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
sequencelengths 1
1
| selftext_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
75npl8 | Why are we so fascinated by Jack the Ripper? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do7k64g"
],
"text": [
"Because it's an unsolved mystery that has been the subject of much debate over the last several decades. Several women were murdered, lots of evidence was theoretically available, and yet the murderer was never unmasked. It captured the attention of the public in London at the time, and from there it spiralled over the course of several weeks as the murders continued. Then, the murders abruptly stopped with no explanation. It's basically a real-life murder mystery."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
75p5sc | Why is "h" the go-to letter for modifying the sounds of a language? | The latin script may not be perfectly suited for every language, so some use combinations of letters to add new sounds, but I find it odd that the letter h seems to be the most used for this purpose. The prime example is Irish, where h is used for EVERYTHING, ok, not everything but elipsis and lenition which are very common. In Portuguese they use nh and lh to express some fairly common sounds, in english there is th sh and spanish, portuguese and english use ch and there is the always german sch, speaking about german, it and irish use ch to express a glotal fricative. There may be other examples in french, Italian, and other languages, but I think I've made my point. Why did all these people choose to use the same letter to represent the sounds that the latin alphabet had no symbols for?, specially when there where rarely used letters like y x and z lying around | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do7x8s5"
],
"text": [
"You make an interesting point. Combinations of letters that form one sound are called *digraphs*. The earliest uses of \"h\" as a modifying letter to make a digraph must be the Latin words borrowed from ancient Greek: \"Charon\", \"amphora\", \"athleta\". The Romans used \"ch\", \"ph\" and \"th\" to write three Greek letters that didn't exist in Latin. These letters were pronounced by the Greeks as something like k+h, p+h, and t+h, which we write in the International Phonetic Alphabet as /kʰ/, /pʰ/, /tʰ/. But later in Greek the sounds changed to /x/ (a guttural h like a Spanish j), /f/ and /θ/ (the first sound in \"thin\"), although in later Latin the \"ch\" was pronounced as /k/ instead of /x/. The Latin words of Greek origin were borrowed into many European languages. So now \"ch\", \"th\" and \"ph\" were used to write single sounds in many European languages. In medieval French the \"ch\" started to be used for a sound that is now pronounced as /ʃ/ (English \"sh\"). Many European languages such as Spanish and Portuguese copied this model for their own sounds e.g. \"lh\", \"nh\", \"sh\". I think that \"h\" was convenient because it's very rare that an \"h\" sound would occur after one of those consonants, so ambiguities are unlikely. For example English words like \"boathouse\" where the t and h are pronounced separately, are quite rare and only occur with compound words. It means that when you see a \"th\" you're 99% sure how to pronounce it. In addition the \"h\" is silent in lots of European languages already so it would have been a \"spare\" letter. In Polish and Hungarian the \"z\" is used as a modifier letter. For example in Polish /ʃ/ is written \"sz\" and /tʃ/ is \"cz\". This comes from an older German tradition of using \"z\" as a modifier, which isn't used any more in German. The \"sz\" in German later became joined together as a new letter \"ß\". In the case of Irish, consonants were originally modified by writing a dot above: \"ċ\" etc, to indicate a softening or disappearance of the sound. Around the 16th Century the practice developed of taking \"ch\", \"th\" and \"ph\" from Latin because of the similar sounds. The use of \"h\" was extended to all consonants by analogue to these three. By the 19th Century this became the standard, possibly partly because it was easier to print. Modern Irish now uses these digraphs: bh, ch, dh, fh, gh, mh, ph, rh, sh, th. Part of the reason for Irish having so many is the complicated grammar rule called \"lenition\", as you pointed out, where a word beginning with a consonant has to be modified to the lenited form of the consonant (basically consonant+h) at certain positions in the sentence. To compare, Welsh also has lenition but instead of adding \"h\", there are complicated spelling and grammar rules that say that a word beginning with \"m\" changes to \"f\", etc. [Here]( URL_0 ) is a table of the Welsh spelling rules, which is what Irish would have if they didn't have the convention of adding \"h\". tl;dr It started with Latin borrowings from Greek with \"ch\", \"ph\", \"th\", and \"ch\" got copied by French for the \"sh\", and then European languages took the French idea and extended it to their own sounds. Helped by the fact that \"h\" wouldn't normally make a sound in those positions so was an ideal choice for a modifier letter."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Welsh_mutations"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
75qc3f | why do we give final meals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do83gq4",
"do83ojx",
"do8boyn",
"do87jmm",
"do83d0b"
],
"text": [
"Their origin dates back to European superstition, it was to prevent the [inmate's ghost from haunting]( URL_0 ) the executioners. > In medieval Europe many believed that well-fed prisoners could be executed without fear of their returning as ghosts. The quality of the final meal was also believed to influence the likelihood of their doing so. If the food and drink were of the best quality it was believed that prisoners would be less likely to haunt their executioners. If the meals were poor, many believed prisoners would return as malevolent spirits bent on tormenting those involved in their deaths. They aren't universal, Texas for example doesn't do them anymore, and there are restrictions. Many states place a limit on the money that can be spent on a final meal (ranging from Florida's $40 to Oklahoma's $15).",
"Ritualistic origin aside, today it separates the violence of the crime from the violence of the punishment.",
"Last meals aren't about what the person on death row did. Last meals are about not taking for granted how serious taking a life is. A small mercy reminds us they're a person and their death affects other people. The meal is a symbol meant for the people sobbing for the murderer on the other side of the window- as compassion for their loss. And for the people who end his life- as a reminder of the finality and cost.",
"It's an act of compassion meant to symbolize that we are merciful people, despite the fact that we are ending someone's life. It's not a reward for the criminal, it's a symbol for the executioners.",
"I'm pretty sure it's based on an old superstition that if you gave them a last meal they wouldn't come back and haunt you but then again that could be a completely wrong thing I saw on a tv show once who the fuck knows at this point"
],
"score": [
14,
7,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2014/5/24/the-history-of-the-last-meal-a-final-compassionate-act-or-an-undeserved-reward#.WdPFiltSyUk="
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
75uc7g | The 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do912va",
"do91yv8"
],
"text": [
"A few parts to it. If POTUS croaks or bails, VP becomes POTUS. If POTUS is sick or injured or he says he’s not capable of being POTUS, VP becomes acting POTUS until POTUS says he’s good. The VP can gather the cabinet together and they can all vote to say POTUS is unfit for office. At that point, VP takes charge. From there,POTUS can say “yep, I’m bug nuts crazy” and that’s that. However, POTUS can say “nah, I’m good” at which point it takes a 2/3 majority of both houses to say “dude, you’re fucking nuts. GTFO. VP is in charge now” Edit: forgot that after the cabinet and VP vote, VP takes over until Congress sorts the whole thing out. And that it covers not only death but resignation.",
"It cleared up some holes the framers of the constitution did not think about. Or just assumed it was common sense. For example, before the 25th, there is nothing that specifically states that the VP becomes president if the president dies. President Taylor set the defacto standard by taking the oath of office and moving into the white house when president Harrison died. All others after him sited this as reason to assume the presidencey. JFK's death was still fresh for some people, and at the hight of the cold War, continuity of Government was on everybodys mind. This was the response to his death"
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
75up7z | Why is the audio never synched with the actor's mouth in a tv show when the shot is from behind them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do93u1w",
"do9629t"
],
"text": [
"Because many shows are shot with a single camera. They'll often film the same scene multiple times (from different angles), or at least certain parts. They'll then often use some footage from some shots, and then dub audio from other shots over it. Edit: couple of words, paragraphing.",
"That is not the shot the audio is from. So maybe I shoot both from a distance, then closer in, then over one person's right shoulder and over the other's left to get the person speaking to them in view. Then some straight reaction with the other not in view but still from an angle so as not to pass the 180 line which confuses viewers by the camera angle. Then you cut it all together trying to get the best performance and reaction from both. Basically not much of the final result might be \"in sync\" in any sense to an original clean single take. The audio matching the best delivery or reaction might not be from the same take at all. The easiest way to envision why might be that if you see a close up reaction shot where the person on screen says no lines but reacts to other's lines... the other person they are reacting to might be off eating a sandwich. There is generally no reason to sync that with reality. Every scene was shot several times from several angles so you never see the other cameras, then spliced together with some additional shots where the director is just off screen yelling \"more longingly!\" The best audio or visual delivery are picked and placed in with some liberal trickery. And it is crazy we end up with anything resembling a scene of a story."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
75v24f | Why is it so hard to get admitted into universities in China compared to Canada or the United States yet the rankings of Chinese schools often lag behind? | I heard that in China, high school student's only priority is on the university entrance exam. Only a small percentage of students are admitted and competition is fierce. Because of this structure very few students have time for part-time jobs or extracirriculars compared to the typical American teenager. It is also notable that many Chinese students study abroad because they regard the education in places like Canada or United States as higher quality. But then why is it harder to get into a local Chinese university, which has lower rankings, then a North American university? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do9b0gn",
"do99h05",
"do9cd5b"
],
"text": [
"China has a population of 1.39 billion people. Some of their medium (in relativity) metropolises are larger than some of the largest cities in other countries by 2-3 times. This inherently means there are going to be A LOT more applicants. To top it off, they're coming from a population that has mainly migrated from a rural lifestyle to urban areas. For a lot of these types of people, college is their way to join the modern world. I have friends in China with college degrees in urban metro areas who grew up without running water.",
"Studying at a good chinese University you can get a job at the top of a chinese company and earn a crazy amount of money. Look at Chinas GDP and look at it's median income. The difference between rich and poor is really crazy in China.",
"Studying in an university is not only a matter of career for Chinese, it's a dream every parent want their kids to have a chance on. And Chinese university tuition fee is not too expensive, an average urban family may be able to afford it without drowning in too much debt. That's why everyone want to try it - making the entry exam extremely competitive. Studying abroad is actually regarded as more desirable, educational value aside, it provides international job opportunities and a chance to become residents in the host country. But it is also extremely expensive. Tuition fee for a year in the US cost like 10,000 USD or much more, not to mention living expense. If an average US family think going to college may cost a lot, an average Chinese family would think it cost a fortune, an arm, an leg and several other organs. In short, Chinese colleges = hard to get in but affordable; foreign colleges = good but too expensive."
],
"score": [
11,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
75vbpj | why was Princess Diana so popular? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do99rn0",
"do98sov",
"do98bma",
"do98c9m"
],
"text": [
"For the same reasons the Kardashians are popular today, except with the added glitz of royalty. The royal family was boring and dignified and dutiful. So Diana was a breath of fresh air. she was beautiful and had a lot of charisma. Charisma is hard to fake. She put people at ease who met her and charmed everybody. She made popular decisions within her small realm she could control by doing things like choosing to feature British designers in her fashions, which gave a huge boost to the British fashion industry. Her beauty and good fashion choices meant that she'd be featured on front pages everywhere. She didn't have a huge amount to say--she's not very quotable. But she suddenly made the royal family more accessible and fun and glamorous. Then, she augmented that by undertaking a lot of altruistic public appearances. She touched people, hugged, and had a very sympathetic air. People love it when those who are perceived as above them treat them kindly. Then, a whole lot of drama entered the picture as it looked like she and Charles weren't getting along--that they might both be having affairs--multiple ones on her part, just Camilla for Charles. She revealed some emotional troubles, which drew the public to pay even more attention to her because they love the drama. Then, she continued her altruistic endeavors, and was especially effective in helping to get people to accept people with AIDS in their communities, at a time when people didn't even want to *touch* a person with AIDS and a kid with AIDS in the US had his house burned down to get him to leave the neighborhood. She was also very friendly with members of the gay community at a time when acceptance was much much lower than now. She expressed a lot of interest in contemporary theater and became a patron of the arts. She gave people a window into her emotional problems, leading people to think she was almost a friend of theirs. As Tony Blair said when she died, she was \"the People's Princess.\" She wasn't, really, but people saw her like that. And she was also portrayed as a loving and devoted mother, which made people feel warmly to her. Possibly people would have grown bored of her as she aged and perhaps remarried and was less in the spotlight. But she died in a public and tragic manner at the height of her beauty and popularity.",
"She embraced the AIDS problem humanitarian wise and acknowledged gay men were dying when people like president Reagan was ignoring the crisis. She gave herself to many causes, many of those in countries that the royal family of the past helped cause by their colonialism. She was more Mother Theresa than Queen Elizabeth and she did it in spite of her mother in law the Queen.",
"As i understood it she was more a “regular” person unbeholden to the stuffy pretenses of crown traditions.",
"From what I understand, She was beautiful, young, funny and wasn't afraid to get her hands dirty. Basically everything the monarchy wasn't at that point."
],
"score": [
15,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
75vp5t | How come almost every culture has their own alchohol? Have they ever thought "Hey, alchohol doesn't taste good, let's stick to water" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do9agnr",
"do9b6ce",
"do9bw1u"
],
"text": [
"Sanitation. For centuries, water was a gamble. Fermentation did a lot to kill off anything microbial in the water, and keep you alive. Cholera vs beer of some origin isn't a choice. Its survival, to some extent.",
"Preservation. Fruit drinks generally don't last well, but if you're lucky they may ferment until there is enough alcohol to kill of the bacteria that's spoiling it, and even keep some of it's good taste. Once that's happened it will last a lot longer. At first this process was spontaneous, among the bacteria in the fresh juice, there happened to be some yeast ~~bacteria~~ fungus. That's why every culture discovered it's own alcohol, they'd just leave some of their preferred juice for too long, taste it anyway and discover it was still tasty! (albeit a bit less sugary). So it was never a comparison with water, the taste probably wasn't considered better than raw fruit juice but it lasted longer. Eventually they noticed that it also had funny side effects...",
"It's a drug like any other. Humanity has chased mind altering or mood enhancing substances for as long as we have existed. Add in that it's cheap and easy to produce so those in poor social and economic areas have a readily available form of escapism its bound to crop up most places."
],
"score": [
22,
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
75xiae | What does it mean for the US to leave UNESCO? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do9os7t"
],
"text": [
"[In the '90s, two pieces of legislation were signed into law]( URL_0 ) that prohibited funding to UN and its related entities, if membership were to be granted to an organization or group that was not officially recognized as state (aka country). In 2011, UNESCO admitted Palestine in as a member state, which effectively stopped the US from contributing its annual contributions, which made up approximately 22% of the organizations budget at $80 million a year. The US then became a non-voting member, but was offered a space on the Executive Board. It was a pretty big concession on part of UNESCO This ultimately reflects the current administration - reduction in soft power and diplomacy across the globe - withdrawing from global treaties, like the Paris Accords, and a pull away from UN-related bodies in general - a move away from multilateralism There was really no reason to pull away. There are basically no countries not as a member of UNESCO. UNESCO is an international organization dedicated to advancing educational opportunities, scientific advancement and cultural heritage through its many programs and initiatives. The most well-known is UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which seeks to protect and preserve the unique architectural, environmental and cultural sites all over the world. I don't work there, I just really believe in the work that they do. I don't think this inherently does anything (and I could be wrong), but I think it continues to set the tone for this administration's approach to international relations. Edit: Changed date on when UNESCO admitted Palestine as a member state. Also added a source."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7609ai | What does the common person seek to gain from denying climate change? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doabdk1",
"doacwf3",
"doaboof",
"doab3qc",
"doaa4t4"
],
"text": [
"Howdy! It's my belief that the crisis is overblown. I do not deny these things: 1) climate is changing 2) we are part of what's changing it Those are the things that there is scientific consensus on. The things that I do not find as much consensus on: 1) the actual percent contribution we have on climate change 2) the outcome of what will happen due to climate change 3) actual solutions to slow / reverse climate change, assuming the outcome is devastating like people say Here are reasons why I question these things: 1) reports that data sets were scrubbed / information was cherry-picked 2) it's extremely suspicious when climate change spokespeople claim the science is \"settled\" which basically goes entirely against what science even is. It indicates to me that these people (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc.) are motivated politically rather than scientifically. I do not intend to insult anyone or anger anyone with this post, I only post this with the intent to possibly shed light on the other side of the argument. Almost nobody denies that the climate is changing and that we are a part of it, it's mostly a disagreement on the severity / solution and a distrust of the political spokespeople who attempt to squash further investigation by berating everyone who disagrees with them. Feel free to downvote me and trash talk me all you'd like, I do not intend to reply to this post if the response is as overwhelmingly negative as I expect it to be. Thanks!",
"Joe smith from Denver checking in. I get nothing out of denying climate change because I don't deny it. Climates change. Clearly. The question is whether or not man is causing it. I have my doubts. For example... The earth has been around for billions of years, yet we have temperature data for what, 100 of them? Are you sure whatever is happening now has never happened before? Are you considering the sun cycle? How much of that data being gathered over the years was gathered using mercury thermometers? Are you sure everyone's mercury thermometer was calibrated the same all around the world? What international climate organizations monitored that in the 1950's? Are you sure your thermometers are placed in statistically relevant places? what statistical methods are you using to compile and compare data, leaving out the \"anomalies\"? Are you sure no ones ever been caught manipulating temperature data, or just outright making it up? How would you know for sure if they had or hadn't? You say the oceans are rising where you live. Are they rising world wide? Surely the icecaps would be smaller by now right? Oh? They're not? Ok then. Maybe the land you're living on is sinking. Techtonic plates shift over time don't they? Or take the history of the movement itself: when this whole climate change movement got started they called it global warming. Why don't they call it that anymore? Did the earth stop warming? What's that about? I thought that was the whole point of all this... now I'm confused. You say we should trust the scientists. Scientists never lie, never mislead. Trust the science blaw blaw blaw. You realize the people who ran nazi Germany and implemented Hitler's vision were scientists right? After world war 2 the Geneva convention set forth new guidelines for best practices in \"ethical\" scientific research. 30 years later the Tuskegee airman experiment took place, IN AMERICA, in violation of all of those guidelines. Those men weren't even apologized to by the govt until a couple years ago. You know that, right? You're telling me that in order to be a good scientist I have to fall in line and believe what you want me to, but you're the same people who want me to believe an XX female is actually a male, simply because they say they are. You want me to believe human life begins when a fetus crosses through the vaginal canal, and not beforehand, despite knowing for certain that that life form has had uniquely and distinctly human DNA in every one of its cells for months up to that point. So I'm not buying it. You want me to buy a hybrid car? You want it to be powered by a battery? What charges the battery? Oh it comes from the central power grid? Where's that power come from? Oh, coal? Ok. Gotcha. I'll get right on that. I should recycle? How's that happen? It gets melted? What melts it? Heat? Where's that come from? Coal? Ok. Gotcha. I'll get right on that. I'll drive my battery powered car to get to the recycling plant. Look man (or woman) I respect the environment. I really do. I don't liter. I don't leave my lights on. I don't waste water. I leave my ac off and role my windows down at night most of the year, and I'm in the south. But a little critical thinking blows huge holes in most of the climate change dogma. Most of the biggest Hollywood celebs and politicians promoting climate change never think twice about the carbon footprint their jets leave on the planet. None of em actually believe what they're telling you to believe, at least not enough to make em change their behavior, and that's what counts.",
"Start with the other side. If the climate is changing, why should the average person agree? You probably answer that with \"They can **act** to change things and not destroy the planet\", that's the common argument. What people get by denying climate change is freedom **not to act**. If the action you're suggesting is expensive, inconvenient of politically challenging, great benefit accrues if there is a plausible excuse not to act. To understand beliefs, you need to consider how actions might be different.",
"Studies [such as this one from Nature]( URL_0 ) indicate that no variable is more predictive of climate change opinion than political alignment. Essentially, the more conservative a person is, the more likely they are to be skeptical of climate change, regardless of age or education level. Indeed, highly educated people can be climate change deniers because they are more adept at interpreting the evidence to fit their preferred conclusion. So what makes someone prefer conservative ideologies? [One study ]( URL_1 ) indicates that the most commonly shared trait across the conservative spectrum is a shared respect for ‘authority’ and a belief that obedience is a virtue unto itself. So how are these related? My personal non-peer-reviewed hypothesis is that authority-oriented conservatives look to traditional loci of power to take their marching orders (in other words the “big man” of the village who calls the shots cleanly if not always correctly.) To their mind, the equivocations and fuzziness of scientific study is not “authoritative” enough, and so they revert back to the comfortingly assertive pronouncements of their preferred demagogue. Basically “scientists are a bunch of whiny bitches — if they’re worried about the earth getting too hot they should grow a pair.” This may also be confounded by the relative prevalence of conservative thought amongst blue collar workers whose livelihood depends upon polluting industries like coal and oil. Essentially they view climate scientists’ warnings as unsolicited and unauthoritative and reject them in favor of the more monolithic dogmas that served their ancestors so well (I.e. the Earth was a gift from God to Man and Man would be tragically presumptuous to claim any power to affect global changes to Creation.)",
"Many people in America think that because environmentalists lean politically left, that the whole thing could be (or is) a ploy to route money away from things that they'd like to see funded and towards the friends and cronies of the environmentalists (professors, researchers, etc). Joe Smith from Denver thinks that this money being used for research is wasted and wants it diverted elsewhere and is convinced that climate change was made up to fund pork-barrel politics. Or Joe Smith doesn't know or care why his party holds that position, but he likes other things they do, so he walks the party line in areas where he doesn't care or is uninformed."
],
"score": [
13,
11,
7,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2943.epdf",
"http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/01/27/donald-trump-is-attracting-authoritarian-primary-voters-and-it-may-help-him-to-gain-the-nomination/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
760y8u | Why is grilling associated with men while cooking is associated with women? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doaj4dh",
"doasmwi",
"doalzpt",
"doakiln"
],
"text": [
"Advertising in the 1950s basically invented it to sell grills. Similar to how advertising invented the concept of B.O. to sell deodorant, etc.",
"Cooking isn't really associated with women. As an industry it's dominated by men. However as a house chore it was traditionally the woman's job, because the man was working. Bbqs are seen as a chill time with the boys, usually on a weekend when the man actually has time to cook, thus it's seen as manly.",
"Cooking is only associated with women when there is no money or notoriety involved. Most professional chefs are men.",
"Many many years ago, a successful hunt was followed by a BBQ session among the hunters, and the warriors and kings were fed, followed by the women folk and kids. Then women wanted to cook because of feminism, and didnt want they guys to have all the fun. So one fine day, they made some sandwiches and the men-folk discovered it was more convenient for them to focus on hunts and warfare and leave the cooking to the women."
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
762san | Since Queen Elizabeth doesn't use a passport when crossing international borders, does she use any sort of identification document? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doaxnqy",
"doaxaqq",
"doayq1w"
],
"text": [
"What I heard is that they arrange everything beforehand, so when the Queen travels to another country there's no need to going through immigration control and that kind of bureaucracy because it was already done.",
"no, she has no drivers license either. She is exempt from that driving rule. She keeps a few mints, a comb, lipstick and a 5 pound note in her handbag.",
"It's not like she is just showing up in the immigration checkpoint and saying \"I'm the Queen! Let me through!\" She gets to travel without a passport because other countries choose to give traveling dignitaries like the queen expedited entry prearranged in advance. Most high ranking government officials will wind up entering a foreign country without having their passports checked, the queen just happens not to have one in the first place."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
763yee | why is Friday the 13th so relevant? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dob3bp0"
],
"text": [
"Its not \"relevant\". There are multiple versions of origin of F13, one being Jesus doing the last supper with 13 pupils, another being a King arresting all the knights templar on friday the 13th, etc. To be fair, nobody knows. But it became a \"popular myth\" that its an unlucky/scary/spooky day. Same reason number 13 is considered \"unlucky\" or a black cat is considered by some cultures to be \"evil\", etc etc. These days it's all just popularised into movies and stuff, and doesnt actually mean anything aside from being part of the popular culture. I.e. a horror movie might release on Friday 13th because \"oooh, spooky!\", not because \"Its an important tradition\"."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
764r0e | Why is there a huge discrepancy between private and public schools in USA but not other countries that have private/public schools system? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dob9cct"
],
"text": [
"This could potentially be a very long answer/rant (sorry, I’m an educator in the US), but here it goes! Public schools have an obligation to educate all students regardless of their background (including special education students, English language learners, homeless/displaced students, etc.), and rightfully so. This is often what creates the discrepancy. The performance of these students must be recorded on a school’s annual report card. Whereas, private schools have the ability to refuse or reject students based on academic success (which is often hindered by many of the hardships that I listed above). This alone can create what I see as unfair comparisons between public and private. Personal example: I observed an underperforming inner-city school right before standardized testing. That week, the teacher had 8 new transfers in one 4th grade class. When I asked why so many and if this was common, she said it happens every year right before testing because the charter schools (not private, but also have the ability to reject based on academic performance) kick students out back to public school if they believe they will tarnish the school’s standardized test scores. Since public school cannot refuse them, these students are instead on the public schools’ report card, regardless of the small amount of time (less than one week) they spent learning at the school before testing. Not to mention that the student was actually at a grade 2-3 level, not 4. Meaning she should have never been accepted to grade 4 in private school, and/or they should have kicked her out sooner (sadly). To compare to other countries, the United States in particular is a country that has a higher percentage of students who are not fully immersed in the general education system For example, we have many more immigrants, which causes us to have a much higher percentage of students who must learn the language before continuing their education. While I don’t have exact numbers to compare, I’m sure that other countries’ educators do not have as much difficulty as ours do simply because of the number of immigrants we have. I wholeheartedly celebrate diversity and immigration, but many do not think about the challenges that educators face when trying to teach students who are not fluent in our language, but are so diligent and eager to succeed. There are also many countries who do not have special education programs or who do not have strictly academic special education programs. Depending on the students’ disability, the country may offer alternatives later in their schooling that include a trade or vocational studies. There are some programs like that here in the US, but Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and Obama’s Every Student Succeeds Act prevents any student (Special Ed or not) from strictly taking those courses - college prep courses are still required of all high school graduates because of this law. Many American students do not take advantage of this opportunity because they are unable to manage all of their college prep classes (needed for graduation) and their vocational/trade classes (not needed for graduation). I guess at the end of the day, we see a piece of paper (high school diploma) as more important than real skills that you will need to successfully find work. All of this ties in to why there are such large discrepancies between private and public education! Too much testing, too much regulation, not enough understanding that not all children are the same, and not all children should be educated in the same way, especially in America."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76749u | Why did the US colonies form separately instead of just one big colony? | Most other countries like China or Russia formed as a big single entity so why did the US form multiple colonies which led to multiple states? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dobshcb",
"dobsrs2",
"dobtap5"
],
"text": [
"In places like China or Russia, you had one power trying to subjugate the others and establish a form of central authority. The strongest kingdoms conquered their neighbors and established a unified state. (In China, it fell apart several times and was then re-unified.) The history of the colonies in America is different. In North America, different groups came to the country for different reasons. One difference was national--the governments of Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands wanted their *own* colonies that would benefit themselves. But especially among British settlers, each colony was also driven by different ideas. Some went to North America to develop prosperous plantations. Some went there to establish a new kind of society. Some wanted to escape war and persecution in Europe. The British crown granted each colony the right to have a limited kind of self-rule. Over time some colonies got merged, and the British conquered a lot of the foreign colonies. Before the American Revolution, the colonies were still separate, even though they were all British. They built increasingly close relations with each other, for example they organized a joint defense during the French and Indian War. They saw they had a common interest. When they became upset with Britain, they decided to fight for independence together--different states, but all Americans, organized through the Continental Congress. Even after the Revolution it would take many years for people to see themselves as truly united. They developed a constitution that gave some power to a central government, but left most of the power with the states. The Civil War showed that the states were willing to use force to keep the other members a part of the Union. Especially in the 20th century, federal power increased a lot. But even today, people disagree about how much power should lie with the federal government versus the states individually.",
"Most colonies became privately funded. Thus, they staked out different portions of land to extract resources. Instead of all competing for the same resources in the same territory, they stayed away from each other. If you were from Virginia, you couldn't just go to new york. It was like going to a different country, but you all had roots in England. Eventually, American colonists decided to band together and make more profit and have more power by overthrowing their funders and rulers in England. The revolutionary war happens. They realized that states working together would increase their collective power. This led to the formation of the first national government, the Articles of Confederation. Essentially, for a few years before the collapse prompted the drafting of the constitution, each state was sovereign and the national government had laws, but state law superseded them. Essentially, the central government was very weak, and in an unstable situation like the founding of America was, this didn't last for long. So once the constitution established a federal, democratic republic, the national government superseded state law. But the idea of states having a tier of government between cities and federal government seemed appealing. Thus, states became regions other countries know as provinces or territories. They have a regional government but submit to a higher federal government.",
"Why do you think Russia and China formed as a big single entity? China has a long history of being a bunch of different countries several times and there were several \"Russias\" until one of them conquered the others. This is true for just about every other country as well."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
767bmy | How did the USA surpass "parent" countries in military strength? | When growing up you always hear about the US being the head of military power in the world, so as a follow up question, is it true, and if so how did it happen? I would have assumed the country would be behind for a very long time compared to the "parent" English countries. Is it really as simple as more money spent toward military? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dobuqkn",
"dobtx1j"
],
"text": [
"1. The geographic isolation of North America protected the US and Canadian industrial facilities from damage during WWII, which caused huge damage to *all* the other large industrial countries. 2. North America has *vast* natural resources which mean a nonstop supply of steel, petroleum, wood, coal, copper, food for workers, uranium, almost anything you may need. 3. The USA has more research facilities, and more advanced universities, than any other country in the world, past or present.",
"> how did it happen? A World War that devastated Europe and East Asia and resulted in the deaths of around or about 60 million people. To put that into perspective, you can total up the death tolls from every single conflict *since* World War II ended, and (even with the massive boom in world population to feed said conflicts) the total number of deaths from WWII are still higher. To put it another way, the total number of people who died in the Battle of Berlin, just one battle over three weeks at the end of WWII, is about half as much as the total number of people who've died in the last six and a half years in Syria. It cannot be overstated how badly WWII affected Europe, both economically and culturally, such that they just didn't/don't have the willpower or ability to actually have much of a military after that."
],
"score": [
13,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
768mga | Why was the USA represented as a stereotypical black man on Italian WWII propaganda posters? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doc4ful"
],
"text": [
"I don't know exactly what poster(s) you're talking about, but I've seen similar stuff before and think I can answer. There are a lot of black people in the US vs. Italy and there were black US army units fighting in WWII, so the association of the US with blacks would have been plausible to Italians. Taking advantage of this, the Italian propaganda sought to exploit racist fear and hatred of blacks to rally Italian morale to fight the American invaders. The propagandist was looking to arouse this sort of racist thought process in his audience's mind: Getting invaded by nice white guys? Sucks, but maybe we can deal. Getting invaded by black daughter-rapers? No way, we'll fight to the last bullet!"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
769pah | How does the rotary mechanism of ATP synthase work? | ELIF in layman's terms please. I'm in highschool biology, teacher isn't exactly being clear on this. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"docez8c"
],
"text": [
"When you make ATP, you're trying to use energy to smoosh together two things that don't really want to be together. This will give you a molecule that can easily break back apart later, releasing a burst of useful energy. Making ATP is hard, so we need a machine to help do it. ATP synthase works a lot like an old-fashioned grain mill with a water wheel. It has a wheel, an axle, and a main part. The flow of protons downhill makes the wheel spin, turning the axle. The main part has a little area where ADP and phosphate fit in. The main part of the mill doesn't spin, but the axle moves one piece of it against another, enough to crush ADP and phosphate together. Boom, ATP. The crazy part is that this answers some pretty big questions. Why do we breathe? Well, we need oxygen for the electron transport chain to work, so we can get a bunch of protons ready to flow and make ATP synthase spin around, so we can make a shitload of energy out of a little bit of sugar."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76a5sj | How did Friday the 13th get its unlucky reputation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dochfay"
],
"text": [
"From what I understand, Friday the 13th was the day that the Knights Templar were arrested and charged. 13 has for a long time been considered to be unlucky, not sure why, something to do with Jesus? There were 13 people at the last supper, and one of them (y'know, the important one) died soon after, could be something to do with the fact that base 12 (dozenal) is easy to work with whereas base 13 would be a bitch? There's also the myth of [HMS Friday] ( URL_0 ), which combined with the \"unluckiness\" of the number 13 just makes the date doubly superstitious. Friday is named for Friig (Norse god of fertility), so the Church would have been keen to associate anything named for pagan gods as unlucky? I'm probably wrong on most things but this is my first attempt at explaining like you're 5 lol"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Friday"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76czf8 | Why criminals are covered up, blurred, or not shown while the victims are always shown on news ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dod0i34",
"dod48c4"
],
"text": [
"Victims are confirmed to be the victims. Suspects need to be proven to be criminals. Misunderstandings can be a lot more damaging in misunderstandings (and thus they can be sued for more) so its safer to wait for a verdict.",
"Because you aren't a criminal until you have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Before the trial has been completed the suspect is a innocent, and should be treated as innocent, so if he is proven not to be guilty you've ruined their life less than you would have otherwise."
],
"score": [
17,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76dqj2 | Why are some delicate jeweled bracelets called tennis bracelets and lighter suit-jackets called sport coats? | I wouldn't play tennis wearing a diamond bracelet...it just seems silly. Even golfers wear polos and khakis usually, not a "sport coat" in sight. I don't get it. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dod5yad"
],
"text": [
"A \"sport coat\" is what a member of the English nobility would wear to go horse riding or hunting -- those are the sports. The \"tennis bracelet\" is named after [a specific tennis player one day.]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.livestrong.com/article/148725-why-are-tennis-bracelets-called-tennis-bracelets/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76hbvq | Why do employers reject applicants on the basis that they are overqualified? | I mean wouldn't that be a good thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doe3kgb",
"doe08f7",
"doe05uw",
"doeacyh",
"doe0mjc"
],
"text": [
"The hope when hiring someone is that you will find a dedicated worker of an appropriate skill level, who will then get the opportunity to be promoted as their skills improve over time - ideally staying with the company long term allowing them to have a better understanding of the companies practises and systems, and removing the need to be hiring as many staff (which takes time, money and effort). To hire someone overqualified, means they are likely accepting a job below the grade they actually want but have not yet been able to find, so are much more likely to view this job as a short term stand-in and leave to a preferable job as soon as they can. If you have a decent engineering degree, you probably won't want to last out your time as a manual laborer in a lumber yard if you could use that job to keep you adjust for the moment until something better appears, while if you have no certification beyond high school, that job in a lumber yard is a better sounding prospect as it gives you the chance to increase your sales and management skills over time and incremental promotions.",
"Because an overqualified person is more likely to leave. It costs money to find, hire and train an employee. Someone who is overqualified for a position is likely to be looking for a higher paying job that better suits their qualifications. Why invest money and time into someone who is likely to leave.",
"I remember reading a response to a similar question, it read (loosely translated): “An employer may reject someone if they’re overqualified because it would mean they wouldn’t be able to take advantage of said person before they took notice.” A person who overqualifies might not stand for mistreatment or being underpaid, so an employer may feel its best to find someone who will.",
"If someone is 'applying down' there is likely a reason. It isn't necessarily negative but if it isn't explained it is a risk to make the hire.",
"Because they'll leave as soon a the job they really wants comes available. It costs a lot to get someone hired and trained in a lot of circumstances. Hiring someone overqualified just looks like a bad bet."
],
"score": [
38,
22,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76hd02 | Why is puplic speaking such a problem for so many people? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doe0k0y",
"doe3qot",
"doeomn5"
],
"text": [
"People don’t want to mess up, and messing up in-front of lots and lots of people? Yea scratch that.",
"Not a psychologist here, but I think it just comes down to humans being such social creatures. For many people, social consequences are just as bad as physical ones, and they have just as much impact on our lives. Combo that with a fear of the unknown (whether you'll be well received), the personal investment nature of speaking (in our language, we often reject speakers more than we reject what they say), and then the pressure of the visibility of the act, and bam - a perfect storm for anxiety.",
"So there's an effect a few psychologists have seen found now: While someone is looking, people do better at things they are already good at and worse at things they are bat at. People also try to manage how others see them, think about Facebook or Twitter or really any form of social media. There you can only see what others *want* others to see. That is also quite well understood. Now, you're asking why people get nervous while in front of a group or try to avoid public speaking. Others have mentioned already, that they maybe try to defend their picture of themselves. That's an impulse that seems to be everywhere in psychology though no one really can *measure* it. Also it's quite possible, that there are different reasons that make people dislike public speaking: Maybe they have no practice. Maybe they learned through their culture that public speaking isn't something you just do. Maybe there's a fear response in the brain because the situation is so inherently un-controllable. Maybe it's all of those things, maybe none. Scientists are looking into it but human behavior is extremely complex. There's things that you are born with and things that everyone is born with. There's Stuff your body does only when the world around it is a certain way. There's things you want to do because your human and because you think, and there's things you want because your in a community that taught you to do things a certain way. TL;DR: We don't really know and every field would give you another theory."
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76i69g | What technically makes melody pleasuring or anguishing? | I lately decided to rewatch some of [cyriak]( URL_1 )'s works because apparently I wanted to have awake nightmares. And I still do not comprehend what is so unsettling about the songs he makes. How he can jump from feelings like innocence, degeneration, insanity, ect.... And then other musics are melodious and instantly generate pleasure in my body. Are the feelings attached to patterns in the frequencies/rhythms? In contrasts of those? Are there music theories about how to make pleasurable or stressful melodies? Would a human never heard music be stressed by these just as much? Or are these associations we grew because of our society? I saw this [TEDx]( URL_0 ) about the ugliest music ever, who has absolutely no pattern. But it was deceiving because this wasn't ugly, it didn't felt like there was melody nor music at all. So my question is probably more oriented toward "why some patterns make us feel different things" than "why the presence of patterns makes music". [This one]( URL_2 ) was closer to answer my wonders. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doe7kj1"
],
"text": [
"A musician could list you certain chords, rhythms or other structures that make music sound happy or tense or whatever. This is enough for the musician to know how to generate a certain emotional response, but it doesn't explain why the emotional response happens. The brain interprets everything through an extremely complex web of filters and processes. Some of that is linked to the amygdala, a part of the brain that is responsible for (most) emotional responses (e.g. fear). The amygdala responds fairly consistently (and thus predictably) to certain stimuli, which is why the same music will have very similar responses in most humans. To whatever extent that the response may be different, it's due to the way in which memories and past experiences (which differ from person to person) are part of the processing. This applies not just to music. It applies the same way to paintings, sculptures, stories and movies. Most people have a very similar basal reaction to the same scene or the same work of art, but whenever two people's reactions are different, it's because the work might trigger different memories or relate to different past experiences in each of them."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76if6j | Why do some major cities have enclaves and exclaves within them? | I've noticed this happens particularly in American cities, mainly Los Angeles which has: Culver City West Hollywood San Fernando and in the United Kingdom there's: The City of London [separate from Greater London] The City of Cambridge [surrounded by South Cambridgeshire] Luton, Bedfordshire [governed by Luton Borough Council and not part of Central Bedfordshire unlike bordering Dunstable, yet sometimes people assume it is part of Bedfordshire politically]. Why do cities *within a nation* form enclaves and exclaves, and what are the *major* political reasons behind these? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doe7oh4"
],
"text": [
"Most commonly, it happens when a city in a location grows by annexing neighboring cities or unincorporated areas, but one or more areas are able to resist whatever means the larger area is using for annexation, so the city ends up annexing all the surrounding areas but not the enclave. In Los Angeles, for example, the main driver was access to water. After the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power built the Los Angeles Aqueduct and gained access to a new large supply of water, they offered the neighboring cities access to their new water supply in exchange for them agreeing to be annexed by the city. Most agreed, but a few holdouts that had access to sufficient water supplies of their own declined, resulting in the weird patchwork you have today. Similarly, Greater London used to be a bunch of independent communities, but as they grew they eventually decided that they should all be governed collectively, with lots of gradual steps in that direction until you get the Greater London of today. The City of London, which has held a unique position in the politics of England for centuries (one of the clauses in Magna Carta confirms its special status, for instance), was able to maintain some measure of independence (though it's not as independent from Greater London as something like Culver City is from Los Angeles). The circumstances in each case will be unique, but the common pattern is a force that's pushing for merging of communities and a unique position of one or more of those communities that allows them to resist joining with the others."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76jxgh | I keep reading that Greeks didn’t have a word for blue and humans couldn’t see it until modern times. How is it possible that our ancestors didn’t see the color blue? What did the sky look like to them? The ocean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doei3zm",
"doeo9nu",
"doeqit8",
"doei6vt",
"doeq37e"
],
"text": [
"> I keep reading that Greeks didn’t have a word for blue and humans couldn’t see it until modern times. The Greeks didn't have a *word* for blue but they certainly could see that color. They just lumped it in with \"bronze\", something they would use to describe the sky and ocean. Think about how you consider colors now. If you go to a paint store they will have a huge number of additional color names which you don't know and don't use, just considering them another shade of a color you already have a word for. This is the same sort of thing they did before the word \"blue\".",
"The ancient Greeks did not classify colors by hue, but instead by whether it was light or dark. κυάνεος (kyaneos), was used for dark blue, also dark green or violet. While Γλαῦκος (glaukos) was used for light blue, also light green and yellow. Why they did this, no idea. In modern Greek we do have a word for blue, it is μπλε, pronounced ble.",
"The distinction between different colours is often more cultural than anything. For instance, there used to be no word for the colour orange (it was later named after the fruit). Instead, orange things were lumped in as being red. Hence redheads, robin red breasts (the bird), and probably other things too. Now we have a word for orange and it seems crazy that it could be called red.",
"The greeks had a word for dark blue and word for light blue. They could see the color blue. That being said color is a pretty relative concept, you can make colors disappear by going deep enough underwater (red first) and you just see other colors instead, usually yellow, then shifting down the color wheel, or grey if there isn't another being emitted.",
"Why do we have separate words for blue and indigo? They're essentially the same thing, only darker and lighter. What we refer to as 'blue' is a colour that was always there, there just culturally wasn't a seperate name for it. In the same way that we Brits talk about rain in terms of drizzle, sleet, spitting, raining cats and dogs, mizzling, pelting down etc. It's not that other countries haven't seen these kinds of rain before, they just haven't chosen to differentiate in that level of detail."
],
"score": [
128,
97,
24,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76k8jh | What is matching? (Clothing) | Sometimes my GF will ask me to pick something out for her to wear. I am so bad at it, everything I suggest gets declined. Is it me, or is it because it's me? Sometimes feel that even if I picked out exactly what she wore last week it would get declined. Help. What is matching. I just don't get it. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doeny9c",
"doenhqy",
"dof9h6u"
],
"text": [
"Matching is just putting things together without clashing colors or patterns. Now the harder part- what clashes and doesn't . Starting with colors, generally things on opposite sides of the color wheel- (just search it) will go well together. Those next to each other on the color will as well. Those in some other position may not. You shouldn't put the same color on all the clothes because then it's just too much of one hue. As for patterns, usually only either the top or the bottom can have them as an easy way to stay out of trouble. (There is a lot more like accessories which can add third color to make it more interesting but you are just trying to survive here not become a fashion designer) Now for the easiest way: just use opposites. Well if you start with the bottoms, let's assume no pattern just color. The easiest is black or white because nearly everything will match with it as a top. So black pants, white top. White pants, black top. If something has to have a pattern- choose only the top or bottom and the other is a plain color. Oh and tell your gf - pick your own damn clothes out next time too",
"- color theory (which colors go together well, you can research this online). - patterns (dont have different patterns together, for example, dont have plaid with stripes) - type of clothing (for example dont have alllll denim in one outfit) Im sure theres more points but i cant think of more at this moment Edit- sometimes she will like to change up her outfit, if you picked out what she wore last week she will feel as though other people will think she is lazy and wears the same outfit like a cartoon character",
"First the relationship advice: There's no way she's going to agree to anything you pick so I'm not sure why she's even asking you except to make you wrong about something. Next time she says that, point at your favorite panty/bra set and leave it at that. :) Flashman's fashion advice is spot on. Realize that aside of the rules he mentions, there are cultural elements too. Suit and sneakers doesn't necessarily look stupid from a purely aesthetic standpoint but the formal/casual contrast is dissonant. I often recommend \"Dress for Success\". Aside from a lot of good (if dated) fashion advice, the book explores why people judge clothing the way they do (in a nutshell, \"nice\" clothes are ones that make you look wealthy and like a good choice as a mate). (EDIT)"
],
"score": [
176,
42,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76k8n8 | how do sports announcers know how to pronounce all the players' names? Whose job is it to tell them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doenlty",
"doembwf",
"doem1bu",
"doeqbpq",
"doep2qh",
"doeqluu",
"doenx5f",
"doepg6m",
"does6d4",
"doeqldy",
"doeq09o",
"doeu4h1",
"doesk1k",
"doepikr"
],
"text": [
"One of my friends is a sports caster out in Nebraska and I asked him the same thing years ago(he casts football games). He said that he spends an average of 20-30 hours studying for every game he calls, from memorizing the pronunciations of players names, the number they wear, stats they are known for as well as interviewing players to get little known facts about their lives. In addition to this, the casters have producers who are constantly combing though a database about these players and feeding this information to that caster though an ear piece. They can give them up to date facts about the players, as well as what was seen in different shots and different camera angels. He let me see the inside camera once from their booth and hear the audio feed from the producers(This is what they use to help themselves get better and even have a breakdown session after each game). It may seem like a great gig from the outside, about the amount of work and stress that actually goes into calling a game well is incredible. Much respect.",
"They know how to pronounce all their names because they are very knowledgable about the sport and have heard/seen all players many many times. Probably for years while they are in college. They know all of them.",
"It's about practicing. Most people get really offended if you can't even attempt to pronounce their name properly, so they are generally giving you as much help as possible to get it right if you just ask them. Many international sports events come with a cheat sheet with phonetic pronunciations of names, so that the hosts at least can try to pronounce names correctly. That is really all it takes.",
"Media guides that are available in the press box have certain players' names spelled phonetically. These guides are given out each game and include names from players on visiting teams. Broadcasters review this leading up to the game.",
"I don't see it here but among these answers they also ask the actual player. They aren't just play-by-play annoucers but actual journalists. The talk to the players, they gather ancedotes, and gather news.",
"The BBC has an in-house [Pronunciation Unit]( URL_0 ) to advise sportscasters and other journalists on the correct pronunciation of names and phrases, as well as ensuring words are used in the correct context.",
"They actually don’t. They do a lot of research, and try their best to pronounce correctly, but sometimes it just doesn’t happen, but you won’t notice because the announcer says with such confidence. Source: I’m a Brazilian living in UK, so I’ve seen both Brazilian announcers butcher English names, and English announcers butcher Brazilian names.",
"We have a player in the team I support, his name is James Tavenier. Commentators pronounce it like he’s french ( Ta-ver-niér) like Lumière from Beauty and the Beast. But he’s actually English and you should pronounce it (Ta-vin-eer) like veneer wood. I’m not saying I get mad but it grates on me to hear. The guy has been playing here for two years and the commentators don’t get it right!!!",
"They also have pronunciation sheets, here is a tweet of a depth chart with a section in the bottom showing the phonetic spelling of some difficult names. URL_0",
"I remember Dirk Kuyt moved to Liverpool in about 2006 and an interviewer actually asking him how to pronounce his name after a match as commentators couldn't agree between kite, koo-it, quoit... he said cowt!",
"Every team produces a media guide which includes a phonetic pronunciation of every player's name.",
"In my experience, very often they don't. I am mainly referring to German football commentators",
"When I played college baseball, we would have to provide a pronunciation guide for the telecast",
"Broadcasters (for medium-large networks) generally have a lot of help behind them. They have people that make sure they know how to pronounce names, provide stat sheets, etc. They're essentially the mouthpiece for a group of people who's job depends on the broadcast going smoothly. They also usually practice a lot before each game is called. Edit: I'm a media marketing specialist for a large combat sports league that promotes fighters from around the world."
],
"score": [
598,
486,
102,
86,
26,
20,
11,
10,
7,
7,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/informationandarchives/archivenews/2013/bbc_pronunciation"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://twitter.com/AnwarRichardson/status/917432956830003200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.burntorangenation.com%2F2017%2F10%2F9%2F16448462%2Ftexas-longhorns-depth-chart-oklahoma-sooners-shane-buechele-sam-ehlinger"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76kaon | Where did the legend of dragons came from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doelu1j",
"doeor5z"
],
"text": [
"Dinosaur bones is a prevailing theory. Everyonce in a while you find a giant lizard looking skull with a pretty massive spine. Thats all you really need to start a legend.",
"I liked the theory that lots of different threats to man were combined into one creature. Dragons have scales like a snake does, jaws like a wolf does, wings like a hawk does, and also has power over fire, something that only humans have gained control over. Can hardly imagine a combination of more terrifying traits. I imagine some people returned from faraway lands talking about various dangerous creatures, and someone thought they were talking about one creature, or something like that."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76kfp9 | What made the World War I Gallipoli Campaign be a complete disaster and bloodbath for the Allies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doemv68"
],
"text": [
"A changing scope and 19th century tactics facing down 20th century realities. As originally conceived by Churchill (yes that Churchill) and his counterparts in the Navy, Gallipoli involved exactly zero ground troops. The thought went something like this. The British had a massive fleet of pre-Dreadnought era battleships that were destined for the scrapyard as they were hopelessly obsolete. Rather than just having them float around doing nothing, the plan was to have them charge head long into the Dardanelles (the strait between the Mediterrianian and the Black Sea) and force the strait against the Turks. The core idea was that these ships were already worthless so why not just throw them into this and if we lose a few ships who the hell cares. However, the Naval commanders and leadership could not stand the thought of sinking these grand old ladies so what was supposed to be a lightning quick strike of overwhelming fire turned into a multi-month long grinding siege that involved terrible management of naval landings and just gave the Turks the chance to kill a few hundred thousand Anzac and British troops."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76ms85 | The disdain for Comic Sans. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dof7tgc"
],
"text": [
"I think it's like jeans or leggings. There's nothing wrong with them per se, they have their place. There are things that they are very good at. But they are not an all purpose item. You ~~cannot~~ should not wear jeans to a wedding, for instance, or leggings to a job interview. That's not to say that people don't do these things. It cheapens the thing ever so slightly until nothing is special or revered. Everything becomes a comfortable vomit of pleasure and apathy. There is no sense of occasion any more. 100 years ago, even the dirtiest, poorest, most ignorant pig farmer living in the hills, had a Sunday suit that he wore to church. Maybe it wasn't great, or fashionable or in good condition, but even he knew that there is a time and a place for respect and occasion and taking a break from the ordinary and the comfortable and the lazy. You don't think that farmer jim didn't want to wear his jeans and his comfortable shirt? You bet your ass he did. But it wouldn't be right. Comic Sans is like that. It has a place. And that place is out of my god damn sight."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76o0rx | How is it possible that there is still a water crisis in Flint, MI? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dofhao7"
],
"text": [
"To fix the problem, they'd need to tear out all the water lines in the city & replace them. Flint's been a very poor city for decades & can't come up with the money to do it."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76owbl | Whatˋs the psychology behind good cop, bad cop? | A friend of mine just pulled a pretty good and innocent good cop, bad cop routine on a child and we started discussing why it works. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dofoabj"
],
"text": [
"Because the goal for both of those cops is to get a confession or what not. They are both on the same side. But the bad cop good cop idea turns one cop into an enemy, but it also turns the other cop into a sympathetic figure. So sure, the guy won't confess to the mean cop, but he might talk more honestly to the other cop that has been more friendly. He might be a bit more forthcoming with information. It is just like how you might tell things to a friend in a stressful situation that you wouldn't say to someone being aggressive towards you."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76rgzr | Theresa May, British Parliament, the Royal Family and their relationship to each other/rolls in British government | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dog4sgx"
],
"text": [
"The UK parliament is composed of two houses, a lower house called the House of Commons, and an upper house called the House of Lords. Members of the upper house are appointed; the 650 members of the lower house (known as MPs) are voted for by the public. Following an election, whichever party has the most MPs gets invited to form the government. To form a stable government the party has to ensure it can get an absolute majority of votes (i.e. over 325) in the lower house. It can do this either by having over 325 MPs of its own get elected, or doing deals with other parties to ensure it gets the votes. The leader of that party, if successful in forming a government, becomes the Prime Minister. Currently, the largest party is the Conservative Party; their leader is Theresa May. She doesn't quite have enough MPs to govern alone (she has 317) so she has done a deal with a small Northern Irish party called the DUP to ensure she can form a government. As she has successfully formed a government she is now the Prime Minister, as well as being leader of the Conservative Party. The Royal Family have nothing to do with this, other than the fact that formally it is the Queen, as Head of State, who invites the largest party to form a government."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
76w98w | I'm not anti-depression, but why do people cut themselves? | like what do depressed people think they're getting out of cutting themselves? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doh6ro8",
"doh6rb5",
"dohcm00"
],
"text": [
"The insidious thing about depression is that it isn't exactly heart-wrenching despair so much as it just a complete and total apathy. Favorite activities become rote and dull, food is boring and tasteless, and you don't have any energy to do anything. People cut for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they're so traumatized they think that they deserve pain. Sometimes it's a physical expression of an emotional problem, like, they can't take out their anger on other people so they hurt themselves instead. And sometimes it's the closest thing to a feeling they can get: remember, depression is basically living in a dull grey boring place all the time, and pain is feeling *something* even if that something is bad.",
"Self-harm has several psychological effects, primarily the release of pain endorphins (feeling something, rather than nothing at all), a sense of control, and being able to express very difficult emotions that you may be struggling with. It is not, as u/dudery5 mentioned, an \"attention grabber\". Most people cut themselves in places that they do not expect others to see.",
"As someone who has cut myself in the past to relieve depression, I can actually answer this: Cutting causes physical damage, and also pain. The pain and damage cause the brain to release endorphins, hormones that act as the body's natural painkillers. A side effect of endorphins is euphoria, or good feelings. This being the case, endorphins can counteract the depression for a short period of time. The hormone rush can even cause sexual arousal. At the same time, chronic depression can leave you feeling numb--emotionally AND physically. In addition to the endorphin release, cutting does cause you to feel pain, which can reassure you that, yes, you are in fact still alive. Depression is a terrible disorder; it robs you of your energy, it steals the joy out of everyday life, it makes even your favorite foods taste bland, it robs your favorite activities of their fun, it destroys your sex drive, it makes your body hurt all over, makes you isolate yourself from friends and family...and then it gets worse. Depression leaves you numb, unable to feel, unable to give a damn, for long periods of time--and then it goes and alternates with crushing despair. It leaves you desperately needing to break down and cry--but causes physiological changes that make crying impossible. It can make the smallest task seem like climbing Mount Everest. It can make it impossible to get out of bed for days at a time. Sometimes, when I would get to that point, taking a knife to my arm was the *only* way I could get any relief."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76x0ex | Why does the English language have so many weird inconsistencies? | Like 'i before e except after c (except in scientists)' and 'Reed, Read, Read and Red'. I'm sure the language is really hard to learn for these reasons, so why did this sort of thing develop? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doheadi",
"dohbkji"
],
"text": [
"So far, /u/Brainix, /u/edups-401, /u/kouhoutek, /u/ABearWrestledMeOnce and /u/F8G9 have all repeated the old myth that this is due to the fact that English has borrowed from many different languages. While is is true that English has borrowed from many different languages, this is not unusual for a language and it doesn't fully explain the spelling inconsistencies. One thing to notice is that other languages, such as German, also borrow extensively from other languages, but have remarkably consistent spelling. Only the most recent words that have come into the language (usually from English and occasionally French) over about the last 50 or 100 years break this rule. Meanwhile, the French language, which prides itself (somewhat inaccurately) for being \"pure\", has a spelling system that is almost as confusing as English. Languages always change over time, and the way we pronounce our words changes slowly. In about the year 1400, people spelled words the way they sounded to them, regardless of whether they came from Anglo-Saxon (\"cou\" for \"cow\") or Norman French (\"beof\" for \"beef\"). Of course, this meant that people speaking different dialects often spelled words in different ways. It was the increasing use of printing that helped put a stop to that: printing meant that books could be mass-produced and copies sent all over the country, so writers and printers started spelling words in ways that could be understood by people speaking different dialects. Over time, this helped to standardize English spelling. Then came the dictionary compilers (including Samuel Johnson, who wasn't the first, but he was the most famous), and they were a bit too well-educated for their own good. They took some really stupid decisions, such as taking the word \"dette\" and respelling it \"debt\" for no reason other than the Latin word was \"debitus\". They weren't even very consistent with their decisions: they made us spell \"deign\" with a silent \"g\" because it comes from Old French \"deignier\", but allowed us to continue writing \"disdain\" despite the fact that it came from the same root. Meanwhile, the language was continuing to change. Nearly all of our long vowels changed beyond all recognition (this is why English long vowels are so radically different from the long vowels of other European languages), and many vowel sounds merged: \"see\" and \"sea\" were originally pronounced slightly differently (and neither was pronounced in the modern fashion). But they're still spelled differently because by now writers and dictionary compilers were insisting on keeping the traditional spellings. In short, English has never had a proper spelling reform since the invention of printing. As time went by, our spellings fell further and further out of step with our pronunciations. The changes in the vowel system is called the \"Great Vowel Shift\" and took hundreds of years to complete. We also had some changes in the consonants, with some falling silent completely -- but we still write them (French suffers a similar problem). Simply saying it's because English has borrowed from many languages doesn't even begin to explain how we arrived at where we are. That certainly had some influence, but the biggest reason is that we continue to insist on traditional spellings long after they have become hopelessly inaccurate. Unfortunately, it's got to the stage now that it would be impossible to fix. By way of private amusement, I have come up with some ideas for spelling reform, but it will never happen. English is now so widespread, it would need the cooperation not only of every officially English-speaking country in the world, but every country where English is used, and that's most of them these days: if a French businessman meets a Japanese business partner, they'll probably speak English. Imagine all the signs that would need to be rewritten, all the books that would need to be republished, all the websites that would need to be changed. And with this comes the problem of different dialects. Do you pronounce \"herb\" with an \"h\" sound (as the British do) or without (as the Americans do)? Do you rhyme \"shone\" with \"gone\" or with \"bone\"? Does \"schedule\" begin with a \"sh\" sound or with a \"sk\" sound? Do you speak one of those dialects where \"Mary\", \"marry\" and \"merry\" all sound the same, or all different? How about \"cot\" and \"caught\"? And so on and so forth. So really... as crazy as the system is, we're stuck with it.",
"It is mainly due to the fact that English words have such varied languages of origin. Latin based words will have different spelling conventions than Greek, Germanic, etc."
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
76ztg3 | Why is the abbreviation for manufacturer spelled as 'mfg' or 'mfgr'? There is no 'g' in the actual word. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dohvs0b"
],
"text": [
"MFG stands for **M**anu**F**acturin**G**. I believe the MFGR came from using MFG a lot and then turning it into \"MFGer\" to talk ablut those who perform manufacturing (ie manufacturers) which then just got shortened again."
],
"score": [
60
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
770d7e | How can the government subsidize sugar while taxing consumers for purchasing sugary drinks? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doi11s1",
"doi2zmf"
],
"text": [
"Its a different government. Farm subsidies come from the federal government and sales taxes like this come from state and local governments. Whether so many different levels of government should exist and have so much influence is a topic of great debate.",
"Technically, sugar isn't subsidized, the [US Sugar Program]( URL_0 ) seeks to artificially inflate the price of sugar by preventing imports and sometimes preventing domestic sales by local producers. That policy on sugar has lead many companies to use corn syrup and other sugar substitutes as a sweetener. Farm subsidies have existed for a long time. They're largely a holdover from depression-era economic policies. Soft Drink taxes are the brainchild of progressives that want to change peoples' behavior that they think is harmful. It's the same reason we've had alcohol and marijuana prohibition."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Sugar_Program"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
770gw0 | Mao Zedong massacred more people than Hitler & Stalin **combined** but rather than being condemned he is praised, how come? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doi2e1y",
"doi2p3i"
],
"text": [
"I'm surprised that you would say he is praised. Even the communist party in china rejects Maoism.",
"I think that a lot of people in Western countries don't have a lot of knowledge about Chinese history in the way they do about German or Russian history. Personal experiences of WWII that many of us heard also don't really cover the impact of the war or the communists on China as a whole, while the did shine a spotlight on the mass-killings by Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Imperial Japan. I think a reason people aren't really taught much about this may have to do with the ideological leanings of many within the academic class in the US and Europe, which have significant Marxist sympathies. However, I should point out an important difference between the way that mass death under the Nazis and Soviets was different than that in Maoist China. Many of those deaths happened during a period known as the Great Leap Forward, where Mao implemented policies of agricultural collectivization and forced industrialization. This resulted in the Great Chinese Famine. This famine is estimated to have lead to the deaths of between 18-55 million Chinese. While these deaths should be attributed to the failed policies of the Mao regime, they were not targeted to the same extent as the holocaust or the mass murders committed by the Soviets. Deaths by violence under this period are only estimated around 1 million Chinese. As groups were not actively targeted by the death, the failure to respond to famine is likely justified more as \"negligence\" than \"murder\"."
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
771cg2 | Why Does European Aviation use Feet instead of Meters? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doijxbh"
],
"text": [
"When you are flying, you don't have to convert units a lot. Your speed is in knots, you are never going to have to know what that is in feet. That removes one of the primary advantages of using the metric system. Since you are just reading them off of a dial, you can think of them as magic airplane units, and don't really have to know how big they are to are to fly a plane. The US and the UK were leaders in aviation and the UK wasn't on the metric system when the standards were adopted, English and English units became the standard. The downside of having an accident due to a unit conversion error outweighs the limited upside of converting to meter."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
771e0o | What is a "troll factory"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doi96fi"
],
"text": [
"With regards to the 'troll factory' in the news lately, it basically refers to propaganda spreading organizations that either: * Spread false/untrue/biased/unsourced information * Create a false sense of population (makes it look like more people agree/disagree than in reality) * Push a certain agenda toward the mass/social media consuming public I **(DO NOT)** claim to be with/against these sorts of dealings. Just stating them in the current context."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
773fdt | How did the first language come about? | Edit: Thank you all for your inputs, and I was talking about spoken language. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doitdwx",
"doirl77"
],
"text": [
"Since we didn't have writing until much later, it's all speculation. But warning cries, cries for help, then sounds for food eventually became more complex. Our voice boxes improved about the same time our brains got bigger, so it's not sure whether complex sounds came before or after we had the intellect for language (it could have started with sign language). Some interesting asides : dolphins are the only animals (besides humans) that seem to use names for each other. Dogs obviously recognize their name that we give them, but in the wild they don't use names. There have been some cases where (human) twins, as small children, invented their own language to talk to each other.",
"I imagine a whole lot of grunting and pointing. Grunting or specific calls in certain situations. Kinda like how dolphins, monkeys, and whales do different vocalizations in different situations."
],
"score": [
12,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
774117 | Why is there no English verb for "to die of thirst," as there is "starve" for "to die of hunger"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doiw582",
"doiwto3",
"doiw7kl",
"doj289b",
"doiy4il",
"doj5mxe",
"doixhea"
],
"text": [
"I think dehydration is close. If used as an adjective/verb for people it doesn't really imply death, just extreme thirst. You could just say \"death from dehydration.\"",
"\"parch\" to dry. Parched = starved for water. but as other people mentioned, it doesn't mean you die in either case.",
"Starve doesn't specifically mean to die of hunger. If someone dies of starvation, it is said that they \"starved to death\" the same as if someone dies of dehydration.",
"Although a little archaic, \"forthirst\" is the English word for \"having died of a lack of water\". Other similar words are desiccated or parched. To starve does not mean to die of lack of food, it means that a person is currently experiencing a lack of food. You can die of starvation, but it is a long and terrible experience. Dying of a lack of water is much rarer.",
"Probably because northern europeans have water. I bet if you look up arabic or african languages they have the word you want.",
"This is a great question, I've often wondered too why we can feed someone, but there is no equivalent for giving someone water to drink, that I know of. I.e. hungry? I will feed you. Thirsty? I will.... Give you water to drink",
"Interesting question. \"Dehydrate\" is a more modern, scientific word, while \"starve\" comes from earlier English. Maybe it's because even when people couldn't feed themselves, there was usually water around, so they didn't often die of thirst. Many have died of thirst in the desert, of course, but were their tales usually told? Or maybe in earlier times they didn't really know the difference, since you can get some water from food."
],
"score": [
47,
33,
25,
8,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7787hg | I created a new facebook account with a completely fake name, and temporary email address. That is all the info I gave. How does facebook suggest people I actually know as 'friends'? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dojr0ck",
"dojrfr8"
],
"text": [
"Reads your contacts, emails, text messages, emails, people in close proximity to you, fb groups you are in, freinds of friends",
"You gave a lot more than just a fake name and fake email, I'm afraid. For starters your IP address and possibly also your location would have been collected. There's also your browser fingerprint, cookies, advertising ID etc. I don't know for sure though Plus if you used the Facebook app to sign up, your contacts are among the permissions granted when you use the app; along with a bunch of other stuff.."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
778tei | Why is it normal in our culture to wear short sleeves and long pants, but abnormal to wear long sleeves and shorts? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dojwcsl"
],
"text": [
"This is purely anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth, but here in CA, shorts and a hoodie is pretty much routine from November to March. We're weirdos."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77jbkh | What does it mean to redpill someone? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"domc0nz",
"domegmz",
"domctgf",
"domkgzv",
"domucd7"
],
"text": [
"It's basically a way of saying you've become aware of the true nature of reality. The term comes from *The Matrix*, where Morpheus offers Neo a blue pill (which lets him stay in his reality) or a red pill (which allows him to perceive the Matrix as well as the true reality of the movies).",
"It means to “wake people up” or make them aware of an aspect of reality or society that they believe exists, of which most of the population is ignorant. Examples of Red Pilling could be providing “evidence” to someone of things such as: * The Moon Landing being faked * Boston Bombing/Sandy Hook/Las Vegas shootings were hoaxes or false flags * There is a cabal referred to as The Powers That Be (TPTB) which pull the strings of the global elite * 911 was an inside job (CIA) * Theories about Elite Pedophile rings Etc, etc...",
"The original reference is from The Matrix (1999) in which the character Morpheus gives Neo the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill will allow him to escape The Matrix (a virtual reality / simulation used as a prison) and experience the real world. The blue pill will make him go back to his normal life and forget everything. On reddit and in popular usage, to 'redpill' someone usually means espousing various misogynist / right-wing ideas to someone as 'the truth that society doesn't have the guts to acknowledge' or some such, until they come around to that point of view. It's a particularly vulgar neologism, as the usage implies that the person doing the 'red-pilling' has unique and exclusive access to the truth, while everyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, deluded, or a conspirator.",
"See explanations above for the red pill origin (The Matrix). In popular parlance, though, red-pilling someone usually means getting them to see the validity of the counter argument. Popular examples would be 3rd wave feminists like Laci Green getting red-pilled out of their more extreme positions. Of course, other 3rd wave feminists would say that's misogynistic because there are no extreme feminist positions. Another popular example is Larry Elder red-pilling Dave Rubin on black oppression. BLM would say Elder made Rubin a white supremacist. But Rubin already got red-pilled before that by what he considered inappropriate conduct by The Young Turks which made Rubin suspicious of the TYT talking points. Anyway, whether red-pilling is misogynistic or racist or tinfoil conspiracy theorists depends entirely on what one got red-pilled out of and where you stand on the argument.",
"Red Pill means to reject the mainstream media politically correct narrative and think for yourself. The main topic is the relations between men and women and all the political correctness that involves, but it touches on all acts of dissonance between official, politically correct public statements and harsh truths. TheRedPill subreddit is the main resource. Example: In popular belief, women doing the same job earn 20-30% less than men. Mainstream media repeat it all the time and never allow a discussion on the topic. However, a simple thought experiment debunks it with ease: if women earn less, where are the companies that hire *only* women, save 20% of their labour costs and dominate their markets? There are none. Worth noting that it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Observable, repeatable and falsifiable facts are all that matters. It's an extension of scientific thought into the realm of social life."
],
"score": [
61,
29,
26,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77lbbx | Why navy sailors wear Blue Camouflage, when the ships are painted grey and the naval bases are on the ground surrounded by green? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"domvfo5",
"domuy2d",
"domwo8p",
"domx4m3",
"domxpzr",
"don2udg",
"domtqc1",
"domyfdc",
"domzdy9",
"domwzhx",
"domwhj9",
"don5xx0",
"domzlfi"
],
"text": [
"As I recall, the current US Navy uniform was designed to hide paint splatter. The problem is that no one wears that uniform out to sea. It really was a great uniform to wear, being roomy and comfortable. Out to sea, coveralls are the shit. Can't beat coveralls. Edit: You are all filthy, slimy wogs. Hail King Neptune!",
"The uniform was implemented to hide the gray and black stains from paint and oil that you find on ships. It had gray and black spots for this purpose. The base color was made to be blue because it looks good with the gray and black spots on the camouflage. It was also designed to block infrared light from night vision. This is a well documented fact, so any comment stating the contrary here is wrong. It was intended as a working uniform, not a combat uniform. Hence the name “Naval Working Uniform”. It is not worn out to sea, so any concern with falling overboard and not being spotted is ridiculous. Furthermore, when you fall overboard your head is typically all that is visible, which means there isn’t much you can do to increase visibility. You will disappear quickly no matter what you are wearing. Edit: the new Type III’s are green because they were designed for the 5% of people stationed in green areas such as Bahrain who may actually see combat. Most watch-standers stand watch on ships or on concrete and pavement roads. The type III’s miss the point of the type I’s, which was for working and hiding stains. Now we have a uniform that will only be useful 1% of the time rather than 50% of the time. Sailors don’t fight, they work. We don’t need combat camouflage, we need working camouflage. They are also worn by \"special forces\" such as Riverines and Seabees who do not serve on ships or with aviation squadrons. edit2: Navy wide instruction states that no form of NWU's are authorized for wear underway. FRV's are the only authorized uniform (fire retardant coveralls). They skipped on flame protection to improve comfort, and during initial sea tests it was found they melted when exposed to high temperatures. It is now an in port working uniform. edit3: Why is everyone getting on my case about Bahrain not being green? There is green around the base and its the only overseas installation I've been to where they were wearing Type III's since 2015. If it was any sort of a concern they'd be using Type II's, but they aren't.",
"The colors chosen were to camouflage stains on the uniform more than the surrounding. There's a lot if gray and black so that if you got ship paint/grease on it, it wouldn't look like crap because unless you got a lot of it on you, it would be hard to notice. Edit: classic in/on typo",
"There are 4 different colors that are used when painting a ship (edit for clarification, the main colors a ship is painted with are deck grey, haze grey-for vertical exterior surfaces black-for entrances and exits from the exterior and interior of the ship and navy blue- for trim inside the ship. There are 3 colors that aren't used however, primer is often red or green, and the bulkheads in the interior of the ship are generally white.), and every one of those colors are represented on the NWU Type I uniform (or blueberries, or blue cammies or N-dubs or whatever other random name you can think of.) Since NWUs are an expensive uniform and often we stand watch with it, and it presents an unprofessional appearance when it has paint stains on it, whenever we paint ships these days we are allowed to wear coveralls even while in port. While we are out to sea we are only allowed to wear a special set of coveralls called FRVs which is fire retardant as opposed to NWUs which when exposed to heat melt. A large portion of the navy wears NWU type IIIs which are a light green woodland camouflage. I joined the Navy 5 years ago and at the time the top ranking officers were complaining about how many uniforms we have and NWU type Is. In boot camp I was told not to get to attached to my NWUs because they were \"phasing\" them out. 5 years ago. Well as of November 6th this year, my entire command will officially only allow Type IIIs, and I don't remember the exact date, but I believe as of October next year, navy wide NWU Type Is will be gone. Edit* The exact date is October 1st 2019 Also I saw some posts about having to buy our own uniforms. We are given a uniform allowance once a year on the same month as our navy ADSD (Active Duty Start Date) and it is meant for maintenance of uniforms. Basically they give you enough money to replace all of your working uniforms over the course of 4 years. However, we also have to pay for many alterations and changes to our dress uniforms (unless you're good at sewing or know someone who is) as well as replacing dress uniforms which are extremely expensive. Often times when pulling into port we will do what is called line handlers (the mooring lines that hold the ship in place while in port have to be manually tensioned by a team of around 6 sailors.) And we have to do them in dress whites or dress blues depending on the season. That wreaks havoc on that uniform, and one time doing line handlers in dress whites-you will never use that uniform for anything else ever again. So yes we do get some money to pay for our uniforms, but unless you are really good at making sure you don't mess your uniforms up, it won't be enough. Also paying for an entire new set of uniforms with the introduction of Type IIIs, we still only get our usual uniform allowance. Edit* I was wrong, I just got my uniform allowance last month actually and I hadn't seen a change in the amount, but there is an instruction saying that it will be increased. So that is probably an issue with my own personal pay, and not navy wide. Edit: also to clarify how the camouflage works, digital camouflage isn't for keeping yourself from being seen during the day (for the navy, for other branches it is). Its more specifically intended to blur your outline at night against night vision.",
"Short version - the US had the same camouflage for years, and it was ok in woodland areas (though tiger stripe proved to be more effective in jungle settings) but the desert was pretty lacking. First, you have to realize that camouflage isn't necessarily about blending in as much as it is breaking patterns in order to trick the eye. The USMC came up with a digital camouflage (called MARPAT - Marine Patent) for both desert and woodland that were far more effective because the eye couldn't as easily discern the lines between colors to it was actually a huge improvement. So the Army found itself technologically (if you want to call it that) behind the Marine Corps for the first time in forever and absolutely could not have that, so they came up with their own digital off greenish one that was supposed to be a hybrid and also be great in urban environments (MOUT - military operations in urban terrain, Fallujah, etc) and gave them to everyone and they looked.. well, not nearly as cool. Which, later when testing revealed the color scheme to be less effective than the camo it replaced... well, that had to be embarrassing. Army starts looking into new camo again. But it doesn't matter - all the branches are on board, digital camo is the thing, so AF and Navy join the party. Navy picks blue because I guess no one told them they didn't have to go worth the color navy just because they were the Navy. But the water is blue so I bet someone would be hard to see though I don't know why anyone would want that. edit - read a Navy guy's post about hiding paint stains, which I had heard when they came out, and that they mad IR/NVGs harder to pick you up, which is smart if true. I don't know how often ships have that issue though. Also as an aside, cammies, utilities, whatever you want to call them, are a lazy uniform. They'r the coveralls of the military. Any time I see a soldier out in public in cammies it makes me think of a garage mechanic still in his work stuff.",
"Navy sailors wear blue camouflage in case the ship enters enemy Waters and for some reason loses power. After losing power the commanding officer orders his sailors to all lay down over the hull of the ship, thereby camouflaging the entirety of the vessel.",
"99% of camoflague worn by the military is non-functional. These days it's just a pattern to signify you're in the military, and since water is blue, the Navy got the blue pattern. And now they're getting rid of that uniform, so there's that.",
"So they'll be lost forever if they are swept overboard. /s It was part of a really dumb initiative when every service decided they needed a new, \"unique\" combat uniform. It resulted in the \"aquaflague\" for the Navy (completely useless on land, and hides you the one time you'd want to be seen, in the water), the Airman Battle Uniform for the Air Force (which is such a poor combat uniform that we issued the Army uniform to Air Force personnel who worked \"outside the wire\"), and a new digital camouflage for the Marines that they immediately trademarked to prevent any other service from being able to use it. Welcome to the wonderful world of DoD acquisitions.",
"Just so everyone knows, the navy is phasing out the blue camouflage and switching to green like . Also, we don't wear the blue camouflage out sea and no it doesn't change colors in water. We wear coveralls. ( all blue onesie basically) or flight deck gear (the people with blue or brown pants and a colored turtle neck jersey) edit: spelling and edited the link somewhat",
"Because anything is better than those 1940's bell bottoms. I'm a jarhead and I used to feel sorry for my squid buddies. \"Hey who shit under the dixie cup\".",
"The same reason the Air Force has new stupid gray tiger stripe uniforms. \"Well the Marines got their own special camo pattern, why can't we?\" No other thought or design went into the actual implementation of the Air Force and Navy uniforms. If I remember correctly, the Army is on try #2 of the same thing. The Air Force uniforms are light gray with hideous green/gray/babyshit suede leather boots and all of that is awful for someone working on aircraft that are fucking filthy.",
"Because the risk of getting lost at sea is relatively minor compared to the advantage of wearing utility uniform cammies that disguise paint on ships. Also, it’s s moot point because you don’t wear that uniform out to sea. When deployed, the Navy will often embed with US Army and Marines and will use their camo. The Navy also has its own green and desert digital patterns. Air Force does the same thing; it has an ugly tiger stripe uniform, but when deployed and attached to US Army units, they use Army Scorpion W2.",
"It was supposed to make us look more \"military\" as opposed to our previous working uniforms that made us look like extras on the Shawshank Remdemption URL_0 The older Dungarees looked cool and were functional but the Utilities took all the cool stuff away like comfortable pants and good shirts and replaced it with a uniform that you have to keep meticulously clean and presentable while still trying to do your job involving, rust,paint, grease and other things that can ruin the whole uniform. So the Blue camo or NWU as the navy calls it was brought about, technically its NWU type 2 with the other types being different camo colors. Granted the uniform was easier to care for, i didn't have to iron it every night, it was usually good to go right out of the washer and it hid stains very well. Some of the downsides of it were that with the heavy material, elastic waist band and having to blouse your pants with boot straps any amount of physical activity over 74 degrees was a one way ticket to swamp ass city. They also changed what boots were allowed, before you could have a variety of boots as long as they were black leather and steel toed and a 9 inch boot. with the new uniform they specified that only 2 models from 2 different company would be allowed, and they were both crappy compared to the nice zip up breathable boots that i had. And now the navy is going to abandon the type 2s and adopt type 3 fleet wide which is the navy forest camo pattern. In all this is a colossal waste of money, since each branch seems to have 2 or 3 camo patterns and changes everything completely every few years. i think between all branches there's been somewhere close to 20-30 uniform changes in the last 20 years. when you look at other countries militaries they have a camo uniform thats universal across all branches and then they have branch specific service and dress uniforms. i would like to see us do that but theres too much money involved for them to let that happen."
],
"score": [
3112,
1485,
401,
105,
17,
10,
6,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images03.military.com/media/equipment/personal-equipment/navy-working-uniform-nwu-type-i/navy-working-uniform_002-ts600.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77m8we | In France, pasteurized milk can be kept for months outside of the fridge as long as you haven't opened the bottle. Why in North America, pasteurized milk can only be kept refrigerated and still expire within a month? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"domxqyq",
"domxtge",
"domydoj",
"domxzaq"
],
"text": [
"More rigorous pasteurization processes (higher temperature and/or longer time) can produce a final product that is shelf stable in a sealed package at room temperature for a longer time, but has some drawbacks including a worse taste compared to milk pasturized at lesser conditions. UHT pasteurized milk is available in the US, but is not as common, and part of it is that our culture does not expect \"room temperature milk\" to be a good thing.",
"There are two different ways to treat milk so that bacteria die and it doesn't go bad quickly. One method kills all, and allows you to keep milk unrefrigerated for months. The other method doesn't kill all the bacteria, so milk lasts a bit longer than fresh out of the cow, but must be refrigerated and used within a few days. This milk can be labelled as \"fresh milk\". Both are available in France. One is just more common than the other.",
"It's UHT milk, Ultra High Temperature, which is then sealed in a more airtight container. So it's like the bottles of coke or jugs of juice on shelves. This is more heavily processed than fresh milk in the cooler.",
"The milk you speak of in France is absolutely a thing in North America, and is available in ~~every~~ supermarket. It's just not as commonly purchased as fresh milk is. A parent there's a chain that doesn't carry it. But I'll stick by it is VERY, VERY commonly carried."
],
"score": [
12,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77mfz8 | Why is Russia not considered a westeren world country culturally by most political scientists? | In my opinion after Peter the great and and especially in the 1800s russia was not much different from other european nations the only exeption is the soviet union times but those didnt last for very long. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"don8oa5",
"donapg5"
],
"text": [
"Russia was not considered to be culturally western because while the west embraced the beliefs of the enlightenment and classical liberalism, Russia remained an autocracy until the Tsar fell. And then he was replaced by something even more inimical to liberalism. Here is how Abraham Lincoln described the Russians in 1855: > As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.",
"It actually isn't for the most part. From a political science standpoint it is seen from several different viewpoints. Back in the early 1800s Russia was on par with the rest of Europe in most regards (excluding serfdom). It was a colonial empire and a massive monarchical power. Come the mid to late 1800s Russia began to fall behind in terms of industrialization. This was the beginning of Russia's divorce from Europe. This trend continued until today where Russia is still fairly behind the rest of Europe. Economically it is a \"2nd world\" or a \"Developing\" country. Like that of Brazil, India, South Africa, China. Politically it is seen as a flawed or failing democracy. Which is kinda a weird thing to say because the closest they got to a developing democracy was Yeltsin. So that is part one of why: Russia and Europe have a fairly strong difference. So in all regards Russia isn't European according to Europeans. But you can't just say they are \"Asian\" because they are not. So then the identity given is Eurasian, matching the expansiveness and political goals of Russia. Russia embraces this too, with a strong political movement toward Central Asia, embracing the \"stans\" as their major partners economically and politically."
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
77or9z | What are the historical origins of Russian roulette? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"donknew"
],
"text": [
"Less than you might think. It was first described in a 19th Century Russian novel, but not given that particular name. The term first appeared in a 1930's short story called Russian Roulette. There is no evidence that Russian roulette was ever widely practiced, by Russians or anyone else. All known cases of Russian roulette post-date those fictional stories."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77s8bx | Why different alcoholic beverages illicit a different response | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dooaua2",
"doobhhn",
"doofico",
"doobj5d"
],
"text": [
"In my experience, while I know anecdotes are not permitted, the only difference in alcohol for me is the strength and speed of drinking. Ethanol gets you drunk period and strong stuff does it faster. However, our sense of smell and taste are pretty heavily wired to our memories, and we tend to have preferred drinks when we feel a certain way. I honestly believe it's bias that people \"only get crazy when they have tequila\" when usually they only agreed to have tequila because they felt like getting crazy. ( Or they don't usually drink liquor and they end up drinking tequila and blaming the taste instead of the booze. )",
"Alcohol is not processed differently based on the type. Here's the eli5 version: Certain alcoholic beverages have more \"dirty\" chemicals, so they give your organs more to deal with, but for the most part you process all of them the same way. There shouldn't be much of a difference. An increased amount of sugar in certain drinks could affect your behavior, but more than likely it's psychosomatic. We all know \"tequila makes you crazy\" so that's just what it does. There's no definite answer (and people are still working on it) but for the most part we've concluded that it's all in your head, and/or the way the drinks are taken. I'm sure there's plenty of things that will be cited below this that argue one way or the other, but the science is still out so none of those things can answer your question any better.",
"> I was just reading an ask reddit thread in which one person recalled how gin specifically made them sad and cry, That was me. ['Sup?]( URL_0 ) To clarify a little from that post: I don't think it's entirely down to the gin itself, or something special in juniper berries that gets me all teary. I think it has more to do with the fact that a) I don't tend to like gin all that much, so when I drink it I've almost certainly been drinking other things first; there's probably a cumulative effect of all the other booze I've had that night finally catching up with me, b) because I tend not to like gin, if I pour it for myself I have little concept of how much is a respectable or delicious amount, so if I'm making it I tend to overpour, and c) I've got it into my mind that gin is a drink that makes me cry, so there's probably a psychological element to it too. Basically, if Hazel is at the point where she wants to drink gin, she really shouldn't be mixing herself a drink of anything, *including* gin.",
"A theory is that - it’s not the alcohol but the chemicals that go with it when brewing, distilling or fermenting. Red wine makes me depressed for about a week after. Where as rum I could drink all day long and barely have whiff of Hang over. So why red wine? Who knows, I know it’s full of sulphites and tannins. do they get stuck in your brain, doing something to your dopamine receptors? For me the answer is yes....red red wine goes to my head. Additionally drinks like gin are usually drank with tonic water which contains quinine which is used as a medicine for various ailments and traditionally malaria. If you look at the side effects of quinine you’d see they are as long as your arm. A lot of which effects the nervous system. So that’s my theory for what it’s worth"
],
"score": [
68,
9,
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/77letu/what_is_your_experience_with_drugs_and_what_have/domvcdy/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77web1 | How is Christianity considered monotheistic rather than dualist when an independent devil or Satan exists outside of God's power? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dop4skk",
"dop58mj",
"dop5585",
"dop4tlu",
"dop4tif",
"dop63ak",
"dop65kw",
"dop68qo",
"dop632s",
"dop5rza",
"dop4y5d",
"dop5yke",
"dop6cn3"
],
"text": [
"He doesn't. Satan, in Christianity, isn't the \"God of Evil,\" he's an angel that betrayed God and was cast into Hell with the other angels who sided with him in his rebellion. Satan doesn't \"rule\" Hell, he's a prisoner there who is being tormented just like everyone else who got sent to Hell.",
"In Christianity, Satan is on par with an angel ([Even was an angel previously]( URL_0 )), and potentially may some sort of powers (Like [the ability to appear physically]( URL_2 )), but generally only can do things [that God allows him to]( URL_1 ). The idea is that God is omnipotent and omniscient, so everything that happens either is caused by God or is allowed to happen by God, so there is no actual competition between God and Satan. God allows Satan to do things for reasons, but Satan isn't a competing deity in his own right.",
"So then the question becomes: why does God allow evil to exist?",
"The devil doesn’t exist outside of God’s power, just outside His grace. He exists by the power of God but outside the beauty of the divine.",
"Because Satan was never a god. He’s a “fallen angel”. While he is blamed for a lot of the evil in the world, he can’t make anything happen without God’s “permission”. At least that’s how it was explained to me.",
"\"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.\" - Revelation 20 All part of the plan, it seems.",
"There was a time when dualism was a popular belief in Christianity. This sect, known as the Manichaeans , was debunked by St. Augustine for a number of reasons. Augustine's main argument against dualism was that something that is considered evil is not the opposite of good, instead it is the absence of good. Satan is not actively evil, he is considered evil because he is not good. It's the same idea as laws of entropy; there is Order and there is Chaos (or entropy). Chaos is the absence of Order. A messy room is not the opposite of a clean room; a messy room is a room that lacks organization. Satan is not a counterpart to God he is an entity who continues to \"opt out\" of the Grace of God. A choice that we all have. For better or for worse, God gives us the option to choose an afterlife without Him.",
"The question is more \"how is Christianity monotheistic if there is a holy trinity?\"",
"Satan is not the part that makes Christianity non monotheistic, it's the Trinity that makes most of other religions think Christianity is wrong.",
"I am Catholic and I still have trouble reconciling the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit business. God is all three but all three are also God, but Jesus is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit is a mystical fart or something? I don’t get it. I believe the Holy Trinity is more polytheistic than the God/Devil one.",
"So what are things that both God & Satan can do?",
"Satan is the fallen angel, and not part of the Kingdom of God. But Christians believe God in Three People, ie, the Trinity. the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So the questions might be \"How can a monotheistic religion have a Trinity\"?",
"There is only 1 God in Christianity. The Devil is an angel whose job, according to the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, is to test mankind. Angels were not given free will, they are servants to mankind. If you read Jude, in the new testament \"And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day So, Angels are servants and Lucifer is an angel, not a god. If you take the bible, verbatim, Lucifer is DOING God's work, by God's decree and angels that have not followed God's decision for them, are imprisoned. The story of the fall of Satan, to me, is just another part of the bible that was added for good measure. Sort of like how you have a TV show where there are 6-10 writers and it goes several seasons. You will run into continuity issues as some writers do not keep up with other writers stories from previous seasons. Those who watch the TV show, SUpernatural, will have witnessed this several times. I use it as a reference because it is \"Biblical\" in it's delivery and a show that has had some 17 writers in 13 years. What is ignored is history.....The Morning Star was the King of Balyon, not Lucifer. But it is not YOUR history understand that is the issue, but Luke's. Matthew, Mark and Luke were 3 con men who ended up in the new testament. You will find continuity issues in various portions of the bible, but 192 of 217, reside with those 3 boys :) The morning star, in it's metaphorical description, became an actual event for those who believed Luke. Isaiah: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Now, Satan had not lain low any nations. HOWEVER, Helel ben Šeḥar, a King of Babylon did and was called the הלל בן שאהר בן שחר. Helel ben Sehar, son of Dawn The idea of Satan falling, came from luke, when it was not Satan....and there you have the fucked up confusion around Lucifer falling to earth and reigning in an underworld kingdom, while plotting to overthrow God That whole \"I' not bowing to man\" thing...Book of Enoch. It also describes aliens, UFOs, reptilian angels...all kinds of fruity shit. Christianity ignores that book, knowing it is BS, while using parts of it to suit it's carrot/stick methodology. Hell was not a word until 400 AD. Sheol was the word used previously, but Christianity. Sheol, in the biblical context, is a place where a man goes and it removed from the light of God, to spend eternity in complete darkness. See, the more you read and study, the worse things become. Then a clear pattern emerges as to why fewer and fewer people are Christians. You can only adlib, pick and chose, and alter words to suit your narrative, for so long before people catch on. granted people should have caught on 120 years ago, still, from 125 million Christians in the US to 90 Million is a step down the right path.. Now if only Islam will go the same path....It's no better than the Bible and the Hadiths....yeesh. It's like having a bible and 12 new testaments that some can pick and chose from which to believe ;) So, in closing, God is the God of good AND the God of Evil....it's not a 2 party system Have a good weekend"
],
"score": [
372,
42,
21,
14,
14,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2014%3A12",
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A6-12",
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-3"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77z84s | Why is Austria referred to as an empire in the German language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dops57e",
"dops4he"
],
"text": [
"Reich literally means \"realm\" or \"kingdom\", not \"empire\". The historical german reichs were specifically empires, but not every reich is an empire.",
"The word rijk in Dutch has multiple translations in English, the word rijk as used in the names for countries should translate to realm and not to empire. So Frankrijk translates to Realm of the Franks and Oostenrijk is The Eastern Realm."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
77zwhy | Why is Quebec exempt from many things the rest of Canada can take part in? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doq0ui0"
],
"text": [
"In most places, legal systems have a top down approach, where a provincial or municipal system can't override the federal system. Quebec has had an exemption for some sections of the law since France agreed to hand over the territory to Britain. The people who lived there were afraid that the English would force them to give up their heritage. As a result, many areas of Quebec law override federal law, meaning most places don't want to bother offering the same things in Quebec. The most notable thing that are excluded in Quebec are contests with random prizes (like McDonalds Monopoly). Any company that wants to run such a competition has to (in addition to other hoops), in advance, pay 10% of the value of the winnings to the province in tax. Because you can't guarantee where the prizes are going to be, that is virtually impossible, which means people just exempt Quebec from those competitions."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
783dhh | Why didn't the US annex Panama or hold on to the Canal zone? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doqpdap"
],
"text": [
"International pressure. Our original treaty with Panama did give us indefinite ownership of the Canal Zone, however after we intervened in the Suez Crisis to prevent France or Britain from doing the exact same thing to the canal in Egypt, there was an increased outcry for us to relinquish control. So we signed a new treaty to give it back as long as neutrality was guaranteed."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7853p6 | American schooling vs. British schooling | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dor7j25",
"dor7ocv"
],
"text": [
"What level of schooling? What aspects? This is very broad. There are so many schools and school systems in the US that it would be very difficult to compare. If you live in the North, Dangerous Minds. If you live in Texas, Varsity Blues. If you live in the Midwest, Breakfast Club. If you live in Northeast, Rocky V. If you live in California, Encino Man or Clueless. If you live in the Pacific Northwest, Twilight.",
"British children learn the USA is a country. American children learn the USA is the centre of the known universe."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78aai9 | why is three such an important number? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dos9i2m"
],
"text": [
"Might not be the true answer, but three is the smallest form of a pattern. Once was an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three is intentional. It's also the sides to a triangle, which can support itself given the proper foundations. (see: stools)"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78b9xs | Why do Secret Service agents on duty wear suits while protecting officials? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dosgydc"
],
"text": [
"For every secret service agent you notice in a suit, there's a bunch you don't notice around you wearing civilian clothing. Also it probably has to do with the message being sent, bodyguards in suits tend to send a more \"professional\" kind of message. The leader being surrounded by guards in fatigues may make the president come off as more militaristic."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78cxud | How Hellen Keller actually learned to communicate | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dosvyfo"
],
"text": [
"This is a question I've wondered about a lot! Fascinating. Here's one resource: URL_1 And a previous Reddit post that might help: URL_0 A comment from the above link: \"Anne Sullivan arrived at Keller's house in March 1887, and immediately began to teach Helen to communicate by spelling words into her hand, beginning with \"d-o-l-l\" for the doll that she had brought Keller as a present. Keller was frustrated, at first, because she did not understand that every object had a word uniquely identifying it. In fact, when Sullivan was trying to teach Keller the word for \"mug\", Keller became so frustrated she broke the doll. Keller's big breakthrough in communication came the next month, when she realized that the motions her teacher was making on the palm of her hand, while running cool water over her other hand, symbolized the idea of \"water\"; she then nearly exhausted Sullivan demanding the names of all the other familiar objects in her world.\""
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25h4n5/eli5_if_helen_keller_was_born_blind_and_deaf_how/",
"https://www.quora.com/How-did-Helen-Keller-learn-to-read-write-and-speak"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78h5os | When and how did people start wearing bikinis at the beach? | [Inspired by this post.]( URL_0 ) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dotrh6t",
"dotrcdj"
],
"text": [
"The bikini was designed in 1946 by Louis Réard. He named it after the Bikini Atoll, where the USA was testing hydrogen bombs - the connection being that the bikini was going to blow up like a bomb in fashion. By the 1930s, people were wearing more revealing swimsuits, and women had started wearing two piece swimsuits (although they were more like shorts and a tank top.) Réard took this trend one step further with the creation of the bikini.",
"[Ancient Rome.]( URL_0 ) Of course, it went out of fashion for a while there, before coming back with a vengeance in the 1960s. But standards for what was considered \"appropriate\" swimwear for women have changed back and forth over the years as cultural mores (and morals) changed. It's not easy to give a compelling description for *why* those changes came about in an answer suitable for ELI5. Suffice it to say that they do. The 1960s saw the loosening of cultural standards in a wide variety of areas, including what were considered acceptable standards for women's attire, on and off the beach."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bikini"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
78lj9n | Why do some companies schedule an in person interview with you and then it lasts only a few minutes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"douswcx"
],
"text": [
"Must be some job that doesn't require them to know too much about you skillwise or personality wise. They just wanted to see if you look and act decently."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78ow9v | How is boxing such a big-money sport, when it seems to be relatively unpopular outside of big events once every 5-10 years? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dovmske",
"dovh493",
"dovnbu5",
"dovirvk",
"dovluhv",
"dovqz4x"
],
"text": [
"A big boxing event will always draw a big ppv audience. People love fights. Also boxing is bigger worldwide than it is in America right now. Boxing is HUGE in Mexico and most of Europe.",
"It's a relic of \"the past\" of like 20 years ago. Before UFC exploded on the scene, boxing was *the* combat sport to watch. Even as recently as the 90s, boxing was just about the biggest money sport there was. Floyd Mayweather would've been 18-20 (the prime age for many athletes) right around the mid 1990s, and while boxing has fallen in popularity in the 00's and 10's, this took time. He had a whole decade of million-dollar purse prize-fights to pull down money. And for combat sports like that, the concept of a \"draw\" is important. You make money off a fight by putting butts in seats (ticket sales, ppv sales), and in some cases (some fights in vegas) taking a piece of the betting action. If the names are big enough, and they can generate enough hype to sell out a 40,000 seat arena at 1,000 a piece, then the promoters are making 40 million dollars just on regular ticket sales, to say nothing of PPV buys, advertising money, etc; so it's not much of a big deal to give the fighters a million dollar purse. IIRC, Mayweather v. MacGregor sold seats for 10x that or more, so the higher prices per fight were justified.",
"It might not be as popular as it was 30 years ago but it's still popular enough. I watch it and I have a lot of friends who do too. Between PPV, seats, merch, betting and sponsors there's still a lot of money in the sport. And there are less people to pay than in the NFL or NBA.",
"Because it really isn't a big money making sport outside of a few guys. Guys like Canelo Alverez, GGG, Anthony Joshua might make a pretty good deal of money but it pales in comparison to those guys. Guys lower on the card don't make much at all.",
"There is a lot of money in PPV fees, and most of the money goes to the boxers. In other pro sports, there are rosters of players, many teams in the league, annual stadium rents, team ownership profits, etc. NFL money gets spread among 1000+ players, not a handful of boxers.",
"It's a big money sport for VERY few people. I guarantee the NFL, MLB, etc. bring in more money, but it is split between way more people."
],
"score": [
160,
107,
41,
38,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78r7nx | Why is Atlas from Greek mythology shown to be holding a round Earth, even though it was proven to be spherical only later on? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dow0ybr",
"dow0p6c"
],
"text": [
"Two misconceptions in this question: One, it was known to the Ancient Greeks that the Earth was round. It's not difficult to observe or prove. Second, in Greek mythology Atlas is forced to hold up the sky, not the Earth. Classical art shows him holding up the celestial sphere, not a planet.",
"The Greeks thought the world was round. They even made a pretty good stab at calculating the Earth's circumference based on its observed position and the angle of shadows at different locations."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78rfu0 | Do countries near the GMT Meridian have an economical advantage compared to those close on GMT+12? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dow36r2"
],
"text": [
"trade routes wouldn't be particularly effected given time zones are regularly dealt with by travelers and business. overnight workers taking in planes and ships from day time locations. Tom Cruise's character in War of the Worlds is an overnight dock worker, we meet in at sunrise as his shift ends. for market trading i imagine, as a non expert in that area, you just hire an extra shift of traders who plan for the morning. there must be some system in place for sales after the bell. the simplest solution would be for firms to have people working in foreign exchanges. the sun never sets on making money."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78sdve | The Chinese concept of Shih? | Spelling of Shih may be off because its an anglicization. But I am super confused about the concept of Shih in numerous works about the Chinese view of strategy and war. The different attempts to explain it that I have read are only making me more confused, sooo I turned to Reddit! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doweuhs",
"dowhzjj"
],
"text": [
"Since it's not spelled that way in pinyin so I'm not sure, but are you talking about Shi (势)? It basically means momentum in Chinese. In terms of strategy and war. It's taking a wining fight (or disadvantageous, demoralizing event for the enemy) and push for more advantage for yourself. Basically take the momentum, strike the enemy when their morale is low.",
"Here's my understanding of \"Shih\". I hope I can explain the concept plainly enough... \"Shih\", or \"勢\" can be translated as \"momentum\", \"speed\" or \"force\". In his *Art of War*, Sun Tzu mentions time and again the importance of force and speed in attacks; if you decide to attack (knowing *when* one should attack is also crucial), don't half-ass it. If you want to win, you need to move swiftly and with force. And in order to achieve that, one has to construct an organized army, and also learn how to use frontal/regular attacks (正, zheng) and surprise attacks (奇, qui) at will, Sun Tzu writes. Below is the example (and a rough and not too faithful translation) of how he explains the concept. > 激水之疾 至於漂石者 **勢**也 The water can float stones and carry them away when it flows with enough force — that is the nature of \"momentum/*Shih*/勢\" > 鷙鳥之疾 至於毀折者 節也 The birds can destroy their prey with a blow if they are swift enough — that is the nature of \"timing/*jie*/節\" > 是故善戰者 其**勢**險 其節短 People who are skilled at fighting wars are those who have strong momentum (勢) and who can swiftly seize the right timing. > **勢**如彍弩 節如發機 勢 should be like pulling the string of a crossbow with all one's might. 節 should be like releasing the arrow at the right moment."
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
78sjfq | How did Minecraft get so big? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dowdlx9",
"dowc783",
"dowdgru"
],
"text": [
"Minecraft got big due to a cult following in the early days, which bought it into the mainstream media, in which it was relentlessly praised for its child - friendliness and creative aspects. The game had a long incubation period before it blew up, in which it experienced so many brilliant updates that polished the game, assisted by its nearly infinite replayability. YouTubers sensationalised the game with kid friendly content, which earned it the reputation for being a \"kid game.\" From that point, it grew exponentially among children. The funniest side effect of this IMO is the group of OG modders and developers awkwardly conversing with children during Minecon.",
"If you were five this wouldn't need explaining lol. It's so big because it's addictive and really only limited by imagination, it allows you to create pretty much anything and you can spend weeks building something cool",
"It's actually a very complex game, with the crafting and the way you can model electronic circuits using redstone. Plenty of ways to keep yourself occupied. I've moved on to Space Engineers, which is like Minecraft but in outer space, and with much better graphics."
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78uwyv | The tendency of the public to assume guilt on accusation. | Several examples of this exist historically. Why is it that when a well-known individual is accused of a crime, but not yet convicted, the public assumes guilt? What social behaviour determines this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dowvdz1",
"dowx8bs",
"dowyb3f"
],
"text": [
"Confirmation bias plays a big part in it. Once you decide something should be a certain way, your brain likes to maintain that assumption. It will actively ignore evidence contrary to that despite it being logically sound. For example, every tends to assume politicians are corrupt. So when you see a story about a politician that is corrupt your brain files that away as proof politicians are corrupt. However, if you see one about politicians saving puppies, your brain stores it as an exception to all politicians are corrupt. It doesn't like to change it's views so much.",
"Well, watch any TV show or film about crime and it is almost always the case that the accused are clearly guilty, the heroic cops/prosecutors just have to prove it to the idiot justice system. That colors people's real life perception of those accused of crimes. Plus cops pull tricks like \"frogmarching\" suspects in handcuffs in front of the cameras to make them seem guilty.",
"Because generally people want to believe in an ordered world. There is a term for that belief but I can't quite recall it at this very moment. The desire for an ordered reality leads to the belief that bad people get punished, and good people are rewarded - a governing principle of society. This tends to have people think \"Well he must have done something to get accused in the first place.\" The idea that mistakes can happen at such a high level leaves people with a feeling of uncertainty which is generally unenjoyable. Its easier and more comfortable to think that the person deserves what happened to them, and that no mistakes are made."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
78wpsy | How did English surpass French as the "lingua franca" of the world? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doxe670",
"doxhqfj",
"dox8lzb",
"doxgonu"
],
"text": [
"The UK's international influence from trade and colonization had eclipsed that of France by the mid 19th Century. At about the same time, US influence was on the rise, especially in the New World and the Asian Pacific. Then in the early 20th Century, multimedia took off with the US in the center of it. Music and movies, and eventually radio and television started to export American English speaking culture throughout the world in an era where France has been devastated by two world wars.",
"You had an english speaking empire, that really spread the language over the world. The english empire was followed by an even more economically spread american influence. Also note that in international diplomacy french is still the language to have. One should also not forget how immensely widespread spanish or russian are or how many native speakers are chinese.",
"France's glory and continental dominance waned towards the end of the 19th century, then declined quickly after WW1. During that time, the US began to gain prominence as an international power, skyrocketing to \"superpower\" status after WWII. It was natural that English became the lingua franc (of the free world - Russian became the lingua franca of the Soviet bloc).",
"The role of uk (pax britannia) followed by US as the main superpower has already been mentioned. In addition, english was either selected or naturally becane the common language of fields like aviation and computing, which i think also helped when those fields blew up into massive aspects of life"
],
"score": [
11,
7,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
78xrce | How can Japan be so far ahead in some technological areas? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doxhrlx",
"doxi6ay",
"doxk156"
],
"text": [
"They spend more than many other countries on certain things, especially transportation infrastructure.",
"Because a large amount of the 'process' is simple organizational efficency and a willingness to A) work together as a unit to get something done instead of argue and B) think ahead and spend resources proactively instead of reactively.",
"Their actual landmass is also quite smaller. So when you think of Infrastructure, to absolutely cover their country in rail and communications, it takes a fraction of the resources it would to do this to other major countries."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
793eef | How East Indies Company was allow to act like a country | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doys1xy"
],
"text": [
"Companies have behaved like that repeatedly when governments let them get away with that. US railroad and steel companies have similar histories of land grabs, building up private armies, creating their own towns and effectively becoming their own little governments. Why were they allowed to do that? They paid some taxes, paid some bribes, but ultimately they just did it. This is partly why line of business and anti trust regulations can be so important. Our planet has witnessed too many companies motivated by greed taking too much power and effectively stealing too much money."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
797h49 | Why do pointe ballet shoes have a life span of only one or two performances? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dozukml",
"dozwqv4",
"dozwyih"
],
"text": [
"Because they are specialty shoes that have to handle enormous stresses and are only worn by a handful of people nationwide. I have no doubt that Nike could design a Ballet Shoe 900ZX1 that with super-space-future materials that could handle the stress of 20 ballets. But even selling one of them to every professional ballerina in the world they'd only sell a couple of thousand of them. No one else would buy them because they are stiff, uncomfortable shoes that are only useful in extreme situations. They would lose enormous amounts of money doing this.",
"Pointe shoes hold a dancer's entire body weight for a 2 or 3 hour performance, not including the possibly hundreds of hours of rehearsals. Also, in addition to just holding their weight in a standing position, each dance step the dancer performers bashes them against the floor repeatedly. The pointe toe itself is a wooden box, and the outside is leather and silk, so they aren't the most durable things in the first place. They also have to deal with rosin buildup. (rosin is a powder used to create friction, just as in violin bows). Edit: Rosin creates friction, not reduces it. My brain is tired.",
"It has to do with the material of the shoe having a combination of rigidity and flexibility. The toe area (the \"box\") and soul (the \"shank\") of a pointe shoe is made up of many layers of cardboard and glue. A brand new shoe is hard as a rock, and most dancers will spend time softening the shoe (aka smushing it and hitting it against the ground) before they even put them on for the first time. This is so the material is soft enough to mold to their feet. The shoe still has to be hard enough to support their foot though. A dancer isn't actually putting all her weight on her toes, a lot of her weight is supported by the rest of their foot, which is sort of squeezed and held up by the hard sides of the shoe. So basically, because the shoe is hard, but still \"soft\", and dancers put 8 hr a day of stress on the shoes, they break down quickly to the point of not supporting the foot anymore. Theoretically Nike could come out with PointeShoe3000 that would be hard enough to last, but I don't think it would be very comfortable. Plus artists are very traditionalist, so we like to stick to the old glue and cardboard even if there could be better materials designed."
],
"score": [
21,
17,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
799brh | Why does German use the same pronoun ("sie") to indicate "she," "they," and "You?" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp074ea",
"dp098qw"
],
"text": [
"Historical courtesy. You're assuming that you are so far below the person that you are speaking to that you are not worthy of addressing them directly, so you refer to them in the third person, and of course plural as they are valued more than a single person. So, instead of asking \"What do you want?\" you actually ask \"What do they want?\"",
"Languages develop not by the logical process of people deliberately drawing up a series of nicely logical grammar rules, but by a natural process of evolution. Basically, things tend to develop through a series of steps each of which follows on from the last, but that doesn't mean they make logical sense. At some point very early on in the history of the German language, about 1,000 years ago it was at the stage linguists now call \"Old High German\". At that point, the third-person plural pronouns, like their singular equivalents, were different depending for different grammatical genders. Here they are: | singular | plural --|--|-- **masculine** | her [\"he\"] | sie [\"they\"] **feminine** | sī [\"she\"] | siu [\"they\"] **neuter** | iz [\"it\"] | sio [\"they\"] Over time, the feminine form acquired an extra vowel to become \"siu\", while the plural forms (already very similar) started to converge. By the time you get to Middle High German, spoken from the 11th to the 14th centuries, the table looked more like this: | singular | plural --|--|-- **masculine** | er | sie **feminine** | siu | sie **neuter** | ez | sie (There's a lot here not shown on these tables, as these forms were changing all the time, and there were also differences between dialects. This is seriously ELI5ing it, so any experts in the development of the Germanic languages will be wincing right now. But this is enough to illustrate the basic point.) So it's essentially coincidence that those two forms ended up the same. The use of \"Sie\" -- note the capitalization! -- to mean \"you\" is a very recent phenomenon, dating back only as far as about the 17th century. Before then, the convention was to use the plural form of \"sie\" meaning \"you\", which was \"ihr\", when speaking to somebody of particularly high status: if it was a person you might have said \"sire\" to in English, you would say \"ihr\" in German. (This is the reason, by the way, in the fantasy genre, people will not use \"Sie\" when talking to, for example, kings or wizards, but \"Ihr\". Students learning German who also happen to be gamers sometimes switch their games to German to help them learn, and are then baffled by the use of \"Ihr\" instead of \"Sie\".) The use of \"Sie\" came about simply as a way of not directly saying \"you\", as that became to be seen as a little rude. There are two aspects of this: First, there's the use of the third person. We occasionally do this in English, although in our egalitarian times it's much rarer now. We might say to a king, for example, \"Your Majesty *is* looking well this morning\" instead of \"You *are* looking well...\" This is also the origin of the Spanish \"usted\": that's a contraction of \"vuestra merced\" which can be translated as \"your grace\". Also see [this comedy sketch]( URL_0 ). Second, there's the use of the \"pluralis majestatis\". This is when the plural form is used when referring to royalty, also known as the \"Royal 'We'\". In point of fact, when Queen Victoria famously said, \"We are not amused,\" she was likely literally meaning \"we\" to mean \"I and my ladies-in-waiting\", but the pluralis majestatis is nevertheless well-established: it explains the old use of \"Ihr\" for the polite form, and the equivalents in other languages: \"vous\" in French and \"vy\" in Russian for example -- both the plural forms of \"tu\" and \"ty\" respectively. The pluralis majestatis became extended: originally applying only to royalty, it came to be used as a polite form of address for everybody. English has taken this to the very extreme, and has lost its original singular form \"thou\", leaving us with only the plural form \"you\". If you take the polite third-person together with the polite plural, you get the third-person plural, \"they\". And that's what modern German now uses as the plural form of address, but capitalized. EDIT: Terminological correction"
],
"score": [
9,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FxhUA0SKM"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79c6r7 | What is film noir and more specifically what is neo-noir? | How are movies like The Matrix and Chinatown both considered neo-noir?? They seem to be so vastly different. Other examples are LA Confidential and Blade Runner. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp0tn7l",
"dp17r2h",
"dp0tfjp",
"dp1ddrm",
"dp1ekjf",
"dp1da8w"
],
"text": [
"Film noir is a genre of movies from the 1940's and 1950's. These movies were pessimistic, gritty, and dark (noir is French for dark). The characters, even the protagonists, were often corrupt in some form, such as being alcoholics, lonely, or depressed. Common characters were corrupt policemen and corrupt politicians. The plot was often crime based, such as police or a private investigator trying to solve a crime. The protagonist would often fail to accomplish his goals during the movies, sometimes thwarted by a femme fatale, or by a friend he trusted. The cinematography would be dark and menacing, for example, a dark and smoky alley in a big but empty city. Movies like *Double Indemnity* and the *Malatese Falcon* are examples of film noir. Neo-noir is a modern recreation of those movies. It follows the same theme is a noir film, but was made after the 1950's. Movies like *Chinatown* and *LA Confidential* are set in the time period of noir films (the 30's, 40's, and 50s), but were made outside of that time period. *Blade Runner* has the theme of a noir film, but set in the future. Other example is *Who framed Roger Rabbit*, which is a noir film set in the 50's, but has cartoon characters. In short, if a movie has dark cinematography, corrupt protagonists, an unsolvable mystery or conflict, and if the villains wins or at least force to the \"good guys\" to do bad things, then it is noir.",
"In the 1930s, the Motion Picture Association of America introduced the Hays Code, self-imposed standards of decency. They were fairly strict, not just in terms of thing like nudity, vulgar language or violence. There was a whole list of things like ridicule of the clergy, sympathy for criminals, and miscegenation, that movies were not allowed to show. The good guys were supposed to be morally upstanding, the bad guys were supposed to twirl their mustaches and tie damsels to railroad tracks, and at the end, good triumphs over evil. Film noir in many ways was a revolt against this, pushing those boundaries as far as they could go. The protagonist is flawed and morally ambiguous, the villains are often sympathetic, and sometimes it is hard to tell between the two. As the movie progresses, dark secrets are revealed and at the end of the movie, there are not victors, only survivors. Visually, they tend to have a dark and gritty sense of realism. Lots of shadows, meetings in grimy back alloy or smoky backrooms of seedy nightclubs. They men are hardboiled drinkers prone to violence and the women are venomous seductresses with hidden agendas, all living in an imperfect world with few happy endings. Even though the Hays code is long gone, many movies have noir elements. Any plot driven movie with flawed central character search for the truth on the wrong side of the tracks can be considered noir. *Bladerunner* certain qualifies, as do a lot of the Coen brother's movies. I would not consider *The Matrix* to be noir, it was too special effect driven, too fantastic, and the central character doesn't really have a dark side.",
"Noir is genre that usually focuses on crime, usually murder motivated by revenge and/or greed. The plots are often hard to follow and involve flashbacks, unreliable narrators, false leads, and other such things. The endings are usually bittersweet at best. The main character is often male, and either somebody investigating the central crime, or has been falsely accused of it. Very rarely will they have actually committed it, and in the cases where they have, they usually don't know it until late in the movie. The main character is also generally not a \"good guy\" in the traditional sense of the word. Female characters are usually either equally cynical femme fatales, or young and naive. Cops and politicians (excluding the main character, if they are either) are usually corrupt and may even be involved in the crime. The villain is often someone of authority, or somebody very close to the victim; jealous husbands are quite common, for example. Stylistically, they're usually very visually dark a few bright objects to contrast. A lot of the movie will take place at night, there are lots of very obvious shadows, odd camera angles, etc. They were most popular back in the black and white film days, but even color ones will use predominantly dark colors accentuated with a few bright ones here and there. Like any genre, these are more trends than hard rules that all film noir has to follow. Neo-noir is a bit harder to pin down, it mostly seems to refer to modern films that borrow themes and styles from film noir. So in that sense, it's less of a genre and more of a way to describe movies that borrow use some elements of noir. Blade Runner is a great example: **BLADE RUNNER SPOILERS** The male lead is a cynical cop investigating a crime (not technically murder but murder is involved) that ends up being all about revenge. Female lead is a femme fatale, and also doesn't know she's a replicant. The story can be hard to follow at times due to involving deception and the POV character beng unaware of a lot of things. Visually, the setting is very dark, but with bright neon lights in places. There are a lot of shadows and odd camera angles. **END SPOILERS** Of course, there are other ways that these elements can be used, as well as entirely different ones, which is why many movies that can be describe as neo-noir can be wildly different. For example, The Dark Knight could be described as neo-noir for it's dark themes, focus on crime, pessimistic tone, cynical investigator main character, corrupt cops and politicians, etc. Yet it's a very different movie from Blade Runner.",
"There's always a lot of debate on what noir is. So much so that it comes up on every noir panel at every mystery con. It's reached the point where it's kind of a joke and people roll their eyes and say things like, \"French for black.\" I've had my view of it challenged and changed and that's affected my writing and what I focus on. So I think it's an important question. Chris Holm, an excellent thriller and noir author (also did a noir UF series called The Collector through Angry Robot - you should check it out, it's excellent) put it the most succinctly of anyone I've heard. \"Poor options, bad decisions, dire consequences.\" There's a difference between noir and hard-boiled that I think gets overlooked a lot. Chandler is hard-boiled, Hammett is hard-boiled (though maybe not his RED HARVEST, but I'm on the fence with that one). Thompson and Goodis are noir. Macbeth is so goddamn noir it should have its own tropes page (ambition, murder, a femme fatale, blackmail, backstabbing, guilt, everything falls apart, a violent end). Hardboiled characters are, as another author, Megan Abbott put very well, tarnished knights. They are good people in bad situations who walk through the muck and come out the other side intact. Philip Marlowe might be more cynical and jaded at the end of The Big Sleep, but he's still largely the same good person he was at the beginning. Sam Spade is rougher around the edges, darker and more morally ambiguous, but he's the same way. Hard-boiled characters operate within the seediness but remain largely untouched by it. But noir characters. They're fucked from the word go. They might survive, but they'll survive changed, probably broken. Even if they win they lose. Noir characters are doomed and they're often doomed by their own hand. Walter Neff in Double Indemnity is a perfect example. \"Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman.\" He's backed the wrong horse. And Phyllis Dietrichson, the femme fatale, who's using him, and he KNOWS he's being used and he goes along with it anyway, is just playing him. And in the end, they gun each other down. More tragic is when it's bad decisions for the right reasons and it all goes to shit, anyway. Take John Rector's THE COLD KISS about a young couple trying to escape a bad situation and run into a hitchhiker who pays them $500.00 for a ride, only to die in their backseat with a fuckton of money. They could report it, let it go, give the cops the money and walk away. But they've got a baby on the way. They're trying to make a new life. They're stuck in a motel in Nebraska in a blizzard and that money could really com in handy. But they should really do something about this corpse. You can probably guess how that turns out. The weird thing about noir, though, is how hopeful it is. It's surprisingly optimistic. Noir characters are driven by hope and optimism. I know that sounds weird, but think about it. These characters are doomed. They can't be anything BUT doomed. It's who they are. It's in their DNA. So why don't they just roll over and give up? Because they have hope. They might be screwed, they might even know they're screwed, but they can't let it go. That hope's too tenacious. r/Fantasy/comments/3a5vjm/-/csa2laj",
"Just to add in a small detail - film noir wasn't explicitly produced as a \"genre\", in the way that Hollywood studios at the time would make, say, a Western or a Musical. For Westerns and Musicals and other genres, the studios intentionally set out to make easily categorizable films that were similar in theme and style to other successful films, so that fans of that genre would go see new movies each week. Conversely, Noir was a term used originally by French critics to describe a tendency that they were noticing in American films (which began screening more frequently in European cinemas after WWII) that seemed to expand on the style and themes of French Poetic Realism in the '30s and '40s. That's why it's a lot trickier to define in explicit terms, because \"noir\" films were labelled as such after the fact, rather than intentionally produced as a distinct genre.",
"Film Noir is a movie genre featuring high contrast lighting, and morally gray characters. It almost always features tropes such as the femme fatale, the grizzled private eye, etc. The plots usually center around a detective trying to solve some sort of murder. Neo Noir is a niche genre that borrows a lot of plot elements from film noir, but the setting is usually modern day or the future, as opposed to being set in the 50s, etc."
],
"score": [
1308,
42,
30,
13,
10,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
79fyui | What exactly is the opioid crisis and why has it happened? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp1n9gr",
"dp1nhyo"
],
"text": [
"I’ll speak to this as it relates to the US, since it’s where I live, and relate to my personal experience as well. We are in the midst of the highest rate of opiate overdose deaths in a very long time. The rate in 2000 was under 5,000 OD deaths compared to 2016 it was 64,000 OD deaths. URL_0 Instead of fixing the underlying symptoms to pain doctors have been just prescribing opiates to dull the pain. This is largely due to lobbying by big pharma companies. When things got really, really bad was with the release of OxyContin. They pushed doctors to push that as their pain pill of choice, doctors wrote it, and it’s incredibly addictive. Opiates in general are very addictive, but OxyContin, Roxicodone, and Opanas were really bad. Plus they were readily available in parents medication cabinets so they were turning up all over the country in schools. The issue is that as tolerance increases, people can’t afford oxys anymore and move to heroin since it’s cheaper. The surge in opiate addicts led to an influx of heroin and synthetic street opiates and they became accessible in all socioeconomic areas. There isn’t a day that scrolling through my Facebook news feed that I don’t see an RIP status for someone that lost their battle with addiction. Source: I’m in long term recovery from what went from Percocet, to oxy, to IV heroin. Also, was a pharm tech for a few years while working on PhD in pharmacy.",
"Over the past 20 years or so, there was a push in the USA to avoid any and all pain through the use of a variety of synthetic painkillers. Through skillful marketing, pharmaceutical companies convinced doctors to prescribe these painkillers for a wide range of ailments, including many where (strong) painkillers were not traditionally employed. When patients got acclimated to one type and efficacy went down, there were other variants that could be prescribed. As a result, *more people* got prescribed *more painkillers* for *longer periods* than ever before. With the goal of avoiding all medically related discomfort, not just severe pain, the use and sale of these painkillers went through the roof. The problem arose when patients became addicted and dependent on their medication. This drove many into addiction spirals where they could not keep jobs and turned to either theft or illegal substances like heroin to feed their addiction. Culturally, many of the addicts were very news-friendly and sympathetic cases for Americans. The news had little trouble finding high school athletes who got hooked after breaking their arm in practice and eventually ended up using heroin. Similarly, there were formerly successful middle-class, middle aged Caucasians who got hooked after a relatively minor surgical procedure. This is what made it into a \"crisis\" as opposed to just being a footnote in the long-running War on Drugs in inner cities and among minority populations."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79hozx | If a child was brought up speaking and hearing two languages exactly the same amount, i.e French and English, would the child speak in both languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp206ke",
"dp1zlsb",
"dp20idn"
],
"text": [
"Absolutely he/she does. I know a small child who lives in England, one parent is Italian and the other is Spanish. He is 4 years old and fluently trilingual",
"Generally, yes. The thing is a person rarely hears two languages perfectly evenly. Usually it's an area that speaks X with a parent or two that speak Y. Maybe you grow up hearing both, but when you start to make friends and socialize in the area, the dominant languages gets more exposure. But this is how e.g. Hispanic-American children whose parents speaks Spanish end up bilingual.",
"This is slightly hypothetical since it's pretty much impossible to have both languages \"exactly\" the same amount. But yes, children will speak *all* the languages they're exposed to (not just two). They will eventually learn to separate them by context. Learning languages is instinctual in humans; our brains are literally hardwired to do so. Sadly that part of the brain \"solidifies\" at a fairly early age."
],
"score": [
8,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79la5m | why are Day of the Dead and Halloween around the exact same day when one comes from the Celts of Europe and the other comes from the Aztecs of Mexico, with seemingly no connection between the cultures? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp2vegk"
],
"text": [
"Dia de los Muertos used to be in early summer. It was actually *moved* to coincide with Halloween."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79mpon | Why is black face considered racist? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp360sq",
"dp361gy",
"dp3asgo",
"dp3d0jj"
],
"text": [
"It was used by comedians back in the day to make fun of the \"black dumb savage\" as a comedy act. And it would root itself as something negative since it was used like that in the past",
"> Can someone please explain the connotations behind it? It has more to do with the history than anything else. Once upon a time in the US, it was considered normal for actors to put on black face. The problem is, this was usually done to be \"stereotypically black.\" In other words, nobody was putting on black face to seriously play the role of a black person. They were doing it to act outlandish and exaggerate black facial features/behaviors. Nowadays it's considered \"racist\" because there's an assumption that whatever you're doing requiring black face wouldn't work without it, implying that it is probably a play on stereotypes.",
"Historically speaking, black face was used in old \"minstrel shows\", portraying black people as stupid, lazy, animalistic. Its similar to making \"slant eyes\" and talking in a stereotypical Chinese accent.",
"The history is certainly part of it as mentioned. But the other piece is cultural appropriation and characterization. It is possible to dress as someone of another race/ethnicity without being offensive, but to do so would require a serious understanding of that culture and its people, something those who are putting on a costume typically lack. Costumes are just that, you assume the broad elements of someone or something (ie if my costume is a robot, I don't actually become a robot, I just dress up like what I think a robot looks like). Those broad elements are almost always, and necessarily based on stereotypes. I assume robots have flashing lights and make beeping noises. Do all robots? Probably not but I'm trying to make people understand that I'm dressing as a robot so I create a caricature of one. That's not offensive when I dress as a robot, but you can probably understand how it would be when you dress up as another ethnicity."
],
"score": [
94,
38,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79nl8s | What started the trend of white collar/office jobs starting at 9 versus blue collar jobs starting at 7? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp3ccu8"
],
"text": [
"7:00 to 3:30. (First Shift) 3:00 to 11:30. (Second Shift) 11:00 to 7:30. (3rd Shift) That's a standard 3 shift rotation for a 24 hour factory or shop. Each shift works 8 hours, gets a half hour lunch, and overlaps with the next shift by 30 minutes. 9 to 5 is 8 hours with a paid lunch, though I don't know of anyone that actually works those hours, everywhere I know of works 8 to 5 or 8:30 to 5:00 with half an hour or an hour unpaid lunch. That's not just white collar, but any office job. Then retail and service industry job hours are usually a weird patchwork as the manager tries to play tetris to make sure every time is covered with the right amount of people and nobody gets too many hours. Because the business is open for more than 8 to 5 hours but isn't open 24 hours and there tend to be a lot more part time workers in those industries than in factory-type or office jobs. But these are probably just the median hours. Companies set hours to whatever they need. I've worked office jobs in IT that had to support 24 hour operations with hours like 6pm to 6am (3 days on, 4 days off one week, then 4 on 3 off the next week), 6 am to 4 pm 4 days a week, 9am to 6 pm (because the main, 8 to 5 office, was in another time zone), etc."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79r7zl | Why do we perceive someone typing in all caps as yelling? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp45ljv",
"dp47a8q"
],
"text": [
"As opposed to I'M ACTUALLY WHISPERING I'M JUST REALLY TALL?",
"It's conditioning. Typing in all caps to signify yelling is new. Someone had to tell you at one point that it was yelling, and not just lazy typing or a stuck caps lock."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
79w1si | When did middle names become a thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp55xw7",
"dp56ukg"
],
"text": [
"In the Middle Ages, people were starting to use surnames (your family/household name) in addition to their first names, but there were traditions to name people after religious figures. So rather than having to choose one or the other, they just stuck the name between the first and the last name.",
"In the early 1900’s, at least in America. It was to further identify people because our population was growing quickly and names were being mixed up in official orders such as taxes. Most people born in the last few years of the 19th century weren’t so happy about it, so most people simply placed a letter in place of a middle name."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7a1pzl | Bureaucracy. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp6gsfe",
"dp6gqzs"
],
"text": [
"The word *bureaucracy* literally means \"rule by desks\" or \"rule by offices\" etymologically. It refers to the body of government officials appointed to run a specific government institution. All the people who run the DMV, for instance, are part of the bureaucracy of the local Department of Transportation. But the word \"bureaucracy\" carries a connotation of inflexibility and especially inefficiency, because it's associated with government institutions that are not particularly flexible or efficient. Terms often used in conjunction with \"bureaucracy\" are \"red tape\" - basically, time-consuming procedures that don't serve any real useful purpose - and \"overhead\" - time and money wasted on such procedures. Any government institution needs rules and regulations, but often too much time and money is directed towards making sure the regulations are being followed to the letter, by way of lots of documentation and paper trails, at the expense of the actual purpose of the institution. Paper forms get redirected from person to person to person - perhaps because the first person didn't have the knowledge or authority to deal with it, and passed it on to someone who *could* deal with it but just didn't want to, and passed it on to someone else... and so forth - without ever being filled out, which wastes time. And if the rules and regulations state that a task cannot be done until that form is filled out, but it keeps not getting filled out, then a task which might take 5 minutes to complete ends up taking days. This hinders the institution's ability to get any meaningful work done, with an emphasis instead on paperwork for paperwork's sake, and such stringent compliance to rules that extenuating circumstances often get tossed to the side. And at the end of the day, the stereotypical bureaucrat is a salaried worker whose job is to enforce the rules, no matter how pointless. The stereotypical bureaucrat is, often as a consequence of the job, lazy and indifferent. I know that was all a little abstract, but basically **TL;DR your friends calling you a bureaucrat implies that you waste an inordinate amount of time in obedience to pointless rules for pointless rules' sake.**",
"It's a mid-level government employee who has no power to make rules but must simply follow the rules handed down to them. It generally involves filling out lots of paperwork to get anything done."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7a2f2u | Why is it more socially acceptable for a girl to reject a guy based on height than it is for a guy to reject a girl based on weight? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp6kg7z",
"dp6luwy"
],
"text": [
"it isn't but they are both socially acceptable. you are allowed to not be attracted to someone, it all depends on how you frame it when you justify your reason. Wording is everything these days",
"Adult here, expecting downvotes for this but... If by \"socially acceptable\" you mean 'how people judge you for doing it', it's actually the other way around when you get a bit older. A person has more control over their body WEIGHT than they do over their body HEIGHT. Further, obese people are generally less healthy than people of small stature and, depending on their weight, may not be able to do a lot of physical things. So from a rational perspective, all other things being equal, a short but fit man makes a better long term adult choice for a partner than a morbidly obese woman would. And that can weigh into how mature outsiders view their friends' potential relationships, or how those friends decide on those relationships in the first place."
],
"score": [
21,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7a659h | What exactly makes the "lifestyle" in Scandinavian countries considered so great compared to others? Is this kind of living sustainable or applicable on a larger scale? Why hasn't its implementation quickly taken off in other countries if its so good? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp89vsv",
"dp7em9v"
],
"text": [
"This is by all means not all of the explanation. But it’s part of it. The United States. A country made up of immigrants. (Well. Mostly immigrants.) Often immigrants from countries in Scandinavia. Because, you know, Scandinavia wasn’t so great when they left. And some people left because the governments literally stalked them and did all kinds of really nasty things to them. Things we Scandinavians today take pride in not doing, but were standard then. So. You move across the world. To get away from an oppressive government. You and thousands of others being harassed by the government and your peers for the sake of your religion. (Yeah. I know. We are Christian. On paper. But the state church was the only authorised religion for a very long time.) What happens when a country gets populated by a lot of people who sincerely are upset with governments? Well. They will grow a strong disbelief in governments. Despise them. Try to limit the governments impact on society. Then look at the Scandinavian counties again. You have to be a special kind of idiot when you run a country that people escape from if you don’t try to do something. And a lot has been done. If people escape poverty, you’ll have to do something about poverty. If people escape oppression, you’ll have to do something about that. And so on. Until people start trusting the government to have their back. I’m from Sweden. We score pretty good on least-corrupt-countries indexes. We pay, comparably, a lot of taxes. The social welfare system is pretty good. Most really important society functions are directly or indirectly ran by a taxing entity. There are some obvious problems with high taxes (well, people don’t want to pay them. Duh) and sometimes tax money is spent on the wrong things. But most of the time, it works. Because the machinery has been in motion for years. Decades. Sometimes centuries. Often for so long that no one alive remembers a time when it wasn’t like this. Changing a country that has a “flawed” system means that every single piece of decision the country has made on foreign policy, border control, birth rates, health care, road construction, airports, day care, taxation, workplace legislation and land ownership including crop growing and animal farming will have to be redone from scratch. You won’t redo it all from the ground up unless the country has perished. Unless it definitely ain’t working for anyone. Unless there is a reason for a fresh start. A fresh start that everyone wants. Or at least almost everyone. The sustainability thing runs on a lot of levels at the same time, but well. We have long distances. So we have a lot of issues with transport emissions. And we need to heat our houses about 6 months every year, so we produce and consume a lot of energy. Sometimes with very questionable combustion processes. We have a large portion of emissions free power production, but it’s not as if a hydro plant doesn’t have other issues. The high availability of medium sized rivers that you could extract cheap electricity from is a huge part of why we have any kind of successful export industry. The industry has kept us employed. Well paid. Fed. Healthy. Increasingly, over time. The fact that other countries have bought our products is why we are not just farmers still. We have not exactly parasited on others success, but we need the rest of the world. When you are transforming a country of farmers to a country of industrial workers you need skilled work force. If you don’t have it domestically, you’ll have to bring people in from other countries. So we don’t really feel okay with stopping immigration. Feeling we should probably be grateful they want to come to our damn small and cold country and help us. And at the same time we need educated workers. So the government is kind of keen on education. And if you educate your tax payers with the intention that they should land jobs and start paying taxes back, it kind of makes sense to not let the industry kill your workers. Because they can’t repay taxes then. Which is not necessarily the only reason why unions are strong in Sweden, but it contributes to why they are accepted. Yeah. I think my point is that we were at the bottom and dragged ourselves up. We decided that this was the direction that was up, and it’s far to late to reconsider now.",
"Lots of essays have been written about the topic, but a few basic things - Large natural wealth per capita. Norway/Sweden/Finland are large countries with small populations, and so the natural wealth of their land and surrounding waters significantly raises all per-capita metrics, especially with Norway striking oil. - Near-complete cultural and social unity, due to homogeneity. This precludes a lot of the social problems present in more diverse cultures when it comes to resource distribution. - Cultural preference towards thrift and savings, especially on a state level. The Norwegians in particular put all their oil money into a sovereign wealth fund for future generations, which is by now the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. This stems from Lutheran principles, mostly. These circumstances are very difficult to replicate elsewhere in the world."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7a7jmi | Why is the Greek language used in science so much? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp7sb8o",
"dp7qn0h",
"dp7ttcb"
],
"text": [
"Most of what we consider 'Science' was developed in the European university system post-Renaissance. Since such universities were almost always affiliated with the Church, they created a common course of study that included Latin and Greek. As a result, while scientists in different nations spoke different native languages, they *all* had familiarity with Latin (and, to a lesser extent, Greek). The Greek *letters* in particularly came to be used for many mathematical formulas because they were distinct from the standard alphabet, but still recognizable.",
"The Greeks in antiquity did a *lot* of science, and we kept a lot of their words for things. I've said more than once in my anatomy class that “if it's not Latin, it's Greek.” To stay on topic, Greek has a lot more words in biology and physics (including those words), and Latin is more for chemical symbols and engineering.",
"Greek (and Latin, which occupies a very similar position) isn't directly used in science, but Greek and Latin words are very frequently mashed together to form technical (from Greek techn-: art, skill, craft) terms. Prior to English becoming the main language of science, Greek and Latin were used because those languages were spoken and read by nearly all highly educated Europeans regardless of their national origin. For example, Newton and Linnaeus wrote in Latin. These languages also had a reputation thanks to their connection to Classical writers whose thoughts formed the starting point for education at the time. As people stopped writing in Latin and Greek they carried over the use of terms and even expanded it. A couple contributing factors may be at play. Less nobly, it acts as a sort of gatekeeping. You have to be educated to know the meanings. Every industry has a tendency toward jargon. But there's another more practical and probably more important reason, which is that it allows greater precision. Words in English or another language already have a meaning in that language. Roots may have multiple meanings or senses to a native speaker that may shift with time. But scientific roots in Greek or Latin have defined meanings that don't shift or change. And they can also be repurposed from their original meanings and used for specific scientific meanings. For example, haploid just comes from the Greek word for single. But scientifically Haploid doesn't mean \"single\" it means \"having a single set of chromosomes\". If we tried to call cells \"single cells\" in English it would be confusing because \"single cells\" also means \"there's just one cell\". But we can use haploid for a specific meaning of the word \"single\" that strips out the ambiguity and keeps us from having to explain what we mean exactly (as long as we know what haploid means anyway). Edit: another great example of how this works is with words surrounding \"knowledge\". The very word \"science\" comes from a Latin word scientia, which simply means \"knowledge.\" But of course we use it to mean a specific _type_ of knowledge. The _Greek_ root for knowledge is _gnos_, from which we derive things like \"Diagnosis\" and \"Cognition\"...other specific terms related to knowledge. So having another language of roots to draw on can really help you come up with specific terms for more specific versions of things your language already has a word for."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7a7qux | Operation Gladio | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp7s5jb"
],
"text": [
"\"Gladio\" was the code name for the NATO stay-behind operational plan in Italy during the Cold War. It involved intelligence, special forces, and regular army troops from Italy and other NATO members who, in the event of a successful Warsaw Pact invasion, would stay and fight an insurgent/resistance campaign. Other NATO and neutral countries had similar plans. There is a lot of speculation about the involvement of various intelligence agencies (most notably the CIA) and the possible involvement of criminal groups. However as the details of the plan(s) are still secret, there is very little reliable information."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7a99c5 | Why do places care about my being Hispanic/Latino or not when they request demographic info? What is that particular bit helping to discern? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp85v28"
],
"text": [
"Because people from Latin America can fit into any of the racial categories that we recognize in American society, the Census Bureau and all other government agencies that collect demographic data code for race and \"ethnicity\" (which for their purposes only means Hispanic/Latino vs. Non-Hispanic/Latino) as separate categories. Many non-government entities adopt this same classification scheme as well, so that they can use that data in their interactions with the government (e.g. applying for federal grants that help nonprofits that help minorities), or as a standard that allows their data to be compared to other people's data."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7abi3v | Why is the interior of the pyramids at Giza still a mystery? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp8l4qg",
"dp8l5g7"
],
"text": [
"First; getting permission from the Egyptian government to even study the pyramids is a huge process, and they turn most people down. Second; the rules regarding what you can and can't do in the pursuit of studying the pyramids are also very strict. You can't expose them to any kind of radiation, for example, or cause damage to them in any way. This means we have to use roundabout methods to study them. Last; the construction of the pyramids was not very well documented, and each pyramid needs to be studied independently. Which means even more regulation by the Egyptian government. You might be allowed to study one, but not another, so you can't easily compare the two.",
"When someone goes out of their way to put in fake chambers, and puts 30-tonne blocks of stone deliberately in the way of getting to the real treasure, it can be a bit daunting to get a full understanding of what's inside. Remember that burial chambers were intended to be secure *for eternity*. King Tut's tomb is so famous largely because it remained inviolate for 3200+ years, and it wasn't until just under a century ago that it was discovered and looted. It's actually remarkable that we know as much about the pyramids as we already do."
],
"score": [
103,
28
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ad22t | What exactly is your role as a lawyer when you're representing someone like Saipov (who quite clearly deliberately killed a pile of people and is pleased with himself for doing so)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp8y4e7"
],
"text": [
"The lawyer's mandate here is to ensure that the government doesn't break its own rules -- for example, introducing evidence obtained illegally, or accusing the person of the wrong crime, or failing to take into account mental illness, or not holding a fair trial."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7aguth | Why do a lot of name combinations like Tom and Jerry, Rick and Morty, Ben and Jerrys sound so wrong and horrible to hear when said the other way round? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp9usep",
"dp9uve2",
"dp9vjtw"
],
"text": [
"Maybe the 1/2 syllable combo rolls off easier than 2/1 ?",
"Well, all of those name combos have a one-syllable name followed by a two-syllable name. That's probably it.",
"Because your ear is used to the sound of the name now. If Jerry demanded his name be before Ben's, you'd think Ben and Jerry's would sound weird."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7aguu2 | What's the difference between tense, mood, and case? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dp9vd8w"
],
"text": [
"Tense is the time of the action, past, future, happening right now. The tenses give a sense of when an action was completed, or if we expect the action to continue into the foreseeable future. It puts the verbs into a context of when. Mood adds or removes a certain certainty or uncertainty or more commonly, obligation. We use modal verbs to add a stronger sense of obligation (must, have to) or soften a statement to suggestion (should). We don't really moods in English because we use these modal verbs, if you study Italian then you'll see mood a lot use with different verbs - \"essere\", to be, changes to \"sia\", for example, the actual verb \"to be\" changes the mood of the sentence, in English we add \"should\" and leave the next verb alone \"he should leave\". Cases you'll see a lot in German, which is when the pronoun changes depending on who is doing what to whom. We have them in English too, but not to a greater degree as in German. For example, you don't say \"I'll give the bucket to he\", you say \"I'll give the bucket to him\". The possessive is \"his bucket\" - the cases that we have in English mean that you must change \"he\" to \"him\" and \"he\" to \"his\" depending on who is doing what to what/with what object. He is 'owning' his bucket\". This is my understanding of it, at least, having taught English for 10 years and studied Italian, German and French."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7aisa9 | Why do online recipes include such long and rambling personal stories? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpa8uj9",
"dpaa6nj"
],
"text": [
"A lot of freelance bloggers get paid per number of words that they write. I'm sure one or a few people started with the anecdotes before their recipes and it snowballed from there. It's common with other hobbies and crafts too, where you'll see similar things.",
"A) Google ranks unique content higher. Adding a personal story makes your recipe more likely to get higher results in search rankings. B) They're **bloggers**. The site is a blog, where you're supposed to talk about stuff. Having interesting content is more likely to get you subscribers who come back for *every post*, rather than the people"
],
"score": [
20,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7aqu2u | How is it Kevin Stacey's career has been ruined in a matter of days but we're all just supposed to accept Chris Brown. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpc2bfl"
],
"text": [
"I don’t think there’s anything to explain. Sometimes we as humans are just hypocrites. Why is Bill Clinton given a pass on all the allegations against him? Why do people follow some bits of the bible and reject the bits they don’t like? Humans are strange."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7au0yi | What does the Kantian phrase 'end in itself' mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpct4y1"
],
"text": [
"That's not just a Kantian phrase, but it means exactly what it says. End in this context means purpose or cause. It is an end goal in it's own right. It's not a step to some other goal (means to an end). Art as a hobby is often viewed as an end, something people do because they derive enjoyment from it with no goal beyond that. Art as a job could be viewed as a *means* to an end. The end goal is to make money, art is how that is achieved."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7avd3y | Why is Bob Dylan regarded as one of the most influential artists? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpd4plw"
],
"text": [
"Before Dylan and the scene he was associated with, music was sharply divided into generic pop music and much more obscure artistic music. In pop, the usual way of doing things was similar to what it is now: You had a face or a group of faces who would perform material written by a studio hack, or else bought/stolen from an original songwriter and then watered down for general audiences. The artistic musicians, who often wrote their own material, were generally poor and obscure and wandered around to clubs for pocket change. If a studio liked something they made, they didn't have much choice but to sell it - they were not usually considered bankable as stars themselves. Dylan broke that mold. He looked like a bum and had a bizarre, nasal voice, but he sang his own highly artistic, distinctive songs and managed to become famous based on their quality. He wasn't the only one, but he was early and prolific, and became the standard of the singer-songwriter of the '60s. A lot of his songs were covered by other famous artists of the time and became iconic - e.g., \"All Along The Watchtower.\" He was also highly influential in bringing together folk and rock music, creating the distinctively passionate sound of the era. The song \"Like A Rolling Stone\" is considered a watershed in the evolution of music."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7aw80c | The Saudi Arabian royalty | The recent news of all the arrests in Saudi Arabia got me wondering about how the royal system in Saudi Arabia works. Is it a strict monarchy (I assume there is a heavy religious element involved)? Were the four (so far) princes arrested brothers? Cousins? Does "prince" mean the same thing in the east as it does in the west? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpdqh36"
],
"text": [
"Saudi Arabian royalty are the descendants of [King Abdulaziz 'Ibn Saud']( URL_1 ). The country actually takes its name from this man's family, and the geographical area. [House of Saud]( URL_2 ), Saudi, Arabian Peninsula, Arabia. The country was formed in 1953 in a Treaty after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The reason Abdulaziz was chosen as King was because he was already a power house of the area at the time, specifically he was King of Nejd and Hejaz, which were areas in the Arabian Peninsula. > Is it a strict monarchy (I assume there is a heavy religious element involved)? Moreso than most other Monarchies. The term is *Absolute* Monarchy, which means the King has ultimate authority and his country is, functionally, his personal property. > Were the four (so far) princes arrested brothers? Cousins? Does \"prince\" mean the same thing in the east as it does in the west? I'm not sure the exact lineage of the 4 arrested, but each of them would have been direct (male-to-male) descendants of the kings of Saudi Arabia. I believe they'd each of been sons of a king, rather than grandsons. This puts them pretty high up on the pecking order in Saudi Arabia. Other useful links: URL_3 URL_0"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prince_of_Saudi_Arabia",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Saudi_Arabian_throne"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7azvgn | Why do fathers have to pay child support for an unplanned pregnancy if the mother doesn't wish to abort; couldn't the father be allowed to pay the price of an abortion of that state and then no longer be held responsible? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpe383i"
],
"text": [
"Because the child support payments aren't about what's \"fair\" to the parents. The courts side *with the child*, so the child *always* gets the most out of it as reasonably possible. If a woman raped a man and had his child, he would still potentially be required to pay child support, if his earnings were higher than the woman's and he could afford to make such payments, for the sake of the child."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7b5car | why are night scenes represented in blue tones on movies and comics? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpfd749",
"dpfc8rf",
"dpfczr2",
"dpffkok"
],
"text": [
"This may not be the right answer for today's films, but if you look at older films such as the 60s and into the 70s, night time shots were shot in the daytime with heavy lens filters that made it appear blue, but night-timey. Lighting/film back then were different and it was hard to effectively light night shots, so they relied on lens tricks. If you look at some of the James Bonds from the 60s/70s, you can really see it.",
"It's more aesthetically pleasing, and makes the frame look more striking than a plain black background.",
"Depending on the film, \"cool colors (blue, green, violet) tend to suggest tranquility, aloofness, and serenity\" (Giannetti, 23). Color in films/comics is very interesting because \"psychologists have discovered that most people actively attempt to interpret the lines of a composition, but they tend to accept color passively, permitting it to suggest moods rather than objects\" (23). In other words, we constantly try to predict what the character is going to say or do but we never think twice about the color in a scene, rather we accept it at face value. If warm colors were used without it suggesting that it's day time, it could inadvertently suggest that there's some sort of sexual contact, hostility, violence etc. between characters which could contradict the scene. Source: URL_0 Edit1: Page 23 if you're interested how color is used in films and the same PROBABLY applies to comics.",
"you can’t see black on black, but black on a monochromatic blue background with some other color highlights does well at catching the eye."
],
"score": [
11,
10,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://nbrdesignstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/UNDERSTANDING-MOVIES.pdf"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7b7rc9 | Why do restaurants peel every part of a shrimp except for the tails? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpfveem",
"dpfv34e",
"dpfv25u"
],
"text": [
"This is only done with larger shrimp, the smallest are completely de-shelled. There are a few reasons they do it this way though... 1st, a lot of shrimp come that way when purchased, so if the store uses previously frozen shrimp, this is the real reason. 2nd, there is some pretty icky stuff that needs to be cleaned out from under the main portion of shell, but doesn't continue under the tail. 3rd, it gives you a little handle to dip your shrimp into sauces without actually putting your hands on the meat itself.",
"Because the tail is a convenient place to grab onto with your fingers? No seriously. Ok, so apart from the shrimps sautéed in butter, shrimp cocktail, friend butterfly shrimp, you eat all of these with your fingers.",
"I believe this is because most people eat shrimp by grabbing the tails and biting into the \"body.\" It's assuming most people don't want to eat the tails as, at least in my experience, a lot of people don't. It has the added benefit of looking really nice on a plate. A little like how we eat chicken legs by holding onto the bone and biting into the meaty bit, but don't eat the bony part that we're holding."
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7bbyhp | Why is Mickey Mouse not in the public domain after all these years ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpgtlqr",
"dpguheu"
],
"text": [
"While copyrights are for a limited time, media companies, like Disney, have constantly lobbied congress to lengthen how long that time is. Disney is dead set on preventing Mickey from *ever* entering the public domain. So far, they've been successful.",
"Besides copyright, Mickey Mouse is also trademarked and that lasts forever. To be eligible for trademarking a character needs to pass a number of sniff tests of identifiability and having gained meaning outside the scope of the original work, which Mickey absolutely has. Thus the use of Mickey Mouse is not only restricted under the terms of the copyright of the works he appears in but also Disney Entertainment's trademark on him. As for why major infringement doesn't occur outside of the US? Disney is everywhere and they will sue the shit out of you no matter where you are and they have the money to make it stick."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7bdrah | Where Did The US's Idea Of Becoming Angels In The Afterlife Come From? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dph55ci"
],
"text": [
"URL_0 Apparently some theologian called Emanuel Swedenborg started it, and it has been a popular idea ever since. And this: > The Bible uses \"angel\" and \"man\" almost interchangeably when speaking about angels. If angels were a separate race, the Bible would not refer to them as men, or people. That would be like calling a horse a sheep, or a pig a donkey."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40032/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-humans-becoming-angels-after-they-die"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.