertical? | Why would an organism tend to orient itself one way in an environment that omnidirectional travel is possible? To me it's a concept similar to people saying "There's no 'up' in space." | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee4vhy"
],
"text": [
"There's still gravity underwater, though yes the effect is not as pronounced as in air. Fish actually aren't naturally \"neutral\" floaters who can just position themselves willy nilly. What makes it look so easy to stay neutral in the water is their swim bladder. This gas-filled organ located near the center of the animal's body can be inflated or deflated to let it rise or fall to whatever height it wants. If the fish is positioned sideways, the weight of the body will not be even (cause there's the pocket of air on one side) and gravity will swing the animal \"right side up\" again. Many fish and marine creatures have also evolved camouflage: dark tops and light bellies. This means if you're looking down into the darkness, or up *from* it into the light, the animal is harder to see. But they of course need to maintain that positioning for the trick to work."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wzskh | What is the white powder that is on chewing gum for? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee4qe4",
"deeicdf",
"dee4xfy"
],
"text": [
"It's powdered sugar and it is their to make the gum less sticky (so it is easy to unwrap) and more sweet.",
"As someone who's made chewing gum from scratch, I can tell you, the reason it's there is to keep it from sticking to EVERYTHING. Fresh chewing gum is like hot tar, it sticks to absolutely everything. The powdered coating (powdered sugar, cinnamon sugar, cornstarch), tames it so it can be handled by hands, machines, and packaging without sticking.",
"It might also be cornstarch, for similar reasons to powdered sugar, with the added benefit that the cornstarch doesn't absorb water and get sticky like powdered sugar sometimes does."
],
"score": [
58,
20,
17
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5wzxte | Why does Walmart have fantastic prices in every department besides video gaming? | I was going to say besides electronics, but even their TV's and headphones and all that jazz have great prices. But almost all their games and accessories stay at launch price for the duration they are carried. My walmart sells regular Wii and PS3 games for $50- $60. And the accessories are twice the cost of Amazon's. Is there some reason they can't lower their prices? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee59h5"
],
"text": [
"The 'price point' is only to get you in the door. Many of their products are over priced to make up the difference. Games aren't manufactured in third world countries that WalMart can string arm into lower prices. Walmarts 'cheap prices' are only cheap here because the price is paid somewhere else."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5wzyau | Why do pigeons and doves look the same all around the world? Also, why ARE they all around the world? | Shouldn't they adapt to a certain enviroment and look different? Or can they all survive every enviroment? Thx | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee5m82",
"dee5exd"
],
"text": [
"There are actually many types of pigeon around the world. However, the ones you commonly see in cities are the domestic pigeon, which is a specific variety of rock pigeon. The rock pigeon is the world's oldest domesticated bird. As the name implies, these are birds that have been domesticated by humans. The rock pigeon was selected for its ability to return \"home\" to a specific location. As such, prior to modern telecommunications, these pigeons were used world-wide to send messages over large distances. As a result, domesticated pigeons can be found in most parts of the world because they were bred as the precursor to the Internet (see RFC 1149 for a humorous nod to this relationship). What you normally see in cities today are feral pigeons -- domestic pigeons that have been left to fly wild, that no longer have a stoop to fly home to. If you leave the cities, you'll find other types of pigeons abound, adapted to their local environment. Domestic Pigeons, however, were bred to survive one environment very well: the city.",
"There are many different species, actually. The common pigeon (aka the rock dove) is just the famous face. We wound up with a good ol' case of \"it works, don't touch it\" when it comes to evolution. They evolved to live on cliffs and craggy outcroppings in warm and temperate climates, with the ability to scavenge quite a few different types of food. Their grey bodies do a good job naturally blending in. This already spread them across Europe and Asia. And **THEN** humans came along and unintentionally served up a great environment for these puffy pals. Concrete and steel make suitable substitutes for their usual nesting ledges, and with plenty of real estate (and discarded hot dogs) to support a population, they explodeded in size."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x02wt | Why is breathing pure oxygen toxic? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee6fo7"
],
"text": [
"Oxygen is highly reactive. It's that reactivity that makes oxygen useful in your body, but too much can be toxic. Your body has a lot of precisely tuned molecular machinery dedicated to managing the harmful effects of oxygen, but if you breathe in too much, you overwhelm it and the oxygen starts damaging your cells faster than the effects can be repaired or reduced. If you need a metaphor, think of it like throwing too much fuel on a fire and the fire getting out of control."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x063z | What is 'Legacy Code' in programming? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeb7p1",
"dee74w7",
"dee8qgk"
],
"text": [
"It is code, often written in archaic languages running on archaic systems, that no one who has to work with it really understands anymore. The original programmers have retired or are dead, the company that made no longer supports it or is out of business, and the requirements are lost or never existed. If it serves a vital purpose, it becomes a sort of a black box everyone is afraid to touch. It doesn't interface well with more modern software, so it takes increasingly convoluted hacks to keep it working. Eventually the company will bite the bullet and commission a project to replace it. These projects often fail and the company returns to the legacy software.",
"It's any old, established system. Generally it implies using older languages, techniques and systems. That 40 year old system written in COBOL that runs your bank on a mainframe, using a database that hasn't been sold for 20 years is a legacy system. There's also a heavy connotation that it's full of mysterious but business critical rules that nobody really understand.",
"'Legacy code' is industry-speak for 'old crap that no one wants to work on but that has to be maintained and kept running because it still does something we need'."
],
"score": [
13,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x09mk | Why can some animals be domesticated while others can't? | I watched Planet Earth and I was wondering why. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee878g"
],
"text": [
"Group instinct, cow and sheep follow a leader, human control the leader cow/sheep. Utility, ox work, horse ride, sheep wool. All can be good food, pig, rabbit. Easy of multiplying, pig, chicken and rabbit are easy to breed. Easy of feeding, well you ain't gonna domesticate no lion, might be a problem to feed it. Also panda are not a good option. Here is a video that explain in detail URL_0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=2GFn7rhrGfw"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x0cz4 | why do men feel tired/sleepy after orgasm or ejaculating? | i think ive seen it on a documentary before, something about hormones or chemicals released during orgasm but why? is there a biological reason why men's bodies would feel tired or sleepy after orgasm? also, i think its been answered here before but the answers have been deleted. URL_0 | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeal5f",
"deej0ic",
"deebvqa",
"deeki4v"
],
"text": [
"There's a good read [here]( URL_0 ) that explains the chemical cocktail your brain releases after....well, release and how it contributes to the \"sleepy \" feeling.",
"Token lady here; I definitely get sleepy after orgasm. If alone, sleepy after I give up trying for more orgasms (max number changes based on meds, diet, time I allow myself, etc). Anecdotal for sure, but I feel like I get a wash of -chill the fuck out- brain chemicals during orgasm with or without partner. I've used masturbation and/or sex as a pre-sleep activity for so long that (I agree with a previous post) it's probably a behaviorally conditioned response. Brain has just made the association that orgasm = sleep to follow. Unfortunately this conditioning brought with it anxiety that I'm missing something if I don't orgasm before bed. Anyway, my point is that it's not really a thing that happens to just guys.",
"Part of it is a conditioned response (AKA pavlovion reaction) - we teach ourselves to to do it. Teen boys learn learn quickly that masturbating before bed feels good, makes them a little tired, takes the edge off whatever anxiety they are having, *plus* has the added benefit of preventing the otherwise inevitable mess that would occur in their sleep. Fast forward to adulthood: Take years of conditioning yourself to fall asleep soon after orgasm and combine it with the \"men *always* fall asleep after sex\" stereotype and you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.",
"IIRC from my anatomy class, it also has to do with your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic (fight/flight) is responsible for getting an erection and the parasympathetic (rest/digest) is what actually causes you to orgasm. People in combat experience what is called a parasympathetic backlash, which basically means you crash after you're done fighting. If your forces on a hill get over run, then you have a good chance of taking the hill back if you can rally the troops and counter attack due to the enemy experiencing this backlash, that's why soldiers have to stay busy after an engagement. So sex is very similar to combat/fighting. You're up, you're rocking, you're down, you're done."
],
"score": [
17,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://vanwinkles.com/why-do-i-sleep-better-after-masturbating"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x0i8l | Why is physical attraction so important when finding a partner? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeainu",
"deedwy6",
"deeses7",
"deea0wl"
],
"text": [
"Because attractive people are and were typically more healthy. We are biologically wired to look for healthy mating partners to further the offspring's lives and capabilities. You could be unattractive and healthy, but due to years of looking for attraction when looking for health, we naturally lean that way.",
"I have often wondered whether sexual fetishes serve an evolutionary function, or whether they are a byproduct of civilised society",
"Sexual selection, i.e. whether potential mates find each another attractive, is an important aspect of evolution. Loosely speaking, sexual attraction serves as a way to show off fitness. If you're beautiful, we're hard-wired to assume you have superior genes and your offspring will have a better time. Humans are somewhat different from most animals because in other animals it's only the females who select a partner so the whole selective pressure lies on the male side, i.e. only males feel the need to show off their genetic fitness. However, as human babies are so terribly needy compared to other animals, males are expected to contribute to child rearing and consequently have a saying in the dating game. If you don't contribute like many male animals do, it's best to have sex as much as possible and spread your genes as widely as possible. If you as a man have to do your share of the work, you need to be a bit more picky with whom you mate. This is most likely the reason why human males considers some women to be more attractive than others. A male gorilla or lion would bang any female he can get his hands on.",
"It's evolutionary we find attraction from symmetry in people's faces and body's that for some reason think in a biological way that they may be better partners in having baby's"
],
"score": [
30,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x0jtl | How come as children most of us didn't enjoy certain flavors, but as adults we start craving and liking said flavors? (Veggies, dark chocolate, etc.) | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deedatv"
],
"text": [
"Your taste perceptions over time change. As children, things taste the most vivid because your taste buds are young. That means that bitter tastes are Ultra Bitter to children and this may be one reason that kids are said to hate vegetables. As you age, your taste buds lose sensation, so it takes more and more flavor to get that same taste perception you remember as a kid. so adults turn to hot sauces and bitter things."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x0kj7 | When you floor the gas in a car, why does your head get thrown back against the seat? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeayx4"
],
"text": [
"Your head ISN'T getting thrown back. The car is moving into your head! Inertia is a property of matter which states that all objects will maintain their state of motion (moving - > still moving / still - > staying still) unless acted upon by an outside force. A force changes acceleration, not velocity. Fnet=ma is the famous equation. You'll notice that it's not Fnet = mv. This implies that an object can be moving and have no forces acting on it! If your acceleration is zero, the forces acting on that object add up to zero as well. In the car/head case, your head had no net force acting on it. It had a constant velocity. When you floor it, your car experiences a net force, and accelerates. Your car soon outpaces your head, and the headrest rams up against your head. Now you might be saying \"Hold on, shouldn't I feel that in the rest of my body, too? After all, the car is what's accelerating, not my body!\" Well, basically, the friction between the car seat and the rest of your body dragged it along with the car. But your neck is a relatively free and loose joint, so it leaves the head almost floating freely relative to the rest of your body, meaning the car won't drag it along with it until the head rest comes up and smacks you in the back of the noggin."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x0x0q | Can you create a flashlight bright enough to shine completely through a person? | So i was taking a minute with my flash on my phone, and was struck by how it was bright enough to go through my finger to the point where some of the light reached the table beneath it. I was wondering if a flashlight could be made bright enough to go completely through people? Why or why not? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, reddit community! | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deedqu3"
],
"text": [
"No. The light is shining through the translucent parts of your finger - not the bone. The visible spectrum can't go through bones."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x0xhc | What is happening when we suddenly forget something, then go back to a previous activity and remember it? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeelwb",
"deelz1x"
],
"text": [
"Memory is heavily rooted in context, like the room or environment in which a memory is made. This is called the Encoding Specificity Principle. When you are going about your life trying to accomplish some goal you will occasionally forget what exactly it was that you were trying to do, however it is important to note that this event of fogetting usually occurs shortly after stepping into a new room, or otherwise moving to a different environment other than the one in which you had initially created the memory of your goal. This occurs because forgetting is an adaptive and necessary function of memory. If we remembered everything we ever saw, it would take hours to load a single save file. In this way forgetting allows us to quickly load more relevant memories. And one such factor for determining the relevance of a memory is your environment! Source- [Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Further explorations, Gabriel Radvansky]",
"Yep, the other comment is right, memories and thoughts are really connections in our brains. If I'm working on something, say, fixing a car, all those thoughts are connecting, tools, car, instructions. If I leave the garage (to get a spanner) and get distracted, I sometimes can't find the thought that I need, our minds are huge, its a needle in a haystack. The room that I'm in makes it harder, it connects to totally unrelated networks (kitchen, hungry? thirsty?). Walk back into garage, see car, thought network located in brain, easy to find specific thought (get spanner)."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x11ol | when showering /swimming, why is it that only our hands and feet prune, and not the rest of our skin? | Not that I'd want my whole body to prune, but still curious | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeew9n"
],
"text": [
"The pruning is actually to increase your grip. Think of it like lizard feet, the ridges add extra grip. Your hands and feet are your grabby parts, therefore biologically they need to be pruned to gain extra grip in the water."
],
"score": [
36
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x190u | why do we have nightmares? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deenybh",
"deek70s",
"deeuiko",
"deeyh9a",
"deekzpf",
"deeqlho",
"deei65r",
"deey1hi",
"deenbqe",
"def0wsc",
"deeq7pz",
"deet6a6",
"deey4m7",
"dees6u5",
"deelhgp",
"defktbb",
"deeyczm"
],
"text": [
"I commented this on a similar thread a while back, but here's my two cents again: Although it is not entirely known why we even sleep and/or dream in the first place, there are a few rather well accepted theories. First, theories on why we even sleep: 1. The restorative theory: Being awake and active takes a lot of energy. Aside from eating, one of the ways that our bodies conserves and restores energy and rejuvenates our body is simply by sleeping. 2. The evolutionary theory: This is slightly linked to the restorative theory in that it revolves around survival and efficiency. When we sleep, we're not expending much energy, and we don't require much energy. Thus, by sleeping, we conserve resources to help reduce the amount of food we need to eat. Additionally, it is thought that early humans and our ancestors benefited by sleeping at night because it allowed them to rest while also remaining motionless so that predators couldn't find them. 3. Memory consolidation theory: In short, sleep functions as a way for us to take our memories from throughout the day and sort and consolidate them so that we can remember them better. This has a rather large degree of support because some studies show that napping after studying can help increase information retention. Onto dreams now; first, the nature of dreams. Dreams tend to be (as many I'm sure can agree with) rather emotional, not very logical, and full of sensory stimuli. These seemingly intrinsic properties can be explained with a variety of other theories: 1. The problem solving theory: Dreams are a way that our minds take unsolved problems from throughout the day and attempt to unconsciously sort through them and look for answers. One reason this has some support is because since dreams aren't very logical, the abstract approach dreaming can lend to problem solving can sometimes provide unexplored answers by letting you think about something in a way you would've never tried otherwise. 2. Wish fulfillment: Our dreams manifest latent desires. (Good) Dreams are a place where you can do anything, be anything, and potentially be better (in your own eyes) than the real you is. A professor once told me that \"everyone is great in their dreams\". Dreams can be a way for your mind to reassure itself and fulfill unlikely or impossible desires (which explains why many people fly in their dreams. 3. Activation-synthesis theory: This is the most scientific theory that attempts to explain dreams. Essentially, it states that while you sleep and as your brain recuperates, it does whatever work it needs to do along with a little \"exercising\" so that your mind stays active despite your being unconscious in the form of randomly stimulating neurons. As a side effect of the random neuron firing, your cortex receives random nonsensical \"messages\" (for lack of a better work), and tries to make sense of the nonsense and in the process produces what we experience as dreams. Onto the real topic of nightmares. It's a fact that people have bad dreams, but there's (are you sensing a theme here) multiple explanations for why. The strongest explanation has to do with the parts of the brain that are most active during dreams, and partially links back to some of the theories mentioned earlier. Note that all of the brain is active while we sleep, some parts are simply more or less active than others. First, recall that it is the cortex that generates the content of our dreams (that is, the cortex is what interprets the signals it's getting and turns it into something it/we can make sense of). Another part of the brain especially active while we sleep is the amygdala, which is (ding ding ding) the part of our brain most active when we are in a state of fear. This explains why nightmares are possible, because the part of our brain that responds to fear is essentially on overdrive for one reason or another. Lastly (though there is much more that can be said, I'm simply covering the most important parts of the brain in sleep), the least active portion of the brain during sleep is the frontal lobes, whose job it is to enable critical thinking - this explains why dreams are nonsensical and why we don't often realize it was a dream until we wake up because the frontal lobes aren't active and assessing the situation. All of these physiological processes combined are not only what allow dreams in general, but what give us a predisposition for bad dreams purely from the parts of the brain that contribute to dreaming in the first place. Another consideration to take is that, returning to the evolutionary theory and the problem solving theory, dreams can be considered a way for our brain to play out and determine how to react in crazy, dangerous situations without actually being in that crazy, dangerous situation, so that if it ever does occur, your brain knows how to react without thinking much. Additionally nightmares can simply be caused by stress, due to the stress temporarily wearing out the part of your brain that manages and regulates emotions, allowing your dreams (that are already emotional and nonsensical) to be a lot more spooky. Lastly (for real this time), a brief note about why we are sometimes afraid of our thoughts, not only when looking back at a dream, but when conscious as well. All people have weird, scary thoughts sometimes. Not only about absurd dangerous hypothetical situations, our mortality, etc., but also things just like \"If I did this this and this, I could rob this bank and get out totally safe and sound\" for one example. It seems silly to say, but our brain essentially thinks things like this so that it has time to consider it and realize that it's what you SHOULDN'T do, and to prevent you from actually doing it. Another example is that just because sometimes you think about hitting someone that's annoying you or really want to, that doesn't mean you have anger problems, it's just your brain acknowledging something that it knows it shouldn't do but would really like to do, and making you aware of how it would play out so you realize the absurdity of the action(s) so that you DON'T do it. Hopefully I addressed everything satisfactorily, feel free to respond with more questions that I'll do my best to answer, and if you actually read everything I said, thank you for your time. Have a nice day everyone. TL;DR: Sleep happens, dreams happen, we have a few ideas why, no one is entirely sure, and though your brain just really likes to watch you suffer, it also is doing its best to help you survive.",
"The answer to the question is that we do not know yet, but we are working on it. Maybe something simpler will be fun and assuage your disappointment at us not having figured nightmares/dreams out yet: Our brains use a lot of energy. Like, the most energy in our bodies. Since it costs so much to run a brain, each night we put it into a sort of mode where everything re-configures itself to spend less energy. Lets say you were trying something new, like learning to throw a dart. Well, throwing a dart is complicated! Your brain has to calculate where to look, how much to move your hands, how to orient your hands in 3d space, how much finger-pressure you use to grip the dart, when to release the dart, and so on. Very complicated! A lot of stuff to calculate! Well, lets say those calculations on when to release the dart required that your brain fire a thousand neurons a thousand time. Each time a neuron fires, that costs energy. That means you are using up energy to do things, using up food. Well, your brain wants to be efficient, so at night, it does more calculations and figures out how to calculate when you should release the dart by firing a thousand neurons five-hundred times. Then you practice some more, and the next night it figures out how to do it with five-hundred neurons firing five-hundred times. Way more efficient! Costs you less energy to do, which means you can do more. In this way sleep is super-important and literally makes you a better person! That's a super-simplified version of what happens when you sleep. Now, what about dreams and nightmares? Well, we do not really know! Here's my idea; the rest of this is my speculation/pet theory... I think that dreams/nightmares are our brains testing the changes they made in their attempt to make things more efficient! The idea is that your brain needs a sort of \"simulation space\" to test out whether or not the changes actually work, i.e. make you better at throwing the dart. The brain also needs to use this \"simulation space\" to make sure that it does not \"break\" something else, i.e. that by getting better at throwing the dart you do not get worse at using a fork to eat. So, when we are super-young babies, we sleep a lot because our brain is trying to sort through the stimuli, figuring out vision and audition, trying to sort out how to move limbs, sorting out language, and so on. As we get older it still tweaks things, but more of our complicated issues are social in nature, or perhaps emotional. We probably have these goals we are trying to achieve, and the brain is trying to find ways to integrate how we act in the world and how that interacts with our goals, and how to prioritize them. Then, it \"simulates\" changes to make sure it does not break some other functionality. More broadly, my \"pet theory of consciousness\" is actually that this \"simulation space\", well, that's the first place it happened. The dream was a way to simulate stimuli from the world before there ever was an experience of the world. That was so useful that it was ported over to an \"online simulation\" that we experience as our daily waking life.",
"Lots of big responses a 5 year-old might not understand here. The way I understand it: Your brain wants to pretend it's awake so it scares itself into thinking it is in case a big scary animal attacks you in the real world and your body will be ready since it thinks you're already awake.",
"Lots of book responses here... so let me explain like you are 5. Nightmares occur most frequently when you get unexpectedly cold while sleeping. One theory that seemed to have substance to me is that your body is quite literally trying to scare you awake, so that you don't freeze in your sleep.",
"Doctors believe most nightmares are a normal reaction to stress, and many clinicians believe they aid people in working through traumatic events. Nightmares become something else when they impair social, occupational, and other important areas of function in our lives, and may be a disorder. Recurrant nightmares in childhood are considered 'normal' until such point that they significantly interfere with sleep, development, psychosocial development, etc. In adults, they're associated with outside stressors, but they may also exist alongside a mental disorder (anxiety disorders, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc). Nightmares are usually associated with anxiety and/or trauma. Some scientists believe dreams are the brain...specifically, the cerebral cortex...trying to interpret the random signals from the pons during REM sleep, creating a \"story\" out of fragmented brain activity. The cortex is the part of the brain that interprets and organized information gathered from our environment during consciousness. The pons is an area at the base of the brain. This area sends signals that induce REM sleep. These signals travel to the thalamus, which relays them to the cerebral cortex. There are different types of bad dreams and they occur at different stages of the sleep cycle. Night terrors, for example, tend to strike midway through the sleep cycle during the deep sleep phase. They have no clear form or plot, but can cause you to wake with an intense and unexplainable feeling of fear or terror that may take several minutes to abate. Nightmares occur during REM, and that's at the end of the sleep cycle, which is why people often remember them, at least briefly, upon waking. Other causes, besides stress, that can lead to nightmares are PTSD, hormonal imbalances, certain medications (particularly those that disrupt hormones and neurotransmitters that regulate REM sleep), and psychological disorders. Some researchers believe nightmares can be helpful, giving you insight to what's going on inside your brain. We live in a society where stress is just a given, and nightmares may help us to understand our own psyche and what's happening in there. They can also be a problem, especially when a person develops a nightmare disorder, whereby frequent nightmares prevent them from sleeping properly and begin to have detrimental effects on waking hours as well.",
"It is just your brain practicing to handle danger, before danger comes. Told that to my son at age 5 and it satisfied him.",
"I have no source for this at all, but one theory of why we dream is that it either directly helps or is a side effect of our brains dealing with potential conflicts we may find in real life. If all day you think of the best way to avoid getting attacked by a wolf, you will have a nightmare about being attacked by a wolf. Maybe evolutional pressures want you to come to a realization about how to avoid being eaten by a wolf. Or maybe your brain is naturally storing and compiling your thoughts and perceptions of the day, and some of this process spills over into dream state, and you just so happen to remember the scary ones that wake you up. Have you ever been skiing or on a boat all day, and then when you start to fall asleep, you start to feel like you're skiing or on a boat? Your brain naturally goes over new thoughts or sensations before and during sleep; it is a vital part of learning. Maybe nightmares are just an extension of the fear of getting eaten by a wolf. The other theory is that dreaming evolved to directly help prepare individuals for certain scenarios. You may become aware of what your body is prone to doing when in these scary situations based on the nightmare, whereas you would be completely foreign to the feelings of petrified dread had it not been for nightmares. This may better your ability to handle the situation in real life. Of course, some weirder nightmares are harder to describe. When I was taking too much melatonin (over one milligram is not healthy), I would consistently have dark, depressed, and spooky nightmares often with deformed people and a depersonalized, compassionless, hedonistic first person perspective. This was likely an effect of the melatonin - when I stopped, the dreams returned to baseline, and when I supplemented some things with opposite effects on the pleasure centers of the brain, my dreams became almost polar opposites: bright, happy, and human.",
"Can a semi-serious joke explanation from an SMBC comic count as a top level ELI5 response? Because [here's a great SMBC comic]( URL_0 ) about nightmares.",
"I had nightmares a lot as a child which I blamed a very stressful environment with my parents. I still have them when under a lot of stress. My kids rarely had them. I remember my son woke me up one night when he was small and said he had had a nightmare and wanted to sleep with his mom and me. I said sure, and he told me about it after he got comfortable. He said he was in a big dark building and a blind ostrich had been searching for him. It had long whiskers and was feeling around for him. He then went right to sleep, but it creeped me out so bad I couldn't. I told my kids to always have a \"dream weapon\" to fight scary things with. Keep it by there bed so they knew they had it. That seemed to work marvelously.",
"One theory of why we dream is that when we are in REM sleep (the state of sleep that we often dream in), the pineal gland located near the center of the brain produce DMT (Dimethyltryptamine). DMT is a very powerful psychedelic compound, that occours natrually in both plants and animals. It can be smoked or orally ingested and makes you trip like crazy. So basically if this theory is true dreams are sleep trips and nightmares are bad sleep trips",
"One older scientific theory suggests that it is random brain activity, sometimes extended to the idea that brain regions that were inhibited during the day become active. Another more recent theory suggests that nightmares are bizzare (dreams in general) and threatening in order to simulate threats. This threat simulation theory (TST) reasons that nighmares serve as an evolutionary drive for survival. Most recently, neuroscientists have found that unnecessary memories get deleted during sleep. Whether evaluating what memories not to keep is related to dreaming is yet to be investigated.",
"Not sure if I'm allowed to, as I'm not answering the question, but if I may ask a follow up question: Does anyone know why I rarely remember my dreams and have never had a nightmare (22 years old)?",
"Dreams do not hide your true and deepest feelings from your conscious mind; rather, they are a gateway to them. The famous Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, believed in the existence of the unconscious mind and said it consisted of two layers: the personal unconscious, which is a reservoir of material (i.e. memories) which has been forgotten or suppressed, and the collective unconscious, which is a reservoir of material which has been inherited and contains archetypal images with universal meanings – these archetypes manifest themselves in symbols, art and mythology. According to Jung, dreams are a way of acquainting yourself with both the personal and collective unconscious. Dreams are also integral to a process which Jung called individuation. Nightmares and bad dreams - dreams which elicit fear, terror, anxiety, disgust, guilt, shame, despair or sadness – are symbolic manifestations of the shadow, which is hidden and operates outside of our awareness. Following Jung’s distinction between the personal and collective unconscious, there is a personal shadow, which is made of repressed experiences which we deem unacceptable, due to conditioning by adults from childhood. These experiences may be fantasies, dreams, instincts, desires, sadness or sexual curiosity which were rejected in childhood. When we act on shadow desires, for example, it results in feelings of guilt, shame, regret, self-disgust and grief. Unbearable feelings of abandonment, panic, rage and frustration when our needs were not met in infancy also form our personal shadow. Anything that we deny, that we want to hide from or don’t want to know about ourselves – that’s our personal shadow.",
"nightmares are for re-creating stressful scenarios in a simulated environment so you can \"train\" and be more mentally prepared for if they happen again take the common example of a child having nightmares after seeing a monster movie your subconscious brain doesn't know the difference between fact and fiction, since \"fiction\", portrayed through language or constructed imagery (drawings, photos, film), is an incredibly new development in evolution, and something that only humans can do to any real degree. but the human subconscious is still on a more basic animal level, and evolved in an environment where photographs didn't exist, language didn't exist (so fictional stories didn't exist), not even drawings existed. if it saw a monster, that monster was real, because there weren't drawings or pictures or verbal tales. that child's subconcious thinks it saw a real monster, and that night, it recreates that monster encounter again so the next time the child \"runs into it\", the child will have a better practiced reaction the cool thing is that, even if you don't remember your dreams, and have no memory of this \"training\" taking place, you still reap the benefits URL_0",
"Well you see, Timmy, sometimes people just dream about bad things that aren't real. Those bad things can't hurt you though. Now brush your teeth.",
"These are the least 'like i'm five' explanations i've seen on this sub in along while. C'mon people, this isn't Explain like a pseudo-intellectual graduate student trying to cover all the bases for their thesis!",
"This Radiolab segment about [Dreams]( URL_0 ) (part of a larger program about Sleep) goes over a lot of what's already been said in the thread but also supplies some studies that have been done on the topic and interviews with scientists discussing their hypotheses. It's one of the few scientific attempts to study dreams, and while it doesn't have any rock solid theories, it does make a lot of sense. An interesting idea from the studies is that *most* people rarely dream about the mundane. I sit on a computer for most of my day and I never dream about that. Yet I will dream about some random shit that happened during the day, or a random memory from a long time ago. Why wouldn't I dream about the things I do most? The idea is that during the day, your brain \"flags\" things that it thinks is important. Things that tap into that survival part of your brain and makes it say, \"This is relevant to my interests.\" It then tries to make sense of these things during sleep. To do so, it might dive into your long term memory banks for reference. It's a bit of a free association, though, so it might seem totally random or incoherent. It remixes ideas and puts them into a new form. It does this because your brain is attempting to anticipate how this thing it flagged could pop up again in your life. It's coming up with potential strategies to defend against it because it might be something that brings you harm. Consciously, you might know that the thing couldn't bring you harm (like an embarrassing social situation) but your brain doesn't know that. It just knows that you felt a lot of emotion tied to that moment or thing, and so now it needs to dissect it. As for why we have nightmares specifically, I think it's a natural subset of dreams. The survival area of our brain is paranoid, and so things we fear are obvious choices for things that might be flagged during the day that we need to process during the night. Unfortunately this can lead to unpleasant visuals, hence nightmares. But I don't think the mechanism is any different than dreams. They are just a darker set of images."
],
"score": [
5203,
165,
89,
56,
44,
39,
15,
13,
8,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/nightmares"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antti_Revonsuo#Threat_Simulation_Theory"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/91536-dreams/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x1c2l | How Do Iq tests work exactly? | Not the quiz taking part, but what goes into making those logic based puzzles, and how do they score you on that, are there "half correct answers"? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deev8vb",
"deep9jo",
"deeqa2f",
"deetfcg",
"deesmso"
],
"text": [
"I'm a school psychologist, so I giving kids IQ tests is actually a big part of my job. Every test is a little bit different, but the ones worth their salt are typically based on CHC theory, which divides intelligence into different broad and narrow bands, and then uses different subtests to measure those. So, the gold standard in most parts of the country right now are the Weschler Tests of cognitive ability. There is one for preschoolers, school aged kids, and adults. For the most part, the test is divided into ten subtests, with the option to do more if needed. They subtests range from answering vocabulary (measuring crystallized knowledge and long term retrieval skills) to recreating 2-d images with 3-d blocks (visual processing abilities, fluid reasoning skills). When scored, there are five subtests that correspond to the broad bands of intelligence based on CHC theory, and then the full scale IQ which is generally considered he best estimate of overall cognitive abilities and typically corresponds to spearman's g, which is another intelligence theory where g is general intelligence. All of these tests are normed on a huge sample that has been stratified to resemble the population that it's measuring. So, in the US, the school aged test, is given to thousands of kids ages 6-17, races, economic levels, with differing parental education levels, handicaps and disabilities, etc. Based on all of that information, the scores are put on a bell curve so that dead average is 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Within that, the test is normed for different age groups- so a kid that is 7 years and 3 months old could get all of the exact same answers right and wrong as a kid who is 10 years 7 months, and the 7 year old will have significantly higher IQ than the 10 year old because the test is normed based on age group. No matter the test, it is always true that if you score 100, you will have done better than half the population. If you score a 70 you performed better than 2 percent of the population, and if you scored 130 you did better than 98 percent. There are other types of IQ tests that don't correspond to the theories mentioned. Oftentimes they're for a specific population. For example, there are nonverbal tests for those who don't speak the language or are severely autistic. Those tests can't measure crystallized knowledge (the knowledge we learn and retain based on exposure... historical facts, vocabulary, etc), so they rely much more heavily on fluid reasoning abilities.",
"Basically any iq test can make up its own rules regarding scoring on questions. Then afterwards you map all results, and make it so the average person scores 100 Proper tests generally have a test taker that will make sure you do everything correctly, and determine if your answer is correct, or partially correct. (Though most test questions are logical, so they only have right or wrong answers.)",
"They generally go under the assumption that we live in a mechanical, and thus, patterned universe. Because of this, they are good at testing a person's capacity for pattern recognition and derivation of a pattern set before them. The harder the question, the harder to derive the pattern. At the end, the average score is marked at 100, and the highers are above while the lowers are below.",
"My training is mainly from the use of cognitive assessments (IQ tests) for schools, but there always seems to be such controversy and misinformation about their use and interpretation I hope to lend some of my knowledge. A good IQ test, defined by what I would use in practice and trust it's validity, reliability, psychometrics, etc., should be individually administered and standardized. These group IQ assessments that I see some people are given in the comments do not fit what I would use. In my opinion, those should not be considered IQ test, they seem more like academic assessments, but I'd need to know more. As for the test supervisor, these people can be from a variety of professions as long as they have training in how to administer that specific test. My profession and training mainly addressed psychologists, but it may differ where you live, etc. Standardized means that the test would have been given to thousands of kids (again my training is in schools) of different ages (broken down by year and month) to get the scores that the test maker applies fancy statistics and the normal bell curve to standardize the scores, which we can then present as an IQ score. The test maker applies the bell curve because they expect an average amount of intelligent behavior in the general population. This would mean there are people who scored in the \"tails\" of the bell curve who are much higher than the majority of the kids tested and much lower. Since the test maker have made a test, they usually base it on previous tests and new research. They also have to update them to the new population every few years due to outdated material, inefficient material, and the Flynn Effect (there's a good TED talk to look up on this). Intelligent behavior can be measured many different ways and as previous commenters pointed out, it can be different within cultures. There are many different cognitive assessments. Some attempt to remove language from the assessment where directions are given non verbally. Some are intensive neuropsychological batteries that require a lot of little tasks. I think that's where the controversy comes from with cognitive assessment. As part of a comprehensive assessment, I would administer much more than just an IQ test to help understand a child's functioning. For example, a child who has difficulty with language or severe anxiety will not perform as well on the assessment. We were trained to spot that by using other assessments and informal data. We don't use IQ as some sort gate to a child's future. However, as many studies have shown there is a correlation with IQ and academic performance. Probably because a lot of the tasks can be generalized to tasks or concepts we are trying to teach in schools. If you want to debate what is intelligent behavior, please go ahead. It's a contentious topic even within our own community. But IQ assessments aren't inherently evil or used nefariously in my profession. We use them to try and help kids get an adequate education and use strategies and interventions that are best tuned to their many abilities. I'm sorry for any errors or strangely worded sentences, I'm on my phone. The comment section will probably get pretty divided and ugly if the past serves as an example. I would be happy to answer any questions people have/ elaborate further on topics. I do like what I do ;)",
"How is it made: IQ-tests are made to test general intelligence. Today most are made using something called factor analysis of many tests. Imagine having many different tests, testing different things (arithmetic, visual, abstract reasoning, etc.). Then you try to find which questions seem to correspond with many other correct answers, to get a good idea of ones general intelligence. You then collect the answers that most predict right answers across the board, which then would predict how good you would make on many tests. How is it scored: IQ-tests are score relatively to how answers most people get right, and no there are not half right answers. If its 100 questions, and the average is 50 correct answers, this is 100 IQ. You add 15 on your score for each \"standard deviation\", which is just a name for a specific length from average in a normal distribution of test answers. 68 % of repondents are between 85 and 115, 95 % are between 70 and 130, and 99,7% are between 55 and 145."
],
"score": [
141,
89,
9,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x1d18 | Why do most foods taste better when drunk or high? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deej9lm",
"deeqngi"
],
"text": [
"in very simple terms, weed blocks certain neurotransmitter reuptake. so, if your brain sends a signal that something tastes good, that signal will have a hard time turning off. so, that \"this tastes good\" signal will just keep firing.",
"Alcohol consumption makes you crave greasy food. It has to do with stimulating the production of \"galanin\", a neuropeptide (signaling hormone) that leads to craving fats. Marijuana, on the other hand, actually flips the hunger switch in your brain, causing \"fullness\" to feel like \"hunger\". It also changes how we perceive flavors so common flavors/smells that you'd normally find mundane become novel. These two, separate things for the respective drugs, each trigger the primal urges of your body and brain. We have evolved to fulfill such urges and so we find doing so a primitive whole-body pleasure. So the craving fulfilled is a pleasure. And both drugs will tweak your dopamine levels upward, which is a third direct pleasure event. So pot will change the tastes of food more than booze, but both will turn eating into a direct tickle of your pleasure centers. That stimulus will, in turn, color your memory of the experience. When you are experiencing pleasure the experience is encoded in your memory as brighter and more valid in every way. Basically you are shorting \"good\" to \"happy\" in your brain and so \"good tasting\" comes along for the ride."
],
"score": [
43,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x1eyl | How does math actually work in life and the universe? | We, as humans, progressively made math and numbers on our own but how exactly is it that it works so well and accurately in the real world? from does calculating a rocket leaving Earth's atmosphere actually work to 1+1=2? | Mathematics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deekrw3",
"deemr92"
],
"text": [
"Sorry for the long winded answer, I kind of like math a lot. Math as logic and a description of the world: Numbers are a concept that just exists logically. There can be one of something, two of something etc., and if you cut something down the middle, there can be a half of something. It also follows that if you put the two halves back together, it equals a whole thing. You could call this simple, obvious, or not the answer you were looking for, but the bottom line is that this type of logic must exist in order for our world to make sense. If you could cut something in half, stick the halves back together, and get any quantity other than one, you would be generating or destroying matter or energy, which is fundamentally not something that is possible in our universe. So this logic is the basis of counting and simple math like adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing, and when you do these mathematical operations, the answers reflect what happens in the real world when you, for example, add two groups of sheep together; 5 sheep \"plus\" 8 sheep is equal to the number you get when you count the group of them together: 13. Math as a tool for rockets and other cool stuff: I'll start out by saying that math works so well because if we try to use an equation to describe something and it's wrong, then we simply don't use it. Using the logic from the last section, you can use math as a tool to describe physical concepts or things in the real world; the volume of a box is its length times it's width times it's height, and you can test that if you have a box and a ruler. The area of a circle is πr² (at some point, some Mathematician proved this using simpler logic that was already accepted as true). There are tons and tons of equations like these that describe all kinds of concepts and things that people observed or came up with. Now on to rockets. There is math that describes every part of a rocket. When you ignite the rocket fuel, it expands in volume by a certain amount. People in laboratories got paid a lot of money at some point to experiment and see if they could make a fuel that expands the most when it ignites, because the more it expands, the more force/thrust you can generate. By doing tests and measuring things, you can come up with an equation to describe how much force you can exert on the rocket by igniting fuel, and these equations tell you how much weight you can lift with your rocket (how heavy your rocket and your cargo can be). So people do these tests for a living, and then they maybe build a test rocket and ignite some fuel to see if their equations were right and can be trusted. There are also equations that describe how the rocket will orbit the earth based on how far you are from the earth, how fast you're going, and in what direction you're traveling. Using these equations you can plan out your mission, and figure out when you need to ignite the rockets in order to land yourself on the moon or back on the earth. I'm an engineering student, and most of my classes involve learning the equations to describe certain things.Someimes we do experiments where we try to use some equations to predict an outcome (like how much this fuel will expand when you ignite it) and then we ignite the fuel and measure how much it expanded (they would teach us how to go about measuring that) and see if our predictions were right.",
"I have a degree in Applied Physics -- which is basically the a degree for learning how math works in the real world -- and even I have a hard time putting this into words. Math works so well because it's just a way of writing down what happens in the real world. If it didn't -- and I can't even conceive of how it wouldn't -- we'd find something else that did. Like in the rocket example it's just... hard to explain *how* math works for it. If you put an engine on the rocket, it generates some amount of thrust. If you put a another engine on the rocket, it generates twice the amount of thrust. 1+1=2. It just does. I can say that advanced math, like calculus, was partially developed for physics problems. Like for figuring out how fast it will take a ball to hit the ground after being dropped, you need some sort of trick to account for the fact that the ball is speeding up towards the ground. So Newton used integration, a technique for \"working backwards\" from an object's acceleration to learn about its speed and distance traveled. That technique is now essential for measuring areas of surfaces, calculating electric fields, and tons of other physics applications."
],
"score": [
13,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x1orc | . Can energy turn in to matter? | So I was thinking. Can light or other types of things like sound or radio waves be turned into solid/ liquid/ gas? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deentai"
],
"text": [
"Two high-energy photons of light can be converted into one particle of matter and one antiparticle, such as an electron and its antimatter counterpart, which is called a positron. This process is called pair production. The reverse process, annihilation, combines matter with antimatter to produce photons. (These are the simplest special cases of the two directions of radiation-to-matter conversion; they can be more complicated, e.g. annihilation can create several photons.)"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x1u28 | Why does your stomach suddenly hurt from eating after a long period of not eating? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deelope"
],
"text": [
"Your stomach expands and contracts to accommodate food. When you don't eat for long periods your stomach contacts. If left in this state for any extended period of time just like any muscle that is not exercised regularly, it begins to atrophy. sudden use (or in this case expansion) will strain the muscles that control expansion and contraction causing extreme discomfort/pain"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x1yvm | Why do shows like The Daily Show and Full frontal take a commercial break just before the end of the programme, only to end the show seconds later? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deem3xh"
],
"text": [
"Viewers tend to change the channel once their favorite show is over. By aligning the commercial in this way, they might sit through the ads to catch the end of their show and then get \"hooked\" by the next show that starts immediately afterward. For example, a Daily Show viewer might've been enticed to stick around for The Colbert Report. It's an effective way for the station to retain viewers."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x22gw | How come sometimes a coin won't work on a vending machine, then after retrying it one or multiple times it will work eventually? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deenhli"
],
"text": [
"**TL;DR**: *The sorting mechanisms weren't quite perfectly calibrated, or are dirty or loose or otherwise have moved away from perfect calibration over time, or the coin went too fast or is a mess, and so the coin doesn't get slotted correctly and falls through to the return slot as a reject the first time. But you got lucky on the second or third retry.* The simplest vending machines generally characterize coins by size. The first one is done by rolling or sliding the coin across slots of increasing size, and it falls down the first one that it can fit into. So dimes go first, then nickels, then quarters for American machines (Canadian machines add slots for their $1 \"loonie\" and $2 \"toonie\" coins. Can someone comment on Euros please? Dunno about them). Anyways each passes through a size-checker to ensure it's exactly big enough to fit its designed slot, not a little smaller, and a counter that does the math using a simple computer or mechanical processor. (More advanced versions like optical bill acceptors use computer scanning and comparison, and some use magnets to affect the coin's path. But let's keep it to simple older ones that process coins.) For this to work reliably, * the gravity feeds must hit the right speed for the coin or it'll skip over the slot, so slamming a coin in too fast causes it to skip its right slot * the size checkers can't be worn down or you'll get false negatives because a coin is a fraction of a millimeter smaller than its size-checking slot now * dirt or dust didn't get in there and gum things up or change the speed of the gravity feeds (same for the coin) * the coin can't be warped and must be perfectly round. So a legitimate coin falls through because one of these didn't work, and you toss it in again... and this time it goes, because you nailed the right velocity this time to allow it to fall in its slot, or that bit of dirt moved, or the size measurement didn't hit that worn edge this time, or it bounced in a way that matched the calibration or wear-and-tear inside the sorter."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x2baa | How do sites that don't display ads make money? | I'm talking about websites like URL_0 , torrent sites etc. (only examples I can think of). | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeploc",
"deep53s",
"deepoua"
],
"text": [
"As website you can make money by selling ads, but also by selling user data. Alternatively, the site is devoid of money making schemes as part of its growth strategy, and will monetize once it secures enough market share. Why bother showing adds when you barely get 100 visitors a day, better keep it add free to develop a proper following ,and only then switch on the adds.",
"Some websites just don't make money. But all torrent sites I know are riddled with ads?",
"While Ads have become a big part of revenue generation for websites, there are many other ways for a website to make money. Some of the websites make money through subscription models (Eg: Washington Post), some by selling their own merchandise ( URL_0 ), receiving donations from their readers through services like patreon (again URL_0 ), doing affiliate marketing for commission (several product review websites do this), providing software as a service (Dropbox), etc. However, there are also non profit websites such as Wikipedia that purely functions through donations by its readers."
],
"score": [
28,
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"waitbutwhy.com"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x2ikg | What is Shareblue? | Who controls it and what is its agenda? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deepkuw"
],
"text": [
"Last year, a Democratic Party-affiliated super PAC called Correct the Record launched a digital campaign to attempt to influence the narrative on social media. They also skirted with FEC rules about cooperation with official campaigns. So a lot of people view them sinisterly. URL_0 URL_1 ShareBlue is another arm of the same group, which has taken a mandate from the Democratic Party to influence discussion on the internet, again. URL_2 Astroturfing has a long history on Reddit, so this combines into a theory that a lot of the direction of the Reddit hivemind is being guided by paid forces. Expect it to be a meme for a while, especially while some some non-political subreddits seem to be completely overrun with politics."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-the-record-online-trolls/484847/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4fupos/paid_digital_astroturfing_effort_by_correct_the/",
"https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump#from_embed"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x2k7h | With the recent information on Session's on Russia, why do we have to wait for him to resign? Can't we just go after him for treason or whatever and give him the harshest punishment for lying under oath? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeq087",
"deersja",
"deeru5w",
"deeqrsi"
],
"text": [
"Resignation is the preferred method because it's the quickest and least politically messy. With a refusal to resign, a formal impeachment process would have to be initiated in the House of Representatives, beginning with a Judiciary Committee investigation, articles of impeachment being voted upon and presented to the House as a whole, their approval leading to sending them to the Senate for trial, and then the Senate would have to convict on the articles of impeachment to remove the official from office. There is also a danger that a complicit President could pardon an impeached official to avoid what might be uncovered in an investigation, so legislators may prefer to avoid that danger altogether by having an official resign voluntarily and preserve the possibility of future prosecution.",
"You may want to read the full interview before even asking that question. WP stitched together two answers to make it seem like he lied. He didn't.",
"Because he didn't actually do anything wrong. He was asked about the campaign, not his activities as a sitting Senator in the Armed Services Committee(which he is absolutely allowed to do). He met two dozen ambassadors while he was still a sitting Senator. [edit: [This]( URL_0 ) illustrates the whole thing rather nicely.",
"Because there is no evidence of treason. are baseless at this point and in fact part of his job as a senator"
],
"score": [
16,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/dfCIjIa.png"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x2mxx | why does the Big Bang mark the beginning of time and space? How can nothing exist before that? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeqjv8",
"deerpnv",
"deesiuw"
],
"text": [
"The big bang is where physics, as we understand it, breaks down. Before that, the laws of physics we know cannot be used to describe anything, don't work and don't even make sense. So we literally have no way of knowing what, if anything, was before the Big Bang. All we know is that there was a 'hot, dense state'. It's called that because that is about as descriptive as we can get, seeing as how the current laws of physics don't work for describing anything back then. We don't know how big it was, how long it was there etc. because for all intents and purposes, time and space did not exist - there was no cause and effect, no way of telling distance or size because everything looked the same. Imagine yourself in a huge space with no light at all. You can't feel anything, you can't see anything. Can you tell how big it is? No because you can't see any edges. Could you tell if you were moving through it? No because it all looks the same and there's nothing to gauge travel by. Could you tell if you suddenly jumped 500 years into the future there? Or 500 years into the past? No because there is absolutely nothing to distinguish your positon or time in that space from any other. So by any definition that counts - time and space don't exist there.",
"\"Before the big bang\" could be akin to \"north of the north pole\". Something nonsensical. For if time started with the big bang, then nothing could be \"before\" it. Most importantly, though, the big bang does *not* describe how the universe was created. It's a name for the rapid expansion of the universe from a very dense, very hot point in time. If we extrapolate the physics we know to such a point, they break down. Why? Because we have two kinds of physics which we don't know how to combine. We know the laws of quantum mechanics that accurately and reliably describe what happens on the smallest scale of things. We also have relativity that accurately and reliably describes how the universe as a whole or big parts of it work. However, those two sets of rules don't play together well. They just don't speak the same language. And we don't know how to translate the laws of quantum mechanics into the language of general relativity or vice versa. Now, at the time of the big bang, the universe was very small, smaller than a single atom. So at this point in time, it was at the same time a massive, relativistic thing and a miniscule quantum mechanical thing. And as of now, we have no way to describe this, as stated above. Therefore, there comes a point where our understanding of the universe, when going back through time, breaks down. That doesn't mean that the laws of physics broke down. It just means we can't express how they worked before the expansion made the universe big and cold enough to make a description of it that's seperated into quantum mechanics and relativistic objects sensible. Now, did the universe begin at the big bang? Possibly. In this case, \"before the big bang\" might be akin to \"north of the north pole\" - a nonsensical statement. However, it could also be that the big bang was a moment in time with minimal enthropy. If you think of time as a linear dimension, it would stretch to both sides of the point where the big bang is. Coming from one side enthropy would decrease until we are at the point of the big bang and going on to the other, it would increase. We perceive the passage of time as moving along this arrow in the direction of increasing enthropy. On a grand scale, though, such a universe would be eternal in both directions of time, into the future and into the past. Models for the universe exist that describe it as such and that are not self-refuting, so this cannot be ruled out. But at the end of the day, *we just don't know*. And in science, to say that you *don't* know is a great thing. It tells you where to continue to search and learn and to do science.",
"The Big Bang does *not* represent the beginning of time and space. It is a model of how the very very very young universe looked. But note I say *young* and not how it actually began. We do Not know how it began, and the Big Bang does not address this. What we do know is that space is expanding, and therefore if you 'rewind time' there is a finite distance backwards to go before everything is 'smashed together'. Beyond this, we cannot say much at present."
],
"score": [
47,
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x2pha | How exactly was Russia allegedly involved with the Presidential election and what did they do? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deetgfh",
"def8wnj",
"deerbf1",
"deet3un"
],
"text": [
"The allegations claim that hackers working for two Russian intelligence agencies broke into email systems belonging to the Democratic National Committee as well as email accounts of other Democratic figures, such as Hilary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. The emails they found were then released through Wikileaks, an organization that specializes in sharing secret information. The release of information was carefully managed, both in terms of timing and content, in order to create a series of news stories that presented Hilary Clinton and the Democrats as dishonest and untrustworthy. By calling attention to insecurities in Democratic email systems, they also supported one of the key talking points of the Trump campaign, which was that Hilary Clinton had compromised national security by running her own email server while she was Secretary of State. I think that's a neutral summary. It is a fact that some emails were stolen and then released to the media in such a way as to hurt the Clinton campaign. It has also been _claimed_ that this was done by agents of the Russian government. So that's what people mean when they say 'Russia was involved'. But wait, there's more. There are also allegations that Donald Trump and key figures in his campaign are sympathetic to the Russians, or are being or could be manipulated by Russia (which is to say by Russian president Vladimir Putin). It's also claimed that Trump or members of his campaign were in contact with the alleged Russian agents responsible for stealing and leaking the information. Going into all the details would take a long time. What is certain is that some key members of Donald Trump's campaign, such as campaign manager Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page, had strong links to Russia. Manafort worked for the former president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of president Putin. Manafort also apparently arranged to change parts of the Republican party's official policy in a way that benefited Russia. Both Manafort and Page resigned from the campaign because of concern over their ties to Russia. More recently, other people close to Trump, such as his appointee for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and attorney general Jeff Sessions, have been revealed to have had contact with key figures in Russian intelligence. In Flynn's case, he was obliged to step down as a result of this. There are also allegations that Trump himself may be compromised by Russia in some way.",
"Read through the major comments in this thread, you can see clear bias on both sides. Remember most of the information here is based on ALLEGATIONS and CLAIMS, not hard evidence. Look at everything and form your own opinion, be open to new information.",
"There is supposedly evidence that Russia was involved in hacking the DNC. They released as much damning information from the DNC as they could to try and push Trump into office, as he could potentially be financially compromised by the Russian government. They could then influence Trump through coercion to work with their hyper aggressive plan to expand into new European territory. Everyone should demand at least an investigation into this so we could move on from it, but there are people stonewalling.",
"Russian intelligence hacked the email of the Democratic National Committee, a private political organization. They selectively released, via Wikileaks, a trove of embarrassing but almost completely substanceless chatter that made the DNC look bad. The identity of the hackers as Russian is well established, and their connection to the intelligence service is generally accepted by security professionals. [Here]( URL_0 ) is an article from last July making the case. The Washington Post reported on it through the fall, but no one seemed to care much as everyone assumed the Trump campaign didn't have a chance. This had a couple of effects. First, it likely depressed turnout in the general election for Clinton specifically from the young, mostly white, Left who supported Sanders in the Democratic primary because it showed that the DNC internally preferred Clinton, and this was spun as them \"rigging\" the primary for her (allegations which are false, although there were a couple improprieties which didn't change the outcome). It also depressed Clinton turnout more generally because it was conflated in the popular imagination with the *other* Clinton email issue, that she legally but unwisely used a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. Critics charged that this made her communications insecure, although as far as I know there's no evidence of that (while official government servers have been hacked several times). But since most people don't pay much attention to the news, they thought reports of hacked emails were referring to Clinton's State Department emails, and that these were put in public because of Clinton's carelessness. Neither of these things were true. As for why, well, Russia and the Trunp campaign had a cozy relationship. Charitably, this is because Trump felt Russo-American relations had deteriorated under Obama. More cynically, there was an (unverified) intelligence dossier circulated (including to President Obama and the Trunp campaign before the election) claiming that trump is personally compromised by Russian intelligence because of his extensive business ties to Russia and an illicitly recorded sextape of Trump having a golden showers party in a Moscow hotel with a bunch of Russian hookers. (Yes really.) The dossier only came out publicly after the election, and again it has not been verified (although my understanding is that some of the claims in it have since been confirmed. Maybe not the piss play.) The Obama Administration imposed economic sanctions on Russia in December as a response to the hacking. Trump advisor Gen. Michael Flynn had a phone call the same day with the Russian Ambassador where they discussed sanctions and Flynn implied that Trump would remove them once he were in office. (This is arguably treason -- by passing on secret information to Russia that reassures them the sanctions will come down, he undermines the purpose of the United States in implementing them in the first place.) Flynn then lied to the press about the content of the call. More specifically, the Trump campaign trotted out VP-elect Pence to deny the allegations in public, which means either Pence lied about the call as well or, what might be more likely (and which seems to be the Trump party line) that Flynn lied to Pence about them. Today's breaking story is that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who as head of the Department of Justice is charged with investigating Trump's connection to Russian intelligence and improper contacts between the campaign/administration and Russia, also spoke to the Russian ambassador of at least two occasions. This despite testifying under oath at his confirmation hearing that he wasn't aware of any such contacts between Russia and the campaign and that he personally had no such contact. But unlike the Flynn call, which was recorded by the CIA, it's not yet clear if Sessions also improperly discussed sanctions at those meetings. (He says he didn't, if you find that denial credible.) The front page of the Washington Post has the story today if you want to read more about it."
],
"score": [
155,
17,
16,
15
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x2qub | Why do some people stop liking something when it becomes popular/mainstream? | Nirvana, Game of Thrones, Punk; They all seem to have had fans who were passionate, and then as soon as these things became mainstream, some of those people just jumped off the ship. Does anybody know the psychology behind it? Why do we often place emphasis on something being exclusive and 'alternative'? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deerg7t",
"deesw5y",
"deethmd",
"deetgb1",
"def2tfg",
"defcdcl",
"deesyot",
"defe5mf"
],
"text": [
"Some people identify themselves as 'alternative' or 'underground' or whatever you want to call it, and things like music and clothing can be part of that identity. They can feel smarter or more 'involved' in the music scene if they listen to non-mainstream music. If something becomes popular it doesn't fit that identity anymore, so they stop liking it. In the end, liking a band because they're popular (which also happens a lot) and not liking them because they're popular is pretty much the same thing; you let its popularity influence your opinion. Other people just like music because they like it, popular or not. One is not better than the other, people are just different like that.",
"I have an alternative reason than what was provided. I stop liking stuff that may have become popular, or refuse to watch stuff that is, because of burnout and overhype. I quickly get sick of hearing stuff when it's all over the place. I think that some people are like the - it's like sensory overload. The other reason was is people overhype something and it isn't as good as I expected, it ruins it for me.",
"As a fan of two of those examples you mentioned (can't speak much to GoT), I don't think that true fans of those things would simply jump ship just because they're popular. But in the case of music I can see why some would distance themselves from the genre when it became mainstream... the spinoff bands that evolved out of punk and grunge to achieve commercial success were... in a word, awful. The genre ceased to have the same originality as it evolved from an underground scene to top ten radio and MTV \"buzz clips\". There is definitely a culture that latches on to what is \"cool\" at the time, and the industry dilutes it to be more appealing for the masses in order to make money. Those who were drawn to the genre in its original form suddenly risk themselves being seen as cliche or trendy, and in the case of punk and grunge this was antithetical to the mission of the genre in the first place... to be an outlet for people who were not trendy or popular. In a nutshell there are those who strive to conform, and those who strive to not conform. Those who want to be accepted as part of a group, and those who want to see themselves as an individual. Whether or not you stick with a particular trend would depend on where in that spectrum you're most likely to be.",
"I used to be one of these people. Still am to a point. Generally, when things become more mainstream, it changes a great deal to be more palatable to more people. Like, a former favorite band of mine, they became popular and suddenly their music just became really bland. I still like their older stuff, but the new stuff just isn't the same.",
"Over-saturation. It's not that I don't like it, it's that I never enjoyed it so much that I want to hear about it every single day of my life a hundred times a day. Now that I have to hear about it all the time, I'm sick of it... to the point where I don't like it anymore.",
"While there are bandwagon haters, there are few people who jump ship *just because* something's popular now. Popularity can bring with it things that make people turn, or make it seem like people turned on the popular thing: -Over-saturation. It's a good test of just how much a dose people can take of something, assuming quality doesn't dip. -Quality dips. Sometimes, things legitimately get crappier after getting popular. -Dissenting opinions being worth something now. Chances are, there were a lot of people who hated something *before* it was popular. They didn't speak up though, because it was a waste of keystrokes back then.",
"Contrarianism. People feel special and better informed if they are in opposition to the \"herd\". It is especially common in younger people who see the contradictions in the general culture and look for alternative positions which, ironically have similar or worse issues but have a rebellious feel.",
"Everything we do \"pays us\" some dividend. Sometimes it's the pleasure of the thing itself. Sometimes it's the pleasure of the novel. And sometimes it's the pleasure of knowing the experience is \"rarefied\" or exclusive. So some people like jazz because it speaks to them. And some people like jazz because it is unpredictable and so is capable of surprising them. And some people like jazz because they know that very few people in their circle like jazz. Now people tend to shit on that third class, and that's largely because the people in that class tend to come off as shitty. They tend to _seem_ like they are just in it for the cachet, so we assume they don't _really_ like it, they just want to be seen to like it. The thing is, from a point of real or social evolution, this behavior is wholly valid. The lust for the rarefied can keep information or behavior alive during the period of least immediate value. For (simplified) instance, the guy who's totally into martial arts during the times of peace for reasons that nobody else seems to \"get\" is refreshing and remembering the practices. When a time of less peace comes around, the community with one master of the obscure art will have an advantage over the community with none. Of course evolution is a jerk, so we get more \"mall ninja\" than fu masters over any particular span. Rarefied information has low fidelity. So, for example, I like watching videos and reading about obscure techniques in blacksmithing and metallurgy and pottery. I know just enough to be dangerous, but that's substantially more than most people know. So if I were stuck in a primitive situation and I needed to make crude pottery or reshape a piece of metal, I'm pretty sure I could manage it without having a kiln explosion or cracking my metal stock. And if I can combine what I know with a few other people we might be able to make something fairly advanced. We may look like \"twelve monkeys trying to reassemble a banana\" while we all figure out what we know and what we are guessing and all that... But from an evolutionary standpoint that beats burning down the village or killing everyone in an explosion. So there are good reasons for the mall ninja to be among us, but that doesn't make them less annoying. 8-)"
],
"score": [
29,
26,
20,
15,
5,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x309s | Why do so many people recommend "no-kill" shelters for adopting a pet? Isn't it better to adopt from a "kill" shelter - you're actually saving a life? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeuwwb",
"deet9ts",
"deezsmk",
"deet1sh",
"def1qki",
"def1qp4",
"deexpv2",
"deess2h",
"def21kl",
"def1e52"
],
"text": [
"I don't know who recommends this, but as someone who's volunteered a lot at shelters, I can't agree at all. For the simple reason that in many people's opinion there's no such thing as a \"no kill\" shelter (at least in the US). Right now in the US there are about twice as many dogs and cats born every year as people want. That means that every puppy born has about a 50% chance they'll be put down because they can't find a home. We're talking about millions of dogs and cats every year. \"No kill\" shelters take in a tiny amount of animals, and they turn the rest away. They only have so much room, so they usually also prefer to take in pets that are very adoptable (puppies and kittens are much more adoptable than older cats and dogs, or pets with any medical problems), so that \"unadoptable\" pets won't take up space at their shelter. This means that other shelters have to take in those pets, and because they don't discriminate they get more than their fair share of old and sick pets that need more help and are more likely to stick around for a long time. Unfortunately, no one is able to keep 100% of the pets that get abandoned. Remember we're breeding 2 cars and dogs for every 1 that's going to find a home. Look at how many pets are in america, now double it, where is that 2nd group going to go? No one wants them, and no shelter has enough room or money to take in that many pets. So they going to get put down, when the problem gets this bad, that's literally the most humane option. So a \"no kill\" shelter does exactly nothing to unwanted pets from being put down, they just pass the problem on to someone else. That means that the vets at some other shelter have to deal with more old and sick pets and have to put down more pets because the people at the \"no kill\" shelter don't want to deal with it. They're not being humane, they're just passing the trouble on to someone else. If you think that this sounds horrible, it is. And much more important than choosing what kind of shelter, is to just make sure that you're adopting from a shelter and not a breeder. Also, make sure you spay and neuter.",
"Because if I went to a kill shelter with the wife, she'd realize all of the animals would die if not adopted, and my house would become a zoo...",
"My wife and I have volunteered as a cat and dog foster home for 15 years now, and have worked with half a dozen or so different no-kill rescue groups. Here is why I recommend people go to a no-kill shelter, and it has virtually nothing to do with the killing or not: 1. Behavioral Assessment. First, we only pull dogs who have passed behavioral assessments regarding resource guarding, food aggression, dog reactivity, etc. So if you go look at an animal in a *good* NK shelter, you know already that the dog has passed some sort of test. Doesn't make it foolproof, and I'm sure some/many NK shelters don't do this, but it definitely lowers the risk; most kill pounds do not have the time/money/expertise to do these behavioral tests. 2. Stable temperament. *Good* NK shelters, particularly ones that foster, know the animal better. After we've already pulled a dog that is likely to have a better (read: safer) temperament, that dog will usually spend some time in our care. We have far more clarity on the nuances of the animal (is he/she better with a dog of the same sex or opposite or either? can he/she tolerate loud kids? is he/she happy to play chase with other dogs but gets aggressive when humped? is he/she likely to be the dominant or submissive pet? good with cats inside but not outside or not at all?). This means two HUGE things: you're more likely to get the right animal for you, and you're less likely to return it. 3. Support. If you adopt a dog from me, I'm going to help you. All of the rescue groups we've volunteered for support adoptive families. If the dog is struggling to settle, or isn't learning something he needs to know (stairs are a hard one for greyhound adoptive families), I will come to your house and I will help you. At the foster home, the animal has already begun acclimating to living in a household, making it much easier for you as an adoptive family. 4. Health. We're a private organization getting reasonable donations. Your dog/cat will come to you more healthy. It will already have been spayed/neutered so you don't have to put an animal through a major surgery and deal with the post-care of an animal that doesn't trust you yet. Your pet will not have worms. Or mange. Or heartworm. Or fleas. Or parvo. Government-operated kill pounds do not have this luxury. 5. Returns. If the animal is not right for you, you have somewhere to return it and have peace of mind that you aren't sending the animal to its' death. This is relatively rare, because of the aforementioned points, but it does happen, and we're happy to take the animal back. There have been many times over the last 15+ years that I have taken back a dog from someone who wasn't quite right, and found them another one that was perfect for them. Getting from a kill pound vs no-kill shelter has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with it being a safer bet for an adoptive family. Of course, there are wonderful perfect animals that come from kill pounds; all of the animals in our NK shelter started out there. But for an adoptive family, you know more what you're getting than if you just go to a pound and pick one out b/c it is pretty. Kill pounds are vital; as another poster mentioned, there are twice as many cats and dogs in the US as there are homes for them. We'd have a lot less of a problem if we could legislate away the puppy mills and make it socially unacceptable to be a backyard breeder (or require people to be licensed to breed even their own pets); I have no problem with responsible/professional breeders. But we can't. So this country has to euthanize millions of cats and dogs every year b/c people can't be fucking responsible and it is better to euthanize an aggressive stray dog or a sick stray cat than to let it wander around outside spreading disease and causing fights, not to mention feeling unwell itself.",
"Well, if you don't take the animals from the 'no-kill' shelter, then two things happen. The first is that they don't have room for another animal and that animal goes to a kill shelter. The second is that you support an organization that has a philosophy you like and it is more likely they stay in business in the future. Essentially, there are X number of shelter animals out there looking for a home. No matter where you get that animal, it takes one off the kill list.",
"Naaaa. The reason why no kill shelters are good to adopt from is because when you adopt an animal from a no kill shelter it frees up a place for an animal from a pound or \"kill\" shelter to then be taken into the no kill shelter. For example \"paws\" in Chicago is a no killer shelter and every time a pet is adopted from there they immediately take in another pet from a pound or \"kill\" shelter. Almost like your helping two animals then. Giving one a good home by adopting and having one take its place in the no kill shelter.",
"As a person who fosters for a kill shelter I couldn't disagree more. I've also never heard anyone say this. Perhaps they're thinking that the kill shelters are \"bad\". But they are kill shelters because they have too many animals. They are usually the city dump for unwanted animals. The shelter I foster for takes in more than 30,000 animals a year. They are trying to transition to become a no kill shelter, but they can't do it without the help of the public. Spay, neuter, adopt, foster.",
"What I'd actually recommend is to adopt from a non-profit shelter. Their mission is to save as many animals as they can, whereas the mission of for-profit shelters is to make money.",
"I agree with you. I think the idea is not to further fund a shelter that does kill, i.e, \"take your business elsewhere.\" However the pets in a kill shelter still need homes... Arguably more than those in a no kill.",
"I volunteered at a no kill shelter. It didn't take in surrendered animals. They rescued animals from the pound that are on the euthanasia list, including older pets. They spayed/neutered them, and gave them their shots, and let them stay until they were adopted. They didn't take in animals with severe behavioral issues, or were very ill but there were some there with only one eye. I adopted a tortie cat that was 8 years old and a black kitty that was 10. Either way you look at it, you are saving an animal's life.",
"We adopted our pooch from the [Milo Foundation]( URL_0 ) in California. Their MO is to bring in animals from smaller shelters all over the state (ours came from Bakersfield) where they are likely to be euthanized because of space issues. They have a lot of volunteer foster homes, a decent sized shelter in the Bay Area, and a huge piece of property in Mendocino county, where animals that aren't getting adopted can go to make room in the shelter for others. I'm sure there are still animals they have to put down for one reason or another, but it seems like their system buys a lot of animals a lot of time that they otherwise wouldn't have at smaller shelters. We paid quite a bit to adopt from them, but they had spayed and vaccinated her (and had her with a foster family while she recovered from the surgery), gave us a starter bag of dog food, and would have paid for any medications she needed in the first week or two. Obviously most of the adoption fee went toward supporting the organization, which seemed like a good deal to us, especially since our pup is the sweetest, cuddliest, most playful lifeform imaginable. We know a surprising number of people who got their dogs from breeders, far more than who've adopted, so it has always seemed sort of normal to us - but the more we think about it and hear more friends planning to get a dog that way, the harder it is to understand. There are SO many amazing animals already alive and in need of a home, even including purebreds if that's so important to you... where's the sense in encouraging people to breed more of them?? Besides, it's fun to tell people we have a Great Australian Spanweiler Terrier, bred for cuddling and fear of shiny floors < 3"
],
"score": [
920,
136,
99,
37,
22,
14,
12,
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.milofoundation.org/about.cfm"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x35ms | Why do production outfits ask bystanders to sign release forms for their faces to be shown, but vloggers don't have to? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deetzxg"
],
"text": [
"Release forms aren't mandatory, they are a preventive measure production firms use to protect against lawsuits, monetary demands, etc. So it's not like there is some different law regarding the two video sources or that one has to do it and the other doesn't. Simply put Vloggers are still at a strange intersection between amateurism and professionalism. If you are in the youtube video of some start-up no-name vlogger you have the same rights available to protect your image as someone would have who appears in a tv show without having signed a release form. The big difference is, you wouldn't do anything about it most likely, because you are less likely to see it, you stand to gain much less in monetary damages, etc. So for small time vloggers (hobby photographers, etc.) getting release forms isn't really worth the hassle. In the worst case, you might be forced to take down your video. However as vloggers get bigger and their revenue increases they will have to professionalize their productions which include getting release forms to protect themselves legally."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x37jd | What is happening when a game is loading? | If a game can render the scenery and objects as you're moving through the world, what's the point of waiting behind a loading screen? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deexbyy",
"deeujwx",
"deevsy6"
],
"text": [
"So imagine a fast food place that can make burgers really fast, on demand. This is like the game when it's loaded and running, it's rendering stuff quickly and on demand. In the morning someone has to open the fast food restaurant, warm up the grills and get the ingredients out and prepped for rapid burger making. This is the loading screen, when the computers loads up all the information it will need to render at full speed and gets it ready. It does all of that upfront so it can just churn out burgers later without worrying.",
"Typically this is mostly due to I/O, loading assets from a (slow) disk into (faster) main memory or (fastest) GPU memory. There may also be some processing involved, for example assets may need to be decompressed or otherwise pre-processed.",
"Imagine the system running the game is your own mind. You have vast archives of information stored in your memories, but you can't access it all at once because the human brain can only concentrate on a few things at any given time. In this analogy, your memories are the game data on the hard drive and your surface thoughts are the system's RAM. When the game is loading, it's copying the files it needs to run from the hard drive, which is huge but slow, to the RAM, which is fast but has limited capacity. Because the game has to render everything 30-60+ times per second, it's just not possible to get all the data from the slow hard drive every time it's needed - so the game copies the relevant data to the fast but small storage in the RAM, and puts up a loading screen whenever it needs to do that. Interestingly, many modern systems have enough RAM to fit an entire game - there is software you can use that alters the way games run so they copy all their data to the RAM at launch, virtually eliminating loading screens by bypassing this entire process."
],
"score": [
120,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x3awj | How comes so many recipes call for a baking temperature of 350-400F? | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deew0kj"
],
"text": [
"It's because it is the most compatible temperature for baking pastry, breads etc. Also when baking at 350ºF to 400ºF, chemical reactions and phase changes from liquid to gas happen in a speedy and efficient fashion. For example, cake batters yield fluffy, light, tender cakes, and not flat, chewy disks of cooked dough."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x3jdu | Why aren't consumer computers "instant" yet, in terms of the basic functions like booting up, opening up programs, etc? I mean literally instant, with zero delay following a mouse click. Will they ever be? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deewnwm",
"deewu18",
"defe1ii",
"deewy6z"
],
"text": [
"There are instant computers, you just don't think of them as \"real\" computers. Tons of devices with embedded microcontrollers (household appliances, elevators, traffic lights, you name it) have real computers in there that load their resources almost instantaneously and can get going. As for \"real\" computers, we'll probably never see instant ones because as soon as the startup process gets faster.... people dream up more functions and resources for the computer to load. As computers get faster, we just keep on giving them more to do. Microsoft Office 95 would probably load in a blink of an eye on a modern machine, but Office 2013 takes a while. But 2013 offers a ton of features and changes it's predecessor didn't that MS decided was a worthwhile tradeoff. The case is the same for most software.",
"Computers will never be 100% satisfactory in their performance at all tasks. There will always be complicated (for a computer) tasks that take it more time than it takes for us to act/react. I had to save a bunch of 1.2GB photoshop files to a file server at work yesterday and I was annoyed that it was taking almost a minute for each one. However, I was also annoyed that the file format I was required to use would not support more than 2GB file size, so I simply couldn't save the images at the resolution that would have been ideal for the task. This sort of thing will always be true, in different degrees, about computers.",
"Computers aren't instant because we keep wanting them to do more. Take a current computer with an SSD and boot to DOS 6.22 and run some old applications. You'll probably find near instant load times and response. You'll also notice all the limitations of those programs. It's the same reason why phones these days have batteries that only last a day where before they could last a week. The battery is better now, but we use more power as well. But if you want an instant computer you can find them. most smart TVs are like that, the load times for netflix and such usually is the internet, not the program",
"Some of the delay in booting up the computer comes from legacy compatibility reasons. You can not use a more modern way of doing things because the computer might have to run an older operating system and the operating system might have to run on an older computer. So for instance the PS4 are able to boot up much faster because it does not have all the legacy compatibility but can start from scratch. However this means that you need to modify the operating system a lot to get it to run, like they did with Linux. However the biggest issue is that we expect more and more from our computers. The computers that came to market in the 80's did boot up almost in an instant and loaded up programs from a cartage before you noticed. However we now demand more and more from our computers so they have to load more and more. If you are to step back a bit and set up a modern computer with less capabilities it will boot up and start the simple applications it can in very rapid succession. For instance a modern web server might reboot in 3 seconds although it can not do much else then serve web pages."
],
"score": [
57,
7,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x3lxq | Why are some people more likely to have sleep paralysis, while others never have it or have only experienced it once? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def0cfm"
],
"text": [
"Everyone or, at least, most people are capable of having sleep paralysis. Its nothing special as far as chemical imbalance go or something in genes or dealing with immune (it's been noted to be a common occurrence in narcoleptic people). But experiencing that transition from physically awake to mentally awake can vary from person to person and age. Most children will experience it more commonly than adults due growing and experiencing the world, in general, while sleeping. That's how you get a laundry list of childhood fears relating the darkness, nighttime and sleep."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x3pgz | Do we know if all human brains perceive color the same way? | In other words, how do we know that we don't all see colors differently and have all just learned to call said color by the name we were taught? For example, the color I see when referring to red may be what you see when referring to green and vice-versa. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeym0y"
],
"text": [
"So we know that light hits the receptors in the eyes (rods and cones). We know that certain wavelengths and frequencies will send different signals to the brain. We also know the frequencies will always match a certain color, frequency X gives color Y. But we do not know if the color green is the same for all people. Person A and person B could be seeing two very different colors but they were both told it is green so they will always say that it is green. Now is it likely they are seeing different colors? No, evolution and genealogy would dictate uniformity for something as vital as vision, but if the color system of person A is just as diverse as person B then their would be no way of knowing that a difference has occurred, cutting out gene unification and they would not have an environmental disadvantage cutting out natural selection. So it is possible for two people to see two different colors for the color green."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x3pj3 | What is the limit of our brain? | I mean, what we can learn. How many languages, How many instruments we can play?, how many kind of dance we can learn?. I sort term. we can learn anything we want?. Obviously time matters for master in one specific subject. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def43gk"
],
"text": [
"There are certainly short term limits for the average person, eg \"How many random numbers can you memorize in order in 5 minutes?\" However, our theoretical long-term limits haven't been explored much yet. It would understandably be nearly impossible to study, and any upper limits are probably based on practicality, motivation, and time. Sure, I could probably learn 20 languages in my lifetime, but it might takes 10 years of full-time studying. In terms of pure memory, our brain's capacity to remember things is nearly infinite. We have ~100,000,000,000 neurons in our brain, each interacting with over 5,000 others (on average). The commonly accepted theory of semantic memory (aka facts/trivia, as opposed to memories about experiences or action) is that information is stored within a network of neurons. So, our limit on semantic memory is based on how many different ways those 100 billion neurons can group up into networks... which is nearly infinite. Certainly more than the number of stars in the universe."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x3sjg | Should I really be avoiding processed foods? What does it mean for foods to be "processed"? | Over and over I hear that in order to be healthy, I need to avoid processed foods, but I realized I have no idea why or even what it means for foods to be processed. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deezo4k",
"def06h5"
],
"text": [
"Well, the term processed is quite literal. Pick some fruit, it isn't processed. Smash it into a smoothie and it is lightly processed. Smash it into a smoothie, pasteurise it, add preservatives and put it in a carton, leave it in a warehouse for a month before it sits on a supermarket shelf for a week, it is much more heavily processed. Basically, the longer food is exposed to oxygen the more vitamin C you lose. Every cycle of cooking/heating destroys more nutrients and more taste. The taste in particular is important since it tends to get replaced with salt and sugar. Prime example - corn is reasonably healthy to eat. Once you mash it up, do whatever the hell you do to make HFCS and put it in a bottle of coke there is nothing healthy left.",
"\"Processing\" is a very broad term that can be applied to any number of different things, but in general it's used to make sure that food lasts longer before going bad. So for example, canning is a method of processing. It involves sealing food in a steel or tin can and superheating it for a long enough time to kill any microbes that may have been on the food, essentially pasteurizing it. Although the canning process does not involve the addition of any extra chemicals, the application of heat for such a long time can break down certain chemicals that naturally occur in the food (some vitamins, for example). Hydrogenation is a rather infamous form of processing that involves the stabilization of fat, which can turn rancid and spoil the food, by turning unsaturated fat into saturated fat. A side effect of this is the creation of trans fats, which studies suggest is much worse for you than the saturated fats they were intended to replace. Ultimately, most processed foods are fine in limited quantities. If you have concerns about your health and the food you eat, your best option is to consult a dietitian, as they are regulated healthcare professionals licensed to assess, diagnose, and treat nutritional problems. Beware listening to people who call themselves nutritionists: that's not a professional title and often has no medical or licensing requirements (essentially, anybody can put on a lab coat and call themselves a nutritionist)."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x3wm8 | How can we distinguish something that is real news and fake news? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deezxpn",
"def557r",
"def0rbz",
"def3dc8",
"def2anz",
"def3tx0",
"deezz1w",
"def15c7",
"defcwz4",
"deezvpw"
],
"text": [
"First, look at the reputability of the source. The source may be a *biased* source (every source is biased in its own way), but if it's reputable, then you can typically trust the facts. If the source has a print edition or was around 30 years ago, its reputability increases. If the source's headlines are typically sensationalized or \"click-bait\", its reputability decreases. If the headlines are written in a way such as to make you feel angry, jubilant, or prideful, its reputability decreases. Also, look for multiple reputable sources reporting the same facts. If nobody else is reporting it, wait a day and see. You don't always have to be up-to-the-second with whatever the news cycle is telling you.",
"I really like this blog post from [Popehat]( URL_0 ) Essentially, read every news article like it's a search warrant and look for the presence or absence of three things: attribution, corroboration, and particularity. Attribution: For every fact asserted in the article, how does the author know it? If a statistic is reported, where does it come from? Corroboration: Other facts support what the author is saying. Anonymous sources are permissible if other facts support the assertions. Particularity: If a story attributes a stance, or a goal, or a motive to a public figure, does it give specific examples of conduct consistent with stance? Ever since I read this post I've looked for all three things in news articles and it makes it pretty easy to distinguish fake news (fabricated) from news that isn't fake (just because something doesn't confirm your world view doesn't mean it's fabricated). Of course, there's still the issue of bias. Bias (implicit or explicit) can still encourage authors to make the facts fit the conclusion and that's why it's really important to read things critically. Be on the look out for logical fallacies that are used (many times very successfully) to manipulate readers. Appeals to emotion, attack the messenger, straw men, and ad hominem attacks (i.e. personal attacks), are good examples of logical fallacies that unscrupulous (or unwitting) reporters use to force a particular world view.",
"It is admittedly hard to tell, as no site is correct 100% of the time, but some do have a better track record than others. There are a few things you can look for though. * Is it a reputable source? Even the best news sources can be have wrong info sometimes, and a normally terrible site can sometimes have a nugget of truth, but in general something like the BBC is going to be more reliable than random blogs. * Are other news outlets saying the same thing? Every time there's a major event reporters swarm to it, so if something big does happen you can bet that many, many other places will be telling the story. If a particular website seems to be the only place saying something then that's suspicious. * What are their sources? In particular, look for primary sources backed up by photos and videos. While digital media *can* be edited and manipulated, it's better than nothing at all. * Does it report objectively and let you draw your own conclusions or does it tell you how to feel? There's a big difference between \"the president attended this meeting and had this to say\" and \"OUTRAGEOUS! Listen to what the phony president said! All true Americans should be outraged!\"",
"\"Real\" news is clearly distinguishable from \"fake\" new. \"Real\" news will usually cite multiple sources, and will fact-check their material. Their sources **must** be credible (Verified eyewitnesses, expert testimonials, hard scientific or statistic data, information from authorities, videos/photos). \"Real\" news also tends to be at least somewhat decent about correcting itself on inaccuracies they reported earlier. \"Real\" news tends to agree with other news in most cases, if not initially, eventually. Have you ever noticed that while FOX and NBC have quite different demographics for viewing, when they both report on something, the reports are often almost identical? \"Real\" news will be reported as it is, not as it is wanted to be. This is why critical stories that multiple networks report on are near-identical. They are all working with the same source material, they are all fact-checking the material. It's hard to come up with a different story from the guy ten feet away when you're both looking at the same thing. \"Fake\" news will fail to cite many, if any sources. These sources, if present, will not be credible. Sources may be heavily altered photo/video, false witnesses, experts nobody has ever heard of, statistics that don't match the norm, and a lack of information from the authorities. Fake news will usually not correct itself, and it will usually come from small, obscure \"news\" outlets. These outlets may be disguised to look like mainstream \"real\" news outlets, but can often be caught by check the url, or other details. Fake news reporting on a common story will often not match any other reports, with either no similarity, or changes to major details. Please note, just because a news outlet makes a mistake, that doesn't make them fake news. Just because they don't agree with what you think, that doesn't make them fake.",
"Did you see the story on Facebook? Or some other service that's trying to hold your attention by appealing to your predispositions? Then it's fake, or at best biased. Did the event happen within the past 36 hours? If so, then the most reliable stories haven't been written yet, check back tomorrow. Does the story offer \"secret knowledge\" that \"(somebody) doesn't want you to know\"? Then the likelihood it's fake is 90+%. Does the story tell you that the world is simple and you/government/somebody should obviously do (something)? then it's probably pushing an agenda.",
"It can be difficult which is part of the problem. Here are some tips: * check your sources - fake news often comes from fringe sources, butbwe aware mainstream news will often repeat those stories * check your bias - the most dangerous fake stories are the ones that tell us things we want to believe...make sure you separate your bias from what you are actually hearing * develop critical thinking skills - understand the difference between evidence and proof, anecdote and data, causation and correlation",
"By verifying the claimed facts across multiple sources, identifying the primary source of the claim, and evaluating the credibility of the source on the subject.",
"As an addition to the other good advice already given, take a look at... Tone. Does this read as NEWS or an opinion piece? If it reads like an opinion piece, be wary. Does it make seemingly outrageous/major claims with major ramifications without citing specific sources? Just because someone cited an unnamed source doesn't mean it's fake (this is common in real journalism), but it doesn't mean you should blindly accept it either.",
"Well, here's how I do it... First thing is a \"gut check\". Does this news sound unlikely? Does it go against common sense? If it does, I head over to the front page. Is there a bunch of news on the front page that also sounds sensationalist, or is grossly skewed one way or the other? If so, I'm assuming this is BS and I'm outta there. Second thing is are they the only one reporting it? News does not happen in a vacuum. If they're the only one reporting it and it's been a few hours, I call BS and move on. Third is the site itself. What kind of reputation does it have? Is it known as a serious news site, or a fringe site? I'm going to give a lot more credence to the NYT, NPR, BBC, AP and Routers than to the Huffington Post, Breitbart, Fox, or the Other98. Lastly is, does the reporter cite sources? Obviously some sources are anonymous, and that's fine, but if they quote statistics or studies and don't reference those, I get suspicious. If the phrase \"some people say\" (or anything similar) appears anywhere in the article, I'm assuming BS.",
"Follow the sources. If an article do not include sources it is probably fake. If an article lists another article as a source that does not include sources it is probably fake. If the initial source contradicts what the article say then the article is fake. If an interview shows the subject contradict all his previous and future statements then it is probably fake."
],
"score": [
58,
58,
12,
12,
7,
6,
5,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x3y6o | Why in politics do parties have to speak to the speaker and not to the opposing party? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def3jpq"
],
"text": [
"In any sort of formal deliberation, you need to have rules of order, or it will break down into a chaotic shouting match. The various ways of accomplishing this are known as **parliamentary procedure**. One common rules is to nominate a speaker, and have all communication run through them."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x449u | If chess is considered a sport, why not checkers? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def2kiq",
"def3c56"
],
"text": [
"A lot of people wouldn't consider chess a sport, a few people would consider checkers a sport. To get to what you're asking in why someone would consider chess a sport, but not checkers, chess has a damn near infinite amount of possible moves that to this day, we've not been able to build a computer that has solved chess(impossible to lose). Checkers was solved decades ago.",
"There is no one single definition of sport. Some definitions include chess as a sport, some do not. Checkers is the same way. A few reasons checker might not be considered a sport while chess is: * It has been solved by computers. * It lacks the same sort of professional players and big money tournaments. * It is less competitive. The great Marion Tinsley lost a total of 7 games over a 45-year career, 2 of them to the computer that eventually solved chess."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x44tz | School vouchers in the US | what do they do? Is it a system of government subsidizing for schools? What for? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def1ty6",
"def1tvl"
],
"text": [
"So in the American education system, a child is generally locked into the schools around where they live. You cant try to transfer to a different school, but priority is given to the students who live closest to that school. The problem is that some neighborhoods have bad schools, which means that kids in those neighborhoods are kinda doomed to a lifetime of bad education. Vouchers are essentially a coupon from the government to the parents that lets the parents choose a private school. Instead of the parents then having to pay private school tuition, the government covers the cost. The benefit is that that child now gets to go to good schools. But the reason many people oppose vouchers is because the money spent on them is taken out of the public school system, so those kids left in the public system get less funding. Additionally, the vouchers are too expensive to give to everyone, so there's lotteries for who gets them. Which means only a few students get help and not everyone.",
"I think the basic objection is that under a voucher system, shitty schools get even shittier for those who are still stuck there. Plus you'll get rich folks complaining about why poor kids get to attend their schools, poor to middle class folks complaining about why they have to pay taxes to schools their kids don't even attend, and so on."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x45kn | Why is the blue ink very common for writing, but when it comes to printing, black ink is extremely common? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def2j9r"
],
"text": [
"Blue ink is common for writing, at least partially to differentiate wet ink signatures from photocopies. Black ink is very low cost, because everybody wants the same color. Blue ink is problematic, as Dodger Blue isn't the same as Prussian Blue."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x4604 | The Chernobyl liquidators | Chemistry | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defkk1i"
],
"text": [
"Just as a side note to the liquidators, there were a few VERY brave men that made it so the disaster was not nearly as bad as it could have been. And these men KNEW that they were killing themselves: URL_0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x46im | Why does vision blur when the skin next to an eye is stretched? | If it wasn't clear, Close left eye, place right index finger on the right side of your right eye (not on the eye), and push skin to the right and vision will blur. | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def21he"
],
"text": [
"The skin pulls on your eyelid and the lid puts pressure on the eyeball. This slightly deforms it and messes up your focus."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x46my | If a mirror reflects all light and the color white reflects all wavelengths of light then why is there a difference between a mirror and a white sheet of paper? | Also what is the difference? | Physics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def8301",
"def29ue",
"def25xq",
"defcqym",
"defjn6z"
],
"text": [
"If you drop a bouncy ball on a smooth floor like wood or even most cement, it will bounce straight back up. If you throw it at an angle, you can pretty easily figure out where it's going to bounce based on that. Now drop or throw the same ball outside on some rocky or uneven ground and the direction the ball will go is much harder to predict. Even a small change in where the ball hits the ground could send it off in a totally different direction. Now imagine we have a lot of balls and drop them at the same time making sure they aren't touching so they don't interfere with each other. On the smooth floor they will all stay in roughly the same positions relative to each other. On the rocky ground they will scatter everywhere. A mirror is very smooth while a piece of paper is much more uneven on the small scale that light interacts with it.",
"Something that is shiny (like a mirror) reflects light at the same angle it hits at. This is called \"specular reflection\". Something that is white reflects light in a bunch of different directions. This is called \"diffuse reflection\".",
"The white paper reflects imperfectly, scattering the light and essentially mixing all the colors together. The mirror reflects more precisely, and keeps the light in about the same order it started tith.",
"As an aside, mirrors best reflect light between 495 and 570 nanometers making them, in fact, slightly green. This is noticeable in the \"hallway of mirrors\" effect. When you position two mirrors to reflect each other, the images further down the\"hallway\" will appear tinged green.",
"For mirrors, light rays that come in leave the surface at the same angle to the surface normal (the line perpendicular to the plane of the surface) they came in on. Because the mirror is smooth, at every place the light hits, the surface normals all point in the same direction. All that changes in its propagation vector is the sign of the component normal to the surface. Your eye sees then the image as reversed but recognizable. With a rough diffuse surface like white paper, the light that reflects goes off again at the same angle to the surface normal as it came in on, but here the rough surface has surface normals pointing in a bunch of different directions. So the image seen by your eye scrambles as those reflected rays go off in a bunch of different directions."
],
"score": [
1497,
124,
55,
25,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x48v0 | How can antivirus companies can analyse new and powerful viruses without getting themselves infected ? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def2omf",
"defqnv1",
"def2yo7",
"defauzd",
"defd143",
"defpfwc"
],
"text": [
"They keep the viruses contained, for instance in rooms with negative air pressure (so that any airflow runs in instead of out) and containers that the virus cannot penetrate. Then, they study them wearing gloves, or environmentally sealed garments, or with indirect tools like monitors, instead of nakedly handling them.",
"I actually used to work at an AV company! As others have said, there are mechanisms in place to ensure that infected file samples are only opened in a \"sandbox\" environment. Basically these are entirely virtual labs which are being emulated, and set up on virtual networks which are separate from the physical interfaces. With this structure, they can activate a virus sample and see how it affects the sandbox system. Its behaviors (how it loads into memory, what files it writes, etc) are then compiled into prototype virus definition files. The sandbox is reset, and they test again seeing if the new definition files successfully stop the computer virus. Provided it works, these prototype definitions are then put through a general QA cycle to ensure it doesn't break common windows installations out of the box, and is then finalized into part of your daily virus def downloads. If a customer attempts to send infected samples to customer support instead of the secure submission portal, there's a protocol we followed which involved politely reprimanding the customer and having them resubmit, as well as contacting our server department to make sure the contaminated sample is scrubbed. Employees are trained not to open any potentially infected files from customers, and we run with a rather strict anti-virus policy on our work machines. The closer the technician is to the public, the tighter the security controls. TL;DR: Layers upon layers of security protocols and locked down network environments to make sure hostile code is segregated from the rest of the business.",
"They have dedicated computers for this that *do* get infected so they can monitor the software's activities. As long as that sacrificial computer isn't networked to others there's no way for even the most devious virus to spread to other machines. Once they're done that machine is reset to factory settings and the operating system is reinstalled.",
"They use a sandbox (a kind of software container) that can protect system and test the execution of virus. And analyze it with a debugger for reverse engineering, so they can find the assembly of it and know what is able to do.",
"To analyze a virus behavior they *do* get themselves \"infected\". But they obviously do so in a controlled manner. Unlike biological viruses, you wouldn't get infected just by manipulating and storing them. Viruses, as any computer program, have to be \"run\" to actually do something.",
"Also, how do they get the viruses for testing? Do they browse porn site after porn site downloading as much crap as they can? What if a new virus spreads, do they do something particular to obtain it?"
],
"score": [
394,
97,
83,
10,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x49dd | Do people without Nielsen boxes affect viewership ratings? Does recording a show and watching it later increase viewership counts? | I'm trying to find out if there are other metrics other than Nielsen. Do they still use Nielsen boxes? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def4k7p",
"def7cpu",
"defeyts"
],
"text": [
"They still use nielsen pretty much exclusively. And nielsen still relies almost entirely on set-top boxes. They have a competitor in rentrak which uses actual data provided by cable provider partners. nielsen recently [struck a deal with dish network]( URL_0 ) to do the same. Their numbers are garbage and that's no secret to anyone.",
"I was told by someone who worked in TV in the UK, that there's a lot of ways of trying to work out what everyone's watching. In the UK, they'd look at spikes in electricity use after shows (because over here, we always put the kettle on when a show has finished). In more recent years, there's been more reliance on figures from catch-up services and the like. So, yeah, watching a show later counts toward viewer figures. They'll also be trawling social media to see who is talking about shows and televised sports events etc.",
"I worked for Nielsen installing the equipment to measure viewership in households, both in metered market and national. They send out written diary books but there is no way for them to measure what you watch if they don't come install the equipment and you have no effect on viewership, whether or not you record also does nothing."
],
"score": [
34,
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.wsj.com/articles/nielsen-to-include-set-top-box-data-in-ratings-for-first-time-1459764001"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x4b0z | What is the point of ads that infect your device with viruses? | Economics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def3f42",
"def7so9"
],
"text": [
"Why are you asking about ads specifically? The reason to infect someone via an ad is the same as any other infection, and there can be a multitude of answers ranging from botnets to trojans to just plain causing havoc",
"To make money. There are many ways to do that. \"Ransomware\" blocks you from accessing your documents and demands money directly to remove the block. Your device's computing power could be used to try and crack other people's passwords or its network connection used to launch attacks on websites. By stealing the data on your device and continuing to spy on it the attacker could get the password for your online banking, or they could get information used to send a convincing phishing email to your friends pretending to be you and asking them for money. Those are just a few of the many many ways that someone with a computer and a criminal mind can enrich themselves at your expense. As for why these virus are often spread by ads - because they *can*. Web advertising is done using \"ad networks\" that act as middlemen between the individual websites that show the ads and the people that want to place. They mean that I can approach one ad network with one ad and have it potentially appear on hundreds of different websites - but not all the time, only to some site visitors who meet criteria I decide. And if the ad network doesn't bother to check ads properly, I can make my ad try to put a virus on the visitor's device."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x4fov | Why is the weather usually pleasant after a thunderstorm? | Other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def60pp",
"deg4c7h"
],
"text": [
"Thunderstorms generally occur when a cold front moves in a warm area. The way fronts work is that the colder ones shove the warm air mass upwards since cold air is more dense. In this same way, the warm air has more energy than the cold does, so when the cold from moves in, the air is calmer. Often during the summertime a little cooler weather is welcome along with the stillness that occurs.",
"Thunderstorms occur because of updrafts in the atmosphere. Updrafts generally occur because warm moist air at the surface is less dense than the cooler air above it, causing it to rise rapidly. When you're seeing white puffy cumulus clouds, you're seeing this warm air aloft. During a thunderstorm, much of that moisture falls in the form of precipitation and it brings along a ton of cooler air with it. That cooler air could be 10 to 40 degrees cooler (depending on the dryness of the atmosphere) than the current temperature at the surface, which rapidly drops the temperature around you. The stark drop in temperatures during a hot summer day feels cool and refreshing, compared to the earlier sweltering heat."
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x4h2e | what happens when we get headaches and why does a glass of water sometimes cure it? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def50xp",
"def4p2y",
"def7qzq",
"defs1zg"
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of reasons for you to get a headache, but the one that pertains to the glass of water solution is that your brain needs water to survive. Your brain runs on various chemical reactions which require a balance of salt, and many other things, to stay regulated. If you don't have enough water, those chemicals become unbalanced, and your brain stops functioning properly. A headache is your body sounding the alarm bells that \"something is wrong up here,\" and if the problem is dehydration then drinking some water will make it go away. It doesn't mean your brain is actually in pain, because your brain doesn't have pain receptors. You can poke someone's brain with a stick and they won't feel it. Incidentally, this is why dehydrated people hallucinate, because their brain is chemically unbalanced from lack of water.",
"Headaches are caused by vasoconstriction (tightening of the blood vessels), which results in pain. One of the causes of vasoconstriction is dehydration, which explains why drinking can often help.",
"So what's the difference between a headache (as defiend by u/Vorengard ) and a migraine? what causes chronic headaches/migrains?",
"If your headache is caused by dehydration, It hurts because your brain literally shrinks and yanks mercilessly on its surrounding tissue: \"Dehydration headaches may happen because lack of fluids causes shrinkage in brain volume. This results in the brain pulling away from the skull, which triggers pain receptors in the meninges (the membrane that surrounds the brain).\"[Source]( URL_0 ) [study verifying brain shrinkage due to dehydration]( URL_1 )"
],
"score": [
24,
10,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://universityhealthnews.com/daily/pain/dehydration-headache/",
"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7707380_The_Effects_of_Dehydration_on_Brain_Volume_-_Preliminary_Results"
]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
|
5x4lnq | How is the answer to this question not 84? | URL_0 I had to take a math assessment as part of a job interview. This question completely stumped me, as the answer I was almost certain of (84), was not listed. Please explain how to do this other than: (70x20)+(80x5)+(90x10)+(100x15)=4200 4200/50 = 84 | Mathematics | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def7hj5",
"def7898",
"defj8l6",
"defp4g3"
],
"text": [
"Your calculation is definitely right. I'd say they made a mistake there. On the other hand I know people and some are devilish misanthropes. Therefore you should consider that this could either be part of your test or they provided some additional information within the test (or not, in this case they are absolute berserks and you should reconsider your choice of employer). For instance: Grades are considered integers (like 1, 2, 3 and 4). Which would mean there's nothing in between the \"grades\" 70, 80, 90 and 100. The result in this case would be 80.",
"Your math is right, the test is wrong. Either that, or they want to see if you're paying attention. Either way, bring it up in the interview if you get the chance, and let them know it's messed up. Either you pass their test and they know you have attention to detail, or you bring an error to their attention and they're impressed that you're already contributing to making things better for them.",
"With only the information in the picture, the correct answer is of course 84. But the first sentence is cut off. Maybe they give us the number os students there, and all students not listed in the graph is assumed to have 0 points? Maybe there is more information available in the test, or information you are supposed to know beforehand?",
"The test does specify it is looking for the average. That would be exactly what OP did: add up every score and divide by the total number, getting a result of 84. That is the right answer. But in looking for how these yahoos found a different result, I played with ridiculous math operations and got the following: With 15 people at the top scoring 100, and 20 people at the bottom scoring 70, we would eliminate all the top scores, leaving 5 bottom scores of 70. (20 - 15 = 5) 10 people scored 90 and 5 people scored 80. This let's us eliminate all but 5 of the higher score. (10 - 5 = 5) (5 x 90) + (5 x 70) = 800 800 ÷ (5 + 5) = 80 That would appear to be how they were expecting this to be calculated, though the way the question is worded clearly asking for the average, not this bastardization. It was fun though."
],
"score": [
12,
8,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
5x4ui9 | Why is parental approval so important when we're choosing a partner? Are there other species that exhibit this behavior? | Biology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def8eld",
"def9jc4",
"defeuor",
"deg2buc",
"def895a"
],
"text": [
"Human parents invest a lot of time and effort into raising their children. If you think about it, you usually finish your studies in your early twenties and even then, even if you start working and living on your own or are living abroad or distancing yourself from your parents because the differences between you and them become more obvious over time, you have shared a bond for more or less two decades (unless something bad happened ofc) and unless they're toxic to be around, you're not cutting ties with them. Other animals reach their full maturity way before us, random example a bear can have offsprings of his own at around 3-4 years old, their babies grow up quickly but are pretty limited, once a cub becomes a full-fledged bear, it's not going to be more bear than it is. Human development is much, much slower but allows us to be taught more complex stuff, use tools, use written language, etc. I think that's the key difference, it hurts if our parents don't approve our choice because our parents are still part of our life when we're making those choices (works the other way around too, if you're marrying someone, you're also going to see their family quite a lot, if they're a bunch of pricks, you're not going to last long)",
"This is a cultural thing rather than a biological thing. In many cultures children are viewed as the property of their parents, and historically they have been used as way of bonding families together for social, financial or political gain. In Greek and Roman society daughters literally went from being owned by their father to being owned by their husband - the tradition of giving the bride away is left over from a similar idea.",
"We are social creatures. We move in tribes and groups. Our parents are our first, closest, and best link to our tribe. They are also the tribal representatives we are most \"stuck with\". Even if you disappoint them they are stuck with you and vice-versa. Even if you are disowned by your dad, for example, you still feel stuck whit him and his bullshit. So others are invoking social complexity, but in a very real way the parental relationship is vexingly simple. You rely on your parents and siblings to tell you the unplesant things that everybody else is socally bound to remain silent over. So your parents or siblings are the ones who can tell you that your new chosen partner is sleeping around. Even if you get really pissed and swoop to denial, you are less likely to stab them than if it is coming from your best man/bride's maid or the town gossip. And particularly for mate selection, the parent has no reason to compete for you, so their assessment is the least likely to be colored by competetion. (If your mom is telling you that your girlfriend is a tramp who is likely to have the neighbor's kid, it is _hopefully_ not because she wants your dick for herself...) So first our parents are infallible. Then we get older and they suck and they hate us because they are setting all these boundaries and telling us stuff we don't want to hear. But if things balance out right they become the people who are least likely to bullshit us for their own reasons.",
"Also, am i weird if I don't care if my parents like my partner?",
"Our social structure is much much more complicated than any other species'. People who act on their animal instincts are generally doomed to poverty and or prison time. Approval or advice from friends and family helps us to moderate our impulses and look at decisions more objectively"
],
"score": [
34,
24,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
]
| [
"url"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.