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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
kovlfu
|
What's the difference between body dysmorphia and body dysphoria?
|
I hear both terms used and vaguely know the difference, but I'm trying to figure out which one it is I'm experiencing at times. I don't want to accidently use one when I mean the other. It's all new to me and I really need both terms explained right next to each other so I can better grasp the differences and better remember each for what they mean. (I didn't know if this should have gone under biology flare?? I'm also new to reddit and don't even know what the flare is for. Very sorry 😔 )
|
Psychology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghtfzr7",
"ghtjpkb"
],
"text": [
"Body dysmorphia is the inaccurate perception of one's body. That is, you see your body and you see an imagined or distorted perspective of your body that doesn't match what you think it looks like Body dysphoria is the accurate but negative perception of one's body. That is, you see your body 'correctly' but you're distressed with it.",
"Dysphoria is the opposite of euphoria; it's a horrible, aversive feeling, like your entire soul screaming \"no\" at something. If your own body gives you this feeling, it can be a very hard thing to live with. Some people have this feeling related to the perception of their gender or sex, so you may have heard of it as a condition which some transgender people experience. Dysmorphia is a perceptual distortion, it means you don't accurately or reliably see the *shape* or *form* of what you're looking at. If you have body dysmorphia then you might look at yourself in the mirror and perceive a very fat body, when you're actually very thin. Body dysmorphia is fairly common among people with anorexia and/or bulimia."
],
"score": [
15,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kovu5d
|
why do speakers blow at a high setting
|
As the tittle says why do speakers blow when you turn them up to the highest setting why would manufacturers make it so that they could reach a setting that it would damage the speaker?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghthxvk"
],
"text": [
"There are several different things you could be referring to when you say 'speakers'. If you mean something like a boombox where everything is put together all in one unit, then there is no way that a manufacturer would make the highest volume damage the speakers, imagine all the terrible reviews it would get! If you're talking about the kind of speakers you use with a computer, where you plug them in with a 3.5mm jack and they have their own volume control, then the same applies since that cable only carries the audio signal and the speakers themselves will make sure they can't go loud enough to damage themselves. If you're talking about the kind of speakers you use in a hi-fi audio system, where the box contains only the transducer and filtering components and you wire them up with thick copper cables and screw terminals, then these can be damaged when you go to too high of a volume because the external system is deciding how much power to give them. Big, expensive speakers like the ones used in rock concerts need big, powerful drivers, whereas small ones in a home system will need much less power. If you plug in a small home speaker designed for a 100W output into a concert audio system capable of pumping out 10kW then crank up the volume to full then the speaker will probably break very quickly, since it just isn't designed to handle 100x its rated power"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kow1z2
|
The Balkans
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghtix9g",
"ghtn9wz"
],
"text": [
"Balkan people are people living in the Balkan penninsula in Southeast Europe. There is a lot of historical background to the answer *why do they hate each other.* While most of the population of the area is of Slavic origin, there was a large Greek/Byzantine and later Ottoman (muslim) influence. So for example while Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia are three nations with majority slavic population, Bosnia is majority islamic, Croatia is majority catholic and Serbia is majority orthodox christianity. The religious/historical tensions are still felt to this day, even though those nations have some common ancestry.",
"As a Croatian I can say it shortly and in my own understanding. Used to be one country called Yugoslavia. Croatia and others said “Serbia you’re bullying us, we don’t wanna be friends any more” and Serbia said “heeeeell no, now I’m gonna bully you even more” so basically war started. There was war. Countries got their independence and Serbia is still salty. Mostly younger generations, or should I say more open minded people of younger generations, don’t really care about it and are fine with Serbians with exception of older people who are stuck in time and their kids who they taught the same way to hate."
],
"score": [
14,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kowtwj
|
How poverty is decreasing and income inequality increasing at the same time?
|
Economics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghtm71f",
"ghtnkns"
],
"text": [
"They are measuring two different things. Poverty measurements are related to a clear poverty line and how many people are above/below it. Income inequality is a relative measurement asking how far apart the lowest and the highest are. Imagine that you were running a race against Usain Bolt - you would be moving forward in the race (poverty decreasing) **and** he would be putting distance between you (income inequality) simultaneously.",
"A gap can get bigger by the edges moving further away, or by more of the middle between them disappearing. Even though poverty may be decreasing, fewer people are doing 'well' and the 'middle class' is disappearing. Meanwhile the people who are doing absurdly well are doing even better than ever. Think lots of 'not in poverty, but not wealthy' people and a couple of mega billionaires versus a general population of well off people, some very poor people, and some rich people, which is more like what existed 40 years ago"
],
"score": [
26,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kowyxc
|
How can a 4K video look clearer on a 1080p display even though there aren't as many pixels on the 1080p display to show more detail in the 4K video?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghtw2m7",
"ghtn4nj",
"ghtrdmp",
"ghtwq5h",
"ghtygb8",
"ghtxlk2",
"ghttzc8",
"ghu3gg8",
"ghtw2s2",
"ghtxaxs",
"ghu9dd3",
"ghtzg4h"
],
"text": [
"Resolution (how many pixels you see) is not the only factor that determines video quality. Compression (how much information is lost in favor of smaller size) and related bitrate (how much information is displayed per second) is sometimes as much or even more important. When you are watching 4K video on a 1080p display your computer is still using the high bitrate of the 4K video to play the file. Some people also mentioned that many 1080p videos are not really 1080p because of how the particular codec (compression algorithm) works.",
"Well, if we're talking streaming video here, when they encode the video for 1080p they'll compress it far more than they do the 4K one, simply because they can--people aren't going to notice loss of detail due to compression artifacts as easily on 1080p as they are 4K. So, the 4K video will have fewer such artifacts and will generally be higher quality. Same applies on Youtube or the like--viewing a 1080p video on a 720p display will generally look better than viewing the same video at 720p on the same display.",
"4K video looks better on 1080p display because theoretically that's what supposed to happen. Images and Videos are down-sampled and compressed significantly because at end of the day it's all about how it looks to human eyes. If multifolds of reduction in size can be achieved by compromising few percentage in quantity, it is wise thing to do. Each pixel in display has Red, Green and Blue LEDs. So each image need three distinct value of intensity of LEDs for each pixel. But these intensities of each pixel of Images and Videos are generally stored in three different variables called Y,Cb, and Cr. It is converted to intensities of RGB LEDs while displaying it on the screen. The reason to use three different variables is that human eyes are more sensitive to Y variables and less sensitive to Cb and Cr. So in most of the cases, each pixel has individual Y value but four adjacent pixels have the same Cb and Cr value. Again, the reason is to decrease the file size. 4K display has four times the pixels than 1080p. So while displaying 4K on 1080p, Along with Y, each pixel has separate Cb and Cr value as well. So Image or video seems more clearer. We are obviously oversimplifying because compression and Codec of the video files are not considered. But this is the general theory behind observed improvement in video quality while displaying it on screen with lesser resolution. TLDR; Images and Videos are down-sampled and compressed to reduce the file size while having some but not substantial compromise in quality. So while displaying them on screens with lesser resolution, effects of the down-sampling and compression reduces and quality is improved. But the improvement in quality is not that substantial and again it proves the legitimacy and ingenuity of down-sampling and compression methods.",
"Another reason why video may look clearer - it is shot with a modern high end camera and is processed on a high end gear in highest resolution possible. The better the uncompressed master video is - the better the video will look even in compressed form when you stream it.",
"I do video transcoding and rendering for a living. You see, 4K videos are filmed using 4K cameras with much more expensive low-noise sensors and usually a better lens. This improves 50% of the video quality that you watch. The 30% the quality improvement is the fact that you're playing the 4K video with higher bitrates than a 1080p video. Higher bitrates mean better quality, more colors and less pixelated motions. Other Redditors touch on another real point on pixel format that videos are transcoded in. This is the last 20% of the quality improvement. Videos are transcoded with high emphasis on pixel brightness but not colors, so that they can compress the video size down by half or so. They call it chroma subsampling. Imagine the screen first showing a grayscale image of real 1080p pixels. But then they might paint only 540p worth of colors on top of it. It's 1080p but the colors seem to bleed out, making it a bit blurry. Now if you play 4K video, the player will decode into 1080p grayscale and then paint 1080p worth of colors on top of it, so you see everything in real resolutions.",
"Apart from image-related explanation, a simple way to explain this is about information. A 4k-video has more information than a 1080p-video. A 720p-video, on the other hand, has less information. Any algorithm (here: video-decoders) will attempt to scale the information to the display. That means, smaller videos will be upscaled, bigger videos are downscaled. Upscaling means you have to “invent” information, that is, fill in the pixels which are “missing” from the video. And, as you cannot just “create” information, you will see that the video is pixelated. Downscaling, on the other hand, means to throw information away. And that is much easier. Why 4k-videos look cleaner than 1080p-videos on a 1080p-screen is simply because you have more information available for the algorithm to choose from when it comes to deciding what should be thrown away. Hence, transitions look more fluid. A 1080p on 1080p means that all the available information will simply be displayed as it is, which makes display faster, but will also display any compression artifacts.",
"The answer is called Chroma Subsampling. This would apply to streaming video, normal television, movie theaters, and even blue-rays and DVDs. The idea is to transfer information more quickly for higher refresh rates. This wouldn't matter as much today, but we established the practice a long time ago and all of our 480, 720, and even 1080 recording devices use chrome subsampling. Basically, all the pixels on your screen are grouped in to 4s and one of those 4 is just 'brightness.' The idea is that we can't tell the difference, but in reality your image is only 3/4 of the resolution it claims to be. When you receive 4k resolution worth of information, it is enough info to light all 4x pixels correctly. So watching a 4k video on a 1080 screen still shows a bit more information then watching 1080 video. TL/DR: You are just seeing REAL 1080p. 1080p video is actually 810p.",
"If you mean that a 4K video on a 1080p display has more detail than a 1080p image, first we have to talk about what the objective reference is: The display isn't capable of more detail than its maximum color gamut and resolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every 1080p source you've seen contained the maximum amount of detail a 1080p stream could carry. So a few things can be happening here: 1. Your 1080p reference might be a film that was poorly transferred to 1080p. 2. The transmission system is still transmitting much more data for the 4K stream, and consequently it can push the color gamut as far as 1080p will display it, versus a 1080p stream that was optimized some years ago for slower data connections. 3. Some bitstreams may have been encoded in H.264 instead of H.265 HEVC which is tremendously more efficient, thus transmitting even more data within the 1080p color and resolution gamut than was ever captured in the older H.264 stream of the same, optimized for slower connections. 4. The cameras, lenses and recorders used on the 4K production, which really begin with 8K RAW, working their way down to a 4K Digital Intermediate, may be much newer and may be capturing more detail with far less generation loss than a poorly archived 35mm interpositive that was wet gate transferred to ANY format. tl;dr: Everything from newer digital cameras, lenses and recorders, to newer codecs to faster data connections to lack of generation loss makes for a better experience in 1080p than was possible even just 5 years ago.",
"Generally, in a raw format where all data is transmitted for all pixels uncompressed, it wouldn't make much difference. In practice there are 2 things that would affect the quality: There are different techniques used to add up and average the pixels (there are 4 pixels in 4k to 1 pixel at HD). At most basic, the scaler has to cram the average of 2x2 pixels into a single pixel. A high end scaler wouldn't just average down every 2x2 pixels to make a new pixel - it would look at the bigger picture trying to reduce aliasing, averaging bigger areas, looking for contrast lines and places where it can make the underlying picture more natural. This is of course complicated when it's not a perfect geometric multiple, such as how the various '4k' standards aren't just double 1920x1080. some are 4000x2000 (simplified example). In those cases it has to do all sorts of cleverness to avoid moire patterns among many other artifacts. Secondly, we use compression to increase the amount of information we can fit down the limited pipes of the internet. This compression has loss. You've seen it before with the blockiness that happens when a stream drops to a lower quality level, or even when a picture is encoded with a low data jpg compression. Uncompressed, 4k would take 4x as much space as HD 1080p. That's 4x as much information to decide what to put into each pixel. Compressed, it's probably closer to 2-3x as much data. Each compression 'mistake' that happened at 1080p has no opportunity to be fixed and shows up as incorrect, blurry, or blocky pixels. When starting with 4k data...even compressed it has 2-3 more opportunities to be correctly interpreted at the higher bitrate since there's more underlying information to work with.",
"Besides other reasons given here, there's could be codec involved. 1080p on Youtube for example used AVC (H264) while 4k used VP9. For the same quality AVC consumes about twice as much bitrate as VP9.",
"Higher bitrate. When video files are compressed, they take advantage of different methods of compressing the data. As 4k video is higher quality, it possess a higher bitrate, resulting in a less compressed but higher quality video that takes up more space. URL_0 URL_1",
"Details in the picture are lost when compressing video and 4K video contains more details than 1080p video which will be visible even on a 1080p display. There are many parameters for video encoding that will impact the quality, and it is definately possible to have 1080p video that looks better than 4k,but typically the reverse will be true. One factor, as has been mentioned by others that has an obvious impact is chroma subsampling. While the uncompressed video will be 4k or 1080p, internally the resolution can be lower. This is normally described by something like YUV420, YUV422, YUV444. A video frame is a grid of pixels, and on the TV these may be a grid of red, green and blue LEDs. But internally in the video stream the color information is encoded not as red, green and blue, but as one value for brightness and 2 values for color information for each pixel. As normal video content often has a similar color on adjacent pixels, a common way to reduce the video size is to reduce the color information, but keep the details on brightness. This means that a blue gradient image, such as a sky will look good, pixel 1 and pixel 2 and pixel 3 and 4 are all blue, but the intensity of the blue is different. This is chroma subsampling. Color can be averaged and kept as one single value from 4 pixels but kept as one single value, while brightness is kept as 4 values. If we assume that the YUV pixel format is used, each uncompressed pixel could be described with 3 bytes. One for Y. One for U and one for V. 4 pixels would be 12 bytes. But by discarding some detail, this could be half, 6 bytes by have 4 bytes of Y and 1 bytes each of U and V. This means that a 1080p video only has 540 rows of color information. But a 2160p (4k video) has 1080p rows of color information, so it should look better on a 1080p display even if all compression artifacts are identical otherwise. This is not the only factor. Video is also encoded as larger blocks, like 16x16 pixels. You know those blocks that may be seen when there are some problems, or a very compressed video. A 4k video played on a 1080p display would be scaled down, so a 16x16 block would be displayed as a 8x8 block on the tv."
],
"score": [
1716,
1111,
128,
37,
27,
11,
10,
7,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate",
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NFmpJNvd4k"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
koxgsz
|
Watts, amps, volts and joules whats the difference?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghts4f5",
"ghtqfsx"
],
"text": [
"Electricity is hard to visualise, so a trick is to visualise it like a fluid. An electric circuit becomes like a system of pipes where generators are like pumps, resistors are like narrow sections, and so on. In this visualisation Volts are like pressure and Amps are the amount of flow. Joules measure energy and Watts measure power (which is rate of energy exchange), and they relate to the 'work' that can be done by these flows and pressures. Imagine a waterwheel in this water circuit and imagine it is doing some work like winding up a pulley to lift up some weights from a pile at the bottom to a pile at the top. Joules measure the amount of energy, so you could use them to describe how big your piles of weights are at the top or bottom. Watts measure the rate of energy flow (Joules per second), so you could use them to describe how quickly your waterwheel can lift up weights (how powerful it is). If you want to increase the power of your waterwheel, you can increase the pressure (similar to increasing the voltage in an electrical circuit) or you could open a valve in the pipe wider and increase the flow (that is the current, which would be Amps if it was electrical).",
"Watts is a rate of flow when you multiply the voltage times the amperage you get \"watts\" of electricity. Amperage could be explained as the \"volume\" of electricity or how much flow their is (basically how big the pipe is) where volts are how much \"pressure\" (how fast the electrons move) Joules are an unrelated measurement of energy"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
koxpu3
|
Why is the sun yellow/red/orange but the hottest flame is blue.
|
My (19F) brother (11) has autism and wants to know why the blue flame that is shown on Bunsen burners is hotter then a yellow safety flame. My mums got involved in the debate but she doesn't know either lol. We said blues the hottest but he said the sun is yellow therefore the safety flame is the hottest.
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghtvk4p",
"ghtzwii",
"ghtup8x",
"ghtrvt9",
"ghtuy0e",
"ghtx6d1"
],
"text": [
"Hot objects do glow, and they'll generally start red and move up through yellow towards white but you'll never really get something to blue because that's not how black body radiation curves work. The sun is basically white because its surface(where the light is made) is at just 5800 Kelvin which is why \"Cool White\" LEDs have a 5500-6000K color temperature. Higher temperatures mean a bluer white but still very white. The blue flame from the bunsen burner isn't because its stupid hot, its because of *what* is stupid hot. When you burn methane it will look blue because its hot enough to excite the electrons on the molecules and when they settle down they give off a blue photon. You can get a similar effect if you burn copper, you'll end up with a green flame and its very obvious in this case that its green from the copper and not green from the heat. TDLR - Two different properties can give a flame color, the blue flame is not blue hot, its blue because of what is hot",
"Hey I kinda hate all these replies: there ARE blue stars, and those in fact have a hotter surface temp than the sun. Also, methane does burn blue, but yeah it’s still hot. Show your brother pictures of blue stars. They’re huge and hot and burn all their fuel up in like a hundred million years, and explode! Normal stars last billions of years or more. URL_0",
"The Sun is also blue. As others have pointed out, the sun is actually white - a mixture of all of the visible spectrum. Its *peak* output is in yellow/green, as you can see from [this graph]( URL_0 ) of the Sun's energy in wavelength. So it's *mostly* white but just *slightly* more green/yellow. The sky is blue^^[citation ^^needed] and that energy has to come from *somewhere*. As sunlight filters through the atmosphere it gets refracted a bit (like light going through a prism) and the blue wavelengths get refracted way more than the others. This means the blue light goes all *around* making the sky appear blue, which means there's less blue light coming directly from the Sun (from our perspective). Your perception of color is as much a function as which wavelengths you *don't* see as it is which ones you do. Since you're seeing less blue light, the green/yellow becomes even more dominant. And as others have pointed out, flame color is as much a function of what it's burning as it is the heat of it. The Sun creates a huge range of wavelengths (hence, being white) while, say, a bunsen burner is using a relatively pure fuel and only producing a narrow range.",
"The sun's light is actually white, as it is a collection of all visible wavelengths. It only looks yellow/orange/red through our atmosphere",
"The Sun isn't \"burning\" it is producing heat through nuclear fusion, squeezing hydrogen atoms together to create helium and releasing a huge amount of energy in the process. URL_0",
"It's a pretty hard question to answer well; it's easy to get into some tricky quantum mechanics etc. One of the few simple facts in all of this is that a photon of blue light has more energy than a photon of red light. An object will always be emitting thermal radiation in the form of photons, but the maximum energy of these will be determined by its temperature. At room temperature these are all infrared, but as you heat something up it will eventually start emitting visible red photons - but it will still be emitting lots of infrared photons too. The sun surface temperature is around 5600degC (5773K). At this temperature it will be emitting some blue photons\\*, but it will still be emitting bucketloads of red, infrared, etc. To our eyes the average appears white. This type of cross-spectrum temperature-driven radiation is called 'Blackbody radiation'. With things like flame colours, you're looking at a different process to blackbody radiation. Instead certain specific electrons around an atom are being boosted up to a higher energy state, and then emitting a precise frequency of photon as they drop back down again. In a gas flame, when the hole in the bunsen is closed, the gas & air can't pre-mix so it burns quite inefficiently, which leads to specks of carbon (soot). This soot is a big blackbody emitter & overwhelmes everything else. When you open the hole, the gas & air premixes & it burns without soot, so you can now see this blue light that's being emitted as the electrons around the gas and air molecules drop back to their usual (ground) energy states. It's a bit like the combustion reactions are producing some clean notes like playing individual keys on a piano, but these can be overwhelmed by the soot blackbody emissions coming in and hammering handfuls of keys. & #x200B; \\*tangent: Some of these blue photons happen to be in tune with an electron in Nitrogen, so they get absorbed & reemitted in random directions, while other visible frequencies pass right by. Hence the sky scatters blue light, and appears blue."
],
"score": [
127,
30,
21,
5,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/massive-blue-supergiant-challenges-theory-of-how-big-a-star-can-be"
],
[
"https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/Aug-2004/reflectance_wavelength.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/vVE0B6g9F_0"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
koz95m
|
If your stomach acid so acidic that it can melt almost anything, why do other foreign organisms and objects still pass through like nothing happen? Why do tapeworms continue to survive and other bacteria?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghu7dhn",
"ghu01jt",
"ghu1467",
"ghu1c6y"
],
"text": [
"Lots of focus on the acidity of the stomach and too little focus on the tapeworm going on here. Tapeworm eggs/larvae (can't remember exactly) are inside a cyst, basically a little fatty bubble, inside of meat. When that meat is eaten, the fatty wall of the cyst is broken down in the stomach, but the tapeworm is safe inside it's bubble. It can then move into the intestine, which is a much friendlier environment for a parasite. For other pathogens, it depends a bit. Salmonella actually is very sensitive to our stomach acid and will not survive it if you just swallowed a solution with it mixed in. However, if that bacteria can hide out in some meat you eat (fat/protein), it can survive the acidity and move on the gut to wreak havoc.",
"Your stomach is actually not that acidic-about 1.5 to 3.5, or comparable to lemon juice. There are many things that are resistant to stomach acid, including organisms. The organisms that have evolved to survive our stomach acid are those that specialized to infect humans. The ones that weren't able to survive that trip didn't reproduce, while the ones that did went on to pass those genes conferring acid resistance to the next generation.",
"Tapeworms have a secondary epidermis which excretes and coats them with a similar compound to the mucus that lines our stomachs. It quickly neutralizes the pH of our gastric acid at a cellular level. Also, our stomach will eject its contents after a certain amount of time. Some things require much longer to be broken down fully, and the stomach doesn’t hold on that long. Fibrous foods such as beans, corn, grains and seeds will usually be left partially intact. This is a good thing, as the extra bulk helps stimulate the intestinal walls and form healthier stool.",
"If stomach acid was as strong as you seem to think, the stomach lining would not hold, and throwing up once would melt your throat and mouth, killing you fairly painfully and quickly... It’s a concentration issue, not a matter of acid type, though. Hydrochloric acid, the primary component of stomach acid, is quite potent in pure form, but it’s pretty diluted. Heck, the same acid is used as a food additive, in very low concentrations. In the words of Paracelsus, the poison is in the dose."
],
"score": [
47,
9,
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
koz9n6
|
How can it be “too cold to snow” when it snows on top of mountains and in countries with much colder climates?
|
Where I am from (UK) people often say “it’s too cold to snow”. How can this be true when it snows in the Artic and on top of mountains?
|
Earth Science
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghu06i3",
"ghu01yz",
"ghud2ha",
"ghufgui"
],
"text": [
"They mean that the humidity is too low relative to the temperature for snow to occur Not enough water in the air to snow Cold air holds less water so it being to cold to snow is more about cold and dry conditions. Furthermore many colder climates such as the tops of mountains and the artic are snowy because the snow almost never melts but because the air there is dry they also don't recieve that much snow.",
"I wonder if they mean it's too cold/DRY to snow. Like reported temperatures are more common than humidity.",
"It's a commonplace saying in the UK, and although it's vaguely correct it's not for reasons that would necessarily make sense elsewhere in the world. The UK has a fairly unique climate, being at a northerly latitude on the western side of a major continent, but at the same time receiving the benefits of the Gulf Stream. This means that the UK is simultaneously far warmer than would be expected for somewhere at that latitude, and subject to significant amounts of rainfall. The prevailing British weather comes in to the country as fronts from the Atlantic. These typically bring plenty of rainfall but also, due to the Gulf Stream's effects, are relatively warm. On rarer occasions the weather changes and weather fronts come in to the UK from the north. These weather fronts are typically far colder but because they haven't travelled over a large ocean, are much less likely to bring rain. So the TLDR for the above is that there are two main types of weather affecting Britain: warm and wet, or cold and dry. This means that in winter the coldest days are those associated with northern winds bringing bright, clear skies. It's not that it's literally too cold to snow, it's just that in the UK when it's very cold, that's rarely associated with the sort of clouds that also bring snow.",
"Consider Antarctica. It's covered in literally miles deep glaciers and snow over the entire continent. So you'd think it must snow a lot there, but it doesn't. It's a desert. It's one of the driest places on Earth. But any snow that does fall, doesn't melt, and so it sticks around year after year, millennia after millennia. Mountains tend to hold onto their snow as well, which is where mountain glaciers come from. It doesn't have to snow often, it just has to stick around and not melt. Mountains also tend to be complicit in rainfall patterns and act as natural barriers to water and rainfall. Moist air hits a mountain range and tends to dump all it's rain on one side, and end up bone dry on the other. This also causes a bit more rainfall in parts of the mountains as well."
],
"score": [
15,
10,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
koznif
|
why aren't cars protected underneath? Why aren't they enclosed in some kind of cowling or shield? Would that help to prevent damage and rust? Is there any way to enclose your car in a shield? Would it help anything?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghu2p49",
"ghu6bla",
"ghu2mf4",
"ghu83o7"
],
"text": [
"You can add an oil coating to prevent rust which can help. The issue with a cover is if water and salt slowly get under there over time they would be hard to wash off and would end up staying and causing rust just as much as if the parts were exposed. Also, there are hot parts like the exhaust that you wouldn’t want to cover up to avoid too much heat staying in the car and possible fires. And it would make maintenance more difficult and expensive. Lastly it would add to the cost of the car. If you have an old car you’re probably wishing they’d done more from the factory to make it last longer. But *if you were buying a new car* would you be willing to pay more for a car that will last longer? The manufacturer only cares about selling you a new car, not how long it lasts you. Customers will demand cars that are reliable and will pay more for cars they think will last, but this has its limits.",
"Some vehicles are. For many environments though, a bottom body skin could be problematic. It would slow down drying when moisture inevitably gets in. And may even collect water and debris. It might be difficult to keep clean enough to prevent clogged drainage holes, especially if you live in a climate where they commonly salt and sand the roads. For mechanics without access to a lift, it would be a huge pain getting it out of the way to do anything.",
"Cars are a combination of compromises, additional protection comes with additional weight and cost; so there needs to be a high demand and benefit for such a change.",
"Off road vehicles often have metal skid plates under sensitive parts like the engine and transmission. The idea is to prevent large rocks from damaging the drivetrain. They don't care that much about hitting the floor or frame as it won't cause immediate problems. Many race cars have plastic or carbon fiber plating under the car. Although this is not there to protect, it aids aerodynamics (a flat bottom creates less drag). In fact, some new cars come with this to help improve fuel economy. As other have said, plating won't really help rust but metal plating will help prevent immediate damage. However, the kind of damage it will protect from is when a tall, pointy object gets under the car. This really only happens when trying to drive over something. So it's not really a problem that happens on the street."
],
"score": [
61,
17,
9,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kozpbo
|
How do sesamoid bones function as pulleys in our body?
|
Hi everyone! I couldnt find anything that answered this question, so here goes: Im doing osteology right now and I came across this phrase on Wikipedia: > "Sesamoids act like pulleys, providing a smooth surface for tendons to slide over, increasing the tendon's ability to transmit muscular forces." I think I kind of understand how pulleys work: You use less force over a longer distance, yet the amount of work is the same. Im confused as to how this is applied on sesamoid bones. I understood they are "simply" embedded into our tendons. How exactly would they be creating a larger distance, as seen by the mechanism of pulleys? And how would that put less strain on the tendons? & #x200B; If I got it wrong please let me know! (Will flair this under physics since I believe my problem is understanding its biomechanics.) Thank you so much in advance!
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghu3kut"
],
"text": [
"The ability for pulleys to multiply force is when you chain them together in a “block and tackle” arrangement. That’s useful, but not the only reason to use pulleys and it’s not what those bones are doing. The *other* reason to use pulleys is to reduce friction when a “cable” would otherwise rub on something, typically when it changes direction or has a long unsupported span. This doesn’t do the force multiplying thing but, by reducing friction, let’s more force get to the end of the “cable” where it’s needed. If I want 100N at the end of the cable, with good pulleys, I might only need to pull with 101N of force. With no pulleys I might need to pull with 150N to overcome friction going around corners."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kozx0x
|
What is it specifically about substances like mercury and lead that kills you?
|
I understand something like Carbon Monoxide which physically takes up space that should have oxygen there but what about lead in my blood kills me? Is it a chemical reaction that steals nutrients? Does it puncture blood cells?
|
Chemistry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghu4y8q",
"ghu52py"
],
"text": [
"Many proteins in your body incorporate atoms/molecules of specific metals like iron, copper, manganese etc. Those metals are crucial to how those proteins function. Heavier metals, like mercury can be put into those proteins by mistake. This means the protein will no longer work. Depending on what the protein does normally, that can cause lots of problems.",
"Heavy metals kinda sorta look like other atoms that are useful to your body enough to take their place in organic compounds your body tries to make, but the end result doesn't work. For example, lead can pass for calcium to get brought to your brain and put into calcium's place, but once there it can't do what calcium can and whatever nerve cells it ends up being built into start failing."
],
"score": [
18,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp045c
|
It is said that modern chess sites can indentify when someone is playing with the help of a bot or mirroring plays from a mirror match in another site, but how? What does the computer do that professional chess players can't do?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghupa2c",
"ghu64z7",
"ghu5v46",
"ghuwlru",
"ghuocrp",
"ghulj6q"
],
"text": [
"There are multiple ways in which a website like [ URL_3 ]( URL_1 ) or [ URL_2 ]( URL_0 ) would check for cheating. It might involve checking what kind of moves you are making and how long it takes you to find them. Finding the best move isn't suspicious. Finding it over and over again in 5 seconds when you're a 500 rated player is. Also, some moves just aren't natural for a human player to find, not even for the best of the best without thorough analysis. Finally, they might also check if you keep switching between browser tabs, or how your cursor moves while playing. That said: this mostly involves non-professional players. For professional players playing in an online tournament, other techniques are used. This mostly involves the use of one or (usually) more cameras to check what the player is doing during the game. When a player keeps looking in a certain direction inbetween moves, that might indicate the use of a second screen where a chess engine is running. This famously happened earlier this year in a match between GM Wesley So and GM Tigran L. Petrosian. The latter was disqualified for violations of fair play regulation. Needless to say, for a high level chess player, such a controversy is not good for your reputation and can get you banned from professional play for life.",
"They have big datasets of games from a bunch of big chess engines. They break them down into common situations and check your moves against them then assume you matching up with a chess engine sometimes is fine, but if you are matching up nearly 100% of the time you probably are cheating.",
"In the moment, the biggest tell tale sign is that the player is taking a relatively constant time between moves, regardless of the board state. Computers have no sense of any moves being more obvious than another so will take just as long analyzing a position whose next move is obvious to a human as one that requires more thinking by a human. The end result is humans will vary how long they take to think about a move depending on the specific circumstances of the game at the moment, whereas a computer will take just about the same amount of time regardless. As far as mirror matching, if you have a database of all games played, it's a simple matter to see how closely your moves so far match the moves in your database of games.",
"One interesting point I read was about 'natural' moves rather than optimal moves. For example, if you're a rook and a bishop up against a knight it would be natural to swap off bishop/knight to get to an end game you know you will win. Going through a complex combination which wins more quickly, but relies on no mistakes in calculation, is an indicator of possible misbehaviour!",
"There are multiple methods, but one of them is that they have a bot that always looks for the best possible move, and if you do every move perfectly, you are kicked",
"They measure your play time, and they use engines to measure your \"accuracy\" (% of your moves that are the best possible solution). Playing at a mechanically precise rate (despite the obviousness or the difficulty of a position) or perfect play is highly suspicious. Even Magnus Carlsen can't play the optimal move everytime (according to engine softwares, the strongest of which should have a 96+% winrate against the best humans, according to how the elo rating works)."
],
"score": [
82,
47,
22,
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://lichess.org",
"https://chess.com",
"lichess.org",
"chess.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp2jww
|
What is 4/4 in music
|
I recently listened to Tigran Hamasyan’s “Vardavar” and everyone is saying that it is 4/4. Something about counting rhythms. I have no knowledge of music or any of it’s terms. Please help me out on this one. Thank you so very much.
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghunhrr",
"ghukhye",
"ghujvj4",
"ghutxna"
],
"text": [
"A beat is a steady pulse (like your heart beat). A measure is a small section of song. A time signature tells you how many beats are in one measure. The top number is the **number** of beats and the bottom number is the **length** of the beat. (The bottom fraction makes more sense when you take the top number away, using 1/4 instead of 4/4) So 4/4 time tells you there are 4 beats in a measure and each beat is equal to 1/4 of the measure. So you have four, equally divided beats in one measure. You can audiate this by clapping 4 steady beats in a row with a bit of space between each clap: 1, 2, 3, 4. To know what time signature a piece of music is in, you listen for what is called a **down beat**. Which is a more emphasized or accented beat at the beginning of each measure. It doesn’t change in length, only in emphasis. Like clapping harder on the first beat and softer on the next 3 (for 4/4 time). Typically, the start of new verses, bridge, and chorus all start on a downbeat. Hope this helps! I teach middle school music, so I tried to make this as simple as when I explain it to my students at the start of each year.",
"The point of any time signature (4/4, 6/8, 13/16 etc etc) is to tell you how many notes are in each bar. _(It is more true to say that it's the simplest amount of equal length notes per bar but it's not so important)._ The bottom number tells you how big each note (or 'beat') is, ie a quarter note, an eighth note or anything else divisible by 4 (also 1 and 2 are used). The top number indicates how many of that type of note is in each bar. 4/4 implies four quarter notes in every bar. 13/16 implies thirteen sixteenth notes. Although 2/2, 4/4 and 8/8 are very similar, they are slightly different in their 'feel', but there is lots to argue about this. 4/4 is the most common time signature in popular music. \"Money\" by Pink Floyd is worth listening to as it has 7 quarter notes in every bar (7/4) and this is quite uncommon. This is an absolutely gigantic topic and I look forward to lots of wonderful replies and argument about it.",
"It’s called the time signature. This article explains it well URL_0",
"**TL;DR AT BOTTOM** both of the replies already on this are really good and i’m pretty much just restating what they’re saying but here’s my take anyway 4/4 refers to the time signature of a piece and this can affect how a song sounds. 4/4 is the most common although there are many others songs are split up into sections called “measures” (you can identify these by the vertical lines). the time signature tells you how many beats are in the measure the top number of the time signature is the number of beats in the measure and the bottom number is how long each beat is, 4/4 would have four quarter notes per measure. To figure out how long the beat is from the time signature, think of the top number as a one (1/4) and that’s how long it is(1/4 is a quarter and if four is on the bottom, it’s a quarter note) some other examples that aren’t the same number twice are 2/4 is two quarter notes per measure. 3/4 which is 3 quarter notes, and 6/4(which isn’t seen too too much) would be six quarter notes per measure. but, not every time signature has four on the bottom. it can be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32(and so on although you’ll pretty much never seen anything past 16 and even 16 is kinda rare). you could also theoretically have a one on the bottom but i’ve never seen it. you could also have notes that don’t follow this pattern(like a 3) but that gets more advanced as i previously stated, to figure out the length of the note, you can put a one on top so if the bottom hover is two, it would be 1/2(a half note), if it’s eight, it would be 1/8(an 8th note), sixteen would be 1/16(a sixteenth note) etc etc the more music you play, the more you’ll get to learn how time signatures sound such as 3/8(three 8th notes per measure) and 3/16(three 16th notes) sounding very jaunty and 3/4(three quarter notes) which sounds like a waltz. there are two types of time signatures, simple and compound, i won’t get into them but a simple time signature is east to just look at and play and those with **always** have a 2, 3, or 4 on the top. I will attach a link that explains more about simple and complex time signatures. ( URL_0 ) **TL;DR** music is broken up into measures(small sections of music) and the time signature tells you how many beats are on a measure. the top number is the number of beats, and the bottom number is the length of a beat(if the bottom is a 2, it’s half notes, if it’s a 4, it’s quarter notes, if it’s an 8, it’s eighth notes etc. etc.) these will determine how a song may sound and how to play the music"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://knilt.arcc.albany.edu/Time_Signatures_4/4"
],
[
"https://www.musicnotes.com/now/tips/a-complete-guide-to-time-signatures-in-music/"
]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp2l0j
|
how exactly does past trauna (such as childhood trauma) causes one's personality to split into different personalities (Dissociative Identity Disorder)?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghuqv3q"
],
"text": [
"preface: i do not have DID or OSDD but i have done a lot of research on them. that being said, i still am nothing close to a professional and not a whole lot is known on how DID affects your brain **TL;DR AT BOTTOM** when people are scared or stressed, their body can go into a dissociative state as a protection method and that’s basically when they disconnect from reality. dissociation itself is fairly common but it will sometimes last for long periods of time many people will dissociate when they experience a traumatic event and this is because your brain can’t handle the situation and usually you don’t remember what happens in a dissociative state. this is a defense mechanism of you brain. if this happens while you’re still developing your personality and core memories(when you’re young) you may start to develop memories or another personality in your dissociative state as parts of your brain change. This is how an alter forms. Dissociation can be different everytime and you don’t have just one dissociative state so different experiences and memories may cause different types of dissociations which is how multiple alters form. TL;DR certain things can trigger you to dissociate and when it happens a lot as a kid(when your personality and core memories are developing), these dissociative states will begin to have personalities of their own"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp31ks
|
Why do college professors go on a sabbatical? What's the purpose of the sabbatical? And does the college professor get paid while on sabbatical?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghv5txk",
"ghvdqav"
],
"text": [
"My work allows me to take a Sabbatical every milestone anniversary, (5 years, 10 years, 15 years, etc) its paid time off in addition to my standard vacation. They do this as retention and morale boost.",
"Professors take sabbaticals to have more focused time to do research/write, often traveling to someplace else to do that research. Maybe it’s an archeology professor going to Egypt to dig, maybe it’s a philosophy professor going to do research at some library in Rome, might be a chemist doing some intensive research without distraction of teaching and grading exams, might be a professor of any subject writing a book. They may also teach at a different school for a time just to get fresh perspectives, cross pollinate ideas, etc. My father-in-law was an English lit professor who did a number of sabbaticals, some in which he taught at other schools, some where he did research, and one where he mostly worked on his book."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp33mb
|
Why does the top of Saturn look like a hexagon? Does the bottom look identical?
|
I recently saw [this]( URL_0 ) picture of Saturn and I wanted to know why does the top of it have a visible hexagon? Does the bottom of the planet look the same, and if so do they overlap if looking at the planet from a top view?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghuo4vk",
"ghuodlb"
],
"text": [
"It's still a matter of scientific speculation, though most believe it is caused by a standing wave, with laboratory experiments being able to replicate the hexagon through differential rotation of fluids. The south side does not look the same. This is from Wikipedia.",
"The south pole does not have the same pattern and instead have a more normal circular polar vortex. However the south pole of Titan have a similar shape although not as prominent. We do not know how long the hexagonal vortex have existed or excatly why it forms. We have been able to recreate the hexagonal shape in labratory experiments and in simulations. It is due to quite complex turbulence which is too dificult to understand, let alone explain in a simple manner. But a key factor is that the gasses rotate at different speeds which is what forms the turbulence that takes the hexagonal shape."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp3iem
|
Is there a reason for dehydrating plums into prunes and then rehydrating prunes and making prune juice instead of just making plum juice?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghutv1b",
"ghyc3w0"
],
"text": [
"It increases the sugar content when dried. It's caused through a controlled fermentation process.",
"Plums are available to be picked for only a few weeks each year. If not used or preserved they will go to waste. Drying is a very good way to preserve plums (and most fruit) so that they can keep safely through the year until the next harvest. No need for a freezer. The goodness is mostly preserved and after soaking, they are good to eat, or cook with, or make juice from."
],
"score": [
21,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp3mmv
|
We need ~ eight hours of sleep every night, if we miss say three hours, two nights in a row, does it all accumulate onto the third day, or does our body train itself to requite fewer hours?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghuweta",
"ghuqkcv"
],
"text": [
"The most definitive thing we know about what sleep accomplishes is the alleviation of the sensation of needing sleep. The rest is reading tea leaves of your choice.",
"You can't really recover from lack of sleep. It all just keeps accumulating and there's really no way to get that back, even if you sleep 10 hours one day or add in naps. Sadly, we still don't really understand what exactly sleep does for us, we just know it's incredibly important. But you can get used to getting much less sleep than average. Many severe insomniacs get less than 3 hours a day, and we seem to get by just fine. It's not healthy, but that's just the way psychological disorders go. A lot of websites will tell you \"after 20 hours without sleep, you've got the same mental acuity as a drunk person!\" and they're just absolutely wrong."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp3u7d
|
How is the trading app Robinhood “bad”?
|
I see many people online saying how Robinhood traders could mess up the markets and that they’re also just not that informed with the market
|
Economics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghus1b0"
],
"text": [
"It's \"bad\" in that it makes it too easy for people with zero knowledge or experience to get themselves in a really bad spot. That's a case where an individual should do more to educate themselves on what they're getting into first. In an inexperienced person's defense, however, Robinhood *does* make things too simplistic at times - for instance, identifying royalties as regular dividends or not labeling ETFs as partnerships when they are more than just an ETF."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp43rn
|
Why does slouching feel more comfortable than sitting up right?
|
Got a new chair which is meant to help support better posture due and been sitting in it for 2-3 hours and the lumbar support is causing discomfort and it feels so nice to just slouch and lay backwards where my lumbar is floating like im curling my body.
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghut606"
],
"text": [
"It feels more comfortable since your body is more used to the slouch position than sitting up straight, doesn't make it more healthy. The lumbar support forces you to use muscles that you've neglected for so long that they have to re-establish themselves first before it can be comfortable to sit up straight for longer periods of time."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp4fdx
|
Why exactly is radiation so deadly? Why does it cause cancer or poisoning? What does it mean to be poisoned via radiation?
|
I've tried to research this before, but I'm not all that knowledgeable of biology. It took me forever to realize that cancer is just basically erratic cells that deprive the rest of the body resources while also putting strain on organs, etc. I understand the concept of HOW radiation comes into being (sort've) but I guess I'm just really confused on what about radiation is so deadly/dangerous. What does it to do the body to give such a horrific response? (Please feel free to dumb it down as much as possible. Biology and chemistry are not my strong suit lol) Edit: I also just saw a post from 7 years ago that kinda addressed it but all those fancy terms just flew over my head. So uh, how about literally explain this concept to me like I'm 5.
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghuv4zs",
"ghuv9xw",
"ghuv8kt",
"ghuvmwa"
],
"text": [
"It’s pretty complicated but I’ll try to do a true ELI5 for how it causes cancer. Your body has a bunch of instructions for how to make and do everything it needs saved within your cells along a string, just like a tape on a VHS tape. (The imaginary five year old was born in 1995 trust me). The radiation is actually really tiny particles that fly through the air and can pass through your body. When they interact with the tape, they mess up the order of the instructions, just like if you brought a magnet near a real VHS tape. These mess ups are sometimes harmless, but sometimes cause a cell to keep growing uncontrollably, aka cancer. With enough radiation, and enough mess ups, cancer is all but guaranteed.",
"Think of radiation as being like little tiny bullets that travel really really fast. Certain types of radiation can damage your body's cells, like how a bullet hitting a person will get injured. That damage can hurt the cells and turn them into cancerous growths, because the part of the cell that does its job and works correctly gets broken. Now the cell stops doing the job it has to keep your body working correctly, and just starts growing bigger and bigger, using up resources that the other cells need to do their jobs.",
"There are many types of radiation. Many of them are harmless. Microwave radiation, for instance, is only harmful if you get so much of it in one place that it heats up your body and burns you. The type of radiation you're discussing, primarily found during high-energy reactions like nuclear chemistry, has a lit of energy. Each individual particle (photon, electron, or whatever) has enough energy to knock the electron off of an atom. This is important because when an electron is knocked off of an atom, it usually can no linger stay in whatever molecule it was in - this molecule must be rearranged a bit. If this molecule is super important, like DNA, then it being broken is really bad. The cell is damaged and will behave erratically. Normally our cell can repair itself, but it is imperfect and enough radiation will eventually cause cancer by chance. Radiation poisoning comes from even larger doses of radiation. So many cells die all at once that various important bodily functions just turn off.",
"Radiation is deadly because it damages you on a cellular level. Radiation is the fast moving particles streaming out of a radioactive material. These little pieces slam into your cells and tear them apart. This does one of three things to you. -It kills the cell -It damages the cell beyond its capability to repair and reproduce Or - it damages the cell, but It can reproduce and it reproduces itself in the damaged state. Radiation poisoning isn't poison, it's just the bodies immune reaction to the damage to its cells and varies based on the damage."
],
"score": [
23,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp4ydy
|
Does Weed Legalization Help the Economy?
|
Economics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghuy3fe"
],
"text": [
"Developing any industry helps the economy because it provides jobs and taxes for the government. Things stay illegal because the social or health risk isn’t worth the potential economic gains. In my opinion, the health and social risks of weed are relatively minimal, and it should be legal like tobacco and alcohol, the three drugs which we’ve been using for thousands of years."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp51vz
|
why do we do things like leaning forward when gaming and things get serious
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghv2ah6",
"ghv3eq7"
],
"text": [
"We naturally lean forward because we are literally trying to get closer to the action in order to listen, see and feel whatever situation we are in more thoroughly. It is the same when something perks your interest or you are interested in what someone is saying, we naturally lean forward to convey interest, but also to listen more carefully.",
"It's psychological! We naturally lean toward things that are holding our interest or attraction. It's the same with people. When you're comfortable with someone, you tend to sit closer to them or learn toward that side. If you're not too comfortable, you'll settle for the armrest on the opposite side of your body than the person. While leaning forward in interest, you'll probably also experience dilated pupils (bigger) and even possibly increased heart rate."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp5j8q
|
Why is it much easier to turn open the cork of a whiskey bottle than straight pulling it?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghv1yul"
],
"text": [
"It's all a question of leverage. You have a much easier time applying a large torque to the cork, because your forearm is like a lever. When you're trying to apply a linear force along the axis of the bottle, you don't have nearly the same advantage."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp5tj5
|
When paper gets wet, why does it dry wrinkly instead of flat?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghv7fv9"
],
"text": [
"The fibers in the paper swell when they absorb water, but the fibers are not all the same size, so the swelling is not uniform. This means the paper deforms because the surface area of some fibers has changed relative to other connected fibers that did not change as much (or did not change at all)."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp5u42
|
I always hear that for large amounts of CGI in movies and TV shows it costs a lot of money. What is costing so much money?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghv905y",
"ghv3mo4",
"ghv42li",
"ghv4x4n"
],
"text": [
"You probably have a preconceived notion that CGI is cheap. Because lots of shows, particularly animated shows, are filled with CGI these days. Or they're entirely CGI these days. You'd be hard-pressed to find a children's show airing on TV these days that isn't CGI produced for example. So it's a reasonable assumption to make that CGI must be some kind of relatively cheap way to do things. Basically like cheating. The difference, though, is that CGI in shows like that are cheap because they can take advantage of the same assets and use them over the course of an entire show. Take a show like Paw Patrol -- nearly every single episode, the animators are going to use the same exact character models, the same exact environments, probably a lot of the same objects as well. The animations are floaty and not very convincing, because they don't really have to be. Some of their animations might also be reused, or serve as bases to be tweaked into whatever they need for minimal effort. Creation of all these assets probably wasn't cheap, but once they have them, they can be reused for season after season. The only cost at that point for the animation is spending the time to animate the sequences, and maybe create a few extra assets unique to that one episode. This is way less expensive than something like hand-drawn animation, where very little can be re-used since it all needs to be drawn from scratch. Though, hand-drawn is also computer assisted these days, it's why shows like Family Guy look far more rigid than they did in their earlier seasons. With a large-budget live-action film, though, this game is completely changed. Now, you don't get the luxury of reusing anything. Every frame of that film where CGI is used is going to be a unique frame with some kind of unique effect going on. All of those frames have to be hand-crafted, and any assets they need will need to be created completely from scratch for the film. On top of this, they also need to put in a lot more effort to make the CGI look realistic (if that's what they're going for) and seamlessly blend it in to the shot using complex techniques. That inflates the cost *a lot*. We're essentially talking the difference between a toy space ship you can buy at Walmart and an actual billion-dollar satellite built by NASA. The Walmart painting probably did have a considerable price, but once they hashed out the design and built a factory to mass manufacture it, it could be mass produced with ease and sold relatively cheaply. But that billion-dollar satellite is one-of-a-kind, and was made completely from scratch using very expensive tools and put together by some of the most talented people in their field. And it's mostly only good for a single launch. EDIT: Also worth mentioning: if you have a film that is purely live-action, you're going to need resources that are tailored to this kind of production. Sets to shoot, physical actors, cameramen, lighting experts, practical effect technicians, costume and makeup artists stunt doubles, audio engineers, props and prop designers, extras, the works. And all the catering and human resources that that expects. With a CGI-only film, you'd probably replace a lot of that with lots of animators, riggers, digital artists, and that jazz. A film that is purely one or the other only has to dip into one of these. But a film that tries to marry the two together has to pay for both. Or more likely, contract a firm that can provide one or both of these parts for them.",
"Basically, you have to pay the salaries of all the artists creating the computer graphics, people who have gotten special training and know how to use those programs, spending months working on the film.",
"The software costs money, the computers they run it on costs money, and it takes quite a while for it to actually be done and you have to pay the salaries of all the people working on it (who I assume get paid fairly well)",
"The CG doesn't just fall out of the sky. There are dozens of people working every day for months/years to produce that work for a show or movie, and they require compensation."
],
"score": [
14,
12,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp698o
|
Why are Spare Tires Smaller than a normal Tire?
|
I mean, On an All-Wheel-Drive (other drives too, simply takes longer) running with one smaller tire (spare) can seriously damage the differentials so... why not just make it the same size and avoid the car damage of driving on a spare tire long term?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghv6i96",
"ghv6001",
"ghv6ggh",
"ghva5so"
],
"text": [
"A full size spare takes up more cargo room, weighs more, costs more. Spares aren’t meant for long distance travel—just from scene of flat to repair shop.",
"Well you aren’t really meant to drive on it long term. In my view manufacturers just want to throw in a tire that’s cheap and easy to fit into the car.",
"Spare tires are meant to get you to your destination or repair shop and get a new tire fixed onto your car, you as the car owner can also buy a new tire that is the same size as your current wheels so when you lose one tire it'll still be able to he driven on for long term.",
"As others have said, cost and space are the biggest reasons. A full size spare takes up a lot of cargo room. The “donut” spare is usually designed to be driven at low speeds to a repair shop, nothing more. Some cars do come with full size spares, though."
],
"score": [
15,
15,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp6tv1
|
What exactly happened to Japan Airline 123?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvf6l6"
],
"text": [
"Seven years before the crash, the plane had what is called a \"tail strike incident.\" This means that on a take-off or landing, the plane had too much pitch, and the tail section of the plane made contact with the runway. Boeing repaired the damage, but it was done wrong. Now, it's important to know that airliners are pressurized during flight, because there is not enough air at cruising altitude. If the cabin is not pressurized, the passengers and crew would not be able to breath. Seven years worth of being repeatedly pressurized and depressurized put stress on the faulty repair, causing cracks to form, weakening the structure. On the day of the crash, as the plane gained altitude, the bad repair finally gave out. The rapid depressurization caused even more damage, including the loss of the vertical stabilizer and all of the hydraulic lines being cut. The resulted in the pilots rapidly losing any ability to control the aircraft. As hard as they tried, there was no way that they could recover, and the plane crashed."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp6vrr
|
What is standard deviation ?
|
Mathematics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvao2c",
"ghvao6j"
],
"text": [
"You're probably familiar with the concept of an average or *mean*. In some sense, the mean tells you \"where your data is\" - is it mostly big or small, is it close to 0 or far away, etc. Standard deviation tells you *how far from the mean your data is* on average. It's a measure of how \"spread out\" your data is - a high standard deviation means your data is spread out, a low standard deviation means it's piled up close to the mean. It's a tad more complicated than this, but that's the way you want to think about it conceptually. Mathematically, you get the standard deviation by figuring out how far each point is from the mean, squaring those distances, averaging them, and then taking the square root. For example, if you have five people whose heights are {50, 55, 60, 65, 70}, we can easily compute the mean (60). Then the distances from the mean are {10, 5, 0, 5, 10}. Squaring these gets us 100, 25, 0, 25, 100, and averaging those gets us 50. Then the square root of 50 - about 7 - is our standard deviation. Compare that to a different collection of heights, say, {60, 70, 80, 90, 100}. This collection has a larger standard deviation of about 14. We can interpret this as saying that the second collection {60, 70, 80, 90, 100} is in some sense \"more spread out\" than the original collection {50, 55, 60, 65, 70}.",
"Once you have an average, the standard deviation is \"how far away from average are people, typically?\". If you count how many heads people have, the average is 1 and the standard deviation is basically zero. Most people's head number is zero units away from the average. If you count how many fingers people have, the average is 9.98-ish (I'm making these numbers up) and the standard deviation might be 0.02. Most people are very close to the average number, but thanks to polydactyly and table saws there is some variation. If you have a test where half the class got 0 and the other half got 100, your average is 50, but your standard deviation is also going to be about 50, because all your people are very far away from the average. (Everybody, in this example, is either 50 above or 50 below the average.) In other words, a small standard deviation means \"this average represents the group really well; most people are only a small distance from the average\" and a big standard deviation means \"this average is not a good representation of the group; many people are a big distance from the average\"."
],
"score": [
22,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp7qum
|
Why Does Everything I Touch Try to Electrocute me?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvf7sh",
"ghvg71f"
],
"text": [
"You're building up static, as you've already figured out. Things that might help: * Get a humidifier, or turn up your humidifier. In humid air you tend to 'bleed away' static instead of building up a ton of it. * Wear something different on your feet, OR get rid of all your rugs. :) A very common source of static is friction between socks and carpet. Barefoot would help, and some footwear would help; depends on the sole material. * This one's lame, but try to pick up your feet more when you're walking across carpet; avoid dragging. I don't really know about anti-static bracelets; if you're wearing one maybe it could absorb charge from you and then dump it (without you feeling anything) when it bumps into a conductor...? Is that how they're supposed to work?",
"If you put a humidifier in you house the static shocks will stop. Dry air is an insulator and allows static charges to build up. Humid air grounds you and permits the static electricity to dissipate."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp8bhs
|
Why do humans forget important things, but maintain embarrassing things like when we called our teacher mom?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvkktr",
"ghviven"
],
"text": [
"Negativity bias. For whatever reason, the brain seems to put more emphasis on negative things than positive things, even when both things are equally intense. For example, losing $20 will seem more significant than gaining $20. Because negative things seem more significant, they are more easily remembered and weigh more on your mental state. Side note, that's why bad news seems to happen more often than good news. People respond more to bad news, so it gets spread more.",
"There’s probably a better answer out there, but afaik the gist of it is that part of the reason we have emotions is as a signal to the brain saying “hey, this experience is important, remember it”"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp8cpg
|
Would a regular potted plant still grow upward (vertically) if it was in space? Why/why not?
|
Let's assume the plant was sent into space in a comfy space shuttle with sufficient nutrients, gases, water, artificial light etc. but there is no gravity for the plant to grow against. Would geotropism still exist? Edit: In the absence of gravity, which direction would the plant grow in? Eg. would it sprawl along the surface it is rooted to?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvtoha",
"ghvkibg",
"ghvka8y"
],
"text": [
"With the plants we've grown in space so far, the direction of the roots orients the rest of the plant, and since the roots kinda have to grow into the soil the plant grows out more or less like it would on earth, albeit sometimes a bit slanted over as if they were on a hill. Source: Worked with some of the folks that designed their irrigation system while I was working on designing a much less impressive consumer-grade gardening system in college. Edit: Right now they're growing lettuce in space, it's possible that other more stem and vine type plants could be different, but we're still doing baby steps.",
"As long as there's a gravity field, geotropism would exist, just maybe not in the amount it does here on Earth surface. If you're in earth orbit, you still have gravity, but because the room (spaceship) is also moving in orbit, you fall at the same rate that gravity pulls on you. If you were in deep space between galaxies, then you would indeed have a minimal net gravity direction.",
"In the microgravity environment of low earth orbit there's no way for a plant to know which way is up, so no. It's not even clear what you mean by \"upward (vertically)\" though I guess you mean the direction away from the centre of the earth. Spacecraft don't necessarily orient themselves so that the natural \"up\" for the vehicle matches this direction. The orbital period in low earth orbit is around 100 minutes so having spacecraft \"up\" match earth \"up\" requires the vehicle to rotate at this same speed. Rotation like this is called \"orbit rate attitude\" and it helps with keeping radio antennae pointing towards the ground, but it's not always done with spacecraft \"up\" away from the earth."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp8khc
|
What's the difference between mythology and folklore? Thank you!
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvkba2",
"ghwkq7k",
"ghvka3e"
],
"text": [
"I think mythology implies more that it’s religious views, whereas folklore is like supernatural stories of a region that don’t necessarily constitute a religion. Zeus is mythology, Bigfoot is folklore.",
"ugh... So many bad answers... Folklore is the collection of all traditions of some group of people. Songs, stories, games, proverbs, etc. Myth is a type of folklore. To be more precise, is any narrative shared among a group of people that explains something about how the world is now. Mythology is the collection of myths from some particular group of people.",
"Mythology is Gods etc where as folklore tends to be supernatural stuff but not gods as such. That’s a very basic explanation."
],
"score": [
10,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kp8t2v
|
Frozen trees surviving the cold
|
How do trees survive the extreme winter colds in some zones of the world? Do they act like bears and go to sleep too until the season ends?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvq379",
"ghvn1vp"
],
"text": [
"If you fill a glass bottle full of water, cap it and put it out in freezing temperatures, the water will freeze, expand and break the bottle. If you dump a bunch of sugar in the water before you cap it, the water will not freeze. The bottle will not break. In this case the bottle represents cells in the tree. The liquid that flows through them is the sugar water",
"The leaves falling off could be seen as a form of hibernation. During the winter the bark of the tree changes to protect it, which creates a ring. This is why you can tell the age by counting rings."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kp98sc
|
How can veterinarians humanely put down animals regularly but prisons struggle with performing lethal injections reliably?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvrogu",
"ghvr4u1",
"ghvrpnv",
"ghvrp3h",
"ghvouuv"
],
"text": [
"Believe it or not, I can all but gurantee the humaneness of veterinary euthenasia. The most common euthenasia drug is pentobarbital. That is a anti-seizure medication in low doses. In high doses it supresses brain activity to the point where all body processes shut down. It's the closest you can get to dying in your sleep. While government entities have use pentobarbital as an execution drug, they typically use a cocktail of other drugs to ensure death and reduce cost since pentobarbital is expensive. Unfortunately, those other drugs aren't as humane and can cause immense pain if there isn't enough pentobarbital to ensure complete anesthesia. On top of that, the pharmaceutical companies are refusing to sell pentobarbital and other drugs which could be used for executions to governments that carry out the death penalty. Though there are ways governments can still aquire it. TL;DR what your vet uses is absolutely humane when administered by a proffesional, and it's not exactly what prisons use for executions for various reasons.",
"The vast majority of doctors refuse to be a part of lethal injections, therefore its often done by people who may be competent technicians, but not fully trained doctors. Furthermore, the companies that once provided lethal injection chemicals now largely refuse to do so, either on moral grounds, or on economic/legal grounds (many European countries will put sanctions on companies that knowingly provide execution chemicals). So instead of a doctor injecting a chemical combination specifically formulated by company experts for a specific goal, you end up with a technician saying \"hey, if we mix up chemical A and B together, that should kill him, but we can't let the suppliers know what we're doing\"",
"I worked as an RAHT (Registered Animal Health Technician) for a few years. Trust me, it doesn't always go well. Some animals have severe reactions to Pentobarbital and die quite horribly. Many vets won't euthanize an animal with the owner present unless they demand to be there.",
"For one, a veterinarian is a medically trained professional, while lethal injections in prisons are not administered by doctors. [This]( URL_0 ) is actually a pretty good watch that sums up lethal injections.",
"Also: if prisons struggle with performing lethal injections reliably, are vets putting down animals humanely on a consistent basis?"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/0lTczPEG8iI"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpaa2t
|
Why, when we are ill, do our joints ache?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvv9az",
"ghvul7h"
],
"text": [
"A lot of time when you are sick, your body responds by massively increasing your immune response. You produce more white cells and platelettes and junk, but think of it like drafting an army. Suddenly your body is full of a disease fighting army (inflammation) and they go everywhere. This is usually very effective at fighting disease, but it also has a ton of negative side effects. Fever, chills, exhaustion, are all side effects of your body moving from a peacetime to a wartime policy. Joint pain is caused by swelling and inflammation because these new troops are everywhere and unfortunately they eat up space and resources and don't always even fight the right enemy.",
"Aches and pains are usually due to inflammation caused by whatever small-scale tissue damage is present. When you're sick, your body releases chemicals that make your immune system respond more forcefully, which increases inflammation and thus minor pains."
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpad2t
|
How does corn become popcorn??
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw2oye",
"ghvvcy4",
"ghw5297"
],
"text": [
"There are actually three common types of corn which are grown for different purposes. The regular corn you are used to eating either as corn on the cob or corn from a can is called sweet corn and has been bred to be both soft enough to easily chew and to have a relatively high sugar content to make it tasty on its own with minimal processing. The most widely grown type of corn is called field corn or dent corn; its kernels are pretty hard which means it's mostly used either as animal feed or it's processed into products like corn meal or corn syrup. The final type is popcorn, which is a special breed which has been selected so the kernels have the right combination of moisture and hardness to pop when heated into the fluffy, edible nuggets we think of as popcorn.",
"It’s not actually regular corn. The kernels are dried so they can be hard. Then, you put them in the skillet and voila.",
"The reason it pops is due to a mini steam explosion. Popcorn kernels have just the right amount of moisture in them with a hard enough shell (hull) to not let water evaporate out when cooking. When the kernels get hot enough, the water turns into steam and has enough pressure to crack open the hull. The kernels that don't pop didn't have enough moisture in them (or cracked and let the steam escape too early)."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpb0ii
|
Where does the blood go when you internally bleed?
|
Is there empty space in our body where the blood goes? Like if there wasn’t wouldn’t the bleeding stop because it would get clogged? So where does it go?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvz87l",
"ghykak6"
],
"text": [
"Your veins and arteries are under decently higher pressure compared to the rest of your body (check your blood pressure the next time you see a doctor). So internal bleeding isn't into a void in the body, but it's literally pushing your organs/muscles out of the way, because of the pressure. It will pool wherever the least resistance is.",
"Theres only a few places within the body, but outside of the veins and arteries that blood can go: The head, the chest, the abdomen, the pelvis or the legs. All of those spaces have different amounts of space that can be occupied by blood. The head: There is a bunch of stuff in your head, and your skull is a very rigid container that doesn't expand. Theres a little wiggle room for more stuff, but the results are bad. If too much blood spills in to the skull, something has to move to make room for it. That thing is the brain, and this is fatal. The Chest: The chest has large open spaces that blood can occupy. Those spaces are the lungs, and we need our lungs to breathe. If blood fills those spaces, we are not going to be able to add oxygen to the body. This is fatal. The Pelvis: Your pelvis is more or less a hollow ring of bones that allow the legs to support the weight of the upper body, and still function as jointed limbs. If you bleed into the pelvis, that hollow space will fill up with so much blood that your heart won't be able to pump to the rest of your body. This is fatal The abdomen: The abdomen is a squishy place full of space, and organs that can be displaced. If you bleed into your abdomen, you will run out of blood before you run out of space, and the abdomen will fill up with so much blood that your heart won't be able to pump to the rest of your body. This is fatal. The legs: your legs can fill with blood from internal bleeding of the femoral arteries. The legs are filled with bone and muscle, and there isn't a lot of room for blood to go, so this is the \"best,\" internal bleeding option. The increased pressure from the extra blood in the compartments of the legs can stop the healthy tissues from receiving any oxygen, or getting rid of any carbon dioxide, which can cause long term damage."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpb1pf
|
What is the paradox of tolerance?
|
I keep hearing this a lot and I don't get it. For instance: Say an argument breaks out between two sides, when a third party points out that both sides are being incivil and they need to chill out so they can lead to a civil compromise or conclusion, they get dismissed because of this paradox. What do they mean?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghvzunz",
"ghvzjmv",
"ghw2y9z",
"ghw08uq",
"ghworok",
"ghw1a7l"
],
"text": [
"\"Tolerance\" as a ideal, would be to allow each side to speak their peace and have an equal chance to be heard. The idea behind this is that, by being tolerant of all beliefs, all beliefs can flourish. However, the issue is that not all beliefs allow other beliefs to coexist, or allow tolerance. So by tolerating an intolerant belief, you are actually harming other beliefs. If one belief system espouse the destruction of followers of another belief system, those people will either be destroyed or will be silenced, either of their own volition to avoid being targeted or through harassment/censorship. This is the paradox of tolerance; by tolerating all beliefs, you may open yourself up to an intolerant belief system reducing the overall tolerance of society. The solution to the paradox of tolerance is to not have unlimited tolerance. When a belief system advocates for the destruction of another, it loses the umbrella shield of tolerance. This puts them into a dilemma: change their views to be tolerant of others (ideal), or exit from this society (unfortunate, but maybe necessary).",
"How can a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? The argument is that eventually there is a point where you cannot tolerate every argument otherwise you begin appeasing or at least tolerating arguments like racism, fascism, etc.",
"Imagine we are playing some kind of board game which includes some kind of voting and decision system. Mostly the issues to be voted on are things like \"I propose that we give Jimmy 3 free-turn tokens and award 5 points to Tom.\" or whatever the relevant things in the game are. Maybe everyone casts a vote, and then some dice are thrown to randomize the outcome a bit, whatever, and then the proposal is defeated or enacted. But then suppose Tom puts forward a voting proposal like \"I propose that we adjourn this board game and kill and eat Jimmy.\" Jimmy is about ready to flip the table and storm out of the room, and Tom says \"Now now Jimmy, be civil about this. If you want to defeat this proposal, you should do it according to the rules of the game.\" Now, we've got to think about what civility means. There's civility with respect to the procedural mechanics of the game - that means following the rules of debates and votes and whatnot. But then there's also the civility or incivility *of the proposal being discussed.* We cannot have a civil discussion of an inherently non-civil proposal, so if Tom insists that we have to treat his proposal just like any other proposal about points and tokens - normal game stuff - and follow the procedural rules \"civilly\", then he's kind of abusing the concept of civility. When the 'rules of the game' to be followed, threaten to unmake the very game being played, then we have a paradox. This often comes up when people are discussing ideologies like nazism and fascism, where \"we should stop having a society where free and open debates are possible\" is treated as an article of free and open debate. No one can participate *freely* in such a debate when their very own human rights are at stake in it.",
"In a nutshell, if you tolerate those who would destroy you, then you signed your own death warrant. If you deeply believe in evolutionary biology, but you and your fellow biologists are told to “tolerate” the creationism taught in school, the moderates may think, “ok well it’s a marketplace of ideas”. But eventually, those that see your belief as *completley incompatible* with a truce would accrue positions of power to deny your view being taught at all. Evolutionary thought would wither. Tolerance can be a paradox if the other party refuses",
"Let me give you a very simple metaphor. Let's say that you open a club that says, \"Both wolves and lambs are allowed here!\" Don't be surprised if, pretty soon, there are no (surviving) lambs in your club. Once the wolves are in the club, they're *going* to turn it into a lamb-eating club, they're going to eat the lambs. Nor are they going to be all that subtle about hiding their intention. There's more to it than that, obviously -- Karl Popper wrote a whole book about it -- but the gist of his argument is that if you tolerate people who have no intention of tolerating others, who have every intention of using any toleration you show them as a weapon to get their way and impose their brand of intolerance by force, then your idea of \"tolerance\" is just a suicide pact. That there's nothing unreasonable about limiting participation in civil society to people who have a commitment to civil society.",
"The paradox is that if you can't be intolerant of intolerance, or you're being intolerant yourself and therefore a hypocrite. And people think this is some sort of checkmate against a person deciding racism, sexism, etc, is wrong. Its a childish argument without any sort of nuance"
],
"score": [
95,
23,
21,
10,
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpbnhp
|
how can NAND (not both) be used to represent all logical operations (and, not, or)?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw3kp3",
"ghw5fi5"
],
"text": [
"You can make a NOT gate by just feeding two of the same thing into a NAND: that is, x NAND x = NOT x. Now that we have a NOT, you can make an AND by running a NAND into a NOT (since a NAND is itself just the opposite of an AND), that is, NOT (x NAND y) = x AND y. And finally, you can build an OR as NOT ((NOT x) AND (NOT y)). Think about it: x OR y is false exactly when *both* x is false and *y* is false, while (NOT x) AND (NOT y) is *true* exactly when both are false. So reversing one leads to the other. (You can do the same thing with a NOR gate, by the way, or NOT + either AND or OR.)",
"A signal NANDed with itself gives you a NOT. NOT a = NOT (a AND a), since x AND x = x, = a NAND a, since NOT (x AND y) = x NAND y. —- NANDing two signals and then passing the result through a NOT gives you an AND. a AND b = NOT NOT (a AND b), since NOT NOT x = x, = NOT (a NAND b), since NOT (x AND y) = x NAND y. = (a NAND b) NAND (a NAND b), from above. —- NOTing the signals and then passing them through a NAND gives you an OR. a OR b = NOT NOT (a OR b), since NOT NOT x = x, = NOT ((NOT a) AND (NOT b)), by DeMorgan’s Law, = (NOT a) NAND (NOT b), since NOT (x AND y) = x NAND y. = (a NAND a) NAND (b NAND b), from above."
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpbuit
|
why do cheeks get red after drinking?
|
I look like a 10 year old right now
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw4gjy"
],
"text": [
"Alcohol causes the blood vessels in your skin to expand. This makes you feel warmer by moving heat to your skin (but actually makes you lose more heat by taking heat away from your well-insulated torso) and makes your skin flush."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpc1y2
|
Why do people ask questions oninstead of Googling the question first?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw5ual",
"ghw5nj2",
"ghw6jyr",
"ghw9niq",
"ghw91aq"
],
"text": [
"Google ain't as good as it used to be and the human touch of an answer has greater weight and better context sometimes than an article",
"I think some people just crave some human interaction, and responses on reddit from real people can sometimes suffice.",
"Sometimes people don’t know how to phrase it. For example: What would be a good example of Irony.",
"Google doesn’t always explain things in terms that are easy to understand. ELI5 posts should try to explain things in a straight and concise way without having to wade through a lot of cruft. There is a secondary social interaction of talking to a human instead of a machine.",
"My real question is who asks these questions and then never replies to say if it even helped or not. > :("
],
"score": [
31,
17,
12,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpc41z
|
Why does the name Lloyd need 2 L's?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw6ova",
"ghw72qt"
],
"text": [
"Because it's Welsh, and Welsh orthography ~~is a nightmare~~ has certain rules unfamiliar to English speakers.",
"It's Welsh. In Welsh the double L makes a different sound than a single L. In English the distinction is lost, so it's just pronounced like a normal L."
],
"score": [
22,
21
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpc8y1
|
In games like Plinko where you drop a ball onto a peg board, why does the ball land in a different slot even if you drop it in the same place?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw6ruk",
"ghw714z",
"ghw9929"
],
"text": [
"Very small differences in the starting position are amplified down through the bounces creating a different outcome.",
"Because you don't drop it at exactly the same place, with exactly the same speed, with the board in exactly the same place. Small differences change the first bounce, which changes the second bounce, and so on, until the initial states are hopelessly scrambled up to the point that the outcome is effectively random. There's a whole field of mathematics called chaos theory based around systems like this, but unfortunately the details are a bit beyond ELI5 level - but see [ergodicity]( URL_0 ) for more if you really want to go digging.",
"This reminds me of the scene in Jurassic Park where Ian Malcolm explains Chaos Theory to the Whatshername scientist. He puts a drop of water on her knuckle and it rolls down one way. Then he puts another and it rolls down another way. He explains it as due to microscopic imperfections in the skin. Small differences in initial conditions can swing the outcome wildly. In this example, Ian might have dropped the second drop of water 1/10th of an mm further to the left or right, the water droplet might have have been 1/100 less in volume, her hand might have tilted 0.001º downwards, there might have been a slight breeze, T Rex stomp wave might have been reverberating a bit more and so on. These tiny differences in initial conditions between the first and second drop might have caused the second drop to roll down in a different direction. You can think of the same with plinko balls. The balls might have an eccentric center of gravity, each time landing on a different spot on the pegs, at a slightly different angle. Different parts of the ball and peg might have different bounciness however small they difference might be. In the end, these tiny differences add up and make the ball take a different path every time."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodicity"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpcb0b
|
Why does banana taste overpower everything it is combined with?
|
Chemistry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwz98c",
"ghw9eku"
],
"text": [
"I googled this ages ago and I found this article. Apparently Bananas have a high concentration of a compound that creates their strong banana flavour. It doesnt say how this compound effects other foodstuffs but I guess that they move into the other foods and due to their very strong flavour overpowers the flavour. I'm sure some chemist will be able to tell us more! [ URL_1 ]( URL_0 ).",
"Good question! Even just having them in a cooler with other foods, everything testes and smells like bananas."
],
"score": [
16,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2017/03/13/bananas-taste-smell/#:~:text=Bananas%20owe%20their%20unique%20scent,it's%20especially%20prominent%20in%20bananas.&text=To%20combat%20that%2C%20Mannam%20suggests,such%20as%20berries%20and%20apples",
"https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2017/03/13/bananas-taste-smell/#:\\~:text=Bananas%20owe%20their%20unique%20scent,it's%20especially%20prominent%20in%20bananas.&text=To%20combat%20that%2C%20Mannam%20suggests,such%20as%20berries%20and%20apples"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpcd4i
|
Why does water bubble over when you’re cooking pasta or anything starchy, but stop when you place a wooden spoon across the pot?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw8hu7"
],
"text": [
"The starch in the water makes the bubbles not pop. Adding oil or butter also helps. Adding the wooden spoon gives the bubbles a place to pop"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpcqjb
|
Are we born with any knowledge whatsoever?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghw9sbf"
],
"text": [
"When we are born, there are several actions that take place. There's a grabbing instinct, a sucking instinct, a breathing instinct, and several others. Whether you call these \"knowledge\" at the time of birth is almost a philosophical question, because nobody remembers their birth, so do you really \"know\" any of the things you do at that time? It's hard to say. I'd probably say yes, at least for breathing, because there is no point at which you \"forget\" how to breath and relearn it."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpd636
|
Why are bananas so cheap?
|
They’re like 50 cents for 6 of them. And they’re kinda heavy. How is that price economical for the grower? Why are they so much cheaper than apples?
|
Economics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwca8i",
"ghwe3n8",
"ghwhaje"
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of politics involved in how we got bananas to be the commodity they are today, but suffice it to say that several banana companies did a lot of really shady things to lower the price of banana production and distribution to the Western World. Enough, that they were and are still able to make a profit off of making them incredibly cheap. [Here's a link to the wiki on the situation, and the term \"banana republic\" that came from it.]( URL_0 )",
"Freakenomics [story]( URL_0 ) on the history of bananas. I have banana plants in my yard, home grown is next level good.",
"Very difficult to find a straight answer to this. Nearly every article must first talk about the ‘Big Banana’ companies controlling countries. They did with brutal force in the past but they don’t today. Today bananas are cheap because retailers treat bananas as a loss leader and often sell bananas at wholesale cost. Cheap bananas attracts customers so they keep it cheap. Bananas can be picked green and travel quite well. Banana companies own the land and much of the transportation network that carry the bananas. 99% of bananas we consume are of the Cavendish variety - so huge economies of scale growing a single variety, compared to apples which have around 100 varieties being sold, with each variety often having unique growing characteristics. Back in the 1960’s a virus wiped out the ‘Big Mike’ banana variety but was replaced by the Cavendish. In 2019 a similar virus has been found attacking Cavendish banana plants, so it’s possible another variety will take its place."
],
"score": [
16,
11,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic"
],
[
"https://freakonomics.com/podcast/bananas/"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpdkan
|
Why are alcoholics unable to say no to an alcoholic drink?
|
Coming from a place where I don’t understand. Thanks!
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwjzj6",
"ghwip91",
"ghwmru7",
"ghwngyp"
],
"text": [
"To simplify, imagine an itch. That gets worse and worse and worse until it is all-consuming. That’s addiction. We know scratching is bad, but holy shit it feels so good.",
"It's not that they're entirely unable to say no. An alcoholic has a physical addiction to alcohol that's combined with both positive reinforcement from the pleasure of being drunk and negative reinforcement from the removal of the discomfort that comes with withdrawals. It makes for very strong operant conditioning to continue to drink. It also doesn't help that alcohol addiction withdrawals can be lethal. Even heroin withdrawals can't kill you, you just wish you were dead.",
"Addiction. Imagine being thirsty and trying to say no to water. It just goes against everything your body is telling you.",
"Addiction is hard to explain to someone who doesn't have one. Imagine not being able to tell yourself no. Your mind says hey I want a drink. And you think to yourself \"no I don't want to do that\". And even sometimes you think \"no I don't want to do that but i probably will anyway\" That's what addiction is like, you don't want to do something, you tell yourself you don't want to, but you also realize that you will probably do it anyway."
],
"score": [
14,
9,
8,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpe0jp
|
How does carbon monoxide poisoning work? Why can you die in your sleep of it and not be "alarmed" into saving yourself?
|
Hi reddit. I was reading about [this tragedy in Bosnia where a bunch of kids partied for NYE but turned a heating generator overnight and ended up dying]( URL_0 ). Really sad story, but it had me wondering how none of them could be "alarmed" their bodies to react, in the same way that your body might choke if you can't get air and force you to seek it, etc. I would've thought something might happen to kick in this response and there'd have been some way to get to safety. So...why not?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwhfq9",
"ghwhkvj"
],
"text": [
"The normal \"asphyxiation\" response isn't a response to the lack of oxygen, but to the buildup of carbon dioxide in your blood. This only happens if you can't breathe, which is also what usually causes oxygen deprivation, so the two are usually conflated. What carbon monoxide does is bind to hemoglobin, the molecule in your blood that carries oxygen around to whatever parts of your body need it. So the flow of oxygen around your body is diminished, if not blocked. However, you're still exhaling the carbon dioxide, so you don't get the choking alarm. You're basically poisoned and die in your sleep. As an aside, low oxygen levels in your brain impair your mental state, so it's possible for a low-level carbon monoxide leak to occur and for you not to really notice, because your brain isn't working right. This is why carbon monoxide detectors are critical to be safe; if the first symptom of poisoning is poor mental function, you're not likely to be able to recognize the symptoms and escape, even if you're conscious. This is also why nitrogen gas leaks in confined spaces are dangerous; it drops the local oxygen level, which triggers the same low oxygen state, but, again, without the choking/asphyxiation response.",
"Because carbon monoxide is not a common problem in nature. So we never evolved mechanisms for recognizing when it is building up. When you breathe carbon monoxide, it doesn't choke you, it binds to your red blood cells just like O2 does, and kills you by not letting any oxygen get into your body."
],
"score": [
37,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpei4h
|
Why does hot water hurt the body? What about intense heat hurts the body so much?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwkw52"
],
"text": [
"Hot water heats your body. Our cells only work in a fairly narrow range of temperatures. When it gets too hot, lots of proteins start breaking down, and proteins are necessary to live, so any cells that get that hot start dying. Our body doesn't like its cells dying like that, so it sends pain messages to the brain to get your hand away from the hot water."
],
"score": [
28
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpekcu
|
What are "knots", and how can massages or physio or chiropractic work get rid of them?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwlwwf",
"ghwvgu2"
],
"text": [
"From my experience with PT. Knots are very tight muscles. Muscles tighten up when they are aggravated.. when there is surrounding injury and your body is trying to stabilize the injury.. or when they have been over worked. Massages help loosen up the area. Think of it as like.... scooping a ball of cookie dough, and its super cold & hard to form into a ball. But the more you roll it in your hands, the easier it becomes & the more the dough loosens up. Lol best analogy I could think of 🤣",
"Chiropractic “medicine” is quite literally pseudoscientific nonsense. Read up on the history of it and it’s founder and you’re in for a real ride."
],
"score": [
45,
29
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpen7z
|
How do companies work around actors getting killed off early in a TV series?
|
I can’t understand the concept of how certain actors may be picked or chosen to be killed off in a series. Is there an agreement between the actor and the producers before the start of the show? Can the writers plan far in advance when the deaths of characters will be to agree this if this is the case? Would the actor not be annoyed at the fact they see their co-workers continue to be employed while they are not?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwmd12",
"ghwn418",
"ghwmhpj"
],
"text": [
"Generally most actors would not have much protection in their deal from being killed or otherwise terminated. The bigger name actor you are, the main character and so on, the more protections or payments you may be able to get into your contract, and of course as an actor, you surely want to not get killed! Now, this isn't to say the studios are always the villain and actors the hero... actors also tell studios to F off and quit for all sorts of reasons too, even if they aren't allowed to in their contract... In fact its totally normal for them to do this! In TV an actor usually signs a 5-year deal, which is expected to be fiercely renegotiated each year or so depending on the shows success and their value. Much like the studio may kill off an actor that isn't doing well, the actor if they are doing well may threaten the studio to quit. Ok now more complicated stuff -- Yes often times actors know they will be getting killed during a season or so, sometimes its a quick choice, other times its planned event with no surprises from anyone. Even other stuff like an actor only expecting to be on one season or one episode and being killed is normal, and they make their contract with this in mind, that they may only be signed for one episode or one season. Now you're gonna ask a follow up thats: So if an actor just pisses me off, can I kill them next week? The answer is... well see the first thing I wrote, and its a \"probably, but it depends on the actor\". You can also of course negotiate or pay out severance packages and such to keep people happy they got kicked off. Now as a final say, an actor is more or less a freelancer. Their role isn't necessarily setup like a normal job, they are needed when they are needed and when they are no longer needed, thats that, and they can go find a new gig.",
"I’d say most common case is is all planned ahead of time in the scripts. Scripts for a season are generally at least in rough draft form before a season starts filming (at least all the shows I’ve worked on). An exception to this would be if an actor decided to leave a show (for any of a number of reasons, like a better gig.. we’re all freelance in the industry, after all), or even fired, though that’s probably much less common. Sure actors might be annoyed that other actors on the show are still working, but that’s the nature of the business, so they’d probably get over that quick. Also something to keep in mind, episodes aren’t really shot chronologically. For example, last show I was on, we filmed parts of the last episode in the first week, then finished the final scene owing on literally the last day, around 2 1/2 months later. And some actors that were technically in episodes much later in the season, were picture wrapped for the season by week 3. (I’m not an actor, but work on set as a camera operator)",
"It’s likely they are contracted for a certain number of episodes, though the specifics will likely vary contract to contract. Occasionally, guest stars or certain characters who were originally intended for very limited runs become very popular and are brought on for more of the show. The janitor from Scrubs is such a character if I remember correctly. As far as some character deaths go, sometimes they may know ahead of time so they can deal with scheduling, but occasionally they have other obligations or may just not be particularly wanted anymore. Kal Penn who played Dr. Kutner on House left to be the associate director for the Obama administration's Office of Public Liaison. They ended up killing off his character via suicide in order to give him the opportunity to leave. Other characters are often just straight up written off the show somehow, given less and less screen time, and ultimately leaving or being killed off altogether. Grey’s Anatomy did that with a couple characters, including Katherine Heigl (Izzie Stevens) who was notoriously difficult on set, if I’m remembering, and T. R. Knight (George O’Malley) who was also supposedly hard to work with. His side states he was being harassed for his sexuality or something, but either way, Stevens left the hospital and George was hit by a bus to get them off the show. That being said I don’t know all the specifics of why that happened, that’s just the easy to find stuff. There may be more to that story. O’Malley did appear in the latest season so I’m not sure exactly what’s with that either."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpfths
|
Why does adding water to an oil fire make it worse rather than put out the fire?
|
Chemistry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghx0nfp",
"ghwvzh5",
"ghwwu2y"
],
"text": [
"Water is denser than oil. Oil also has a much higher boiling point. So, when you add water it sinks below the oil, then flash boils and turns to steam. That results in about a 2000x volume increase, which throws the oil out of the pan as a mist. That mist of burning oil now has a huge surface area so can react much more quickly with the oxygen in the atmosphere, resulting in a vastly more intense burst of heat and flame which can verge on explosive. That makes it much more likely to both injure people, and ignite more things on fire.",
"The water vaporizes instantly due to the heat, the resulting steam throws the burning oil into the air.",
"What is more important then putting out a fire is to prevent it from spreading. An oil fire is usually confined to where there is oil until it starts igniting other things. If you add water to the oil then the oil will start flowing on top of the water, and then the hot oil will make the water boil. As water boil it bubbles violently throwing burning oil into the air and all around the place. So even if you are able to cool the fire a bit it is now covering a much larger area and have gained a lot more fuel."
],
"score": [
18,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpfyz9
|
Why do we not see satellites in photos of the earth? Or when astronauts on the ISS take videos outside of the station? Where are they?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghwylme",
"ghxcq0q",
"ghwy9qk",
"ghx3swj"
],
"text": [
"They are tiny and we keep the satellites far far away from the space station. Just think of it like this, if you can't see your house from space how would you see a car sized satellite.",
"You can actually photograph the ISS or satellites. It just takes much longer exposure. SpaceX satellites, in particular, there are so many of them that it looks like a clear line in the sky, if you try to take a photo. This is actually a problem for astronomers, as there are so many satellites that is nearly impossible to get a clear shot of the sky. This is an example URL_0",
"Most footage taken outside the ISS is taken in daylight or under bright work lights. The exposure settings of the cameras are therefore adjusted accordingly. Stars and satellites are very faint objects. The cameras is unable to pick up these faint light at the same time as the Sun or other bright lights is shining on foreground objects. But satellites do sometimes appear in images taken on Earth during night. When the cameras are configured to low light conditions with high exposure times so that they can capture the stars and other faint lights they do sometimes pick up satellites as streaks as they cross the night sky.",
"Think of a tennis ball. That's earth. Now think of the tennis ball inside of a basketball, like right in the middle of the basketball. The basketball is like the area where satellites are all orbiting the earth. There's a lot more room for them to be chillin up there, and there is room for stuff down here. Now imagine you're in the middle of the ocean (which is most of earth). You look around and you see.. nothing. Now imagine you're on the basketball instead of the tennis ball. You look around.. Compared to everything on earth (buildings, forests, cities, skyscrapers, mountains, etc.), there's just some satellites on the 'basketball' of earth's orbit. You look around. Of course you see nothing. There's just not that much up there, and it's pretty small in comparison to skyscrapers and mountains. So you don't really see it. And space agencies also send stuff up there in a way that makes sure that their satellites and space junk don't run into each other, because that would be an expensive crash. So they keep things pretty far apart whenever possible."
],
"score": [
15,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://images.app.goo.gl/zZMpo5HjACMavhbg8"
],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kph2c1
|
Why do we sometimes feel nauseous in moving cars or buses?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghx8vom",
"ghxwn2s"
],
"text": [
"Because the organ that measures your movement senses that you are moving but because you are not moving in relation to the car that you're in the visual references don't match with what that organ senses. This also happens when you are drunk or in any other way intoxicated so your body thinks that that is whats going on and makes you feeel nauseous. This is what i have been told so it might be wrong.",
"Motion sickness is caused by a lack of synchronization between our visual perception and our inner ear sensations. During our evolution as a species, the usual thing that has disrupted the agreement between our inner ear and our eyes has been nerve poisons such as those found in some mushrooms and other poisonous plants. So our bodies have adapted to make us throw up when our inner ear and eyes can’t quite synchronize. From an evolutionary standpoint, our species has not been experiencing the disruptions that come from these modern transportation methods for very long. So our bodies have not yet adapted to distinguish between the two stimuli— assuming that there are enough differences between the effects of the two for us to be able to adapt at all."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kph5rs
|
What advantage is having a pair of lungs and a single diaphragm, would a large single lung work just as well?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghx9ooc",
"ghxacqk",
"ghy6c2r",
"ghxej6d",
"ghxe66e",
"ghyp6pl"
],
"text": [
"The advantage is that when one lung gets infected or punctured the other lung still works, increasing your chance of survival in case of an accident",
"There are several organs between your lungs. For example your digestive tract and heart. Having a single big lung would require som different placement of these which might not be optimal. In addition there are several types of injuries which mostly affect one lung. And you can survive on one lung while the other heals up. So having two lungs might have some advantages to survival. That being said evolution rarely finds the best solution as it will optimize the solution it found rather then find a completely new one. So the fact that we evolved two lungs is rather random and there may be more efficient ways to take up oxygen.",
"In addition to the other answers, bilateral symmetry. To simplify, organs placed on the center line of the body exist as a single organ: mouth, nose, trachea, esophagus, stomach, etc. Organs placed to the side exist as a pair: eyes, ears, limbs, lungs, kidneys. Yes, there are some organs that exist as a single organ that aren't strictly on the center line of the body: heart, liver, etc. However, these organs develop in the embryo from tissue on the center line and later move off the center line. So the lungs developed as a pair of organs because it works fine that way. The diaphragm can't really exist as a pair of diaphragms with our current body structure. Muscles need to attach to bones to have something rigid to pull against. There are no bones vertically separating the left & right sides of the torso, so there is nothing for a \"half-diaphragm\" to pull against. So the diaphragm is a single structure rather than a pair.",
"It is mostly redundancy. You could live on one lung and one kidney and probably half of your liver, without the stuff in your throat (dunno how they're called). You can live with one foot one hand one eye. Hell you can live with only the torso and head plus half your organs. But as many people have pointed out: if something goes wrong you have a spare part that works on its own sufficiently enough to keep you alive while you heal the other part. Being shot in the lung is painful but survivable. Being shot on your ONLY lung less so. A single lung would probably work as we have many single organs eg the liver which is hefty and big. Evolution tends to erase unnecessary stuff. Many people don't have a specific sinew in their forearm which serves no purpose anymore. (Google it for source, am to lazy now)",
"I don't see how a single lung would work any different than what you have now. It would still need to divide the air passages smaller and smaller to get the surface area you need to get good gas exchanges. The one big lung will still have a left and right sides since it would need to go around the heart. In a sense, you can consider yourself to have five lungs. Three lobes on the right side and two on the left. Each lobe is surrounded by it's own membrane and has separate air and blood supply. We just group the right ones and left ones together.",
"In addition to the other great answers, it might be useful to ask not what advantage having two lungs has, but why we have two lungs in the first place. We evolved, way back, from fish, which had two gills. One on the left, one on the right. As fish developed into land animals, the gills were brought inside and evolved into lungs. One on the left, one on the right. Even if it didn't have a particular advantage, the chances are that we'd still have a pair of lungs anyway!"
],
"score": [
391,
95,
33,
14,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kphdmy
|
Trying to explain probability to friend
|
I was talking to my friend about how the odds of landing multiple coin flips works and we agreed, but he then went on to say that in roulette you should bet on numbers that it hasn't landed on in a while because it is more likely to land on those. I tried to explain that previous events don't influence future events in this scenario. When I asked what is the probability of flipping a heads after flipping 10 heads in a row he said it was not 50/50. I don't know how to explain that this is wrong. * he thinks this is just how probability works, he said if it didnt work like that you would get like 80 heads and 20 tails...
|
Mathematics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghxcg5q",
"ghya1wl",
"ghxbvua",
"ghyeww9"
],
"text": [
"There's a difference between taking something as a series or a unique case. Coin flip is 50:50. Every time you flip the coin. No exception. *But* if you say what are the chances of flipping eleven heads in a row it's ridiculously small. So twelve times in a row even smaller. However, the twelfth flip is still 50:50. There is no \"due.\"",
"Flip a coin. 50% chance it's heads. Flip a coin. 50% chance it's heads. Flip a coin. 50% chance it's heads. Flip a coin. 50% chance it's heads. Flip a coin. What's the chance that it comes up heads? That's right: 50%. Nothing has changed. The universe has no \"memory\". There is no invisible accountant sitting behind you and keeping track of every flip then reaching out at the speed of light to force the coin flip to be what it \"should\" be.",
"It's not like playing cards, where each card will be chosen at some point. Each roll is a separate event that isn't related to any of the other rolls. You might also explain it by showing that he is only correct when calculating the probability of multiple or consecutive heads, since that would mean each coin flip would then be related to other coin flips.",
"Let's see how succinctly I can put this. Let's say you flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads every time. Now you're going to flip it again. Is eleven heads outcomes unlikely? Yes. But the unlikely part of it *has already happened.*"
],
"score": [
11,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kphx0q
|
why does google allow apps like “Adblock” in their chrome store? Doesn’t it directly cost them YouTube revenue? Are they forced to have the apps avaliable?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghxi1g5",
"ghxlr0t",
"ghz9i29"
],
"text": [
"Its because only a small portion of their hundreds of millions of users use adblock. They are not significantly impacted by it financially and if anything, the person displaying their ads is getting screwed over more than google.",
"Either allow it or deal with as an underground feature hidden inside another app. It's hard to stop determined programmers.",
"Ad blocking isn't really their concern, its not in huge use, and sophisticated users will find ways to block ads. In other words, there's not much to gain. However-- they are concerned about a different form of ad blocking -- ad fraud. There have been \"ad blockers\" in the past that had an additional feature, one that terrifies google and was quickly banned. It was an adblocker that blocked ads, but also clicked through to them, so google thinks the ad was clicked and the advertiser was charged. Now thats how you really screw with them, you make the ads they sell impossible to tell if people are actually interacting with them, which makes their value very low."
],
"score": [
11,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpi0dg
|
If plants and trees provide the Earth’s oxygen, how is there oxygen in areas that are devoid of plant life such as deserts and Antarctica?
|
Earth Science
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghxitjp",
"ghxja66",
"ghxjf5c"
],
"text": [
"For one thing a major part of our breathable air comes from algae in the ocean. To answer your question more precisely. Wind coming from the ocean brings a lot of air with it usually. This may not be the only reason but the best reason for eli5.",
"If you have a container with concentrated gas, say a big canister of carbon dioxide that you use to fire an air gun, when you release the gas it spreads out until it’s evenly spread out and not concentrated in one place. All the gases on the earth does the same, so the ocean lets millions of tons of oxygen out (because of plants in the ocean), or rainforests let out tons of oxygen etc, the oxygen is slightly more concentrated in one place. Gases HATE being concentrated, and they LOVE being spread out evenly. So the gases spread out to everywhere they can go. This means that if you take an air sample in a rainforest on a sunny day, and an air sample at the South Pole at night, there would be a slight difference in oxygen levels, but overall it wouldn’t be hugely different because all of the oxygen is spreading out over the whole world all the time. It’s cool, and a bit weird, but definitely cool.",
"Air has a tendency to move. Oxygen diffuses (spreads out) through air. In wide open spaces, this happens way faster than it is consumed. Even in mostly enclosed spaces like cars or rooms, this happens faster than the oxygen is consumed. Also, nitpick, but deserts tend to have plenty of plant life."
],
"score": [
11,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpj22g
|
How are graphics cards improved every year? How can you improve a product so consistently?
|
What exactly goes on to improve a card?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghy3lmr",
"ghyra74",
"ghy436h",
"gi02t9s",
"ghzelts",
"ghzm6qg",
"gi08uok"
],
"text": [
"The most important factor is the manufacturing process. It's called \"photolit*h*ography\"- which means \"writing *in stone* with light\" (edit: Thanks for the correction). Basically, they're using a fancy Xerox to print electronic circuits onto a slice of silicon. Over the years, they have found ways to print circuits in finer details, which allows them to cram more stuff onto a piece of silicon. So they're improving the shape of the individual transistors to work better in small sizes and they're also using light with smaller wavelength, which is basically like getting a smaller brush size. In the past few years, they have started to work with a technology called \"EUV\", that is extreme-ultra-violet. Its \"brush size\" is 30 times smaller than the UV-light that causes tan and skin cancer. This is extremely difficult and expensive to work with, but it allows to cram billions of transistors onto a single chip: NVidias top chip, the GA100 used for their \"Tesla\" cards, has more than 50 billion transistors, compared to 20 billion on its predecessor that was made without EUV.",
"What I find more interesting is how two companies (AMD and Nvidia) can separately invest millions / billions of dollars and years of research and development and end up with basically the same level of performance. You would think there would be a bigger divergence.",
"Graphics cards rely on transistors to do work. Over time, we’ve figured out how to make transistors smaller and smaller (moving to a smaller “process node”). This lets you put more of them in the same space. There are other ways to improve your chip, too. Improving some aspects of the transistor itself without changing their size much can help. You can also change how these transistors are arranged on the chip. Another option is to add specialized clusters of transistors that are really good at one thing that would normally require more processing power, such as machine learning or ray tracing.",
"Since none of the comments seem to talk about architectural improvements(in terms of cpu design),here you go. CPUs are basically just switches interconnected with teeny tiny \"wires\" that carry data.The other comments tell how we add more switches every year. Assume a huge factory(cpu)with an attached warehouse(cache) and hallways with conveyer belts stretching out to 8 different doorways carrying items(instructions)that are further to be loaded onto a truck.What nvidia,amd and apple do is that they, * **add more cache**(sort of a very *quickly accesible warehouse* that cpu can ram around and fetch instructions) * **Better and wider pipelines**(The conveyer belts where the next set of orders that are to be moved to the truck are kept.We make this belts *wider and increase their carrying capacity* )In cpu terms,this is where the next set of instructions that are to be carried out are kept/operated on(for faster execution).Pipelining is basically moving 2 conveyer belts at the same time so as not to waste time with just bare belts with no items(instructions) to pick up. * Better **branch predictions**(*predicting which doorway the items need to go*).This cache thingy, mentioned earlier is very costly and takes up a lot of die space,hence it is very important to get the perf benefits/cache area used tradeoff right. As you cannot add as much cache as you want,you need to keep,only the ones that you're sure,will be needed *inside the cache* or else the precious die space is wasted.Hence it is important to know if package #263 will go to belt #4 or #6 before the manager tells you.(In cpu terms,predicting which way the program is gonna go and what instruction is going to be needed next)i.e better branch prediction can somewhat compensate for less cache. * They add dedicated **Hardware accelerators**(Nvidia NVENC,ISPs in mobile socs).*Small outlets with experts* for very popular items so you don't have to search and move them the conventional way which takes a lot more time. A few years ago,NPUs weren't even a thing,when it came to mobile computing,but as soon as AI and ML became ubiquitous,from recognising the faces in your groupies to getting the scenary right so the ISP knows where and when to turn the HDR/Night mode,on and off.These things are starting to command die spaces on their own. This is a one off since I don't really have a good analogy and this is only true for a GPU * Better **memory**(GDDR6X,HBM2).GPUs have dedicated memory,so that the gpu doesn't have to access the farther and hence slower system RAM and also don't need to compete for resources. ##### *As is the case with all eli5s,this is nowhere near an accurate representation of how cpus/gpus work and is drawn to give a basic outlook.",
"Besides just getting more transistors on a card as mentioned by others, you have to consider that expensive state of the art components made for one high industry become high end consumer products the next year when they can be produced cheaper. They don't include today's best chips in the world on a computer graphics card because it may cost $100,000, but next year, as they get better at making the product, as industries like render farms, military, healthcare imaging have covered the RD costs, it's now possible to price it for the consumer market. Even if it isn't the chips themselves, the chip forges are funded by many different imdistries.",
"You add more transistors. Sorry if this isn't enough words for an ELI5 post, but that's the basic premise. Fabrication plants are always working on smaller dies (10nm, 9nm, 7nm, etc) and as they shrink, it allows them to put more transistors on to the silicon, this means more power essentially. You will often note how many cores a GPU has, well those cores are made up of transistors (devices which are either on, or off , like a 1 or 0 in binary), more transistors = more cores = GPU that can do more than before. Couple this with awesome software tweaks and shortcuts, and thats how you get better GPUs ever year.",
"Another (maybe) related thing that's been bugging me for a long time and I want to use MGS4 and MGSV on the PS3 as an example. MGS4 (2008) look great for it's time and MGSV (2014) looks even better. But my question is, could the developer have achieved V graphics at 2008 but needed time to learn the machine or did they needed something else like better hardware for their PCs to develop on? **MGS4** URL_1 **MGSV** URL_0"
],
"score": [
1059,
455,
31,
19,
8,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.newgamenetwork.com/images/uploads/gallery/MetalGearSolidGZ/gz_08.jpg",
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hCgCjPYi27Q/maxresdefault.jpg"
]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpjfcg
|
Where I live (UK) during the next month the sunset time will become 45 minutes later. However the sunrise will only change by 25 minutes. Why isn’t it the same change at either end of the day?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghy8wlk",
"ghxxt3i"
],
"text": [
"If you made an [Analemma]( URL_0 ) for your location you would notice that the sun moves higher in the sky as we move towards the summer solstice, like you would expect. It will also move a little in the east/west direction too. This east/west motion moves “solar noon” (when the sun is highest overhead) more into the afternoon. So, we get more day and we get more of it later, as you’ve observed.",
"As we progress on our orbit around the sun, we get slightly closer to it bc the orbit isn’t a perfect circle. But more importantly our own axis of rotation is tilted to the side. So throughout a year, the earth sometimes has the Southern Hemisphere showing towards the sun, sometimes the Northern Hemisphere. If the change you described would be equal, the days would not get longer/shorter, they would just begin at a later time in the 24hour system. However bc of the effects I described, you will get progressing longer days next month. So the sunset has to get later faster than the sunris has, so the time between them decreases every night."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma?wprov=sfti1"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpkbpi
|
; Can someone explain how high doses of radiation wipes out DNA and destroys cells in the body. And how it results in cancer.
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghy42pr",
"ghyavmn",
"ghyciak"
],
"text": [
"Radiation carries energy, when it meets DNA that energy is transferred to the DNA molecules. These extra-energetic DNA molecules can then do unusual chemical reactions, such as by allowing mismatched DNA pairing (DNA in humans is paired strands, think double helix structure). It also can cause breaks in the DNA, both of which mess with the DNA code. This causes the cells to become sick and cancerous or die.",
"Oh are you asking why, when we know radiation can damage DNA and cause cancer, we also use it as a cancer treatment? It's basically about dosage. Radiation, when it hits your DNA, can change chemical bonds and cause random mutations. You can get cancer when radiation say from the sun happens to cause random mutations (obviously other things besides radiation do this as well). But the UV radiation from the sun is really a very low dose, and it won't cause a huge amount of DNA damage at once. Most of the time your cells will just be able to repair the damage; and the vast majority of mutations won't do anything or will end up causing the cell to die. Very rarely a mutation might change something that forces the cell to keep dividing, and that can grow into a tumor. When someone receives radiation treatment they're getting a massive dose of radiation. It's enough that all of the exposed cells are going to have widespread DNA damage. Trying to stay as eli5 as I can - many of the healthy cells in your body actually don't grow or divide all that much, and they all have checkpoints to prevent them from dividing until DNA damage is repaired. Cancer cells almost always have some deficient pathways (things messed up by mutations) so that they're either unable to repair the damage or can't stop dividing and will just die when it tries to divide. Ideally you would find a dose of radiation that is just high enough to kill cancer cells and just low enough to allow your healthy cells to repair damage. Obviously it doesn't work that way so you'll kill tons of healthy cells along with the cancer cells which is why people feel so sick. Also to get back to your question radiation therapy does rarely cause other healthy cells to become cancerous but it's sort of a what option do we have type of thing. People getting radiation therapy are usually going to die without treatment, the secondary cancer rates are low and even if they do develop usually take years or decades to show up, and we don't know of any better treatment yet.",
"Think thrown ball meets window. High energy transfers can break things. If DNA strands break (radiation energy breaking/changing chemical bonds in DNA), cells can change. They likely/usually can not make things (mRNA, proteins, enzymes, etc) the cell needs to survive. Depending on how things break, different effects can be had. If the car engine dies, generally the car stops. If the car brakes die, while going down hill, the car goes faster. Depending on where the DNA changes occur, the cell can do different things. Mostly it usually just dies, sometimes it lives and its behavior changes."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpkddi
|
Why is it so hard to rewire the brain after it becomes hardwired or accustomed to perform a certain task or a habit?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyzpbt",
"ghz6e5c",
"ghz6i7m",
"ghya752",
"ghzlt1u"
],
"text": [
"This is a super complex answer. I think the simplest / shortest response would be that in an evolutionary sense you need to strike a balance between being really flexible/adaptable and being more robust to change. As you could imagine, going too far to either of those extremes would probably be a disadvantage. The brain being able to change, but not able to change super easily, seems like a good middle ground in that sense.",
"True ELI5: Imagine your brain works like a river. Everything you think, everything you do is like water flowing somewhere. When the water runs in the same place many times, it creates a path where more water can flow easily. The longer you keep this pattern, the deeper the river will get and the harder it will be to change it's flow.",
"Think of cutting across a snow field. The first couple times it doesn’t matter which way you go. But after awhile that path will start getting “dug in”. Now each time you need to cross the field you’re gonna choose that path as the snow is already packed in (cleared) and easier to cross. Taking a new route would be harder and more time consuming. Not sure if I’m explaining this properly but hope you get what I’m trying to say. It’s easier to follow the footsteps than to create new one",
"for the same reason it's \"hard\" to reshape a metal coil spring after it's been shaped into a coil or for the same reason it's difficult for a river to change its shape after its been shaped by water flow over millennia or for the same reason it's hard to take an existing building an turn it into another building (harder than just constructing the alternative building in the first place) in other words, to \"rewire\" something you (typically) have to generally \"unwire\" it - and then \"wire\" it again - in a different way, which is more complex than just wiring it in the first place (which is a lengthy process in and of itself) to be more precise, the brain becomes less and less \"dynamic\" as you grow, and the connections between the neurons in your brain are established gradually and strengthened to a point where great effort (= energy) would be required to \"undo\" that strengthening AS WELL as create new alternative connections",
"Because when you rewire yourself you don’t actually remove the old wires, you just add in new ones. The main functions you use everyday you change and make sure there isn’t a lamp plugged in to that outlet you don’t want to come on. The less often the switch is used though the more chance you forgot what all is actually attached to it. You may have stopped smoking 4 years ago but that was in the middle of a dry spell so you still reach for a cigarette after sex now. That switch hasn’t been flipped for awhile."
],
"score": [
23,
22,
8,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpkdm7
|
why do eyes start watering when a person yawns?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyhe4o",
"gi01yv2",
"ghzn6bt",
"ghzbo5l"
],
"text": [
"You're made out of meat and your body keeps its juices in little meat bags. Sometimes if you squeeze your muscles this juice will leak out. Other examples: spit squirting out from under your tongue when you yawn ('gleeking'), and the way coughing or tensing your belly squirts newly-processed urine into your bladder so you can pee faster. *Edit for terminology - bearing down on your belly is not the valsalva maneuver.",
"Yawning compresses your lacrimal glands (produces tears), so tears come out. You can also make yourself tear up by scrunching up your face or blinking a bunch.",
"How much water? Cos ive see people yawn and not once did water come out their eyes. But when i yawn,nit looks like I'm crying",
"My eyes water too . . . probably the crippling depression. But, I think it's too do with lacrimal sac getting squeezed when you stretch you muscle, probably the reason we cry when we laugh a lot. Note, the lacrimal sac is where the tears drain from to the eye after the lacrimal gland has produced them."
],
"score": [
203,
12,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpkg7w
|
After a late night of eating, why do you wake up hungrier the next day?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghy6718",
"ghy5txq"
],
"text": [
"Because when you eat a large meal your body releases Insulin. Among many other things, insulin drops your blood sugar level. So by eating a huge meal, you have caused a large insulin response and subsequent blood sugar drop. Now your body needs more sugar and you feel hungry",
"There could be a variety of reasons. One likely scenario assuming you binged the previous day is that your metabolism spiked from the increased calories and your body is burning more “maintenance” calories for things like digestion, brain function, etc.."
],
"score": [
32,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpkwps
|
What is the difference in the effect of fast acting Benzos (xanax, ativan) and alcohol on your brain/GABA?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghy9mrj"
],
"text": [
"Addiction rehab nurse here. Benzodiazepines and alcohol hit your neuroreceptors the same way chemically. The differences are literally only how fast they get absorbed vs how fast your digestive system destroys them before they are absorbed and how fast you metabolize them. Benzos get absorbed more than broken down, but in general they also take longer to be metabolized once they are absorbed so their long term effects are harder to get over. Now, as far as micro dosing alcohol? TECHNICALLY you can. The problem is that because alcohol is metabolized so fast and broken down so easily by your digestive system you’d have to be more or less constantly drinking tiny amounts of alcohol to do it. My recommendation? Get on something longer acting for maintenance of your overall depression and anxiety instead of focusing on what we call “breakthrough” anxiety. Dealing with the baseline reduces the severity and frequency of panic attacks, reducing your need for breakthrough meds and lessening your chances of developing a frankly terrible addiction."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpkxea
|
Why is it that when women live together, their menstrual cycles become synchronised?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghy93wf"
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Faulty early studies were later discredited and the general consensus is that cycles do not synchronise. It can _appear_ to synchronise because of overlapping periods but it's more fiction than fact"
],
"score": [
58
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpllze
|
How foldering technique is better than straight up sending message?
|
I recently came across the foldering technique where instead of straight up sending message, they store their messages like drafts and then different person can access and read these messages. From what I have understood, this technique is better because the message is never sent and the suspicion is less. I am confused since, after writing a message, someone, inevitably, has to log in to the same server where the message is stored to be able to read it. Though the message might not be sent but authorities can still see which device logged into the server. In straight messaging, the authorities can see to which device the message was sent to and from where. So how is foldering less suspicious technique?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyfw3q",
"ghzxl1w"
],
"text": [
"When one sends a normal email it is transmitted across multiple servers to reach it's end point. It's like the message is handed from person to person until it reaches it's destination. Any of those servers could maintain a copy of it. If the message isn't encrypted or perhaps only weakly encrypted then the owner of that server could read it. The foldering technique means that the message never leaves the server it's initially stored on making it more difficult for someone to read it other than those with access to that single server.",
"> Though the message might not be sent but authorities can still see which device logged into the server. Now that the technique is known, they're almost certainly looking for this. When it wasn't known, they likely weren't, or at least the people using it thought so. The government would go to the provider and tell them \"give me a copy of all the messages this account sends and receives\", and then they'd get nothing."
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kplnos
|
why do currencies change in value and why can't we have a single one instead of lots of different currencies?
|
Economics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyi9q7"
],
"text": [
"This question gets asked a lot, so searching back should find you some good answers. Imagine a currency as like any other commodity. Its value is based on how much of it is available and how much people want it. The more is around, the less you can get for it - since there's more likely to be someone who will accept a bit less than you. The more people want it the more they'll give you in exchange for it. From that we can understand why currencies change in value. Firstly, supply: governments or central banks control the amount of money in circulation. If this goes up, then the value will tend to go down, and vice-versa. (In fact, this relationship is complex and much debated in practice.) Second, demand: why do people want a currency? Generally either to buy things in/from a country, to pay taxes/fines, or to invest/hold deposits. So the more people want to buy things from your country the more demand there will be for your currency. (And the more people in your country want to buy things from elsewhere, the less demand.) Currencies with very safe, stable values - like the dollar - or offering good interest rates will also be in demand. Now, why can't we have one worldwide currency? To copy an old answer of mine, four main reasons: 1) The ability to control a currency, particularly the amount in circulation, is an important economic tool for governments. Keeping their own currency allows governments to tailor policy for their own country rather than having to agree it with others. 2) Unless goods and labour can move freely across the currency zone you can have all sorts of problems. These two are both linked, and you can see how they play out in the eurozone. First, the integration of the politics and economies of EU countries enabled the creation of the euro. However this integration has its limits. Southern Europe arguably would have benefitted from a looser monetary policy - though on the other hand these countries have benefitted from being able to borrow at low rates. In theory goods and labour can move freely around the EU; in practice it's not such a simple thing for a person to move from Spain to Latvia or Ireland to Greece. 3) Standardising currencies is costly and may not have that much benefit. It's not that difficult to change currency from one to another. 4) Many people have a strong attachment to their country's currency - it can be an important part of their national identity. The US dollar or the British pound are symbols of those countries, and it's a big emotional thing to give them up."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kplw6y
|
why are people saying vaping is more harmful than smoking cigarettes?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyn05z",
"ghyhgrk",
"ghyowm7"
],
"text": [
"Do people say it’s “more” harmful? I mostly just hear the fact that it’s not a harm*less* alternative to smoking like a lot of people seem to think it is. My understanding is the danger comes from some of the chemicals in vape liquids that we’re not really sure what the long term effects may be. There’s already some weird medical issues arising from vaping, and there will probably be more in the future. For right now you can google “popcorn lung vaping” and see that is a medical condition they think is caused by (if I remember right) the vitamin e acetate that is in some vape liquids. If used as a smoking cessation aid, vaping can be a great way to start weaning yourself off tobacco if cold turkey isn’t working for you. The cost/benefit of short term vaping to quit tobacco is HUGE on the benefit side. If a year of vaping is going to keep you from decades of smoking, then despite the risks from vaping, you’re probably better off. But it is still damaging to the lungs, so it’s going to be harmful as a long term activity. Maybe/probably not as harmful as smoking, but (in terms of medical research) it’s still a pretty new thing, and there’s simply no way of knowing yet what the effect of long-term heavy use might be.",
"ELI5: It isn't. Before vaping became popular, smoking had almost left a generation, with the number of teen smokers down in the 10 percentile, strictly passed down from irresponsible parents to children. Now tobacco can market the same buzz to children (concentrated active ingredient pulled from their plants) and sell it as cotton candy flavor. The argument that it is not good for you comes from the heating element. If it is made poorly and not properly maintained, it poses the risk of those materials oxidizing and getting into your lungs. This, while not good, pales in comparison to the long term constant effect of smoking. The anti-tobacco movement is using their success with cigarettes to try and take out vaping as well. However, unless it is totally banned, I have a hard time seeing this being as successful",
"Generally speaking it's not. However there aren't as many years of evidence like there are with cigarettes. It is possible, though unlikely, that glycol or glycerine used as the carrier fluid in vapes is suuuuuuper bad for your health after 20 or 40 years. But there's no actual proof yet that it isn't. In addition cigarettes are pretty fairly one trick. Most people aren't rolling their own cigarettes and shoving random flavors and oils in them (and commercially it's illegal cause of the flavored cigarette ban.) Vapes are more associated with unregulated shenanigans. The 2019 vape scare was mostly related to THC vaping and Vitamin E Acetate (which you won't find in any commercial vape juice)"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpmhan
|
how is eating meat bad for our environment?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzdzbb",
"ghylw8r",
"ghymmy9",
"ghyrfs5",
"gi070xq",
"ghysf4c",
"ghymcwg",
"ghzet1y",
"ghym67u",
"ghzc8ds",
"ghyu6ei",
"ghyp6fw"
],
"text": [
"We have to feed the meat more than meat feeds us. One butchered cow can provide a lot of meals, but we had to feed that cow its whole life. It takes 10-100 times the resources to produce the cow compared to how much it provides us as food.",
"Raising meat takes resources. Water, land, food (which is grown specifically for them to eat). Growing plants for humans to eat takes considerably less resources. There's also the additional effect of cow poop/farts releasing a lot of methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas.",
"Also in South America there are a lot of forests burned down. Mainly to have either more space for the cows, or space to grow some soy.",
"Eating meat is not inherently bad for the environment. What IS bad is the industrialized way that we produce it. Producing more beef requires more grass and grain to feed them. So, we apply tons of chemical fertilizers to the ground in order to encourage the grasses and grains we need to feed the cows. That chemical fertilizer also finds its way into ground water and causes massive algae blooms among other things. Then there's all the diesel fuel that we burn to harvest and prepare the grains for feeding. Then, of course, there's the feed lots themselves. Cows produce a lot of pee and poop and it all has to go somewhere. When you have thousands of them all concentrated into a small area (a feed lot), you get tons of it and essentially no good way to clean it. So, you take the group of cattle in this pen and slaughter them. Then you run in a couple of people to hose the pen down really quick, and then you bring in the next group of cattle. Notionally, the muck produced at a feedlot could be used as fertilizer. But it isn't organic because it contains all of the drugs and other chemicals that we inject the cattle with to encourage high growth. So it can't be sold there. As a fertilizer, it does not outperform the chemical fertilizers that are already in use and that farmers are already equipped to apply. So it can't really be sold in THAT market either. That leaves sewage processing. In short, the entire industrialized meat production process is extremely messy. At the small scale, none of this is a problem. The cows are not under stress, the waste (pee and poop) are dealt with on site as compost and fertilizer for the pastures that the cattle graze. So, really, it isn't eating meat that's the problem. It's the industrialized production processes that are optimized for profit over product quality or environmental concerns that cause the issues.",
"I used to be a vegan, this being one of the reasons. But I think it's just one part of the problem. Overconsumption is really what's bad for the environment. You might never eat meat, but you buy other things that take a lot of resources to package and transport to you, instead. And people definitely overeat meat, too. Everyone doesn't even have to just be vegan or vegetarian, but just consume so much less of it would help a lot.",
"Some of these replies are correct, others are \"bro-science\" Ex: the pesticides on the fields. That's over 90% bullshit. The animals have to eat the plants. I'm from a heavily agricultural area of NC. As a general rule of thumb, we don't use pesticides on edible greens because well common sense. Where a HUGE problem comes into play is land. The Chinese are the biggest offenders, followed by the fast food industry. Ask yourself this, \"Where is there an abundance of extremely fertile land for cheap?\" If you answered South America you're correct! Companies and countries buy priceless rainforest acreage for pennies on the dollar. They then strip the trees and plant pasture for the beef cattle. People underestimate the environmental impact that those massive trees have on our air quality worldwide. Plus they're decimating entire ecosystems. I'm not a tree hugging granola crunching lefty environmentalist, but this is the only home we have. We can save Mother Earth without a bunch of assanine regulations and ridiculous taxes. Just good common sense goes a long way.",
"Climate change (which is hurting the planet) is driven by carbon gasses like carbon dioxide and methane. To get meat, we of course need animals. Let's focus on cows right now. Cows eat tons and tons of grass every day, but since grass is really hard to digest, they produce a lot of methane (a strong carbon gas) in the process, which the cows then release into the air through farting or burping. That is one factor. On the other hand, many farm animals (especially pigs) eat soy. Many farmers and companies in the tropical regions are chopping down big areas of the rainforest, to grow soy. That's also horrible, since the rainforests are some of the most important entities to *stop* the bad effects of climate change.",
"For every 100 calories that a cow consumes about 90 goes to maintaining its functions, and only 10 into body mass that will be consumed by people (I believe pigs have a 50/50 calories to body mass), therefore if a person would consumed those 100 calories if would be put to better use. Raising meat also produces a lot of methane, CO2, uses land, water and so on.",
"Sustainably raised meat(not factory farmed) is better for the environment than traditionally farmed crops. Vertical farms are much better and probably close to the same. Eating meat isn't bad for the environment, raising it unethically is. Large plant farms take up a lot of space, use a large amount of water and require heavy machinery to harvest and process. That's not to mention environmental damage from pesticides as even organic pesticides can be damaging to nearby waterways and aquatic life. The carbon footprint of a grass fed, open field animal farm is far lower. The animals are part of the environment and directly support the surrounding ecosystem.",
"Raising animals to eat on the scale the world does involves numerous detrimental effects on the environment due to factors like run-off from manure, methane gas release, and even more simply the amount of resources required to raise an animal. Those are just a few of the major negative contributions eating meat as we do has on the environment off the top of my head.",
"Mark Rober has a well organized and articulate video on the impact of meat (more specifically beef, as it is the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases and envrionmental impact) [ URL_1 ]( URL_0 )",
"Meat is animals and it takes significant resources to grow and just to keep the animal alive. They eat food and produce heat and waste, including methane gas, which is much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Its a completely unnecessary, huge middle step between non-meat food and humans. Instead of growing food for our food, we could grow food for us directly."
],
"score": [
229,
153,
99,
94,
17,
17,
15,
6,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA&t=554s&ab_channel=MarkRober",
"https://youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA&t=554s&ab\\_channel=MarkRober"
],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpmpny
|
How can hand sanitizing products always kill 99.99% of germs when there are potentially millions of new germs, bacteria, etc. that are unknown?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyoog1",
"ghymon3",
"ghyol95",
"ghyslq5"
],
"text": [
"The same way we are reasonably certain that dropping a train engine on their head kills 99.9% of mammals. The very high concentration alcohol in the sanitizer physically destroys the cell membranes of bacteria and just pops them like a balloon.",
"These products don’t really target individual bacteria’s. The alcohol in the hand sanitizer basically dissolved the outside of the bacteria so it falls apart, regardless of what the dna of that particular cell contains.",
"Because, barring aliens seeding diseases on Earth for some reason, anything new is going to work in the same way as existing diseases, and will have similar vulnerabilities when outside the body. So they can be reasonably sure the existing sanitisers will kill the new bacteria as well as the old ones.",
"There are some common mechanisms in all of life. Stuff so basic and successful that it developed once, and then stuck during all of evolution. Disrupt any of these mechanisms (e.g. alcohol dissolving the lipid membrane surrounding cells), and you can be reasonably sure to kill basically all microbes. But in principle, yes, there can be microbes that could be resistant to that. That's why it's 99.99% and not 100%. Applications that require *all* microbes to be killed (e.g. mars rovers that search for signs of alien life) use totally different procedures that are vastly more complicated."
],
"score": [
36,
14,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpnjyu
|
- Why do people lose consciousness when experiencing an incredible pain?
|
When someone experiences an incredible pain that doesnt involve the loss of blood, why do they tend pass out?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyz7zt",
"ghzhycq",
"ghzge5s"
],
"text": [
"Pain exists as a learning signal to avoid things that hurt as well as a motivator to rest/heal following injury. The latter prevents you doing further damage. Similar to the latter, I can only assume that throughout evolutionary history there has developed an advantage to loss of consciousness under extreme pain. It may well be that diverting all resources to dealing with whatever injury is causing the pain is beneficial. Great question!",
"Due to the psychological and physical effects on the body, as a person braces for the pain their body places pressure on the vagus nerve, causing a sudden drop in blood pressure which causes a temporary reduction in blood to the brain, causing fainting. Normally this is minor and of no major concern, unless there is an underlying condition (which would not be known) or they fall and injure themselves. I have see people faint from very little pain to no actual pain at all, just being scared. Also, this same mechanism is what causes some people to faint on the toilet. The same pressure hits the nerve and the same thing happens, the faint and fall off the toilet. More common in the older population.",
"Not an expert, but I understand that your body wants to avoid you to experience a trauma that could damage you psychologically. Intense pain can do that. In order to avoid this, the body will shut down and thus make you not experience the pain directly."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpnjz7
|
Why do some card readers at the register seem like they take forever to process (asking debit/credit, double confirming total) and others are done completely in 3 seconds?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghyt6xj",
"ghzvz1f",
"ghyvkwo",
"ghytkxg"
],
"text": [
"The reader only reads the card. It has to go thru internet connection to reach the bank to live process the transaction. If internet at the vendor is slow or being disrupted, the transaction can stall.",
"Oh! This is eli5, so longer version. The fast ones are connected to the internet to talk to the bank. All the steps go fast 'cause it makes the card thingy be close to the bank. The slow ones have to pick up a phone line, do a whole song and dance with the bank's phone-line thingy, *then* say \"hay, I gots a transaction\", *then* they be talkin and it happens.",
"One reason is pre-approved transaction limits. Not all transactions are approved in real time, sometimes the retailer and merchant will agree a limit below which the transaction is automatically accepted, so the terminal doesn’t need to contact the bank for approval. Back in the paper days of cards this was the default, anything below a certain value was accepted, over the value the store had to phone for approval. It’s decreasing given the greater connectedness of the world, but still does occur.",
"The card readers have to communicate with a bank or credit card company. So the communication time will depend on the business's telephone/internet service provider, just like for you streaming a movie or loading a webpage."
],
"score": [
48,
17,
15,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpnrjp
|
When an animal cell disposes of its “waste” from its cell membrane, how does it get removed from the body itself?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghywf62"
],
"text": [
"Waste gets carried away in blood and gets filtered by the lungs as co2 and kidneys as urine. Then out it goes. Some animals like birds don't separate urine and feces and have a single out. Plants and simpler lifeforms just osmosis it out into environment"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpog7c
|
From everything I hear and see in advertisement bamboo is this miracle plant that makes for more sustainable and better quality products, from paper to bed sheets to baby clothes. So why aren’t we using it more?
|
Earth Science
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghz8jcp",
"ghz6jx7",
"ghz54zv",
"ghzdh32",
"ghz1myn"
],
"text": [
"One thing many advertisers of bamboo products do not say is what their products actually are, they tend to give the impression that they are made from just natural fast growing bamboo. In the case of clothing, they take bamboo fibres and chemically process them to produce a man made fibre called viscose / Rayon. This is quite an intense process. Other products, such as bamboo reusable coffee cups generally are mainly melamine and the bamboo is just packing material.",
"Sustainability is maybe questionable over a softwood forest, both produce their material over a number of years with relatively little upkeep. Arguably if wood forests are slower at producing the same quantity of material they’re more sustainable as they provide habitat for a longer duration and you need to keep more forest around for longer, rather than turning it into farmland or subdivisions. Wood/Timber/Lumber is also very well suited to a lot of building applications, as well as furniture and similar uses. You could probably make some sort of engineered wood product like Glu-Lam or LVL using bamboo, but I’m not sure how much more sustainable that would be. Also - if you’re hearing directly from an industry how awesome they are... there’s a *slight* chance of some bias in how they arrive at their figures.",
"Bamboo’s main competitor is trees, and tree farms are sloooooooow to switch over. It’s ~20 years for a tree to get to maturity, so the trees we harvest today started growing before bamboo was anything but a tiny niche product. Assuming bamboo lives up to the hype, and it’s fairly easy to find a lot of bamboo products today so that seems likely, we should expect it to take over more and more of the fiber side of tree production. As other users posted, you still need trees for structural purposes though, and a lot of the fiber stuff can be done with the waste from lumber production so that’s essentially free raw material, it’ll probably never go away entirely.",
"Also, though bamboo sheets/clothes are super soft they don't last very long. Went thru a few sets of different brands before switching back to cotton.",
"Bamboo is thin, so to make something of size requires gluing a lot of pieces together. Trees produce wood in nice thick pieces."
],
"score": [
21,
21,
13,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpp563
|
If bacteria and fungus make us sick by producing toxins, then why aren't anti-toxins more commonly used to treat/prevent bacterial and fungal infections?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghz8bcd",
"ghzc2k3",
"ghzf74k"
],
"text": [
"If you remove the toxin but leave the bacteria, it will continue creating more toxins. Also, toxins will leave your body automatically, so there's not much need to treat it directly except in cases where the toxin might cause organ damage if untreated.",
"Your kidneys and liver remove the toxins as long as you’re healthy, but you have to remove the source of the toxins to stop them from being produced.",
"First of all, very few infection symptoms are caused by toxins. Most often it is the immune response to infection that causes classic infection symptoms like fever, chills, muscle aches, etc. Second, anti toxins are expensive. Antifungals and antibacterials are (relatively) cheap and it's usually easier and cheaper to treat the infection rather than the toxins. In cases where that is not a viable option due to the potency of the toxin or the difficulty of treating the infection with antibiotics, there usually are anti-toxins. A good example is Baby BIG, an anti-toxin for botulinum toxin. Because by the time botulism is symptomatic it's usually too late to treat with antibiotics, the anti toxin is used to treat the paralyzing effect of the infection. It costs about $45k for a treatment"
],
"score": [
28,
12,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kppzxk
|
Why do online stores stop showing the price of items once they are out of stock?
|
For items that are sold out where the price used to be instead they replace it with an out of stock message. Is this some marketing thing that gets people to come back more often or something? Seriously I just want to know the price of an item.
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghz9ujw"
],
"text": [
"They may not know the price of the item or if they will get it back in stock. They are telling you that explicitly. Its currently out of stock, we do not have a price for it, and we don't know when or if we're getting more. We don't want to advertise you a price that may be wrong or advertise you a product that we can't provide. Go buy something else, this isnt happening"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpq5bh
|
why is air cooler when it moves faster... shouldn’t it be hotter?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzazyw",
"ghzbeeq",
"ghzbuhj"
],
"text": [
"Two aspects: 1. When air stands still, you loose heat to it, but the air around you heats up - causing you to loose less heat. 2. Humans cool themselfes by sweating - sweat evaporates, and this uses some heat. However, air can only absorb a certain amount of moisture. Wind makes sure that moist air is transported away, and a steady supply of dry air blows across your skin. It makes sweating nore efficient To clarify: - moving air is not \"colder\" per se in the physical sense, it just makes you loose heat faster. - due to the first effect, if the air is VERY hot, moving air can be \"hotter\" than cold air. But since we are very efficient at sweating, it would have to be really very hot for this. However, this is why an oven gets \"hotter\" by turning on the circulation.",
"As air removes heat from you, that air heats up. When the air is moving, the air around you is constantly being refreshed back to cooler air.",
"Air feels cooler when it moves faster because of a process called Convection. First let me explain that most heat is transferred through *Conduction* which is when two particles or substances touch each other and heat energy moves along a heat gradient, from the hotter object to the cooler one. Now, *convection* is really just *conduction + movement.*. When air moves across the surface of a hot object, the air molecules touch the surface pick up some of the heat, but then they are immediately replaced by new, cooler air molecules, on and on. The same is true in reverse for convection ovens (air fryers) for example. So when air moves across the surface of your skin, it is transferring more heat from your body and thus feels cooler. Faster air also evaporates sweat more quickly due to partial pressure differences which makes you lose heat faster."
],
"score": [
17,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpqci0
|
How are we able to charge our phones wirelessly, and why isnt that technology being used everywhere?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzckk2",
"ghzfh9f",
"ghzcg90",
"ghzcoau",
"ghzd177",
"ghzj43t",
"ghzhnej",
"gi15tn1",
"ghzo6y9",
"ghzcclr"
],
"text": [
"Wireless charging is done through induction. When you run and electrical current through a coiled wire, you generate a magnetic field around it. Conversely, when a coiled wire experiences a change in the local magnetic field, it generates a current. So your charger runs an alternating current (AC) through a coiled wire. This generates a rapidly changing magnetic field. Your phone has a wire coil in its induction charger \"module\". This wire experiences the changes in magnetic field, which generate a current in the wire. This current is then used to charge the battery. The reason why we can't use this everywhere is that the power you can transfer with this method doesn't reach very far. Also, the more of these changing fields you have going around, the more likely for something else to be impacted, since this will induce currents in any wire coils, even if in other electronics.",
"The efficiency of wireless charging relies on good magnetic coupling between the devices. This means very little separation in the z-axis and very good alignment in the x-y axis. Even with phones this typically results in something less than 90% efficiency (compared to say 98%+ efficiency with a good transformer). For low power devices, this is tolerable. A phone can be charged with 5-10W power and the losses of 1-2 W will result in heat losses that can be mitigated (without it becoming dangerously hot). Laptops being charged at that rate are pretty useless (the laptop would be draining power faster than it charged). A laptop charger therefore, requires much more power (40W or more). Since laptops need thicker walls (for strength) this further reduces coupling efficiency. At that point, the heat loss is significant enough that it would cause both the charging device and the device being charged to have high temperature spots. This presents really difficult user, mechanical, electrical and safety design challenges. A laptop mfr typically works with a fairly small cost budget for chargers and very limited design time - this feature would just never make the cut. It gives a very small benefit, is expensive, adds significant design time and is prone to user error (perceived quality by user is low).",
"Like for what? It's used for toothbrushes and shavers. It only works for very low power devices. It's not efficient enough for most applications. GM used it to charge their electric Impact car, but that just wasn't cheaper than plugging in a connector.",
"Electricity as we think of it is actually electromagnetism. Those two words are combined for a reason, they're very closely linked. If you run an electric current through a wire, it produces a magnetic field around it. Similarly if you move a magnet along a wire, it makes an electric current in the wire. Chargers make use of these interactions to transfer electricity from the charger to the phone. However this is *very* wasteful and also very short ranged, so it's not a useful thing to do for most purposes.",
"Wireless charging is possible via a metal coil in both the charger and the phone, where a current is transferred via induction. Doing so is impractical beyond small applications such as phones due to a great wastage of power via heat, which is why it is not used everywhere.",
"Don't forget range. The induction between two coils falls off like r cubed, I think (someone check me??). So you have to be VERY close to the charger for it to work.",
"We *do* use it elsewhere. There are charging docks for video game controllers that use the same tech. Also my electric razor. The reason you don’t see it more is because of the pros and cons of the tech. The wireless charging station still needs to plug into a wall outlet, so it’s really only useful for something that you’ll be unplugging and re-plugging a lot. It’s also very very short range. Like physically touching. So, sure, you could make a toaster that wirelessly draws power from a docking station of some kind, but would that really be useful? What device do you think would benefit from wireless charging?",
"Energy is lost based on the inverse square law (1/r\\^2), making wireless charging incredibly inefficient even at close range, not to even mention long range.",
"Inductive charging is inefficient, so at high powers there will be **a lot** of loss. From an efficiency perspective it is always worse than a cable.",
"Wireless charging tech is still fairly ~~new~~ niche, only common in low power devices , and still has several drawbacks like fairly precise positioning, heat concerns in the charging brick, and some pretty complex internals for the thing being charged. This means that for higher duty stuff like a laptop, purely wired charging is still the way to go. That might change in the future, but right now, it's not a priority in the space."
],
"score": [
101,
15,
12,
7,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpqkw6
|
How does a DVD remember the subtitle settings?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzdgk7"
],
"text": [
"It's not the DVD, it's the player. The player usually remembers, by an ID number on the disc, and it might know that disc 2 is \"the same movie\"."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpqoqk
|
How do companies such as LaCroix, Bubly, Perrier etc... Have flavors, but contain no fruit juice, no sweeteners and no calories?
|
Chemistry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzeis1",
"ghzedhn",
"gi0spdl",
"gi14tp8",
"ghzjk6i"
],
"text": [
"They typically contain something called “natural flavors” which La Croix states is “from the natural essence oils from the named fruit used in each of the flavors” which is created by heating the fruit at very high temperature to create a vapor that is then captured. Basically, they heat the fruit so it releases the oils/water into the air, and that is condensed into a scented (and arguably flavored) liquid. It creates just enough of something that you can taste and smell it, but since it isn’t really from the fruit directly, it has no calories.",
"Calories are a way to measure energy. The flavoring they use has a taste but not any energy.",
"Scent/smell contribute a lot to flavor, the essential oils they use doesn’t have any calories worth measuring per serving. It could have 0.9cal per serving but they can still say zero calorie. Or it can also say 1 calorie per bottle but it’s in two servings making it 0.5 calories per serving and they manipulate that fact into 0 calories per serving. There are chemicals that are not called sweeteners but trick the brain into thinking it is tasting something sweet. And they are many times sweeter than sugar so they often can use much less and use the same method above and claim zero calories per serving.",
"Have you ever brewed tea before? At an ELI5 level, it's essentially the same process. You take whatever you want the beverage to taste like, let's use lime, and soak it in a solvent. It could be water, alcohol, oil, or others. The solvent pulls flavor compounds out of the lime. The resulting solution can be concentrated to eliminate most of the solvent. Artificial flavors are produced through various chemical reactions that create compounds that either are the same as the compounds in the lime, or that mimic the flavor of lime. There is some legal definition that prevents calling flavors as juices, and they have zero calories because the amount of the created flavor is so low in the finished product that it only contributes maybe one calorie to the drink. I work in the food industry, and pretty much every product I've ever worked with has at absolute most 1% flavor.",
"Artificial natural flavors, also if it's less than one gram then they can claim sugar free"
],
"score": [
145,
18,
9,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpqw8l
|
Why is the density of ice less than the density of water?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzge9d"
],
"text": [
"Water is the only fluid that expands when it freezes. So 1L of water has a smaller volume than 1L of ice. This also means it has a lower density. This is also why ice floats. Put in more difficult terms. The molecules of water spread out more than other substances when freezing. It comes down to hydrogen bonds being more permanent in cold states than warmer. Making water able to flow. This also gives boiling water the ability to freeze instantly when thrown into the air at very low low freezing temperatures."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpqzgp
|
With CPUs getting more and more cores, how come all games seem to be limited to the use of about 2-4?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzherk",
"ghziop7"
],
"text": [
"Most tasks in a video game are not easily “parallelized”. In other words, the outcome of one thing influences another thing. You could try sorting all the things, and finding groupings that eliminate the dependencies and interactions, but doing that is slower than just doing everything serially.",
"Software has to be specifically coded to use multiple cores. Managing all of the different threads becomes ever more complex as you increase their number. Also, as u/Jgordos says, you also have increasing dependencies on other things completing first. You cannot start a thread if you don't have the values required as inputs. EDIT: see also u/Pocok5's now buried [meta ELI5]( URL_0 ) Some low level tasks, like calculating discrete parts of a render, *can* be done in a highly parallel fashion, but those are handed off to GPUs. Because of the dramatic rise of GPU performance, more and more calculation stuff like that is being handed of the GPUs. Give all of the above there is no particularly good reason to try and push the numbers of CPU cores used."
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kpqzgp/eli5_with_cpus_getting_more_and_more_cores_how/ghziyz7/"
]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kprn81
|
Why is the Korean language so different than other languages? How did it develop without a known parent language or language family tree?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghznupa",
"ghzk7p9"
],
"text": [
"For one, the Korean Peninsula is very isolated. There are mountains at the top of it that kind of cut it off from the mainland. But I think more importantly, someone actually sat down and invented Korean, or at least the written language. Legit, one dude, Sejong the Great, sat down and made the Korean alphabet, Hangul, from scratch, instead of it evolving organically. There is some evidence to suggest the Korean language is related to Japanese and Mandarin Chinese. It is definitely its own thing but there are *some* influences of other languages in there. Less than say, French or Spanish, but still some.",
"Same way other language isolates do. Japonic, Basque etc. The predecessor languages evolved into today’s language, and it’s reasonable to expect that other related ones died off."
],
"score": [
10,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kprv22
|
can you see refresh rate
|
I want to know if you can see refresh rate. I want to get a 27in 1080p 144hz monitor, but my dad says you can’t see refresh rate and its a marketing ploy done by the companies. Is he right or wrong?
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzly7o",
"ghznlcw",
"ghzo1cg"
],
"text": [
"He is wrong. Even to people who don't often play games the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz is noticeable, you get diminishing returns at higher refresh rates but you can still tell the difference up above 200Hz. Your eyes don't work like cameras, there isn't a fixed frame rate above which you can't see changes.",
"Refresh rate does make a difference in monitors. First off higher refresh rates generally go hand in hand with lower input latency, which can have a big effect on making a game feel more responsive. Secondly, more FPS means more information in getting displayed to your eyes during fast moments. A CSGO pro hitting an insane flick shot is a great example of this. Say the player takes 1/10th of a second to move their reticle to a target. And for ease say that target starts 10 centimeters away from their reticle on their screen. In that tenth of a second it takes them to aim and fire a high refresh rate will convey more information than a lower refresh rate. At 30 fps the screen would only refresh 3 times and the target would move in jumps of about 3.3 cm each time. At 120 fps the screen would update 12 times during that same shot, and the target would move in much smaller steps, less than 1 cm each time. This allows the player to better judge and adjust their aim mid shot. Your eye doesn’t really have a set “refresh rate.” When watching a movie or game your brain tries to smooth the frames together, but you can see how the higher refresh rate better simulates what it’s like seeing a fast moving object in the real world, things don’t normally move in steps...",
"Yes. You will see a different between 144 hz and 60 hz. The difference is big and feels wayy more smoother. But if you get a 60 hz monitor i don't think you'll mind that much"
],
"score": [
8,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kprw7t
|
How do these color change bath books work? Need to explain to my child.
|
URL_0
|
Chemistry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzw7v2"
],
"text": [
"[Here]( URL_0 ) is an excellent explanation by you tuber Steve Mould. In essence, water helps light get through an outer white layer better (instead of reflecting back off the white layer) to penetrate down to a deeper colored layer."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://youtu.be/gug67f1_8jM"
]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kps79z
|
If we have two eyes, and the two eyes see separately, why do we see only one whole image and not 2 separate images?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghznqie",
"ghzo9ab"
],
"text": [
"* Your brain mushes them together. * This allows you to focus on just one thing but also have a sense of how deep that thing is. * It's the same reason you have two ears but you \"hear\" everything together.",
"You perceive two different images. You can easily test this by selectively closing one eye. When both eyes are open at the same time a healthy human brain will be able to combine both images and use the parallax between the two to add depth information. Some people lack that latter ability and permanently see two separate images. They - accordingly - do not have depth perception."
],
"score": [
19,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpsdbh
|
Is the stuff that makes animals feathers and fur a multitude of colors the same as the stuff we use to dye materials?
|
I know that chlorophyll makes plants produce their green color, but what makes a peacocks feathers into a rainbow? Is it the same thing we use to color crayons?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"ghzpc7d",
"ghzr1qf"
],
"text": [
"The \"rainbow\" effect like peacock feathers and beetle shells isn't a dye, it's an optical effect called \"diffraction\" caused by very small physical features of the surface. It's roughly similar to the physics of rainbows or the colours you see with gasoline on water. You can't extract that and put it in something else, like a crayon, because it's physical, not chemical.",
"Short Answer: Not usually. We used to make some dyes from plants, but animal dyes were never particularly common. We mostly use artificial pigments nowadays. Longer answer: Animals create their colors either through natural pigments or structural colors. **Pigments** selectively absorb light, chlorophyll like you mentioned absorbs all colors except for green, so you see green. Peacock feathers aren’t colored by pigments, instead they’re what’s called **Structural color** . For structural color, the microscopic structure of the feathers reflect specific colors of light. That’s also how chameleons change color. They have tiny holes under their skin that they can change the distance between, causing them to reflect and absorb different colors of light."
],
"score": [
29,
22
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpu0q1
|
-Why do skydivers/parachute trained soldiers have to fall out of planes rather jump?
|
I’ve wondering about this especially since ‘jump’ is associated with skydiving
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi008i6",
"gi0b9c6"
],
"text": [
"It’s safer to just fall and drop away from the plane. When you’re falling, you just go drop away down in a predictable path. Planes don’t have a Lot of head room, so if you literally jumped out of the plane, there’s a chance you’re going to hit something, or get tangled in something, or bump into something. Or, a lot of skydiving planes you jump out of the side of plane, in some cases under the wing, and you obviously don’t want to jump up and hit your head on that. Could you jump out of a plane successfully? Probably. But it’s unnecessary, so why add this extra step or movement, it just adds another chance for something to go wrong.",
"Qualified army parachutist here. By doctrine we are trained to 'jump' up 6 inches and forward at least 36 inches in order to provide extra pulling force on the static line to help pull the parachute open. What usually happens with people who are afraid of heights is that they walk to the door and let gravity handle the rest. Without a good up 6 and out 36, your parachute could become twisted or otherwise entangled which is oftentimes more a nuisance than a real danger to army parachutists."
],
"score": [
16,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpu2or
|
how does alcohol make an introverted person come out of their shell for that period of time?
|
I see people who are silent and being by themselves, but once they consume alcohol, they are like an extroverted version of them. They socialise, talk, dance and what not. How does this happen ?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi0122p"
],
"text": [
"I think a big part of it is that alcohol lowers your inhibitions and for many people their “introverted-ness” (myself included — so more of a personal trait) is knowingly not putting myself out there, part social anxiety, part not wanting to “insert myself” into an attention grabbing place, but when consuming alcohol I care a lot less about what others may or may not think of me, I let my guard down, and I “over-think” less, so alcohol “allows” me some more freedoms and become more like our naturally extroverted counterparts. Just my opinion though. For others is may be different."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpu37y
|
How do ski jumpers land 50 foot tall jumps without breaking any bones in the feet?
|
These guys reach crazy heights. It is almost as if they are flying. How do they avoid breaking their feet when they land?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi00r9l",
"gi0a8ci"
],
"text": [
"It's not the height that causes injury, it's the rate of change of direction. Ski jump landings are steep hills that gradually go flat, allowing the direction of travel to be converted from vertical to horizontal.",
"As they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing. Specifically, it's the rapid change from moving very fast to not moving at all. Ski jump landing sites are sloped, which means when the skier lands they're still moving downward with the slope. This allows them to reduce their vertical movement more gradually instead of going splat on landing."
],
"score": [
12,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpuj55
|
. What is happening in an acid to base chemical reaction? And why it's (usually)being done?
|
Chemistry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi1oqir"
],
"text": [
"Alright, I’m gonna use the most common simple example of this I can think of. Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) (a base) mixed with Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) (An acid) When both of these things encounter water, they dissolve into ions, Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) turns into Na+ and OH-. Meaning that Na+ is missing an electron (hence its positive) and OH- has an extra electron (hence its negative) Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) turns into H+ and Cl-, H+ missing and electron and Cl- having an extra electron. These ions then match up with their pair from the other group, Na+ needs an electron, and Cl- has it, so they bond together and form NaCl, or plain old salt. The H+ and the OH- then pair up and bond together, and become H2O, or plain old water. All acid base reactions are essentially this, both things breaking down into their parts, and then those parts reacting together to form more stable things, Water (H2O) and a salt (in this case NaCl, the salt everyone is familiar with, but there are other kinds of salts with other atoms)"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpupd8
|
In the movie, Apollo 13, Houston tells the crew that they need to shift ballast to hit the correct re-entry angle as they are underweight and drifting off course. How can they judge weight in a weightless environment?
|
Physics
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi04i4f",
"gi0559s",
"gi0678k"
],
"text": [
"The contents of the spacecraft were already known to a reasonable extent: the staff could easily calculate the current spacecraft weight using the known value of an empty spacecraft plus any fuel/supplies and occupants still on it.",
"Strictly speaking they were judging mass, not weight. But the two are proportional at any given point and time and everyone involved would have known that perfectly well.",
"Usually it's better to use mass to prevent confusion in situations like this. However it is incorrect to say that they were weightless. The craft of Apollo 13 always had weight, as it was always within the sphere of influence of earth's gravity. The astronauts inside the craft experience weightlessness because the craft and the astronauts are all \"falling\" towards the Earth at the same rate. However the craft absolutely has a weight the entire time of it's mission. There is always a gravity force (i.e. the weight) pulling the craft towards the earth."
],
"score": [
11,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpvevf
|
How is a UPS box a "street address" but a USPS P.O. Box not also a street address?
|
Other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi09tfm"
],
"text": [
"UPS accepts shipments to their \"mailbox\" customers from any shipper. The USPS only accepts postal mail addressed to a PO Box. It's easiest to see with a FedEx shipment. UPS/Mailboxes Etc/... = accept package; PO Box = reject shipment."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpvgul
|
How does meditating actually help to combat anxiety, stress, pain etc.?
|
Meditation as I understand it is about focussing on physical sensations such as breathing and trying to avoid listening to the thoughts in your mind. Does the anxiety and stress not return immediately after a meditation session though? Aren’t all those problems still there and just going to pop up once you stop trying to ignore them? I ask because I’m interested in trying it but couldn’t see anywhere that actually explained HOW it works, rather than just how to do it and it’s benefits.
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi0azeq",
"gi1izmf"
],
"text": [
"There's a quote that says depression is focusing too much on the past, and anxiety is focusing too much on the future. When you put your attention and energy into the present moment you can overcome these feelings. So in this way meditation is like working out your body. The stronger you become the more physical effort you can use when you need it. Meditation is training the ability to recenter yourself to the present and not drift to the past or the future. And when you're centered you can focus on the task at hand and resolve whatever issue is in front of you, as opposed to being overwhelmed and paralyzed. And any action or activity that forces you to focus on the present moment/activity at hand is meditation. In the same way using weight machines and calisthenics, like push ups, are both working out. Traditionally \"monks\" wanted to be able to meditate with no external tools or devices, to further distance themselves from material things. So it's good to be able to meditate with just your natural body. But it's also good to have tools to help recenter yourself. I like listening to music and imagining a music video in my head to the music. Or playing guitar, I can't play the song and think of something else other than the song otherwise I'll mess up",
"> trying to avoid listening to the thoughts in your mind. From a Buddhist meditation standpoint, it's not about avoiding thoughts, it's about not becoming attached to those thoughts. As another poster mentioned, you're building mental facilities to stay in the present. This means not dwelling on those negative thoughts. Recognize that they (may) exist, then move on. From there, you can begin to actually quiet the thoughts. The analogy is that your mind is a muddy pond that is constantly stirred by the wind (thoughts). Before clarity can be had, you must stop the wind from blowing so the mud can settle. The first step is to recognize that the thoughts are fleeting and build resilience against following them wherever they take you. This allows you to be still."
],
"score": [
39,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
kpvm8w
|
Why do we feel muscle spasms sometimes when we stay in the same position for an extended period of time but not when we're sleeping?
|
Biology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi0cvzo"
],
"text": [
"You don't stay in the same position when you sleep. It may seem that way, but your body constantly shifts its weight off of pressure points throughout the night. This is why people who are found down from strokes or opioid overdoses often have massive pressure ulcers after several hours, but you've never developed a pressure ulcer from sleeping -- even if you're sleeping on a hard surface. As for muscle spasms, those can be the result of odd positioning (strange tension on a muscle group) or any number of electrolyte abnormalities. Usually it's low potassium, but even dehydration can bring about spasms. You experience these in your sleep as well, but since you're asleep you don't notice. The one major exception to this is the so-called charlie horse in your calves, which tends to DEFINITELY wake people up."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
}
|
[
"url"
] |
[
"url"
] |
|
kpvs3k
|
how can old films be true 4K
|
I'm very confused how older films like 2001 a space odyssey can be true 4K but newer films like Endgame aren't. I understand a little bit eg shot in 8k and downgraded equals 4K but shot in 2k and upscaled is fake and the more cgi makes it more difficult to make it true 4K but I'm still confused.
|
Technology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
{
"a_id": [
"gi0cmpx",
"gi0cxyx"
],
"text": [
"Digital film and analogue film are not interchangeable in the sense that film stock does not have a ‘resolution’ - the clarity of the image is determined by the film size and quality used. 2001 was shot on 65mm Eastman film stock, so the ‘effective’ resolution (as far as the captured image clarity) is far higher than 4K can achieve. Film stock such as 2001 can be cleaned and digitally scanned at 4K quite happily, and in fact some movies have even been scanned at 8k resolution. Films shot on digital cameras do not have this luxury, as the quality of the image is set by the resolution used at the time. They can, at best, be interpolated to a higher resolution.",
"Old films were shot on film, not digitally. The old film reels had very high resolution depending a bit on the quality of the film used. Typically it would have been a bit better than 4K."
],
"score": [
12,
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.