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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5ujxdh | Why are Australians sometimes stereotyped as being laidback? What is it about Australian culture that presents as 'relaxed'? | I am 100% Australian and I've been told by countless tourists that Australians are super "chilled-out". Media portrays this sometimes too. I don't understand it? What sorts of things are other countries more strict about in comparison to Australia? Is it because we have more slang? Is it about like alcohol consumption or something (I didn't think Aussie's were big drinkers?). | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddun2z7",
"ddul00s",
"dduwa9m",
"ddun2vi"
],
"text": [
"My image of a Australian is a surfer/camper/hiker outdoorsy type of person. My image comes from Steve Irwin, and the song A Land Down Under. Maybe I am getting the chill, surfer bro vibe by combining Australians with my image of Californians? I'm from Midwestern America so I associate year round sun and a close proximity to water with the feeling of summer time which is funniest time of year. Summertime is a carefree time with no school, several work holidays, time for vacation, weekend at a lake, and playing outside which isn't an option during the winter. Since Australia has this all year long maybe I would assume they have this feeling all the time. This is just my personal thought process even though it's based on assumptions. Curious what others say!",
"Americans are supposedly all fat and brits apparently all have bad teeth. There are stereotypes of any culture wherever you go",
"Australia has legally mandated *maximum* working hours, over here we have *minimum* working hours. Source: Lived in Melbourne for 2 years. Now in Singapore.",
"I think it has something to do with our literature (there isnt much, but the works that exist were very efficient in showing Australia). In historical literature, it often describes \"larikins\" as being lazy but efficient. Our image as beach lovers also has something to do with it. Beach lovers seem to have a laid back reputation."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ujzf1 | Why do actions movies have so much usage of shaky cam and jump cuts? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddumlth"
],
"text": [
"It is because action scenes are hard to film, it takes months for actors to learn how to fight and for production teams to create all of the costuming, make-up, props and sets. And usually actors don't spend a lot of time training in martial arts or gun ranges, so often they aren't very good at it. (Actors like Keanu Reeves and Jackie Chan are the exceptions, where they train for months to do certain stunts and scenes.) And to conceal actors not having the proper training to fight, the camera men shake the camera to give the illusion of more powerful hits. And the use for jump cuts is to get a sense of the actors going much faster in fight scenes than what they normally be. And also good fight scenes take ages to get perfect, one particular fight scene from The Raid took more than half a year to finish. Also sometimes large blockbusters might have secondary directors film smaller action scenes so that the filming process could be speed up, and usually these second units won't be as experienced as the actual directors doing the main action scenes."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uk5vw | Why are indoor-only shopping malls dying in the USA? | I say "indoor-only" because outside shopping malls seem to be doing just fine, and even expanding. Why are indoor malls dying? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddun64r",
"ddunuwt"
],
"text": [
"Most indoor malls depend on the very large \"anchor\" stores to pull people in. These are your Macy's, Nordstrom, and other department stores, for the most part. These stores aren't doing nearly as well with the advent of online shopping, so the foot traffic to the other stores suffer. With less foot traffic, the smaller stores start to shutter, and it becomes a cycle. Strip malls are significantly less expensive and don't depend on their anchor stores in the same way.",
"The main anchor store chains (Sears, JCPenny, Macy's, Belk, etc) aren't doing so well, and part of that can be attributed to a shift in online sales for a lot of stuff. Sears is just about dead at this point, and anchor stores dying off hurts foot traffic. A lot of specialty retail has also shifted online or outside of malls. Stores like Brookstone and Radioshack were once significant tenants of shopping malls, catering to a niche in a small corner of a mall, but have since declared bankruptcy and shrunken/closed operations. Clothing alone is now the major driving factor for many shopping malls, and that isn't enough to drawn in many people. Oh, and lets not forget that a handful of teenage-oriented clothing retailers have imploded recently, which is not a good sign."
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uky7b | what is the difference between dominions, protectorates, colonies, territories, and mandates? | I'm curious about the difference between these things. I'm also wondering about how empires formed relationships with the people who came under their administration (other than by pure military conquest). | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dduudvk"
],
"text": [
"So, it's important to note that these are all subjective terms that imperial regimes impose on territory they control, and some - Dominions and Mandates in particular - may be specific to a particular era or empire. Ultimately, what an empire called its possessions reflected how they wanted their imperial rule to be perceived, not what it was actually like. * **Colonies** are any settlement established by a society that is distant or disconnected from their main territory. This is easily the oldest term in this list (with the exception of territory, which is very broad) - Ancient Greeks formed colonial settlements throughout the Mediterranean world, which would become the forerunners of more expansive Roman colonization centuries later. * **Protectorates** are states which enjoy some degree of independence (usually in domestic matters) but are \"protected by\" a larger imperial power. Often times this protection is provided whether the locals want it or not, and is used to justify the prohibition of a native military. * **Dominions** are generally a very specific category that refers to colonies of the British Empire which were populated primarily by European settlers (like Australia and Canada), rather than maintaining a native majority ruled over by a small British ruling class (like Rhodesia and India). Generally, colonies started becoming dominions - and enjoying some political independence from London - around the mid-to-late 19th century. The term is largely obsolete, and has been replaced by the concept of \"Commonwealth realms\"; members of the Commonwealth of Nations that consider Elizabeth II to be their head of state (but have completely independent governments). Most former Dominions have retained strong cultural and diplomatic ties to the modern United Kingdom, whereas other former British possessions have come to assert their pre-colonial identities more often than not. * **Mandates** are also an extremely specific term that refers almost exclusively to *League of Nations mandates*. The League of Nations, the dysfunctional predecessor to the United Nations, was tasked with bringing order to regions whose former imperial owners - in most cases, the Ottoman Empire in particular, as well as Germany's African possessions - had collapsed during World War 1. While the idea of self-determination was becoming popular, imperial politics were still very powerful in the LoN (the United States, one of the few western voices against European imperialism, was not a member), and ultimately these regions were given to Britain and France for safekeeping until they could form their own governments at some point in the future - effectively, they remained colonies but switched owners. * **Territories** are any land over which a government in soveriegn, but in a colonial context, it usually refers to *unorganized territories* - land owned by a country which nonetheless has no official government or law enforcement. In a US context, this refers primarily to the large areas of the American West which were purchased throughout the 19th century and were slowly settled by people migrating from the east coast; once a region had enough people to form a government, it could \"request statehood\" and be admitted into the Union, ceasing to be a territory and becoming a U.S. state. Australia and Canada have adopted the term to refer to remote regions with very low populations - but which do have normal, competent governments."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uldrh | Why primary education is disproportionately a female institution? | Surely both male and female children need equality in their role models? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dduw6sp"
],
"text": [
"That's a pretty tough question to answer, and I think it also depends on the country you live in. A lot of people think that the reason there are a majority of female teachers is because society puts pressure on girls to go into fields that have a more nurturing nature like teaching, child care, and nursing/medical fields. Or it could be that, in general, women are more likely to go into fields like that because of their biology, as women are more genetically programmed for these types of things. Or maybe they just enjoy it more. It's really more of an open-ended discussion than a cut-and-dry answer."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ulyde | Why are TV shows making less episodes now per season than they did in the past? Wouldn't they make more money with more episodes? | A TV show on average would produce 25+ episodes a season. Now we'd be lucky to get 12. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddv1svb",
"ddv0910"
],
"text": [
"Because a lot of the time some shows don't have enough content per season to stretch to that amount of time. When they are able to compact it into less episodes, more resources can be put into those episodes. This leads to a better show in general. Better shows bring more viewers which can attract advertising that can make you more money. For example, compare Game of Thrones to the Flash. Both are good shows. The flash while good ends up stretching its content into \"fluff\" episodes which aren't too good. In fact you only have to watch about 7 - 8 of the 22 or so episodes of the first season to get the meaningful parts of the story. With Game of Thrones however, almost every part of every episode is meaningful. Each episode is about 50 or so minutes long and there is only 10 episodes a season.. Which one makes more money?",
"20+ episodes is often a stretch for a show that is not based on a standard formula like mystery/solution or is more character driven. I think what we are seeing is shows ending when the storytelling is over instead of being stretched to fit a standard network season."
],
"score": [
21,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5um80x | How did actors and entertainers become our most idolized in society, and when can you start to see the first display of this in human history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddv2xq8",
"ddvb6ql",
"ddv3ibh"
],
"text": [
"I would guess because they have such a broad pop culture influence that everyone can interact with. *Most* people have people they idolize more than celebrities, but those targets of praise aren't common across large groups of people, for obvious reasons. Think of the \"mile wide and an inch deep\" figure of speech. A physicist might idolize Hawking, a foreign policy expert might idolize Kissinger. But other people are more likely to simply not care.",
"> When? In the US, it was in the 1920s. Prior to that, actors were not really welcome in polite society, especially in polite Puritan society. Historically this has been true in many places, at many times. When political and/or religious troubles started actors, artists, and gypsies are the first to be rounded up. Nobody wanted to have an actor in their family. It wasn't until the movie studios got their 'star-maker machinery' up and running that people started looking *up* at actors instead of looking down at them. > How? Intentionally. A few things came together at the same time: the technology to make and show motion pictures, a generation that experienced a slight uptick in quality of life following the American Civil War and the driving of most of the pesky Native Americans and Mexicans out of the places that white people wanted to live, and the arrival of unions. Louis Mayer, the second 'M' in 'MGM', had noticed that the unionization of laborers was biting the studios in the butt, and he predicted that it wouldn't be long before actors, directors, producers, technicians, and writers were all unionized, which would ruin the sweet deal the studios had going on. Preventing that from happening would be a good thing for the studios. It would also be a good idea to raise the image of his industry, to fight that \"actors are scum\" attitude I mentioned above. So he created the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He got 36 of those actors, directors, producers, technicians, and writers together, wined and dined them, and told them that if they joined this new Academy thing they would become the elite players in the glamourous new industry of movie stardom and celebrity; or, they could grub around with the unions begging for table-scraps. All 36 signed on, in the process becoming the Founding Members of the Academy. Two years later they held the first award ceremony, hosted by Academy president Douglas Fairbanks (Robin Hood, Zorro, The Thief of Bagdad). It was a swanky private dinner, and a ceremony that lasted 15 minutes. That first ceremony is the only one that wasn't broadcast on radio or television, but Mayer made sure there were plenty of reporters on hand. After that it was all advertising. They started out broadcasting the winners on the radio months in advance, then found they could generate more buzz by not releasing the winners to the press until 11pm on the night of the ceremony. (Commercial television sets weren't found in the average home until after WWII; the first televised 'Oscars' ceremony was in 1953.) The studios found that not only was it was cheaper to fund the creation of a few superstars than it would be to pay a bunch of unionized workers slightly better wages, but by creating the *idea* of a 'celebrity' they could entice more of the general public to go to the cinema. The scheme paid for itself, many times over. Post-WWII was when the whole thing really got rolling... companies would hire famous actors to advertize their products, or give them clothes and jewelry and cars for the exposure in the press; red-carpet galas were held, with a thousand flashbulbs going off every time a limousine door opened; magazines and gossip rags were created to keep people talking about celebrities. They basically created royalty in a form that would be accepted in the US. Then, as always happens, once one entire generation had grown up accepting something future generations would assume it was *always* like that. Once the idea of movie 'stars' reached critical mass, the studios couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to.",
"Entertainment predates written records, however stories were spread by word of mouth and and certain profession storytellers. One famous today is Homer with stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey. Actors were not really famous until more recent history. The skill of acting was not very important due to the first theatre and stage play written works did not rely the performer for the story. Many time the scene would be explained while someone with a mask would act the role. Fame for actors unless known for other reasons were not known. Story telling however structured by the Greek tragedies and comedies are still famous. During the time of Shakespeare actors started being known but not respected or admired. The advent of motion picture attached fame and skill, but even that took time to mature as what we think today."
],
"score": [
11,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5umnc0 | How is the name Siobahn pronounced "Shi-vaun"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddv5pcw",
"ddv5mxx"
],
"text": [
"That's just how Gaelic is pronounced. The \"s\" is pronounced \"sh\", as it is in Sean. The \"bh\" is pronounced \"v\". Gaelic has no \"v\" in its alphabet, and uses \"bh\" to represent that sound instead.",
"It's an Irish name that in the Irish language, Gaelic, means Joan. It's pronunciation is \"different\" because it's not written in English but rather Gaelic. It's the same phonetics that make Sean pronounced \"Shawn\". Gaelic was the main language of Ireland up until the 1800s or so when English became popular for a few reasons. First was the educated of Ireland knew English from their time in England, and secondly was the realization that many Irish people would need to emigrate to another country during the great famine. Most others places spoke English and not Gaelic so the Irish commoner basically learned English by default."
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5un4lu | why is there so much mistrust in the medical community surrounding cancer treatment? | I have never heard people giving advice about an infection, or a heart attack or other medical conditions before. But what is it about cancer that generates so much controversy? Ever since an immidiate family member of mine was diagnosed with cancer, friends and family we know started talking about "big pharma" and "chemo destroy your ability to self heal". And i keep hearing about how we shouldnt trust our doctor and should use an alternative treatment instead. This range from coconut oil, essential oil, cannabis oil to powdered scorpion (?). I mean people even bring studies to show us how effective cannabis is at killing cancer cells, which is ridiculous because i read somewhere that snake venom also kill cancer cells, it doesnt mean i will go out to a bush and then bring a snake home to bite my family member (?). This is extremely frustrating so i want to know who exactly is "big pharma" and why is there so much mistrust in the medical community and so much misinformation surrounding cancer treatments? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvc0a0",
"ddvk3n2",
"ddva07h",
"ddvbgav",
"ddv9nzt"
],
"text": [
"Because the stakes are much higher. Cancers kills, even with the best available medical treatment. And often that medical treatment can be horrific, chemo, radiation, disfiguring surgery. After suffering all that, people still die anyway. There are a lot of desperate people who want to believe in alternatives. Unfortunately, there are a lot of alt-med snake oil salesmen who are more than willing to sell them that alternative. In order to do that, they have to justify why their stuff works and why real doctors aren't using it. They have their standard narratives about Big Pharma and narrow-minded doctors and treating the patient instead of the disease, and use them to justify their quack treatments. So let's say your dad has aggressive lung cancer and you drop $50K on shark cartilage treatments in Mexico, and he dies anyway. Are you going to say \"Boy, I sure was foolish, skipping chemo, not getting my dad on a transplant list, and losing my life savings to a transparent con. My irresponsible actions not only deprived my dad of any chance of survival but now my kids aren't going to go to college.\" No, you are going to dig into the delusion so you don't have to believe that of you made a horrible and reckless mistake. You are going to tell lies to yourself about how much better your dad's quality of life was, and how he might have lived if Big Pharma and those greedy doctors weren't try to suppress this treatment.",
"One of the problems with cancer is that it’s not a single disease but many, described by an overarching name. However, all cancers have certain key elements in common, one of which is the ability of cancer cells to reproduce and spread out of control. Also, if you go to the doctor with a sore throat, he or she can examine you and say that it’s a virus and that you’ll recover naturally or that he or she thinks there’s a bacterial infection and that a course of antibiotics will clear it up. The doctor is nearly always right, doesn’t need the input of specialists and you get better. Cancer is completely different. Not only is it many different diseases but, apart from surgery in some cases detected early, there is no simple cure. Furthermore, treatment can’t be carried out by your family doctor and you have to see a specialist. In some cases you have to see several specialists. Treatments are very taxing on the body and cause many unpleasant side effects. In some cases, several doctors will discuss an individual patient in order to decide which treatment is best for him or her. Cancer cannot always be cured but sometimes it can be managed to enable a significantly longer life than the patient would have without treatment. Whereas bacterial diseases can be simply treated with antibiotics in most cases, cancer is treated by surgical removal of tumors, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy is many different drugs with many different side effects. However, one they have in common is greatly weakening the patient’s immune system. In an ideal world, a cancer patient should be isolated from other people as much as possible during chemotherapy to help to protect them from pathogens. Even a common cold could prove fatal, if caught at the wrong moment. At the same time as needing isolation, patients also need support from friends and family and most will appreciate company. Radiotherapy is generally very unpleasant and can cause burns and other side effects. I know less about radiotherapy than about chemotherapy and I don’t know all the risks and hazards. One thing that chemotherapy and radiotherapy have in common is that they also kill healthy cells. This is one reason why therapies are so weakening in their effects. As a generalization, these therapies are a bit like taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut because the sledgehammer is the only tool available. Scientists are working on methods to make existing chemotherapy and radiotherapy more targeted and they working on new drugs that directly target the cancer with far fewer side effects because far fewer healthy cells are damaged. Some of these drugs are beginning to reach the market. Almost all chemotherapeutic drugs are very expensive and cancer therapy is very expensive, whether it’s an organization like the NHS, private insurance or the individual paying. The costs involved shock people and barbarity of the effects of many cancer treatments encourage people to see a conspiracy where there is none. The cost of developing a new chemotherapeutic drug is very high, so generally only the largest pharmaceutical companies can afford such research. There is a tendency for pharmaceutical companies to try and charge as much as they can get but this is a natural business approach. The US has very weak negotiating methods, so the country generally pays far more than any other for drugs in general. Most other developed countries have much more sophisticated schemes for negotiating prices down. Because cancer is so unpleasant and because so many people eventually die from it, there has been a huge growth in alternative medicine, which is usually quackery trying to give people false hope, and also in complementary medicine, which is usually a genuine attempt to improve outcomes by ameliorating the worst effects of cancer treatments. The problem is that a lot of folk medicines have not been properly evaluated. This is something that really should be addressed but no one wants to fund such evaluations. Pharmaceutical companies cannot make money from these products because they’re out of patent or even pre-date the patenting system. Governments don’t want to fund these evaluations because they cost far too much money. With regard to evaluating folk medicines, not just for cancer, I think that a whole new approach is needed. I think that governments should be able to award an exclusive sales period to any pharmaceutical company willing to undertake the research. This would work very similarly to patents on new drugs but would have to have multinational support for the scheme in order for it to work. Big pharma are those massive corporations spewing drugs from their labs and manufacturing plants making a killing selling drugs. They have a ton of money to throw at lobbyists to prevent any government decisions to allow for alternative treatments if it threatens their bottom line: their fat pockets. The sentiments of these people in your family are in the right place. They want what is best for their loved one. Perhaps they have seen the destructiveness of the harsh treatments for cancer, their hearts are in the right place. Chemotherapy is brutal. It destroys any cell that can divide. Any. It is nonspecific and hits good and healthy cells and cancer cells. The side effects are incredible and it’s astonishing that this stuff is approved for use. Yes, I know, it has saved a lot of people’s lives. I'm only remarking that it is one hell of a drug. The cost of treatment for cancer is in the hundreds-of-thousands of dollars. The drug can be a huge chunk of money from all the medications. Keep in mind, it's not just chemo drugs. Patients have to take a series of other drugs to control side effects. One drug is for one side effect, but has its own side effects. Another drug is to control the side effect of the other drug. And so on. It's an unending cascade. You mention these alternatives. I know nothing about them. I've read about them,but I know nothing about them. I can assure you, you don’t run into the bush and grab a venomous snake and have it bite your loved one. There are people who have venom stored. I have no clue how you would administer the venom, and I dare not even guess. The cannabis treatment looks like it works. No studies have been thoroughly done at the scientific level as far as I know. In every literature I've read, the dose is vague, the length of treatment is vague, the type of cancer is vague. The conclusion is “It cured my son!” My friend died of cancer not long ago. Seeing him on chemo fucking sucked. He said it was worse than cancer itself. It changed him. He was taking other meds to counter the side effects of chemo. He smoked a lot of weed to counter the effects of chemo. Cancer is big money. Research is slow because if they made a cure, all that money would disappear. Look into Cancer Research Foundations. See how much of donated and fundraising dollars go into actual research. Where I am, there is “The Run for the Cure” that I was a part of. Then a report came out and it revealed the financial statements of the organization. The CEO of this “non-profit” was taking in a hundred or so thousand dollar salary. About 50–70 cents of every dollar went to administration. A sizable portion went to the CEO. And the remainder went to cancer research. Follow the money and you will find your answers.",
"Treatment for cancer has three characteristics: 1) side effects, some of which are awful; 2) success rates which are far from perfect; 3) significant numbers of patients die from the treatment. Infection doesn't have this, most of the time (don't get a multi-drug resistant infection). Also, there is a substantial belief that \"natural\" is a better approach to everything, not just among Christian Scientists. This includes people who want to give their kids Chicken Pox rather than the CP vaccine, because they can't google \"shingles\". Don't even start to get folks talking about vaccines and autism. There is a lot of mistrust of science in general, and medicine in particular, when it disagrees with deeply held beliefs. Fortunately, science it true whether your believe in it or not.",
"It basically stems from the public's fundamental lack of scientific understanding of cancer. \"Cancer\" as a category of diseases is extremely complicated and challenging to effectively treat. The pharmaceutical/medical industry has become so good at treating and eliminating other illnesses that there's just an expectation that cancer should have been cured by now. This drives the scientifically illiterate to assume the industry is hiding the cure.",
"For everything else, medicine has been able to come up with good treatments. Unfortunately, we can't do that with cancer. For a large number of reasons, which is its own ELI5, there is no way to cure cancer. This has frustrated a lot of people, and many of them mistakenly believe that the pharmaceutical companies CAN cure cancer, but choose not to (presumably to keep making money on treatment). There is no truth to that, obviously. In addition, our current treatment is brute force. It sucks, but chemo boils down to trying to kill your cancer cells before killing the rest of your cells. Unfortunately, it's the best current treatment we have available in many types of cancers."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uncve | What's the difference between BC/AD and BCE/CE? | Is it different starting years, or the same starting years and they just swapped out the religious terms to be PC, or what? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvbjdw",
"ddvbim6"
],
"text": [
"> they just swapped out the religious terms to be PC, Basically that, and because even the religious terms weren't accurate because the best guess at Jesus's birth doesn't actually line up with the system either. Making it independent of religion makes good sense.",
"BC is \"before Christ\" while BCE is \"before common era\". the two systems are numerically equivalent."
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uni24 | Why didn't the Mongols just go around the ends of the Great Wall of China? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvcx6f",
"ddvcqxt"
],
"text": [
"They actually did. That is how they conquered northern China. They went up into the Northern Desert that was assumed to be impassable and swept down into China.",
"It was a long ride to the end, and a long ride back to someplace worth raiding. The cost (in terms of food and time) was higher to go around the wall."
],
"score": [
31,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uo7dw | How does human trafficking work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvj4v0",
"ddvj09p",
"ddw48c0",
"ddw3ihu",
"ddvj6me"
],
"text": [
"Typically like this: First people are \"offered jobs\" somewhere else or \"offered to move\" to a different country. Then they fill out applications where they give up their information, often which can be traced to relatives. Typically the people doing this are handsome, friendly men or good looking, nice women. Second they are flown to the place they're supposedly working or living in, then their passports are taken from them. They are often brought to houses or buildings where they are usually given drugs to remain docile and often beaten and raped to break their willpower to escape. They are then made to work in forced labor, often connected to drugs or in the sex industry (porn, strip clubs, brothels, etc) under the threat of death or violence, they are also often told that their relatives will be harmed if they try to escape or call the police (as they have their info from previously filled applications). Another way can be like this: Refugees and immigrants are offered trips across the border or oceans in order to get away from war or bad living conditions. Unknown to them they will have to pay back in extortionate amounts, which usually ends up with them working it off in hard labor or sex work. Sometimes younger girls (12-14 years old) who have ran away from home (who may or may not be doing drugs and are troubled) are approached and offered to prostitute themselves in exchange for a cut of the money or drugs, they are often lured in by saying \"you're not a virgin so what does it change?\" and to a troubled youngster this could be really appealing. Source: Criminology and social work classes",
"It can happen multiple ways, but here is one way: Say I own a club and I want girls to dance at my club. So I have a contact in Thailand lets say, and he recruits girls to be dancers in my club. they sign a contract and I cover the cost to bring them over to where ever my club is. I keep their passports and put them to work in my club, provide shitty room and board, and take part of their pay to cover my costs of bringing them out. They basically have to work until they have paid for their way to earn their passport back. That is a pretty rough, generalized break down of one way that it can happen.",
"Lets assume you are a US citizen. If your neighbor kidnapped you and tried to hold you captive how would you get free? You could run out of the house when they weren't looking and ask for help. You could call 911 if you have access to a phone and call the police and explain the situation. You could escape and take shelter in a place you feel safe and decide what to do next. Basically you know how things work in the US, how to speak the language, how to get help if you are attacked, how the legal system works, etc. Now imagine that you are travelling over seas and in a country which has different culture and customs than yours and nobody speaks the language you speak. You don't know how to ask for help, who to call to get help, or what services are available to you to escape and seek help. You also have no money, no bank account in that country, no ID, no friends, and you likely don't know where you are, what city you're in, let alone where your countries consulate is. So even if you do manage to run out the front door screaming for help, nobody can understand you and your captor can come out, look annoyed and tell the neighbors you are mentally unstable or on drugs, or anything they want to really, and you're just another foreigner to them so they don't care, and to them your captor looks like any other normal person because they know the culture in that country and how to hide what they are. Now imagine it's not just one captor, but an entire organization of people who want to keep you captive, who restrict where you can go, who you can talk to. They don't tell you even what country you are in. They have likely gotten you addicted to heroin or drugged you repeatedly. You have to rely on them for shelter, for food, for safety. Basically you are one of the many people in the world caught up in human trafficking. That's the hollywood version. There are many different versions though. Say you get a work visa to go be a nanny in another country and you arrive to do the job you were hired for. Your employer takes your passport and threatens to have you arrested and deported. They threaten you with arrest and will fake a crime to get you thrown in jail. But you're not a captive, they just don't think you should be paid what you agreed on. If you stay you will get paid but you will work longer than you planned, and make less than you planned, and if you don't like it you have to deal with the legal troubles your employer could make for you. You have a family back home you need to support, so little by little you let your employer gain more leverage over you until you're in too deep to just walk away. This is also human trafficking just not in the sex trade. It still happens in America with undocumented immigrants being treated like indentured servants under threat of arrest and deportation, likely back to a country where they may face persecution or violence.",
"Actual prosecutor here. So far this thread discusses sophisticated international human trafficking, which is a problem. But there's a simpler, domestic market. The big issue (in the US) is a brute force combo of kidnapping and pimping. Trafficker finds 14 year old girl in Kentucky, drives her to Arizona, and makes her fuck random dudes to be able to go home. Except she never gets to go home.",
"Imagine this: Hi u/roxin411 I want to offer you an exciting opportunity to come and model internationally. When you get here i'm going to need to hold onto your passport as collateral against the loan i gave you for the flight and living expenses to get here. Unfortunately you might find that you aren't making any or enough money to pay me back and you are racking up more debt to me for rent and necessities. I'm going to be friendly and helpful at first, but over time i will manipulate you and attack you psychologically. At some point when you are mentally broken down i will move on to a much darker phase. Or I might just lock you in a box and forgo the whole hassle entirely. That is sorta the gist of it."
],
"score": [
48,
10,
7,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uojy4 | what do Buddhists believe? | All I can get from the internet is 'enlightenment' etc. But what do they actually believe in and what are their morals? Also, is there any hard evidence for the existence of Buddha? (My last post got removed cos it didn't start with ELI5) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvm0z6",
"ddvmpry",
"ddvmsdf"
],
"text": [
"Buddhism believes the following: No matter what the mind experiences, it usually reacts with craving, and craving always involves dissatisfaction. When the mind experiences something distasteful it craves to be rid of the irritation. When the mind experiences something pleasant, it craves that the pleasure will remain and will intensify. Therefore, the mind is always dissatisfied and restless. Buddha found that there was a way to exit this vicious cycle. If, when the mind experiences something pleasant or unpleasant, it simply understands things as the they are, then there is no suffering. If you experience sadness without craving that the sadness go away, you continue to feel sadness but you do not suffer from it. If you experience joy without craving that the joy linger and intensify, you continue to feel joy without losing your peace of mind. Buddha developed a set of meditation techniques that train the mind to experience reality as it is, without craving. He grounded these meditation techniques in a set of ethical rules meant to make it easier for people to focus on actual experience and avoid falling into cravings and fantasies. That is buddhism.",
"A very basic explanation of Buddhism is that every time you die you are reincarnated. But that is a bad thing because most of life is painful. This is call Samsara, the endless life or wheel of suffering. This is made clear by the Four Noble Truths. 1) Life is filled with desires. 2) Unfulfilled desires lead to suffering. 3) There can be an end to suffering. 4) The end of suffering is found by following The Eightfold Path The eightfold path is how you practice Buddhism. It is mostly about how to be mindful of your life and reach enlightenment, Nirvana, the end of suffering. After which you will no longer be reincarnated and find eternal peace. As with any religion there is much more to it than that. And there is a lot of philosophy explaining how you follow the path and what true enlightenment means. But that is a basic explanation of the basics.",
"Buddhists understand the base human condition. Humans are driven by fulfilling basic needs. Hunger, thirst, comfort, pleasure. The action is driven by an unfulfilled need. Your mind is a slave to your body's needs. In order to break these, you must acknowledge and resist the wanting. In a summary, life is suffering of lack of need. In order to stop suffering, you must stop needing."
],
"score": [
27,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uop8u | How can South Korea make it illegal for its citizens to smoke weed outside of South Korea? | EDIT: My question isn't "how can they make such a law how dare they", it's more "how is it enforceable in any way". | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvnfcj",
"ddvrqkf",
"ddvvpku"
],
"text": [
"They make a law saying they can't smoke weed outside of South Korea, and then they punish the offender upon their return. FWIW, this is called extraterritorial jurisdiction, and many countries have it. Most often it is used for things like piracy or terrorism, although sometimes you see it used for other things like sex tourism. The intent is that if something is illegal, you shouldn't be able to get away with it just because you stepped over an imaginary line on the ground. Whether these ideas can effectively be enforced is another matter entirely.",
"In Ireland it is illegal to get an abortion or go to England for one. However the government won't do anything about it because if they stopped it they might have to deal with the issue themselves.",
"AFAIK, the authorities may conduct drug tests on individuals that are suspected to have taken any drugs while abroad. For example, small traces of THC can be detected in your system through hair samples for up to six months. The \"suspects\" are often well-known celebrities who were recognised and reported to have taken drugs. Other cases may include people who attempt to bring drugs into the country, shown erratic behaviour during or after their flight, or become implicated as part of a larger investigation. Drug use is considered a felony in Korea and those who are caught will often face jail time (even more severe for possession). Even if they don't detect anything in your system, eyewitness testimony may be used against you as a means of forcing confessions before the official reports come out (although such testimonies will not necessarily hold up in a courtroom). Check out the G-Dragon or E Sens cases for more detail. Tldr; drug tests on suspicious individuals + confessions prior to results"
],
"score": [
75,
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uovu0 | Why did competing video stores not have any issues getting all new films, yet competing online services seem to have to fight over content? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddvpdze",
"ddvur8f"
],
"text": [
"[First sale doctrine]( URL_0 ), which was court ruling that stated that once you purchased something you could do with it as you pleased. If a video was available for sale, any video store was free to purchase it and rent it out. Studios could (and often did) release VHS tapes for like $100 at first (\"priced for rental\") to maximize revenue from video stores, and then later on drop the price to consumer-friendly levels. Or they might provide discounted pricing to preferred rental chain, ie. Blockbuster's \"guaranteed in stock\" titles. Streaming, however, works differently where the platform (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) have to buy the rights to stream for a specific period of time for a negotiated price...",
"Exclusivity costs more. The online services *want* to be the only place you can get something, because that will drive people to subscribe to them. So they enter a bidding war to get content with exclusive rights. If they were all fine with all having the same library, it wouldn't be an issue, but then Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. wouldn't have any real reason for you to choose one over any of the others."
],
"score": [
97,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ur5fk | Why are Filipinos and Hawaiians not Asian? What's the point of the "Pacific Island Race"? While I'm at it, why aren't Alaskan Natives just plain old Natives, like Cherokees or Lakotas? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwc5hq",
"ddw9xey",
"ddw9kkf",
"ddw865q",
"ddw9k2n",
"ddwcic1",
"ddw9wmr",
"ddwbo6u",
"ddw86sp",
"ddwd03l",
"ddwb2ub",
"ddwbpc8",
"ddw9qtf",
"ddwbvfx",
"ddwc49z",
"ddwbgvt",
"ddwcgsz",
"ddwcs3v",
"ddwbhg6",
"ddwepax",
"ddwcqus",
"ddwdpeu",
"ddwesio",
"ddwbidp",
"ddwarcp",
"ddwea3g",
"ddwdyv3",
"ddw8dgj",
"ddwaqx2",
"ddweg4w",
"ddw9lht",
"ddwf3zt",
"ddwbuzw",
"ddwf8zb",
"ddwdeb0",
"ddwetr9"
],
"text": [
"It sounds like you're referring to ethnic classifications under the United States census. The census classifications change based on the wants and needs of the United States government at the time. At varying times the census has included options such as \"Chinese\" (for all Asians), then separate options for \"Japanese,\" and \"Hindu (for Indians),\" \"Mulatto,\" \"Quadroon,\" Octoroon,\" \"Mexican,\" among others. Increased immigration from other Asian countries, for example, prompted the government to separate out Japanese from the Chinese, for example. Filipinos and other Pacific Islanders were probably separated out because the United States controlled the Philippines for quite some time, and also still controls many Pacific Island states. Alaskans were separated out in 1940 but I don't know what could have prompted that. Otherwise, ideas of race are mostly made up, with a strong emphasis on superficial traits and a weak basis from genetics, linguistics, and culture.",
"These racial descriptions are wholly cultural and relative. For example, in the UK sometimes people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan (the Indian subcontinent) are described as Asians, while what Americans call \"Asians\" (people from Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, and sometimes Vietnam) are called East Asians. In the USA, people from the Indian subcontinent are not commonly referred to as \"Asians\" even though everyone knows that they are technically Asian. Same for Middle Easterners. These descriptors are for convenience to refer to large groups of people based on cultural recognition.",
"Hawaiians are not Asian because Hawaii is not in Asia. Pacific Islanders include other Polynesian cultures too--not just Hawaiian (i.e. Tongan, Samoan, etc.).",
"I'm no expert but I've always thought of Filipinos as Asians, and have heard Filipinos refer to themselves as such.",
"I find this so relevant to me. My mom is filipino and my dad is hawaiian but I live in rural Alaska and have been confused for being a native here because of my slanted eyes and darker skin.",
"Filipinos are Asian, there's absolutely no debate here and I don't know where you heard otherwise. Now they'd be classified as Southeast Asians, along with a bunch of other countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. But that's not different than China, Korea, Japan being classified as East Asians. Still all Asians. As far as Hawaiians, well they're not called Asians because... they're not Asians? Hawaii is thousands of miles away from Asia, right in the middle of the Pacific. Really about as close to the United States as it is to Asia. Also I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no offense by it, but that statement \"What's the point of the Pacific Island Race?\" is very culturally insensitive. Many Pacific Island natives have **very strong and proud** Pacific Island heritage and traditions that they identify as their own distinct group. Lumping them in with Asians is not only grossly inaccurate but diminishes their own heritage, as if they're not worthy of their own designation. No, Pacific Islanders are distinctly their own group and trust me, as someone who is South Korean but raised in Hawaii, to think for a second that \"eh, it's all kinda the same right?\" is just outright laughable.",
"Alaskan Natives come from a different migration period and have a completely distinct language + culture from the native peoples from further south.",
"filipinos are asians. we are in southeast asia. hawaiians are pacific islanders since it is in the pacific island chain. if i am wrong then damn i've been checking myself wrong as asian on those surveys and my standardized testing lol",
"Filipinos are Asians. Americans have this notion that to be Asian one has to look Chinese or Japanese or Korean. Asia is a vast continent with a lot of different looking people. Saudi Arabia is in Asia, Pakistan is in Asia. Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, etc people from these countries don't look like Chinese or Japanese or Korean.",
"Racial divisions are completely arbitrary and dependent on cultural precedent. Different people from different parts of the world will conceptualize race differently. The racial descriptors present in the US census are an attempt to draw a clean line between all the ethnic groups of people that may be living in the country for the sake of collecting data, but they're obviously not perfect, since they (to provide a few examples) ignore indigenous peoples from outside the US, lump everyone in Asia save Russians and Middle Easterners into one group, and roll Arabic people into the \"white\" category, which some Arab immigrants aren't pleased about. You'll never find a system of racial classification that makes everyone happy, since race is a cultural phenomenon, not an objectively measurable biological one.",
"This is terribly confusing. Filipinos are asian. No debate. Hawaiians are not asian unless they are from the Korean/Japanese/Chinese/Filipino diaspora who settled there. Actual Hawaiians are Pacific islanders who are not Asian in origin but Oceanic. The Alaska natives like the Salish ARE just like the Lakota or the Cherokee, just less well known. They have the same reservations and tribal rights and are recognized as being the same. I'm really unsure where these questions are coming from as they're super off base.",
"Filipino living in Hawaii here. Filipinos are Asian because they're considered a country of Asia. However, Hawaiians aren't Asian because Hawaii is not in a Asia. There's still a whole debate about whether Filipinos should be reclassified as Pacific Islanders though.",
"[This article]( URL_0 ) explains some, and it has to do with culture (according to the article). > Philippine society evolved differently from other Asian nations. For example, the Philippines (aside from Timor Leste) is the only Christian-dominated nation in Asia. The blending of Western and native cultures created a unique society that’s neither Western nor Asian. [This article]( URL_1 ) also outlines why the US census bureau changed their classification of Phillipinos. > The bureau announced today that it has decided to reclassify Filipinos to ‘Pacific Islander,’ citing several significant reasons: > The Philippines is an island nation that is not connected to the main Asian continent. > The country sits in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, in close proximity to other Pacific Island nations like Fiji, Guam, and the countries of Polynesia. > Its tropical weather is very similar to the rest of the Pacific Island nations. > The Philippines uses the Latin alphabet (ABCDE) , unlike other Asian countries which use logographics like kanji, hanja and hangul (漢字). Now that I read further, this second article seems like it might be from a satirical news site, but the listed items make sense to me mostly. As for Alaskan natives and Native Americans, I would assume it is a cultural thing as well.",
"Am from the Philippines. We don't regard ourselves as Pacific Islanders. We have always called ourselves Asians. I think if you bring this up here most people would be confused on why this is even an issue.",
"This is like asking \"Why aren't Scottish people English?\"",
"I think if I had to explain this to 5 year old me (I'm Japanese/ Native American mix) I would explain it as a white person's generalization and it isn't worth the thinking time and I would be better off playing with Legos and thinking about pokemon. Seeing as my gf is Filipino I can say from my observations they are very Asian. And from my observations of Alaskan natives that they are very native. Everyone in this thread is right from some perspective or another. Just decide for yourself OP and just don't judge people by their ethnicity",
"I still have to meet a fellow Filipino (born and raised in the Philippines) that call themselves non-Asians lol. On a serious note, I wanna know where OP gets that notion.",
"I'm Filipino and consider myself to be Asian not Pacific Islander. Our country is in Asia so I don't see why we would be anything else.",
"Because Hawaiians are Polynesian? How is that difficult to understand?",
"Filipinos are Asians. The Philippines is part of the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nation), and is therefore considered globally as part of the Asian region. This is actually my first time hearing people confused about Filipinos being Asian. I always thought that is a known fact. Anyway, I'm a Filipino living in the Philippines, and I don't know anyone here not considering themselves Asian.",
"Filipinos are asian. The Pacific Ocean ends at the Sea of Philippines, which separates the islands from the Pacific. Source: URL_0 Can't be a pacific islander if your islands don't touch the Pacific :b Hawaiian's are pacific islanders by that criteria. If you're referring to the designations, it has to do with the United States influence in those regions, which is why in the US, the term pacific islander exists, whereas it doesn't in much of the rest of the world.",
"Same reason Norwegians aren't German. Cherokee is like saying Polish and Lakota's are Italian. They're different countries or nations with different customs and languages like countries around the world. The difference is white people took away their land and borders and call it America, Canada, Mexico. I'm Ojibway and not Sioux the same way someone is Mexican not Brazilian.",
"Human, white, European, Slavic, Eastern European, South Slavic, Serbian, Sandzak, Raska, Bosniak, Novi Pazar, North Novi Pazar, Rastoder, Rifat Rastoder. Some of those labels are absolutely meaningless to you. The person described may shrug them off, or threaten you with violence for mistaking a him for another grouping. An uneducated person in America would likely describe this person as \"some kind of Russian?\" As you grow older, you will hopefully learn that context is important, and your mental model of how the world is divided up isn't the only way to see things. But that requires some level of maturity and breadth of experience that not every one achieves or is interested in. It is much more comfortable to fit the world's square pegs into your round holes by sawing off the corners that don't fit.",
"Is there such a thing as \"plain old Natives?\"",
"Melanasians are the only modern humans who share DNA from the ancient Denisovian hominids. A branch that split off long ago, kind of the same way the Neanderthals split and rejoined Europeans. URL_0",
"maybe cause hawaii is thousands of miles from asia?..",
"I'm English and white. Usually on our forms we have to select white - British, white - Irish and white - other. Seems a bit absurd why it actually matters.",
"Sounds like you just had to fill out some sort of government form. That means the reasons are probably going to be political, not that I know enough to give you any answers.",
"Race is a social construct that has no basis in science. Therefore, any country's census board, or even individual people, can define race how they so choose. The options provided on the census will very widely in different countries, even predominantly white, English speaking countries. Thus, one Pinoy may identify as Asian and another might identify as Pacific Island. Neither person is wrong because race is not definable.",
"Hawaiians are Polynesian peoples, thus fits in to the 'Pacific Island Race'. This at least makes some sense. The Filipinos? They are technically in the 'Pacific' but aren't all that related to Polynesians, more so to Indonesians/Malaysians and Mainland South East Asians(Thai/Burmese etc.) actually. At least culturally, if not genetically and physically as well. Didn't stop the somewhat nonsensical American census from grouping them somewhere they shouldn't be maybe. As for Alaskan natives? Who knows",
"Being half of each (really half Chamorro (Guam) but close enough to Hawaiian), I'd like to think I can provide an opinion. All the Filipino people I know and my Filipino family call Filipinos Asians. The distinction is that islander communities are small (think small islands), where the Philippines is large area geographically with a sizable population. Filipinos look more like mainland Asians (squinty, short, small framed, straight hair), while islanders don't have the distinct eye flaps so much, tend to be larger and have very curly hair. Culturally, Filipinos tend to roll more like the stereotypical unsatisfied Asian parents, while islanders relaxed to the core. Didn't see the second half of the question teehee. I also happen to live in Alaska. The geographically distinct Alaska native groups do have different names like the Lakota and Cherokee, some of the biggest ones being Athabaskan, Tlingit, and Inupiaq. That being said, most everyone who is Alaska native here just refers to themselves as \"native\", instead of their particular group. These groups all have far smaller populations than any of the \"lower 48\" (Alaskan term for contiguous United States) native groups. Also, seeing as they relatively closer together, it is quite easy to group them all into one pile. Their whole culture as a set of groups of people is anecdotally quite different than the lower 48 native groups, and I think it is not undue to refer to them separately as such.",
"My wife was born and raised in the Philippines. She calls herself Asian. Southeast Asian to be specific. Never heard her claim otherwise.",
"Honestly it's become an identity thing. A lot of Filipinos feel they have more in common with the Pacific Islanders than Asians. Don't know if I agree with it. But yes, geographically Filipinos are Asian. That's how it's taught in the Philippines.",
"Quite simply, you are assigning generic titles to people based on the way they look. Some smaller cultures are proud of where they are from and their ancestry, and that is what they prefer to label themselves as. Typically I don't identify as American or white per se, but the region I was born and raised, because that's the source of pride and being I best identify with. Really though, if I'm being honest with you. Your question kind of shows your immaturity and lack of culture. Travel the world some, and then ask yourself this question in 10 years.",
"Filipino from Hawaii here. From what ive searched about in the past, geographically people consider philippines and filipinos part of asia, thus we're considered asian. However its said that original ancestors of filipinos are those of pacific islanders and are closer descendents to those of pacific islanders. You can kinda see it the way we look. Many filipinos are dark skinned (including me) and a little more far off than the typical japanese, chinese, korea look. Hawaiians are not asians because theyre of polynesian ancestory(also pacific islanders). Being born as an asian in Hawaii does not make you Hawaiian. Being of Hawaiian ancestory does.",
"From my experience speaking with people from these areas and more importantly those with a strong stance that they are one vs the other (so Pacific Islander vs Asian and vice versa). The root of this seems not that these people want to separate due to the color of their skin or eye shape but *they wish to highlight their difference in culture.* Pacific Islanders share a vastly different culture than Asians, especially as \"Asian\" is a very broad term. Considering the meanings to the words: Asian - from Asia/ the East (east west are all relative given the earth is round :P) Pacific Islander - more narrow section of the East, and must be from islands. **One good example:** A person from Japan/Okinawa primarily identifies and is called Asian even though they live in an Island in the Pacific. This is due to the culture of Japan as it is more in tune with mainland Asia vs the Pacific Island culture - such as Polynesian. TLDR: - Yes there are general implied differences in skin color and eye shape but the terms are mainly for the region and culture these people have - Asian is a broad umbrella term that can be applied to all from the east. - Pacific Islander is an umbrella term underneath asians but specific to island peoples - Polynesian, Micronesian are further broad terms within Pacific Islander. - Native American is just a broad term that can used within the Americas (North and South America) - Alaskan Native just speaks to the region = *Alaskan Native can be broken down into tribes - Cherokee or Lakotas, etc are more specific tribes"
],
"score": [
873,
555,
544,
360,
244,
154,
108,
96,
90,
60,
45,
39,
31,
26,
19,
17,
16,
14,
9,
9,
9,
8,
7,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thediplomat.com/2010/12/are-filipinos-asian/",
"https://adobochronicles.com/2015/10/19/u-s-census-bureau-to-reclassify-filipinos-from-asian-to-pacific-islander/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_oceans#Pacific_Ocean"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-denisovan-dna-discovered-modern-pacific-islanders-005569"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5urjnv | Why is the tune "Happy Birthday" found in places all over the world? | I don't know about every language, of course, but the tune is the same in English, Spanish, French, and Korean, as far as I know, so I was wondering why. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwbqxe",
"ddwn8vy"
],
"text": [
"The answer is American pop culture. It's not a tune with some magical properties that allows it to surface all over the world. It's the influence of Hollywood movies and other American pop culture. In the countries of the former USSR, for example, it was non-existent until the 90s, when the American-made media flooded the market.",
"When I was in Germany in the 90s I swear they sang Happy Birthday to the tune of God Save the Queen. But I've never been able to find any reference to this, or get anybody to confirm this ever happened. Maybe I imagined it. Or maybe I was in an alternate universe."
],
"score": [
25,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5urrta | In what circumstances is discrimination legally permissible? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwe8r6"
],
"text": [
"Let's be clear on what is meant by \"discrimination.\" The dictionary definition of the term is act of making or perceiving a difference. So someone who can distinguish an excellent wine from a bad wine is said to have a \"discriminating\" taste in wine. But that's probably not what you're asking about. A more narrow definition of the term is making a _prejudicial_ or _unjust_ decision, typically based on a *categorical* assessment (\"This person is Asian\" or \"This person is in a wheelchair\") whether than an *individual* assessment. But not even all instances of that sort of categorical discrimination are illegal. Say, for example, George only dates redheads. Amy, a blonde, might be a wonderful person, but George won't even give her a chance. George has discriminated against non-redheads in his love life ... but that's not illegal. **Discrimination becomes illegal based on a *law* that defines a _category or class_ and a set of _activities_ where you cannot base your decisions on that category or class.** For example, in the US Federal government the protected classes include race/skin color, religion/creed, citizenship, nationality/ancestry, sex, age, disability (physical or mental), veteran status, or genetic information. Those are examples -- I may have missed some in that list. Activities include (but aren't limited to) employment & workplace activity (hiring, firing, promotion, pay, etc.), housing, access to places of business, etc. Again, that's not a complete list -- just examples. So a restaurant that refuses to serve Belgians and people of Belgian ancestry is illegally discriminating. A workplace where the manager gives higher pay to employees who are veterans is illegally discriminating. A landlord that won't rent to Scientologists is illegally discriminating. But . . . A restaurant that refuses service to people who aren't wearing shirts and shoes is discriminating against dudes wearing just surfer shorts, but they are not _illegally_ discriminating because \"attire\" is not a protected class. A business that only hires people with college degrees is discriminating against people with high school degrees, but they are not _illegally_ discriminating because \"education level\" is not a protected class. A person that decides to only date people of their own race is discriminating against other races, but s/he is not _illegally_ discriminating, because \"dating\" is not a government regulated activity. Note: just because some discrimination isn't _illegal_ doesn't mean it is or isn't _moral_. That's a separate and much more philosophical question."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5urz3u | Why some schemes/plots are described as Machiavellian? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwivwt"
],
"text": [
"Niccolò Machiavelli was a Florcian (from Florence, Republic of Florence [modern day Italy]). He wrote a very famous book called The Prince. The book is about intrigue and how to plot things. A trend of the book is that it is good to murder six nobles to prevent a war that'd kill thousands of soldiers and cost a lot. Take for example you are the second oldest son in a kingdom. Your older brother has died but his wife was pregnant just before he died (the child is legitimate). Your father then dies. You become the King, and just later your windowed sister in law gives birth the a boy (your dead brothers son). Had the king died slightly later this boy would be king and so has a very strong claim to your throne and Kingdom. This could lead to a very exspensive war, it'd be best to just have him die in some horiffic *accident*. Generally plotting to do something immoral or amoral but for the greater good can be seen as Machiavellian."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5usm4m | Why are all "As Seen on TV" commercials so similar to each other? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwp4xh"
],
"text": [
"These companies carefully study what works -- even trying different versions of an ad to see what brings in more orders. What you see now is the optimal format -- the one that brings in the most orders -- so everyone tries to use it."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ust8j | What were airports like in the 1990s? | I was born in 1995, so most of my airport experience has been in a post-9/11 world. I also am used to using the internet to book travel, so I'm curious what airports and travel were like in the days of early internet and pre-9/11 world. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwk9q8",
"ddwk67s"
],
"text": [
"You didn't have to get there two hours early, that's for sure! From what I can recall they did still scan your bags for guns, drugs and bombs, since hijackings and bombings were still going on... but pocket knives and such were allowed (knives longer than 4 inches were not). People were chosen randomly for enhanced screening, mainly by watching behavioral patterns. Your family was allowed to accompany you to the gate to see you off, and that's definitely not allowed these days. One major difference was that on the flight, the cockpit was a relatively open space instead of a sealed chamber... the pilot would come out to greet people and check on things, and sometimes passengers (like, kids interested in aviation) would be invited to see the inside of the cockpit while in flight. [Huff Post] ( URL_0 ) has an article on this topic.",
"Pretty similar to today, the only real difference is amount security. In the 1990s there were only metal detectors (none of these millimeter wave scanners). Security was done by private companies contracted by airports instead of the TSA, and you could go past security without a boarding pass (so if I was meeting someone I could meet them at the gate as they deplaned, instead of at the terminal). They're also more strict with what can go through security, obviously. No pocket knives (saw a dude at O'Hare once with a rather large Swiss Army Knife on his hip), liquids/gels/aerosols > 3oz., etc. All of that was perfectly fine pre-9/11. edit: yes, lack of internet made things slightly slower as well. Since you couldn't check in on your phone you had to do so at the counter. Also you got more and better food on airplanes. Never understood why people made jokes about how bad it was, I rather liked the snack boxes. Especially the Andes mints you got on United and the chocolate chip cookies fresh baked on every Midwest Express flight (RIP)."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/airports-before-911_us_57c85e17e4b078581f11a133"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ut4ng | Why the USA don't have national identity card? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwmp9q",
"ddwmyln",
"ddwof0n"
],
"text": [
"State sovereignty. Each of the 50 states makes an ID card easily available for anyone without a Drivers' License the federal government recognizes them all.",
"Because it is the State's job to maintain identification, not the Feds. Each state has individual sovereignty over it's citizens.",
"A Social Security card/number is assigned to each individual during early childhood, based on birth certificates. You can't function in the system w out the #, it is your 'permanent identity'. Edit: it's Federal"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ut4ps | Why do school districts in the US tend to have multiple elementary schools and one middle/high school, rather than one school for each level? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwoj5i",
"ddwn2ym"
],
"text": [
"You want elementary schools located in neighborhoods so kids can walk/bike to school if possible. Having a huge HS style campus for very young kids can be overwhelming and logistically complicated - younger kids are escorted everywhere, which becomes more difficult with more kids - where older kids can go from class to class independently. I'm on a first name basis with my younger kids' principal and teachers, where my older son is much more anonymous to his teachers (who may have 100+ students per day), and I've never met his principal. Older students also have more variety in what courses they take, and move electives to pick from, so it's beneficial to have a larger campus with more students to justify the cost of specialized staff.",
"The younger a student is the harder it is to handle them in a large classroom setting. So elementary schools tend to have smaller classes with more teachers and aids and as they get older the size of the class goes up. This means that the number of classrooms and campuses goes down. The US also puts a lot of community value, unity, and spirit behind supporting the local school so if it is at all possible a town/city will have only one high school for the sake of the community backing it. Now obviously that does not work in large cities, but that is why they have different districts in large cities. The district keeps the community aspect of things intact even if it is only a sub region within a city."
],
"score": [
30,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ut6ia | How did we determine 18 as the age of adulthood? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwn0wq",
"ddwnhj2"
],
"text": [
"Honestly someone probably just said \"18 seems like a fair time to become legally responsible because that's when you generally graduate high school\" and everyone agreed. Just because you get older doesn't mean you grow up though, age and maturity are certainly independent of one another.",
"It's more complicated than that. In the US: * at 13, kids are allowed to give out personal info on the internet without specific parental permission * the age of consent (for sexual activity) varies between 16 and 18 * the right to vote is at 18 * the right to appear in pornography is at 18 * the right to buy alcohol in most situations is 21 * the right to buy cigarettes is mostly 18, but 19 or 21 in some states. * contractual obligations are binding if entered into at 18 in most states. * the so-called age of majority is 18 in most states but 19 in a couple. I'm not sure what the implications are because \"age of majority\" doesn't have a single definition. * emancipation is 18 in most states but not all. In MA, emancipation (in the sense of terminating parental financial obligations) has no specific age * the ability to rent a car, as a matter of private business policy, is commonly 25"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ute86 | why isn't fish considered meat? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddworlu"
],
"text": [
"Because of Catholic church history. Meat was forbidden on Fridays, fish became the traditional Friday meal because it wasn't classified as meat. In North America, the beaver was also a fish according to the church, leading to its over-hunting."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uu528 | What happened in Detroit? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwvb5l",
"ddwuz3k",
"ddww3j7"
],
"text": [
"Detroit was once one of the jewels of American cities. It had really lovely theaters, ornate government buildings, and some truly ornate homes. This was all built on the back of industry. But as the industrial heartland of the US declined many cities were hit very hard. A [rust belt]( URL_0 ) across the northern midwest saw the decline of these industrial centers. As Detroit fell from greatness it entered into a cycle that couldn't be halted. The tax base shrank as people moved out of the city center. The services couldn't be kept up and the city decayed. More people fled and the tax base declined further. On and on. When you see pictures of Detroit looking like a ghost town or once great buildings in total ruin you are seeing the metro area of Detroit. It is really unprecedented to see whole office buildings abandoned in a large American city. It is interesting to note though that several suburbs of Detroit are still quite nice as that was where the first wave of the rich ended up.",
"One really rich man decided to bring Detroit back to life and started buying and refurbishing properties. Now there is a huge wave of young well off business type people moving into the area. Crime has gone way down in the area and many new shops have opened up.",
"What do you mean? What happened to detroit to make it a ghost town or whats happening in the resurgence? I guess I'll answer both. First, detroit was built on the backbone of the auto industry. When manufacturing jobs left America, detroit very quickly fell flat on its face. Many people left elsewhere for work, property values sunk heavily during this time because everyone was leaving and no one was looking for jobs in detroit because there weren't many-- most went to mexico, some to china. Many houses that sat on the market too long went to disrepair, became condemned, or were claimed by the city/state for unpaid property taxes. At this time it was common to see houses for sale for next to nothing -- most of the houses needed to be completely destroyed and building on a lot that was once condemned is not cheap. Many people who still worked around detroit moved out to the suburbs, or surrounding cities because crime skyrocketed at this time. Poor inner cities are breeding grounds for gangs, and with that comes violence and fear. However, one pizza Titan, Mike Illitch of Little Ceasers Pizza, decided detroit was ready for a renovation. He bought up quite a bit of land, owned sports teams in the area, and built new stadiums for the teams in one area of downtown detroit. With all the sports teams located within blocks of eachother, he also created an \"entertainment district\" of resturants and attractions to go with a new Hockey stadium that's still under construction. This is bringing new life to the area as he spent a large amount of money to basically own the entirety of downtown detroit, something made possible by the lowering population and property values that come with it. Now with a MLB, NHL, NBA, and NFL team within a couple blocks business in the area is booming and tourism from the rest of the state is way up. (He doesnt own the Lions nor the Pistons but he did manage to build next to Ford Field and the pistons are relocating to the entertainment district's Pizzarena.)"
],
"score": [
21,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uumki | Why is communism viewed as a bad thing. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddwzjga",
"ddwygm9",
"ddx1gzz",
"ddx09fa",
"ddwyk90",
"ddx8pe5"
],
"text": [
"Because the last couple of countries that tried it ending up killing a fairly large portion of their people in the process. Stalin and Mao, for example, killed tens of millions out of poor planning and purges. Castro and many other minor powers weren't much better. Communism requires an authoritarian entity to properly distribute all resources, which usually just leads to a dictatorship.",
"Because every national level implementation of it has resulted in a dictator that has killed large percentages of the population under their jurisdiction. It has failed every time.",
"because the west is capitalist, and its enemies happened to call themselves communist, and any difference is something that can be demonized to bolster war motivation. now that the war is over, there's still a lot of tension against communists, which is only encouraged by those who have benefited most from capitalism and are invested in protecting it. the fear of communism and anything resembling it can be easily redirected against various market regulations and social initiatives like universal healthcare or housing the homeless, which are popular with the general population but very unpopular with rich people who are afraid it'lll decrease their profits and increase their taxes communism is a useful boogeyman for those in power",
"Imagine this scenario: One day, a group of soldiers walks into your house and categorizes everything you own. They then take away everything not on the list of \"State Approved Possessions\". Next, they empty your bank account and confiscate all the money in your wallet. If you resist you will be shot. You are then informed that you have been assigned to a new job on Collective Farm #2863. You are to report for work at 5 AM the next morning, where you will work until you are allowed to stop, and you will be paid the same as everyone else, regardless of how hard you work. Resist and you shall be shot. What do you mean you have a Doctorate in Music Theory? The State has decided that you shall serve best as an important member of Collective Farm #2863. If you question the wisdom of The State in this manner you shall be sent to a People's Reeducation Camp in Alaska where you will learn to better appreciate the wisdom of our glorious leaders. This process is expected to take 5 to 10 years. Resist and you shall be shot. Also, the Committee for the Assurance of the People's Democracy wishes to inform you that certain groups and ideals are now considered a threat to the safety of The People, and are therefore banned. Anyone found to be a member of any political party other than the People's Workers Party shall be sent to a People's Reeducation Camp for not less than 5 years. Similar punishment shall be given to those found in possession of prohibited books, movies, and songs; or who are known to have visited forbidden websites. Particularly severe violators will be shot. All citizens may spend their well earned State salaries at approved retailers only. The possession of foreign goods is hereby banned. Additionally, any citizens wishing to move, marry, change jobs, or travel outside your designated habitation zone, must apply for permission to do so from the relevant State Agency. Your application should be processed within 6 to 8 months. Furthermore, any citizens wishing to attend one of the State's glorious universities must apply for the relevant paperwork, and pass a number of tests designed to ensure that all applicants meet the necessary standards of party loyalty. Anyone who objects to these wise decisions, or attempts to circumvent them, will be shot. Thank you Comrade, and have a nice day. ---------------------------------------------------- Does that sound like the type of country you would like to live in? Because that's what it's like to live under a Communist regime.",
"Objectively, there are two parts to that explanation. The first concerns the late 19th century and early 20th century when Communism was still gaining momentum. It was universally opposed by all existing states in the 19th century: Both the old monarchies of Europe, and the newer, capitalist industrial states of the Western hemisphere considered it a threat. The ideology of universal equality threatened the feudal order as well as the class system; the emphasis on extreme rationalism threatened religious establishments; and to a lesser but increasing extent, Communism moved toward undemocratic tactics that alienated liberals. The second part is in the middle third of the 20th century, when Communism was strongly associated with the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and smaller states such as North Korea and Kampuchea (formerly Cambodia). These states endured mass-eliminations as a result of the Communist regimes ruling them, and thus Communism was associated with this violence. The West was relatively benign at this time, with economic prosperity and dynamic cultural / artistic influences.",
"Here is why I don't like it: In all of the countries that have tried it (USSR, China, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba) they have border guards whose rifles point inwards. People who disagree with the system are not allowed to leave. I believe there is a basic human right to leave if you do not agree with the system. I cannot think of a non-Communist country that people are not allowed to leave. One of the mantras is: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In every case, the people at the top of the pyramid have it great: better food, cars instead of bicycles, much larger homes. They get that, not from their hard work, or selling things that people want, but from controlling other individuals and taking the result of their labor. Capitalism has a lot of inequities, but I will take it over Communism, which, where implemented, means everyone is more equal, but has much less on average."
],
"score": [
15,
13,
10,
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uv390 | How did having light breakfasts and heavy dinners become a common practice, when logically it should be reversed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddx2an1",
"ddx2fye",
"ddx6dfo",
"ddx7kov",
"ddxgbfy",
"ddxct21",
"ddxn0bx"
],
"text": [
"I can't explain breakfast not being the biggest meal but this may help. In short, as machines replaced farm workers around the time of the US Civil War, those workers needed somewhere to go so they moved towards cities and worked in factories. In farming life, it makes sense to have a nice lunch at the hottest part of the day. In factories, it makes sense for your workers to have a quick lunch and get back to work, so factory workers waited until dinner to have a big meal. not exactly ELI5 but currently I'm writing a paper for a history class (was due yesterday, oops.) This is in one of my sources: Andrew Smith, Eating History: 30 Turning Points in the Making of American Cuisine (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), p78. The mechanization of agriculture, which had accelerated during the war, progressed at an even faster pace during the century's final years, further expanding the national food supply and shifting American eating habits. Mechanization meant that fewer laborers were needed on farms, and after the Civil War came an exodus from rural to urban areas. In the city, new and unfamiliar foods were available, and city life necessitated different food distribution systems, such as chain grocery stores, street vendors, cafes, and restaurants. Different dining schedules also evolved: In rural America, dinner, the heaviest meal of the day was eaten at two o'clock, forming a break in the workday, and a light supper was served before bedtime. The urban and industrial lifestyle converted dinner into lunch, a smaller meal usually eaten at midday and dinner became a substantial evening meal. Mechanization also decreased the cost of staples, such as wheat and com, making them generally available to most Americans. This timing on your questions vs my paper is just amazing to me.",
"Why do you say that it's logical that breakfast be the heaviest meal of the day?",
"Heavy breakfasts such as the full English breakfast, which is around 1000 calories depending on the portion size, are still a common practice among manual workers who will need that food energy to do their work during the day. Light breakfasts are more popular among office workers who are physically inactive for most of the day, but may be short on time in the morning and don't want to cook and eat a big meal. So the declining popularity of big breakfasts is in part due to the changes in the workforce - more service jobs, less physical labour.",
"Having to move very quickly when waking up means having no time to eat a heavy breakfast and no time to digest. This is normal : most people lived a rushed lifestyle in the past and now from the morning on, having only rest time at the end of the day, where it is now safe to be slow and sleepy and digesting a larger meal",
"Many people have 1+ hour commutes to and from work, so spending 30 mins cooking a real breakfast cuts into sleeping time. If they have kids they have to drop off at school, time is even more compressed. By contrast, the evenings feature 4+ hours of available time to cook and eat. Also, eating heavy in the evening isn't that bad as long as you're not also eating heavy for breakfast and lunch. Your metabolism doesn't slow down that much overnight. Weight gain from eating late normally corresponds with an overall sedentary lifestyle.",
"In other countries dinner isn't such a heavy meal. I went to Israel and there lunch is the biggest meal and dinner is just a quick bite.",
"Simple explanation. In the morning your body just woke up, you move more slowly, still asleep and your body doesn't need that much energy so you end up having a light breakfast or no breakfast at all. Then throughout the day you move more, you do something, even watching TV, your body is functioning more, you observe, you move, you think and that takes energy and needs calories and that's why after a long day in the evening people tend to be more hungry."
],
"score": [
47,
12,
8,
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uv9pv | Why is a bottom lip bite considered a sexual sign but upper lip bite not? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddx5no8",
"ddx3mhc",
"ddxbm63",
"ddxk9no",
"ddx5379",
"ddx7pxt"
],
"text": [
"Bottom lip bite signifies anticipation, to lip bite signifies apprehension. Same way an arched eyebrow signifies incredulity, these expressions are almost universal across western civilization.",
"Most people's teeth overlap, the top set over the bottom. Try it yourself. Much more difficult to do it the other way.",
"Because biting the lower lip is sexy and biting the upper lip makes you look like Bubba from Forrest Gump",
"Like /u/mysticalbuffalo pointed out, most peoples teeth overlap top over bottom. That means that biting the bottom lip is relatively simple: mostly a question of moving your lips. Biting the top lip, for most people, requires significantly jutting out their jaw and thus significantly changing the structure of their face. It makes your top and bottom jaw line up badly, and requires quite a bit of muscle tension, which doesn't look good. We're inclined to like symmetry and evenness and mostly-relaxed faces.",
"Most people don't involuntarily bite their upper lip, but the same isn't true about the bottom lip. It all comes back to body language",
"I guess what I mean is that biting the lip is a sexual anxiety/tension thing and the top set is easier to manipulate on the lip versus the reverse, kind of like reflexively catching something thrown at oneself...if that makes any sense."
],
"score": [
25,
23,
20,
7,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uvfj8 | What is with all those Indian Reservations in the US. How does the law work there? Is this considered part of the US or rather like an independent country? What can and what cannot be done there? Are all reservations similar? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddx5fsk",
"ddx61s0"
],
"text": [
"They are a part of the US and under US federal law, but they are considered semi autonomous regions that are exempt from any State Laws. They have their own government, write their own laws, and have their own law enforcement. In general only US Marshals, FBI and other federal agents can work on tribal lands without being requested to come there by the tribal police.",
"They are semi autonomous. The United States requires that they have a Republican form of Government(hold elections), and that they abide by the Constitution and various Federal Laws. State regulations do not apply to them(Why so many of them have casinos)."
],
"score": [
18,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uvpxs | Why do commonwealth nations refer to the alchemical solution for eternal life as the "Philosopher's Stone" while the United States refers to it as the "Sorceror's Stone"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddx7t35",
"ddx7jjx",
"ddx7f46",
"ddxf7px",
"ddxc87p"
],
"text": [
"Americans call it the \"Philosopher's Stone\" too. It's just the title of the first Harry Potter book (and ultimately movie) was changed for the American market because they didn't think American kids would be familiar with alchemy and that they wouldn't want to read a book about philosophers. A number of British words and idioms were changed for the American market because American children wouldn't know, for example, what a crumpet was. Remember that it was a book intended for children.",
"We don't call it the Sorcerer's Stone. It was replaced literally for the title of one Harry Potter book because they figured Americans would be more interested in reading about wizards than alchemy.",
"The Philosopher's Stone was the name given to the thing the alchemists were searching for. When the first Harry Potter book (HP & the Philosopher's Stone) was released in the US, the publisher decided to call it the HP & the Sorcerer's Stone because they didn't think American children would be interested and/or knowledgeable about ancient alchemy. It's not a common replacement - Americans still talk about the Philosopher's Stone when discussing alchemy.",
"The American publisher of Harry Potter thought that not enough readers were familiar with the philosopher's stone, so they changed it to a more general term that clearly communicated the basic concept of \"magic rock\".",
"We American's refer to it as the Philosopher's Stone. Harry Potter renamed it for the book and the movies because of ignorance of American culture and them thinking that American Kids would not understand it."
],
"score": [
199,
47,
22,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uvu9z | Across different Western languages, why are there names that share an obvious common root while the languages don't? | Names such as Nikolai, Josef, or Mikhail are all recognizable to an English speaker. However, Russian and English don't stem from the same language. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxa3ym"
],
"text": [
"Russian and English both belong to the Indo-European family. But that's actually not the reason, since you have Hungarian, which is not Indo-European, and has recognizable names ─ Miklós, Jószef, Mihály. The real reason is shared heritage/culture. All European countries are, or have been in the past, heavily Christian. Christianity has this shared list of names, usually from saints or Biblical figures, that end up being translated into basically every language. Ultimately, most of these names are of Hebrew origin (Joseph and Michael, in your example) or of Greek origin (like Nicholas), with some of Latin origin (e.g. Mark)."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uvxoh | Why are rural and urban cultures so different? | One specific example: I recently asked my dad who lives in rural Australia if people in his community/town are homophobic, and he replied in a "D'uhh"-ish tone: "YES!!!" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxegw9",
"ddx9coc",
"ddxfi6f"
],
"text": [
"Density and variety. You're squeezed into a much closer area, and a much more diverse one. In terms of tolerance (sexually, racially, etc), one of the best ways to reduce intolerance is to expose people to different lifestyles. In rural areas, it's not uncommon to have the same 100 or whatever neighbors for your entire life.You know them all by name, and they're all pretty much like you (immigration into rural areas is low). In the US, that usually means white and Christian. This tends to lead to an \"us vs them\" mentality, especially when you add in things like news telling you about all the horrible things going on. Many rural people might never meet or meaningfully interact with someone who is gay/black/Muslim etc. It's a lot harder to be afraid or hateful when your office mate who you BBQ with on the weekend is one of those things, and he's a decent guy. In terms of other things, it often comes down to density. It's a lot easier to trust your neighbors when you know them all by name, and they've been babysitting your kids. In a city, you might buy a coffee, and never see that guy again. Even if say, 0.01% of the population are creepy, you probably pass by a few every day, just due to the sheer numbers.",
"A lot of prejudice towards minority groups of whatever type comes from a lack of contact and exposure to those same people. In an urban environment you meet a wider variety of people and more new people in a rural environment you see fewer people and it is the same few people again and again. For more on contact hypothesis - URL_0",
"In general, rural and urban communities are different because the community requires different cultures. One example would be the relationship with others in your community. Often, in rural communities, since you have few neighbors, you know them quite well, while in a city, you don't need to know your neighbors since their are so many people. Another example would be the position towards authority and self sufficiency. In rural places, police can be far and few between, so you sort out problems on your own, one reason why so many rural residents own firearms. An example I could give would be that my friends, who live in rural virginia, have a wood stove, because when the power goes out in the winter due to snow or storms, they are ALWAYS the last ones to get their power restored."
],
"score": [
17,
14,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_Rkj2KuNU"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uwadc | Why did the bicycle from the old times have a super huge tire in the front and a tiny tire at the back? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxce1f"
],
"text": [
"There are two main reasons: Speed: Old-fashioned bikes didn’t use gears, so the only way to go faster was to have a bigger wheel. Pedals were directly attached to the front wheel, so the bigger the wheel, the further a single pedal push propelled you. In bike races, speed was a crucial advantage worth the absurd size. Comfort: High wheel bikes were more dangerous, but they had some advantages. Old roads were in poor condition, and the large wheel could roll over potholes and small rocks. It led to a smoother ride than smaller-wheel bikes, which were often called bone-shakers."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uwh5j | How would people, before television or radio decide who to vote for? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxe9h2"
],
"text": [
"Newspapers were the major way information was spread before radio. Political candidates also did a lot more public speaking. They did \"whistle-stop tours\" where they basically road trains and stopped in every town and gave a speech. Local politicians would also speak in favor of their party in more remote areas."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uws5z | Why do you need a permanent address to apply for a job? What are homeless people supposed to do? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxgs3d"
],
"text": [
"you dont NEED it (like, theres no law), but no question that being homeless is going to be an obstacle to being a reliable employee. So if your hiring for an unskilled job with what is likely to have a plethora of applicants, its an easy dis qualifier to thin the herd."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uxemh | Why do humans need religion? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxlsp7",
"ddxmdu5",
"ddxm9gj",
"ddxm1b9",
"ddxmm7m",
"ddxnpms"
],
"text": [
"We like to know how stuff works. Some people are better at figuring it out than others. When different people with varying degrees of ability try to describe what's around them, we end up with different answers.",
"It's a fairly primitive way to approach the unknown. We can't explain things so we start to develop theories and stories. Closely linked is superstition. \"I was doing A when B happened. Therefore if I do A then B is more likely to happen.\" Even though A and B occurring at the same time was purely coincidental. Skinner demonstrated the same behavior in mice and pigeons, so it is not uniquely human.",
"It's probably a product of natural selection. The propensity for religious thought probably proved an evolutionary advantage in that it codified social structures. It's also very telling that many/most religions are extremely worried about sexual conduct. While in the modern world this sort of thing may be intrusive and unnecessary, in the past it would have strengthened social circumstances in a way that brought more pregnancies to term and provided better outcomes for kids in a world in which people died in infancy frequently, barbarians might just invade your village, and family had a more utilitarian role in providing the necessary resources for life than the more emotion-based role they play today. It's an idea that has a long way to go in empirically proving its case. But were I betting man I'd be putting my money on it. Propensities for religious thought is just another in a long line of evolutionary hold overs that performed an important role in our ancestry but which has been outmoded by the far more hospitable circumstances of modernity. So why do humans need religion? They don't. They DID need it for the same reason mastadons needed fur in the ice ages, and it's become a detriment the same way that fur did when global temperatures rose.",
"Quite simply, they don't. A great many people manage to do quite fine without believing in invisible sky fairies. The main reason so many people believe in it is because it is drummed into them when they are children when their brains are highly susceptible to imprinting and they have not developed the ability to perform critical analysis. Basically, people get brainwashed when they are young and defenceless and if you are surrounded by others who believe it makes it easy to accept this nonsense as normal.",
"It wouldn't be right to say that humans *need* it, since many get along just fine without it, without acting in \"inhuman\" ways. The idea that people need religion is a self-serving myth propagated by religions themselves: it's a sales tactic, basically.",
"Humans don't need religion. There are plenty of people who are not religious. The 2 main reasons why we have religions are because we want to know how stuff works and we want to have a purpose. In a time before scientific knowledge was common people wanted an explanation for things, and religion was a good means of explaining and spreading that information over a wide range. Now we have science and religion has become more spiritual in nature; a set of guidelines to live by. As for the purpose, well, how do you feel knowing everything you've done, everything you are, is 99.99999999% pointless in the grand scheme of things? How do you deal with the knowledge that your time on this world is finite and death is inevitable? Religion's of all kinds offer answers to these issues, and even people who are not religions tend to find their own answers or reasoning to these questions."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uxtbo | The concept of "Maturity" | In the context of personality, thought processes, and understanding of a given subject, people say "mature" and "immature" all the time. But what does that even mean? What is "maturity"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxop90"
],
"text": [
"Immaturity is acting like a child, all-deserving, unknowledgeable, easy to anger, throwing tantrums, lack of empathy, insulting when presented with a different opinion/facts that prove that person wrong, basically a 12 year old in a grown-up's body. Maturity is the opposite of that. It's handling responsibilities, being able to care for yourself and maybe even others around you, not whining about having to earn your way through life and about every small inconvenience. It's also about being polite and knowing what is and isn't appropriate to do/say in a discussion/meeting/gathering."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uy1lc | Why are video game teams are now Blue vs Orange instead of red ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxpyg4",
"ddxq405",
"ddxqx68"
],
"text": [
"For colour blind people its easier to distinct the colour between orange and blue rather than red and blue",
"A possible reason is the psychology of colours. The color red is typically interpreted by our brains as indicating danger, violence, hostility etc. This can make Red opponents appear more intimidating and therefore have an advantage in games (especially eSports-worthy titles).",
"In some games, like War thunder, both colors can be changed. I had a purple vs green game last night, got a little confused once or twice.."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uyg4w | Why are stock prices below $1000? | Google's stock is $846, Microsoft's stock is $64, and Apple's stock is $135. Why are stock prices below $1000? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxt3xp",
"ddxstvk"
],
"text": [
"Because high stock prices are bad, they discourage buying. Say the price of the stock is $1001 and I have $10,000 to invest. That means I can only buy 9 shares, investing $9009. That's $991 the investor was offering but the company couldn't accept. So when a stock price gets high a company performs a \"split\". For example the most common split would be a 2 for 1 split. That means all of the old stock are now split into 2 of the new stock, while the price of the stock is halved. So if Microsoft split their stock when it reached $1000 the new stock price would be $500 and Microsoft would trade in all of the old stock for twice as many of the new stock (so if you owned 10 old shares or $10000 worth of stock it would become 20 new shared that are also worth $10000). Microsoft has split their stock 9 times over the last 30 years. If you had bought one share of Microsoft's stock back when Windows 1.0 came out, and if Microsoft had never split their stock, that one share would be worth over $74000. Our original investor with $10000 can't even invest in Microsoft while a more wealthy investor with $100000 can only buy a single share, leaving $26000 on the table.",
"Stock prices try to stay in an affordable range. If a stock price gets too high, say 500 dollars, they will often decide to split it. If you had one share before, they double it, and cut the price back down to 250 dollars. Some companies may not care, such as Berkshire Hathaway (stock price about 250,000), but for the most part companies want to keep their stock from getting too expensive."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5uyg99 | Why is there no security at train stations when there are so much security at airports? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddy5t6j",
"ddxv3bk",
"ddy5mpw",
"ddy9ufe",
"ddyc22j",
"ddym7sz",
"ddydzms",
"ddydpuv",
"ddxsq0m",
"ddy3vkt",
"ddyc7oa",
"ddxt0zl",
"ddxt3g8",
"ddyaniu",
"ddxzyw9",
"ddxvd4r",
"ddycpf7",
"ddyfztm",
"ddyjkig",
"ddyhkhl",
"ddxtpqm",
"ddyd2q1",
"ddybcs3",
"ddyaiv1",
"ddyonuj",
"ddypn2m",
"ddxv2ym",
"ddyd9kd",
"ddye5ft",
"ddykmxn",
"ddy8wvg",
"ddygiqx",
"ddypp7m",
"ddyl714",
"ddy8vch",
"ddykrm8",
"ddyigi4",
"ddyqtpx"
],
"text": [
"A few reasons I see. - The same station are used for long-distance/international train and regional/suburban train. You do not want to deal with security checkpoints in your daily commute. You could imagine putting checkpoints only on long-distance train, but then why not the regional/suburban trains ? - A train can in a few minutes go to a *safe* position. Simply hit the breaks, usually the driving system implies a *dead man switch* and if the driver stop to hold it train will automatically send alarm to the regulation and stop. Even high-speed-trains pass trough backup station where they can stop if anything goes wrong (it's always easier to have an ambulance and the police coming to a station than having them walking 500m trough a muddy field. ) - You don't have to deal with the difference of pressure, a bomb exploding in a train will cause serious damages an dozen of deads for sure but it won't fully destroy the train and most of the passenger will leave the train on their feet. The same in a plane and even a small blast will destroy the plane due to the difference of pressure (as punching a balloon with a niddle) killing everybody on-board. - Finally, in the commercial battle rail vs air. The fact that you can arrive at the station 5 minutes before your train, be on the platform 2 minutes later and catch your train on time is a serious asset that train companies will try to keep. - (At least in Europe, I saw this in France/Germany/Belgium). For international train it's not that uncommon to see the border police/custom patrolling the train, checking passengers ids and having their dog smelling the bags (especially in the train from Asterdam to Paris). In a train with 500 persons on board it's easy to fit 2 policemen and their dog inside. They don't even need a seat. That said, after the failed attack in a Train between Brussels and Paris, I started to see metal detector and luggage-scanner for train too. I already told reddit the day I thought they where getting crazy on terrorism security until I saw the head of the European and his bodygards leaving the same train.",
"Hijacking was very common in the 60s and 70s. There were 130 hijackings in the US between '68 and '72, around 1 a week. Airport security became a thing after that. After 9/11, hijacking became seen a very dangerous instead of just annoying, so security got stepped up again. Train hijacking in the USA isn't a thing, so no security. In France I did notice armed guards at the train stations.",
"I haven't seen this answer yet, but trains can't be used as weapons like planes can. You can kill hundreds more than just the passengers with a plane hijacking, less so for trains. Airport security isn't to protect the fliers, it's to protect people from 9/11 like events (not saying it works but that's the idea)",
"It's simple really... It's because our law enforcement agencies are reactionary forces. After the first large scale terror attack on a train in the US, we will get ridiculous amounts of security that will inconvenience millions for decades to come! This will not bring back one life that was lost, nor will it prevent further attacks because they will just find other soft targets. But people will see that \"Something was done about it\".",
"Because the security at airports is something called \"security theatre\" and is intended to assuage the fears of the public. When the public starts to fear terror threats at the rail system, lots of expensive machines and low skilled jobs get created.",
"One of the big reasons is hijacking. If you hijack a plane you can go anywhere in the world you want as long as you have enough fuel onboard. With a train you can not choose your destinations. You go where the rails go. Planes are also really fast compared to trains. One other reason to hijack a plane is to use it as ammunition. A train obviously can not be used in such way. You can go at full speed and try to derail the train but that's it. You can't drive it into certain building. But you can fly a plane everywhere or AT anything. Other thing to remember is that train is much harder to hijack and control. A train can be really really long and have many passenger wagons. All it takes is one person to pull the emergency brake and the train stops. After that the doors open and everybody can run off. At most you are looking at a hostage situation in the middle of the forest. Pretty pointless hijacking unless hostage situation is the exact thing you want. For political reasons this could be an option. So trains are simply far less useful for any kind of reason whereas planes are excellent for the exact same reasons. A train at most has to deal with bomb threats which in reality is not really good option for the bomber. If you want to inflict mass damages train is not good target. As such it is hard to justify spending tons of money on train security when there is no point even for anyone to make any kind of attack using a train as a target or tool for causing damage. Planes also are very expensive and even if you don't lose the plane the downtime is super expensive if a hostage situation occurs for example. If you lose the plane and the passengers then it is a massive pr issue for you as a corporation. If a bomb attack happens in train you don't lose the whole train. Not only is the train and the wagons really robust but any kind of damage is limited only to the wagon where the bomb went off and the train wagons that derailed. Train tracks themselves can be fixed relatively quickly unless we are talking about really really big bombs. tl:dr. Trains are just really poor targets. Planes on the other hand is the best kind of target you can imagine.",
"Most Chinese train stations have a security, airport style: URL_1 They tend to be less strict than the airport though. Even subway stations have a scanner: URL_0 The lack of security checks at train stations is a regional thing, not universal.",
"Security on planes hasn't always been so tight either, my nan had a story she loved to tell about how she went on holiday to france in the 70's (I think) and couldn't find her passport at the airport so they just let her go on the plane and told her to make sure she had it out at the other side as they might not be happy if she didn't. At the other end they didn't ask her for it when getting off, or back on to go home. They asked for it on return to england and she told them she thinks she left it at home, so they just let her go though anyway.",
"security at airports is primarily there to make people feel safer, rather than to prevent any actual threat as far as I can see. I guess people aren't as fearful of taking trains",
"Not sure what you mean. Big-city train stations have lots of meaningless security theater, including an utterly pointless requirement to show photo ID when boarding an Amtrak train. All this despite the fact that damage to a trainload of people would be done by sabotage somewhere along the hundreds of thousands of miles of track, not by forcing your way into the locomotive.",
"You hijack a train.. where you gonna go!!??",
"In Victoria, Australia a few years ago we brought in a security force for the trains. All bins have been replaced with ones with see through bags in case someone put a bomb in them. It was controversial but I like the security. They have waited with me for a cab before when I have been getting home from the station. I think cost is a major factor in why security is not common at trains.",
"It is much more difficult to sabotage a train. Can't hijack it and change course, or crash it very easily.",
"Cuz, you can't fly a train into a building?",
"you should go to Spain and check out the officers with assault rifles guarding the train stations",
"I prefer it that way. The thought of having to go through an airport like security just to get a train seems crazy.",
"Because the US government exploited 9/11 to make a power play in the form of TSA. Look at the pre-9/11 and post-9/11 stats on hijackings, and also the efficacy of the TSA when it gets tested. For an in depth explanation of this as opposed to an ELI5, I recommend: URL_0",
"The TSA does have a prescience at major train hubs like chicago's union square, that services things like Amtrak as well. And the TSA does want to be all up in there if they had the funding. You nonetheless will sill TSA advisory boards at even the most remote amtrak stations.",
"because the tsa at the airport was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 to give the public the appearance of safety and waste a shitload of tax payer money... much like the lying orange muppet's wall will be.",
"A lot of people have reasonable responses, but have missed the main difference. The entire original point of the massive increase in airport security was to prevent a person from taking over the plane, since it can be used in an of itself as a weapon. A train can't be driven into the side of a building, while an airplane can be driven to anywhere it has enough fuel to reach. The original point of airport security was not for individual safety, but rather to ensure the safety of the aircraft. That safety is not necessary on a train (or bus, or any other transportation mechanism) because they don't have the freedom of mobility of an aircraft, nor the devastating potential for destruction when taken over.",
"1 There are fewer people riding trains than there are people flying on a plane. 2 Train's are on a fixed path. No damger of someone crashing a train into a building.",
"Cause you can't fly a train into a building??",
"It depends which train stations you're talking about. Here in France there are regular 4-man patrols of armed soldiers at every train station.",
"Man I was thinking the exact same thing on the train the other day. Terrorists could use trains to bomb every single big city centre.",
"A hijacked airplane is literally a guided missile. It went from \"New York to LA\" to national security risk in seconds. A hijacked train is not so much a national security risk.",
"If it makes you feel any better there really isn't any security at airports either, it's all an illusion. URL_0",
"Speaking for the USA. 1) Train Stations (at least in the US) rarely cross international borders. Those few that do tend to be freight not passenger trains. 2) Very few people ride passenger trains that connect cities in the US. So most of them have been shut down or converted into freight trains over the years. Most train use in the US is limited to monorail systems and subways within major cities.",
"There is security at train stations. In fact, Amtrak police just shot and killed a man in Chicago. He was carrying drugs and refused to be searched.",
"Fun fact on this topic is that going by train in China is much like flying, apart from the half awake staff at the security counter you have several gates and only a specific window you are allowed to enter the platform on.",
"You can't fly a train into an immensely populated building like you can with a train. Trains have very specific paths that they can't be deviated from without basically stopping the train(which will injure/kill a lot of people, but not like a plane flying into the Twin Towers/Pentagon did)",
"In an airport/airplane you can fairly easily create a secure zone. Past the checkpoint, everything has been vetted. In a railroad, once the train has left the station you've got thousands of miles of unsecure track. And it's very difficult to maintain the Airport-type security on those thousands of miles.",
"I agree with other answers ITT but the other thing I've always kind of assumed is that hijacking a plane is much more dramatic. Nowadays most highjackings are some version of terrorism. To me personally having a train hijacked is much less freaky than a plain being hijacked. The goal is to terrorize.",
"because trains run on rails so you can't crash a train into a building. because the security for planes is largely security theater anyway, doesn't really make you safer it just makes you feel safe. because 9/11 used planes. because there hasn't been any major terrorist attack using a train in recent memory.",
"All security of this type exists to make people feel safe. It doesn't actually improve safety in any appreciable way. Therefore, it's quite probable that society at large feels safer in trains than in planes. Remember, plane travel is exceptionally safe, but still has a higher rate of phobia than any other type of travel.",
"In short , a train crashes / explodes passengers die and probably a few bystanders. High speed Train usually are on the outskirts , underground. A plane crashes / explodes , passengers die , and pretty much which ever city under the plan gets a free gift of 300 ton metal falling out of the sky. Killing who ever is under it.",
"In India we have tight security at all stations, in fact we even have a special dedicated police force for Railways. I guess it is just a situation of having your fingers burned once to find out a thing is dangerous. We have had our train station be attacked by terrorists so we know they are just as important to secure as airport",
"A train can only be hijacked as much as a bus. You would need several people per wagon to hijack the whole train. Since there are several emergency breaks and many doors, people can stop the train and get out much easier than out of an airplane. Also, you cannot crash a train into a city. Even if you could, there is no explosive fuel on board for additional collateral damage.",
"I work in aviation security and the answer is quite logical. If even a small ied goes off on a pressurized aircraft, the entire plane more often than not comes down. This was evidenced by two separate bombings in 2016. In the first one, a Somalian airliner was attacked with a laptop bomb in February 2016. The plane was only a few thousand feet up and hadn't pressurized yet. Even though the bomb blew a hole in the cabin, the pilot was able to land the plane and the only casualty was the bomber! In summer of 16 an Egyptian Air flight met a different fate: a small can of Orange Crush made it on board which was actually a liquid explosive ied. It went off when the aircraft was pressurized and 360 people died. It would be impossible to kill 300 people on a train with one ied."
],
"score": [
1407,
725,
215,
175,
115,
102,
82,
82,
61,
56,
35,
29,
23,
15,
13,
9,
9,
9,
7,
7,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20131216/8c89a590f56e1419003845.jpg",
"http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CBCWRD/security-gate-and-waiting-room-for-high-speed-trains-at-the-shanghai-CBCWRD.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://hereticsmountain.com/archives/165"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/upshot/waiting-in-line-for-the-illusion-of-security.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uyhgh | How is Comcast able to survive with it's reputation and service being as bad as it is. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxt27r",
"ddxumji",
"ddxt1lc",
"ddxt2te"
],
"text": [
"Simply because in most places if you want high speed internet your choice is Comcast or nothing.",
"This is exactly the reason why we have monopoly laws in this country. Every time you hear a politician screech about \"too much regulation\", this is the kinds of things they're talking about. If you nod along and say \"Yeah! There IS too much regulation! These hand waving arguments really resonate with me!\" just remember how much you hate Comcast.",
"As tech support for a major streaming service i can say there are a LOT of areas that only have comcast available. Not sure if thats the main reason though.",
"Because of people like my grandmother who switch from Verizon to Comcast and says ,\"oh the service is so much better!\"....but you don't use the internet grandma, damn 30 megs per second download my ass."
],
"score": [
32,
10,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5uz9f3 | Why would a one world government be such a bad idea? | I would think that just the cost savings on the military would make this improvement. Also currency manipulation would no longer be an issue. What are other upsides and downsides to this. Being from the US I am not so familiar with Brexit and why that happened. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddxzv3v",
"ddxze2n",
"ddxz8dh",
"ddxznwq",
"ddy1f1v"
],
"text": [
"The question is always what kind of one world government. If you live in a western democracy, you might not be crazy about a Chinese style gov't. If you are a true believer living in a theocracy, you might not be thrilled with western style free speech and free religion. One world government usually only sounds like a good idea if it is the kind of government you want.",
"I don't think it'd necessarily be a bad idea, but it simply wouldn't work. There would always be someone who disagrees with the way things are done and would want change. War amongst humans is rather inevitable unfortunately.",
"Open government implies one way of thinking. Decisions about your home are best made by people living near your home.",
"Whose interests take the most focus? One person one vote? China and India now set all global policy. By wealth? Then murica sets the world stage. Silly outfits? Then Burundi is suddenly the worlds leader. Military power? Murica again. It gets ugly fast and that's assuming everyone agrees to surrender their sovereignty to an outside organization.",
"Even in the US, we have a lot of tension between different parts of the country about what the \"best\" choices are in terms of national policy. Expand that problem to cover the entire globe, and sprinkle in multiple languages, religions, ethnicities, cultures, economies, etc"
],
"score": [
50,
18,
9,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5v14as | How is a convincingly intense and naked sex scene performed between two A-List actors? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddyj0la"
],
"text": [
"First, the set is cleared of everyone but essential personnel. These people behave professionally and can be trusted to be both respectful and discreet. The actors remain robed until the scene needs to be performed. Finally the actors wear modesty garments which cover their genitals. These are compact but cover the important parts. It is also important to note that A-list actors tend to be attractive people so performing the scene isn't the worst thing in the world for either of them, even if they aren't romantically interested in each other."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v16mh | How do people know about characteristics/traits of persons like former leaders and events that happened in history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddyfllc",
"ddyfv8m"
],
"text": [
"Written history is probably the most valuable source for figuring out what important historical figures were like as people. For example, Giorgio Vasari is famous for keeping extensive notes on the lives of fellow Renaissance and Baroque painters such as da Vinci & Caravaggio, collected in his most famous work, \"Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, from Cimabue to Our Times.\" His work became the basis for a lot of modern biographies of such artists. Of course, a lot of such records are based on the writer's personal opinion, so accounts of the personalities of famous people have to be taken with a grain of salt.",
"In many cases there are biographies written about that person, often by people who knew them personally. Researchers also consult the journals of the person in question, or those of their close friends and family, for clues about their personality. Plus, because those people were famous, their letters and other written or verbal communications are often documented and archived for later study simply because they're important to people. You'd be surprised how stuff much people keep, especially when it's from someone famous."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v24s1 | In the West, when did respect for soldiers turn into near-hero worship in nations like England, the US, New Zealand and Australia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddyqtya"
],
"text": [
"It is hard to answer for all countries together, since each have their own unique history and stories, and so this 'worship' would stem from different times and in different ways. I will, however, try and answer from an Australians perspective. For Australia and New Zealand, I think the true roots of this 'near-hero worship' of our soldiers, or 'diggers' as they are called in Australia, came from World War I. More specifically, the battle of Gallipoli. Before this battle, the soldiers of both these nations had never quite taken part in a true, nation defining battle or war. And with the outbreak of World War I, Australia and New Zealand formed the ANZAC's, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corpse. This is particularly significant as it was the first time both the Australians and the New Zealander's fought together, side by side. The main role they served in the war was to capture the Ottoman post that sat there. This move was actually co-ordinated by the British, who were planning to use the post to stage an offensive on Constantinople. However the operation did not go to plan. The Ottoman forces dug themselves in, and managed to hold off the allied forces, leading to an eventual victory after 8 months of fighting. This battle for the ANZAC's, quite simply, was an absolute bloodbath. Because of the trench warfare style of war used in WWI, the ANZAC's were dug into the side of the hill and basically couldn't move forward. This lead to many attempted charges up over the hill and into the enemy trench line. However because of the well positioned Ottoman machine guns and trenches overlooking the ANZAC position, it meant that the ANZAC's stood no chance, and were mowed down time and time again. What came from this are the stories of great heroism surrounding these soldiers, who would run into open battle where almost certain death awaited them, and yet they continued to try again and again. The battle played an enormous role in forging the national identities of these two countries; these two small island nations on the other side of the world, fighting side by side, tooth and nail, for their countries and for their Queen. Their tremendous heroism is echoed every year on ANZAC day, where veterans of both countries parade in their cities, and remember the fallen."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v2j0t | Where do all the massive amounts of bones and skulls come from in major catacombs such as the ones in France and why did people use these catacombs instead of conventional graves? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddytx9t"
],
"text": [
"They didnt get put in the catacombs right at death. They'd get buried first, but graveyard space was limited and when people were buried, it wasn't for forever. After a few years, those people were dug up and their bones were put into the catacombs for long term storage. So when you see the massive numbers of skulls and bones, that came after this was done for decades or even centuries."
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v2ksc | What's the controversy with the Dalai Lama? (Specifically within China and Tibet) | UCSD is having the Dalai Lama speak at the commencement ceremony this year. When they announced it on their Facebook page, they were inundated with comments about the Chinese students boycotting commencement and being angry that they would choose him to speak. Some Tibetan students also expressed their anger in the comments. If someone could shine some light on this for me that would be great thank you! :) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddyshau",
"ddyym3b"
],
"text": [
"Tibet is a territory that's being ruled by China. according to Tibetan religion and law, the Dalai Lama is the spiritual as well as legal ruler of the land. That doesn't jive with China federal government, who want dominating rule over the area. Instead of the Dalai Lama appeasing the Chinese gov and being made a puppet, he moved out of the country where the gov can't exercise their influence on him. He has continually made speeches and led movements for freedom as well as independence for Tibet. some people in China oppose the Dalai Lama and call for him to \"get with the game\". others support the Dalai Lama at the risk of the gov \"disappearing\" them. in China, you do not have the right to an speedy and fair trial. you can be arrested and whisked away and sent to prison for accusations of sedition and held until further notice at the gov's whim.",
"Tibet used to be part of the Mongol empire, where the first Dalai Lama started. It's a title. They choose their successor who becomes the next Dalai Lama. Then the Qing dynasty conquered them. That fell apart and they had a period of independence. Then China conquered Tibet in 1950. They're a semi-autonomous region lead by the Dalai Lama for about a decade. China is hella communist and doing their \"social restructuring\" which turns out to be a breathtakingly bad idea. Mao got a lot of people killed. It sucked. The Tibetans aren't thrilled at all when they bring this restructuring to Tibet. (Hey! There was a CIA backed rebellion. Didn't know about that one. Yeah, that always leads to fun times.) Anyway, the rebellion fails. The Dalai Lama flees to India in 1959 as the \"king in exile\" and there's on-going rebellion/freedom-fighting/terrorism. The Chinese are really brutal in response. It's still part of china, but the Tibeteans aren't Han, the biggest race in China. And people are pretty racist. There are issues. China's a lot less communistic these days and not quite as brutal. Since 2000, they've been throwing money at the region, but also bringing in a lot of Han, and all government officials are Han. Imagine there was a big group of Arapahoe Indians in Colorado back when it was bought from the French. Colonel Custard shot a bunch, sent Chief Big Bear into exile in Canada, and turned Colorado into a state. The populous has been pissed about Jim Crow laws ever since. Canada just gave Chief Big Bear a platform to complain about it all."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5v3faw | knives, forks and spoons seem to be more versatile and efficient than chopsticks - and also readily available, so why are chopsticks still the norm in China? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddyyx55",
"ddyz0lp",
"ddyytai",
"ddyyvjv"
],
"text": [
"It's heavily tied to the cuisine and culture. - A lot of Chinese food is stewed, boiled or part of a soup, making it difficult to use forks - the solid portions of stew get eaten first, and the liquid is sipped last - solid food is generally cut into tiny pieces so that it can cook faster, making chopsticks more viable than spoons, because it allows you to pick up the pieces one by one to savor the flavor, rather than several. - Another reason is portion control - you can feel full faster by eating smaller portions of rice or noodle using the natural kinetics of chopsticks. This is especially helpful in situations where food is not abundant. - Chinese starchy food (unlike most Western equivalents) are typically more \"sticky\" and easier to handle with chopsticks anyway.",
"A lot of that is based on what you grew up with; using a knife, fork, and spoon is easy for you because you've had a lot of practice and are used to eating Western foods that are conducive to such utensils. I was skeptical of chopsticks' utility until this past year when I made a lot of international friends and now use chopsticks pretty much every time I go out to eat. There are some pretty big advantages: * one-size-fits-all; you don't have to think about which utensils you need to grab for a particular food (\"will I need a knife?\") * lightweight and disposable; it's cheap for the restaurant to provide a new pair to each customer * enjoyability; forces you to eat in small bites, making the meal last longer and (if you're good) potentially less messy I'm not 100% comfortable with chopsticks yet but they've definitely grown on me this year and I never mind using them when I'm with my international friends.",
"Something about heritage, something about dignity, something about \"not being f*cking lazy\" - source: one of my friends seemingly always angry Asian girlfriend",
"Culture and traditions friend. Just like in India they still eat with thier hands. And a chinese with chopsticks is just as good at eating as you are with knife and fork. Only thing chopsticks can't do is cut things or eat the broth of a soup. But if you look at how the food is prepared in countries with chopsticks you'll see that the food often is pre cut before serving or you get served in smaller peices, they have sinply adapted."
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v49di | Why are hostage takers not considered terrorists and negotiable? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddz3yh4",
"ddzdvfi",
"ddz4jir"
],
"text": [
"Terrorism is as much defined by the goals as by the acts. If you go blow up a plane because you're angry at your ex who is on the flight crew, that's not really terrorism. Terrorism requires a political motive and the desire to put fear into the population. Somebody with a hostage may or may not have a political motive. Beyond that, \"don't negotiate with terrorists\" doesn't mean you won't talk to them, simply that their political demands will never be granted. Trying to talk them into giving up peacefully because their situation is hopeless is a different sense of the word. No hostage take will ever get a million dollars and safe passage to Mexico but still want to resolve the situation without the loss of life so we try to talk them down.",
"Because contrary to popular belief, \"terrorism\" has a meaning beyond \"bad people who do bad things we don't like\". Terrorism is about acts of violence directed against civilian targets with the goal of political change. Also, hostage \"negotiators\" rarely negotiate in any meaningful way. They are really hostage manipulators, who are there to wear the hostage taker down and try to maneuver them into a position where the standoff can be ended.",
"If we negotiate with people who take hostages and give them what they want, then they win. Now more people will know that hostages are useful for getting what they want. If you have a flat always followed rule that says you will never negotiate and you stick to it, then people planning large hostage acts will know that it won't get them anything."
],
"score": [
59,
17,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v4opc | Why are there feminine/masculine words in many European languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddz9rcs",
"ddz8dp7",
"ddz937m",
"ddzfm1j",
"ddzqdkh",
"ddzbezl"
],
"text": [
"The languages you are talking about are the Indo-European languages. Almost all languages in Europe are part of this language family. The original language that all of these descended from (Proto-Indo-European) had gendered words like that, so almost all of the languages that came from it also have it. Originally, there were three genders: feminine, masculine, and neuter. Some languages, like Russian and German, still have this. Some other languages, like Swedish, merged the feminine and masculine words to make a 'common' gender along with neuter. The Romance languages have gotten rid of the neuter gender and have the feminine/masculine words you were talking about. Funnily enough, English also used to have feminine, masculine, and neuter words, but over time people just kind of got rid of them, and now english is almost completely genderless.",
"It's a vestige of the old Proto-Indo-European language. It simply had these classes. Many other languages have different classes; some use animate-inanimate. Many Native American languages have multiple classes that describe the noun (usually with animacy, state, and consistency). Most linguists use gender when it comes to actual gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), while reserving class for pretty much everything else. Gender is usually only grammatical. For instance, German **Weib** (\"woman\") is neuter. So as I've said before, it's just vestiges of an ancient ancestral language. Nothing to do with sexism or whatever (usually).",
"For romance languages, latin had neutral, masculine and femenine. Vulgar latin lost the neutral nouns, so all neutral nouns became, randomly, feminine or masculine. And it changes between languages. For example. From LACTEM, (milk), evolved the spanish word leche and the portuguese word leite. But leche is feminine and leite is masculine.",
"It's important to realise that many - even *most* \"why\" questions about grammar just don't have a good answer. Languages developed quasi-randomly, mostly without direction and often without \"natural selection\" evolving the language towards certain useful features. So a lot of quirks are just there because, well... they just are! So the real answer is that **we don't know, and possibly there is no good reason.** However we can make some guesses which, in the case that gender didn't just happen for no reason, make sense. The first is that gender makes things less ambiguous. Think about the sentence: There is a shelf in the shop which I clean. Do I clean the shop or the shelf? In German this would be: Es gibt ein Regal in dem Laden *das/den* ich putze. If you use *das* then it means you clean the shelf, if *den* then it is the shop: there's no confusion, because the word has to change depending on the gender of the noun it's referring to. The next useful feature is that gender just serves as an extra part of the word which, if you have two words which sound similar, serves to make it clear which you meant. Other people have mentioned that the ancestor language of all Indo-European languages had gender, and this is why *so many* modern European languages have it now. Hopefully the above explains what we can say about why gender might have developed in Proto-Indo-European. Finally let me point out that you should not get confused by the terms \"gender,\" \"masculine\", \"feminine\" etc. \"Gender\" originally *only* meant the grammatical category and had nothing to do with human beings. It was occasionally used (often humorously) to refer to people being male or female, and then, because \"sex\" stopped meaning just \"male or female\" but started being short for \"sexual intercourse\" and therefore being naughty, people started using \"gender\" to mean \"sex\" much more often. But this was in the early 20th century and way after \"gender\" had long been used more as a grammatical term, or a way to just say \"type.\" I can't find anything about why \"masculine\" and \"feminine\" were the words used to talk about two of the genders, when they were also used to talk about people's sex. In English, the grammatical term is attested first but I suspect this usage all goes back to Latin. Anyway my point is that you shouldn't read too much into the names for what words are and what people are being the same.",
"I'm not a linguist at all, but I've noticed it can be helpful for disambiguation. Here are a couple of examples: First, consider sentences like, \"Put the microwave on the conveyer belt, and then put the ball on it.\" Does \"it\" refer to the conveyer belt, or the microwave? It's actually unclear. So instead of \"it\", you would have to say \"the microwave\" or \"the conveyer belt\" at the end of the sentence, which adds several syllables and makes the sentence longer, and we're always searching for shorthand. Now imagine that \"microwave\" were feminine and \"conveyer belt\" were masculine. Then instead of \"it\", you would be able to say \"her\" or \"him\", and your meaning would be obvious. So you'd be able to say a shorter sentence without making it more ambiguous. If there are 3 genders, then it might be unambiguous 67% of the time by random chance. Second, I've noticed (this is an information-theory type of answer) is that sometimes extra syllables (sentence context) can make it easier to understand someone's meaning. Imagine someone says \"Hand me the ta-\" and you aren't sure if they said \"tap\" or \"tape\" or \"tab\". If the word \"the\" comes in one of three genders for each of the words, then you can more easily guess which one follows. Stealing from German for a moment, imagine the words are \"der tap\", \"die tape\", \"das tab\". If someone says \"Hand me der ta-\" then you can be pretty sure they meant \"der tap\" and not \"das tab\", from the context of the sentence. So I'm not totally sure how that sort of thing would evolve, but I can see how it adds greater redundancy to sentence structure and makes it easier for people with different accents of the same language group to communicate. Edit: Oops, I just noticed F0sh's answer was similar. Check that one out too!",
"Can anyone explain why english **doesn't** have gendered words?"
],
"score": [
114,
89,
15,
15,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v5lcr | What causes Paris syndrome and why does it only occur in Japanese people? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddzdtt1",
"ddzmsa0",
"de01zrg"
],
"text": [
"It's not *only* in Japanese people, but they are more susceptible because their media have created such an overhyped, unrealistic expectation -- and because it's a long and exhausing trip to an extremely foreign/exotic place. URL_0 Even so, it's very rare, affecting 1 in 300,000 Japanese visitors to Paris.",
"I know that swedes are very susceptible to Jerusalem syndrome, which is similar to Paris syndrome except you start believing you are the Messiah. URL_0",
"The contemporary media hype has a deeper reason: the confrontations with the West in the 19th century revealed deep weaknesses in the Japanese (and Chinese) cultures, and those countries reacted by throwing out, at least superficially, a lot of their cultural heritage and even seeing parts of it as \"shameful\". The trope of Paris as the capital of fashion and elegant lifestyles combined with this to turn Paris into a fantasy image of some kind of wonderland of Good Western Things - elegance, style and proper dress is highly, highly valued in Japanese culture AFAIK. So when tourists encounter rudeness or the smell of urine, dog turds and a conspicuous lack of Catherine Deneuve on every corner, they come crashing down into reality, which then causes the depression of Paris syndrome."
],
"score": [
17,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome#Causes"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v5w4h | How the society comes up with minimum alcoholic drinking age? Is there any story from it somewhere? | Just curious if in the past people let kids drink alcoholic beverages and then something happened that led to the invention of minimum drinking age rule. Or maybe people have the default idea that kids shouldn't have the alcoholic drinks. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddzgwpv"
],
"text": [
"In the US very few places had drinking ages until prohibition, when no one was legally allowed to drink. Once prohibition was repealed every state set their own drinking ages. Some chose low ages like 16, some chose 21 and everywhere inbetween. Most had them around 18 or 19. During the 1980s there was a major movement called Mothers Against Drunk Drivers that lobbied very hard to establish a drinking age of 21. The US government wrote the law such that the States still have the right to set their drinking ages however they want but if it is lower than 21 they do not get federal funds for road maintenance. No longer having seniors and recently graduated friends able to get high schoolers alcohol greatly reduced the number alcohol related medical issues (both crashes and poisonings). Some studies show it to be a drop of up to 60%. It also helped people 19-25 and reduced their incidents by 40%."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5v5zkg | I understand America's distaste for communism. But why is it often lumped together with socialism? Is this a misunderstanding or a purposeful product of American education? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddzgkin",
"ddzheh2"
],
"text": [
"It's based on a partial misunderstanding. Yes they are two different things, but Marxist theory says that the before a society can achieve true communism, it must go through a period of socialism in which the state assumes all control of the means of production to distribute resources evenly. So, socialism has a pretty close connection with communism that (somewhat) justifies the fear.",
"Part of it is based off of a misunderstanding by people who seem to espouse socialism, and yet don't identify as socialists. Communism is simply a means by which you achieve socialism, through the violent overthrow of the upper classes. Actual socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, as defined by Marx, which both the neo-liberals and the socialists agree on (they just disagree over whether socialism is worth it or not). Many people in the middle aren't actually socialists, they just like socialized programs as a means to augment our economic system, or are people who are deliberately misrepresenting what socialism is (e.g. Bernie Sanders). But socialized programs are not equivalent to socialism. Thus, while they claim to be advertising socialism, they're not actually advocating for true socialism. Thus, there's a disconnect between what the libertarians and conservatives in the US dislike, and the American and European left's economic systems that are described as being \"socialist,\" but in reality aren't socialist in any way whatsoever."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v6esn | Why, in 2017, is Russia considered an enemy of the United States | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddzmoqo",
"ddzkcyx",
"ddzlfsc",
"ddzlmw1"
],
"text": [
"Enemy is the wrong word. Rather, they are an adversary. It's a key difference. While we agree on many things - and while the US is Russia's 5th largest trading partner - our countries have fundamental socio-political differences. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia is attempting to somewhat recapture its former glory. It's difficult for the country to do this on a cultural/academic level due to significant braindrain. That is, Western nations can offer better quality of life for well-educated or skilled Russians. Therefore, the country flexes it's might diplomatically and militarily. They expand their borders and influence to show strength. This causes many Russian people to feel a newfound sense of Nationalism, this gives the government more power (and makes it less democratic), it gives Putin more control, while it threatens our NATO allies.. which hurts Russo-American relations. Meanwhile, it harms cultural and academic institutions within Russia that rely on freedoms and/funding - those folks are further incentivized to leave for greener/safer pastures. Which means Russia has to further advance their influence on the world via strength. Pretty soon - all that are left are indoctrinated Pro-Russian academics that refute Western values. Things are certainly better since the end of the Cold War - but we keep each other in check via economic interests rather than nuclear. This is why Russia plays nicer when we place sanctions.",
"They aren't considered an enemy, they're more like iffy friends. America is that kind of pudgy friend who's parents buy him what he wants, but can fight really well because he's been trained, while Russia is the kid who grew up in a tough neighborhood and doesn't take shit from anyone, and can fight just as well, and also always wears tracksuits. They get along fine but talk shit to each other a lot, and sometimes get in each other's faces but don't really want to fight because neither of them are sure who would win and who would die in the process. They'd back each other in a fight though, have a few drinks after, and then probably throw up on some third world country.",
"Because they never stopped being an enemy. They are our most powerful military rival, and one of the most powerful economic rivals. Their interests in no way match our own.",
"Russia and the US fall well short of being friends, and while they are not enemies Russia represents a severe danger. Here is why: Russia used to be part of the Soviet Union, a superpower which was making serious efforts to take control of the world. NATO opposed the Soviet Union and over the course of the Cold War the US and allies managed to cause the Soviet Union to break up. When the Soviet Union was around its spy agency was called the KGB. They provided intelligence and clandestine work both outside and within the Soviet Union, stealing information and assassinating people. The current leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, used to work in the KGB. Right now Russia is a dictatorship ruled through corruption and fear by an ex-spy/assassin for one of the US's most powerful historical enemies, controlling a country with nuclear weapons and a military that rivals that of the rest of Europe. Putin believes that all the countries which used to be part of the Soviet Union should be part of it again whether they like it or not and is willing to take them over by military force. He regularly orders the assassination of those who oppose him, often through poisoning, and constantly employs disinformation and defamation through his intelligence operatives such as with the DNC hacks and the media buzz about Trump's campaign. Realistically speaking if a country in Europe isn't in NATO it is on the menu for Russia. The threat of nuclear weapons means that NATO isn't going to start anything with Russia if it can be avoided, meaning small wars will likely pop up in Europe as Russia conquers them while everyone else looks the other way. In the meantime both the US and NATO need to figure out a way to prevent Russia turning itself into another USSR without actually going to war, not the least because most of NATO has been underfunding their military because they could lean on Big Brother USA. However, the US has recently told NATO to put on their big boy pants and take care of themselves which means there is a very real threat represented by Russia cropping up at the same time as the ally everyone relied on elected an isolationist President. In summary Russia isn't an enemy, but it is an aggressive and expansionist regional bully headed by a brazen murderer. This is a problem."
],
"score": [
11,
10,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v7eg6 | how do TV shows like Bones or Dexter make those super realistic decayed bodies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddzy4jl"
],
"text": [
"How many decayed bodies have you seen up close? How do you know they're \"super realistic\" and not just consistent with everything else you've seen from Hollywood? Beyond that, they've got access to all the same pictures & documents you would. Making fake things, painting them & capturing them under the correct lighting is what special effects artists do. They've been perfecting their trade for a long time. In just one example, The Walking Dead used BBQ meat whenever a zombie was eating somebody. All you need is a bunch of sauce with red food coloring & a shot that's not too up close to make it pass for real."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5v8z6q | What are the "Russian Sanctions" that have become a center of news in the U.S.? | Also... what would lifting them mean? I don't necessarily mean political outcomes, but rather what is literally being halted by the sanctions being in place. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de05pfg"
],
"text": [
"When Russia decided to annex Crimea countries around the world decided this was not good. So they implemented sanctions against the Russian government and key individuals. Things like stopping certain companies from conducting trade/business with the Russian government and Russian based companies, freezing certain Russian assets around the world like bank accounts and what not. These sanctions should remain in place until Russia gives backs Crimea and gives up the idea of taking all of Ukraine. Lifting them now is the US basically giving it's ok to Russia to do whatever they want with Ukraine and potentially former soviet states. TDLR: Sanctions show we are displeased with Russias actions and want them to stop, lifting them means we don't care anymore."
],
"score": [
20
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5v95uz | - What exactly does "Alt-right" stand for and how are their beliefs different than "Right-wing"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de07e99",
"de0bnun"
],
"text": [
"The \"alt-right\" is a very far right section of American right-wing politics. Traditional right-wing politics in the US revolves around individual and state rights, economic conservatism, and social conservatism with a large influence for Christianity. Note that this has changed in recent years; the right-wing party (the Republican party) has begun to focus more heavily on social conservatism and less heavily on economic conservatism, and has largely abandoned the idea of states' rights except when those states want to do something socially conservative. The alt-right, however, is a new section of the party. It's extreme in every area, with huge influence from racist, sexist, and xenophobic policies, *very* quasi-religious (that is, they like to use religion as their reason to do something but don't necessarily want to actually be required to follow that, it's optional-only), extremely socially conservative, and largely anti-science.",
"From an outsiders perspective, the alt right seems to have evolved from a reactionary movement against increased social liberalism. They are called misogynist. They oppose modern radical feminism. People started saying that the patriarchy is the source of all evil. Men are all rapists. Women are all victims. Men only succeed because of privilege. The alt right includes people who are against that frame of thinking. It develops into legitimate hatred and misogyny for some of this people. They are called racist. This comes as a reaction against the instances of a sort of victim fetish that some in the far left have adopted. White people are all evil. People of color deserve special treatment to make up for it. The alt right includes people against these ideas. For some, the opposition is based on legitimate prejudice, and for some, prejudice is fuelled by the propagation of a victim complex. They are called xenophobic. In past politics, arguments about immigration have always been about what regulations should or should not be imposed. Lately, however, those on the far left have advocated for illegal immigration to be allowed rather than pushing regulations like making citizenship an easier process. The alt right includes people who oppose illegal immigration. For some, the opossition also comes from a place of prejudice. They are called homophobic. A lot probably just are homophobic. But what you also see is a response to the state of modern liberalism in regards to gender and sexual identity. Things like 400 different gender pronouns. The desire to dismiss biological composition when considering a person's identity. They are called islamaphobic. The modern liberal view on Islam appears to have developed a self imposed gag order in regards to the association with the religion and violence. You have people censoring crimes performed by Muslim individuals as though acknowledging them makes somebody a bigot. The alt right includes people who have no qualms about relating violence to a religion. For some, this is probably because of a strong sense of pride for their own Christian faith. Ultimately, I think that the alt right is defined by people who are reactionary to an \"alt-left\". The subscribers to pc culture and safe spaces. The alt right might be people who would normally have no interest in the political arguments of the Ds and Rs. Because of concerns about social issues, however, they begin to unite and develop increasingly polarized views on things."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vaetz | Why isn't Nagarno-Karobagh annexed by Armenia? | Why does the Nagarno-Karabagh region decide to stay an autonomous republic? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de0imk4"
],
"text": [
"Mainly, the idea of annexation hasn't even been entertained because the conflict with Azerbaijan hasn't yet been resolved, and if Armenia was to annex Karabakh, then Azerbaijan begins saying stuff like Armenia is being oppresser and illegal occupied and stuff. This would also basically be Armenia saying fuck you to peace negotiations, and kinda putting a deadlock on the negotiations, as it attempts to solidify the status of Karabakh completely removing concessions or anything from the table. The main thing Karabakh Armenians wanted was independence from Azerbaijan, and they've gotten that, so for now they are perfectly happy and proud of being their own little country. It also plays into a major part of Armenia's policy regarding the conflict: deniability. While it is obvious that the Armenian Army deployed all over Karabakh, and that Armenia provides tons of support to the separatists, they deny this for the sakes of politics, and Karabakh being independent and having its own separate (wink wink) army, the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, they are able to deny responsibility. Otherwise, Azerbaijan would be able to more successfully claims like \"Armenia is oppressive nation being aggressor against Azerbaijan and occupying Azerbaijani lands\". It's also why Armenia doesn't even recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, to show that it doesn't support the separatists, and sorta supports Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, in that Armenia is willing to work with Azerbaijan and for example concede territories in exchange for ending the conflict. Furthermore, this theoretically gives Karabakh Armenians more of a say in their own future, rather than having Armenia's government just decide everything. If the Armenian government wants to do something with the negotiations, like concede some territory to Azerbaijan, then the Karabakh government could disagree and refuse to give it. Of course, the Karabakh government can't really disagree much since they are heavily dependent on Armenia, but nonetheless they get some degree of freedom in making decision. Now if the conflict is finally resolved, with Azerbaijan finally conceding the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic being independent (which would probably happen in a deal where the buffer territories were handed over to Azerbaijan), then annexation becomes an option. In that case, there will probably be a referendum where Armenians in Karabakh can choose whether they would like to stay independent or join Armenia ( most likely as an autonomous region), and as the Armenian there are pretty split about it, the vote would probably be pretty close. TL;DR: Gives Armenia deniability in being responsible for \"occupying\" Azerbaijani territory and supporting separatists. It's the same reason why Armenia doesn't recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It's essential for allowing negotiations with Azerbaijan to occur. Sorry about the massive response, idk how it ended up so long. Ask if anything is unclear to you."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vajfh | If King Jong Un was educated in Switzerland, how comes noone explained him that terrorising a nation is inhumane and that he didn't pick up any humanity? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de0jgix",
"de0lo3b",
"de0j5m7"
],
"text": [
"He spent most of his life in North Korea, learning that his grandfather and father were practically living gods with unlimited power over peasants. He was richly rewarded and reinforced for believing the same things. Any enlightenment and democratic ideals he learned in Switzerland he didn't find as appealing as the lure of power and enormous wealth he could have by being a despot. Most murderers, rapists, and thieves have learned what the moral thing to do is, but have rejected it because crime is more pleasurable to them. His brother, Kim Jong-Nam, the one he likely just had killed, was more enlightened and moral than Kim Jong-Un. He was removed from the line of succession as being weak and disobedient. Also keep in mind that to keep power, Kim Jong-Un had to become ruthless. He preferred that life to exile and possible purging.",
"What makes you think getting an education in Europe makes you more humane? A certain Austrian got a western education, didn't stop him from doing some naughty things once he got control of a country.",
"Some times you just need to do your work even though it might clash with what you believe. There are people who write parking tickets, euthanize animals, collect debts, kill people for their country, rule a country with iron fist or telemarket. Someone else will come and do the job if you don't."
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vavx2 | How to know or explain how the moon landing isn't fake? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de0kp4d",
"de0l2yt",
"de0ktlq"
],
"text": [
"You can very rarely reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. If a person is willing to dismiss the video footage and photographs, the existence of returned samples, the fact you can bounce lasers off the reflectors we left there, and the ongoing solar system exploration we are carrying out that built on the science developed in the moon missions, then you really are very unlikely to provide anything to convince them. They will simply claim hoax. Ignore and move on. IF they ever genuinely come to question their position there is more than enough information out there for them to work it out themselves.",
"You're asking for a ELI as if I were talking to a naive, unassuming 5 year old, correct? He/she has not yet aligned views that the landing was fake. If so, I would use our current satellite imaging and ISS feed. \"We've already made it this far. It's not much harder to go the extra miles before we hit the Moon.\" Something along these lines would be enough to convince a child. If we're talking about an adult with an actual strong belief that the moon landing was fake, I would just walk away. I don't associate myself with people who believe in the lizard people. I may, however, acquaint myself with those who believe in Zorp the Surveyor, a 28ft tall lizard god who is humankind's destroyer, predicted to come down to earth and melt everyones' faces off with his volcano mouth. I may even be inclined to read, \"Organize It!\" and, \"Organize It 2! Engage with Zorp!\" both by Lou Prozovotich. Nah never mind. I'll just have a beer and make some wooden flutes. Edit: [for those of you non-Zorpians, tremble before that which is Zorp!]( URL_0 )",
"One of the simplest things, to me, is that if *anyone* was going to call hoax - the Russians would have. Especially to their internal media. They never have, so they clearly don't have any evidence, so it's clear the US won and did indeed get there. I believe the Russians have since been to the moon too - if they wanted to call out the US, they could simply have gone to the same place to have a look."
],
"score": [
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e15/10914137_654574144664372_1537951745_n.jpg?ig_cache_key=OTA0NTUzOTAzNjgxOTU4MjUy.2"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vb1zr | Why do we say Allah instead of God when quoting Islamic texts into English? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de0mpm0",
"de0npri",
"de0vzqi",
"de18xsv",
"de0w7fn",
"de0phxm"
],
"text": [
"Allah means the one and only God. Christian and Jewish Arabic speakers also say Allah, but English speaking Christian and Jewish people tend say God. It's maybe just because it's easier to identify with God rather than Allah. I watched a video a while ago that said the Gideon bible when translated into Arabic refers to God as Allah EDIT: missed a word",
"As a Muslim I say God. Also I've heard Archbishop of Istanbul to use word Allah instead of God when speaking in Turkish.",
"To make Muslims sound like \"others\". It's scarier that way, and if we referred to Allah as \"God\" then Christians and Jews wouldn't see Muslims as enemies so much as simply misguided believers in the same god.",
"It's a Cultural Holdover from Catholic Cultural Dominance. It's easy to forget, seeing how most of The West is Secular to one degree or another, but the Catholic Church was once *the* most powerful Institution in The West. The Islamic Caliphate(s) were the only real rival that the Church had, and they were engaged in *direct military conflict* with them at several points in history. It was in the Church's interests to make Islam look \"Alien.\" If it were common knowledge that the Muslims worshiped the same God... well... that might stir up some Theological Arguments which threaten entrenched power-structures. Keeping the Arabic word \"allah\" from being translated to any other word that meant \"god\" was one of the techniques they employed to those ends. Since the Church could shut down any publishers that didn't toe the line... they were fairly successful. Once the Church's dominance over society faded, most people who *knew* anything about Islam thought that \"Allah\" was a **name**, rather than just the Arabic Word for god. So we kept printing it as if it were. Now that we're in conflict with the Middle-East again... we're keeping the mistranslation for the same reason that the Church brought it into being.",
"Muslim here. Allah is used with the meaning \"the one and only god\", while god can also be translated to Illah (which should be close in meaning to deity). note that illah can also refer to Allah in Quran in specific contexts and obvious contexts.",
"It seems to be a cultural thing, particularly for America. Allah is generally used in conjunction with Islam when mentioned in the west, and translated to God when the story refers to the Christian faith. This despite the fact that in the original language they are the same, and indeed both refer to a particular Abrahamic deity. Whether it is intended as a sort of shorthand identifier, a respect paid to the faith, or a verbal segregation I cannot say"
],
"score": [
35,
16,
12,
12,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vdjcy | When talking about Africa as a place to visit, place of origin, etc. why do people still refer to the entire continent instead of specific countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de172ag",
"de16q9c"
],
"text": [
"I hear people saying (and have said myself) they are taking a trip to Europe or Asia or South America, it is not particularly unusual. As for a place of origin, you generally try to match your answer to your audience's perceived knowledge of the local geography. Saying you were from Cheethan Hill will probably get you a blank stare. People *might* have heard of Manchester, but \"I'm from England\" likely would be the best answer. Similarly, most people don't know Togo from Benin from Senegal. Saying you are from Africa instead answers the question without having to provide a geography lesson.",
"Those going to Africa on trips that are for medical relief or christian missionary trips they tend to go to multiple countries not a single one."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vdkb6 | Why is Taco Bell chicken brown in Canada, but white in America? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de16ok6"
],
"text": [
"Maybe they use dark meat in Canada? It's probably a lot cheaper."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vdqm4 | why USA remakes foreign films and tv-shows even if the original source material is already highly regarded and acclaimed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de18fas"
],
"text": [
"For the same reason they remake old movies that were really good, like The Day the Earth Stood Still. If you are a studio executive and I pitch you on an idea for a new and original movie, even if you like it there is a risk that it won't be popular. If you greenlight my movie and it losses money then it's **your fault**. If, on the other hand, I pitch you an idea to remake something that was successful last time the risks are perceived as much less. Moreover, since it made money the last time, if the remake doesn't make money you just say **it's all my fault**, how could you have known I was going to screw up? This drives toward minimal creativity. Only when audiences stop showing up for remake driven do Hollywood types get desperate enough to start taking risks on new ideas."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5velnf | What is a Neoliberal? | I keep seeing this term again and again but I had never heard of it before the end of the last US election. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de1hn2u",
"de1hofa"
],
"text": [
"Neoliberals are open border capitalist, which breaks from traditional positions liberals held as this favors corporations over labor. Labor used to be the bread and butter of liberal policy.",
"Neoliberal means that you are generally in favor of their being minimal government interference within the economy. Particularly with regards to international/global trade."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5veugi | How could the Transformers and Gobots be on TV at the same time without the makers suing each other for copyright violation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de1ish8",
"de1i6r4"
],
"text": [
"You can't copyright an idea. That's why there are so many stories about vampires or zombies or talking animals or aliens. That's why we have competing late night talk shows with nearly identical formats. Copyright protects specific content: the words on the page or the images on the screen.",
"I'm not sure what the question is. They're two legally distinct products with no relation to each other. There's no grounds for a lawsuit to begin with."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vfwwj | Feudalism and governance | I am a bit confused about Feudalism. How it worked, was it a form of governance or something that happened alongside something like a monarchy. ELI5 Feudalism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de1tua9"
],
"text": [
"Feudalism is both a governmental and an economic system. Say you've declared yourself King. You've got a lot of money, and a lot of dudes willing to crack heads, and a pretty good fort. From your fort you can effectively govern the area immediately around your fort. If anyone steps wrong, your dudes ride out and bust their head. You charge all the people living around your fort rent \"for their protection.\" It's a pretty good racket, but you're ambitious. You want more lands and more rent money, but you can't effectively control land far away. People Over There aren't scared of your dudes, because your dudes are far away. Sure you can ride to Over There once in a while and bust some heads, but you always have to go home eventually. It's frustrating. So you come up with a plan. You find a local dude from Over There who is a little ambitious himself. You tell him you'll send him some money and a few dudes, and put him in charge as Lord of Over There. If he plays ball and pays you a portion of the rent he collects you'll back him up with your dudes if he gets in trouble. If he gets uppity and stops paying his taxes, you'll ride over and burn down his nice new house. So now you're a King, you've got a Lord, and feudalism is happening! Do this in a few more places and you have a nice little kingdom going. Just be careful none of the Lords start getting ideas about how maybe they should be King..."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vgpxs | Why do safari guides and zoo keepers wear khaki outfits? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de20l24"
],
"text": [
"It's a neutral colour that blends in in most environments. Tan/khaki/brown clothing and even the cars/safari vans tend to match the environment to make the animals more comfortable"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vi80z | Why do roman sculptures look so realistic yet medieval sculptures and paintings look so cartoonish/disproportionate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2g8ca",
"de2cu6y",
"de2er7x",
"de2qp0e",
"de2a60i",
"de2evcc",
"de28z90",
"de28v3z",
"de2hz6m",
"de2t3rb"
],
"text": [
"There's many reasons for this. First and foremost is the fact that the fall of the western roman empire is a long and drawn out process during which time the economy needed for statue making was dwindling. If there's no one rich enough to buy a statue no one makes it. If no one makes it, no one learns how. And so the craft is forgotten in a generation or two. But The roman empire didn't fall in 476, just the western part. in the east we can see similar styles up until the iconoclasm which is it's own mess. Unfortunately due to wars, ottoman dislike for statues and the iconoclasm, not many statues from them remain. So in the west people stopped making these natural lifelike arts because there wasn't enough money in it. Because everyone was poor. Because they were living in an \"almost post apocalyptic\" world of a fallen empire. But to answer the important part of your question. Beauty is subjective to the society in which it is made. I.E, these paintings you see and feel are bad were not bad in the eyes of those that made it. U/pinesap explains it very well here: [\"During the Middle Ages, the ideas that artists sought to depict were allegorical - the allegory a central form of medieval art and culture. The images created at that time were realistic as far as the ideas and cultural values they represented - they were not \"lacking\" in any skill. They served exactly the purpose they meant to fill, narrative, symbolic. The idea was not to represent reality, it was to transcend reality - and the point was that this was ideally to occur on the viewer's spiritual mind.\"]( URL_0 ) In other, simpler words: the people who made medieval art did not intend to do the same job as the roman and greek artists. The People around them did not want grandiose, realistic, natural art. It didn't fit their view of the world. It may seem strange to us now, but the fact is art usually reflects the values of them time. And at the time, storytelling was more important than realism.",
"I believe that good \"life-like\" quality in sculpture arose much earlier than in paining because when you are sculpting you are representing 3 dimensional objects in another 3 dimensional object. With painting however, you are trying to trick the observer into seeing 3 dimensional objects on a 2 dimensional surface. If you look at Roman and Greek paintings (on pottery and such) it is also quite primitive from a modern perspective, just like early medieval paintings. Likewise, medieval sculptures were also not fundamentally different in complexity compared to Roman sculptures. The big shift in European paintings from the silly-looking early stuff to proper three-dimensional representation using depth and such was a really big step! Source: Was also curious about this question and asked a friend who is quite knowledgeable about this stuff.",
"When the Roman Empire fell, it wasn't to another great civilization. There are volumes of books written why Rome fell, but in the wake of its fall there was a total breakdown in the unity of Western Europe. The Catholic Church was the only real remnant left of the Roman Empire (which had adopted Christianity before Rome fell.) The artistic advancements that did not directly serve the Church were abandoned and largely forgotten. It wasn't until the Renaissance (15th century) that Western Europe began to display a greater secularism as well as greater respect and interest in the arts. Renaissance means \"rebirth\", and the people of the Renaissance saw their time as a rebirth of the ancient glory of Rome/Greece. They labeled the 1,000 years between their time and the fall of Rome as the \"middle\" ages (Medieval is Latin for middle ages.) Some of the rediscovery of ancient artistic techniques was due to archaeological discoveries, and some of it was experimentation. Opera came about because Italians thought that Ancient Greek theatre was entirely sung. Michaelangelo and other great Renaissance artists were among the first to create on the dame level as the ancient Romans/Greeks.",
"The sculptures from each period served different purposes, and were made by people with different styles. Other people have already covered the shift towards allegory/symbolism/transcendence in Medieval art. But I just wanted to point out that Roman sculpture wasn't reliably \"realistic\" either. Do you really think so many emperors and consuls were as buff/handsome/well-proportioned as their portraits suggest? Heck no. At least one of them had to have been a cross-eyed pudgy bald dude or something. Roman art was stylized, just in the opposite direction from Medieval art. They used realistic proportions for things like how long a person's arm should be in relation to their fingers, but they gave their subjects a heavily idealized musculature, weight, and facial structure that were unlikely to have been a reflection of anyone's actual body.",
"The Romans had a much more sophisticated society that had specialized trades and a greater infrastructure. Most of the roads and aqueducts in europe had been built by Roman architects during their conquest of europe. As Rome fell to the Visigoths (i believe), most of their infrastructure was taken over by people who did not know how to replicate it on the level of technical expertise. The medieval period was almost a step backward as a technologically advanced culture fell and outsiders tried to use and recreate the methods of a society they knew of, but did not really comprehend.",
"Why did [Romanticist painting]( URL_1 ) look so realistic yet early 20th century painting looked like [this]( URL_0 ) and late 20th century painting like [this]( URL_2 )? Different time periods reflect different cultural values and aesthetic preferences. Medieval art was first and foremost educational: A way to teach the illiterate in an easy, accesible way. As such it was much cruder and had more of an emphasis in allegory and symbolism than in faithfully representing reality.",
"Every period and culture in history has its own artistic styles. A good example would be the ancient egyptians who, during the reign of (I think) akhenaten, they had a much more realistic art form where human shapes looked more natural, and then once he passed, they returned to their old, rigid, not so natural human forms.",
"I'd say it would have to do with the values of the cultures. For the Greeks and then carried into the Romans, the perfect physical body was idealized. So they would want a statue to look real and perfect. Into the medieval time period, you had a more creative/imaginative viewpoint of the artist. (At least that's what I think anyway).",
"Roman art was inspired by Greek sculpture, painting, etc. which emphasized proportions, depth, and perspective. You have to remember that this was a period of high praise for mathematics and art itself and because the Greeks (and subsequently the Romans) were studying Euclidean geometry, their art thrived in terms of realism. As some others said, when the Roman Empire fell, Europe was thrown into the dark ages and all of this was lost until the Renaissance and specifically in painting, Giotto came onto the scene to revive perspective. To add to that, the medieval style did not require realism. Much of it was mosaics for religious purposes and since its subjects were always religious figures it was ok for them to essentially break the laws of physics (e.g. Subjects appearing in more than one place in a medieval piece).",
"I would say because roman and Greek artists were expressing something different than Christian Europeans. Greco-Roman art was more of a reflection of nature and often about beauty itself. These cultures enjoyed significant luxury and highly valued artists. These developed all kinds of arts. Middle Ages Christendom, was more interested in religious art. It was representing humans gods etc in relation to each other. E.g. God is big humans small. It wasn't about reflecting on nature or beauty but telling stories. They weren't interested in representing reality but noting who was important and so on."
],
"score": [
293,
91,
26,
25,
15,
12,
8,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l1vp2/why_is_ancientmiddle_ages_art_is_technically_much/cbv3et1/?st=izh3hm9h&sh=dae468f9"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/the_exhibitions/images/picasso.jpg",
"https://static1.squarespace.com/static/565a179de4b0c377c4638edd/t/5692edfc5a566828b96be0ca/1452469887548/?format=1000w",
"http://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/convergence.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vie1j | Why do Second class and First class stamps take different amounts of time to arrive? (UK) | If the letters/packages get picked up at the same time, they arrive at the sorting offices at the same time, why aren't they shipped at the same time and delivered at the same time? Do they just leave them in the sorting offices for a few days, or are they transported in a different way? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2a5zg"
],
"text": [
"First class stamps are just giving priority over second class stamps So when the mail arrives at the sorting office the first class stamps are sorted straight away but the second class stamps are put at the back of the pile to be sorted when they can. Same with shipping - first class stamps are always put on the next available truck for shipping. Second class stamps need to wait their turn. Same with delivery. It's basically like a VIP pass for your mail - your letter gets to go to the front of the queue"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vie1y | How does the SAT put those from lower socioeconomic classes at an disadvantage. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2bfx7",
"de2an5g"
],
"text": [
"The SAT as a test, in the question material, doesn't inherently put anybody at a disadvantage. In fact, they are very careful to structure questions to not give any racial, cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic group any advantage. However, one of the big deciders in score is preparation. SAT prep costs money, and people who can't afford it are more likely to have lower scores. In some areas there is free SAT prep, but it has a reputation for not being particularly good.",
"I think the biggest is study prep. If you are of lower socioeconomic class then you may not afford study prep materials. I know I had a SAT book that I used. We were lucky enough to be able to afford one. I knew people in my class that went to a tutor twice a week for 2 months leading up to it. Also, I had to work most night after school so I didn't have a much time to study as say someone that didn't have to work."
],
"score": [
17,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vjbd6 | How did Venezuela go from seemingly normal to in dire straits and starving so quickly? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2ibub"
],
"text": [
"To understand this you need to go back to the Cold War. The US and allies of NATO were competing against the USSR and allies for influence and control of the world. Over a long period of time the US and NATO out-competed the USSR economically and it collapsed, breaking up into a bunch of separate countries including Russia. A former agent of the KGB (the USSR intelligence agency) named Vladimir Putin seized control of Russia and rules it as a shadow dictator through corrupt oligarchs and fear (assassination through poisoning is common). Putin views the countries which were formerly part of the USSR as rightfully Russian territory and is willing to take them by force if necessary and practical. In order to exert power and influence beyond a country's shores it is necessary to have a navy which can operate year-round to supply military operations. Unfortunately Russia is in a location where their coast freezes in the winter meaning ships cannot get in and out of their ports in the winter. The only warm water military port Russia had access to was rented from Ukraine, a former USSR member. Ukraine was eyeing joining NATO which Putin views as an old enemy and the biggest limiting factor to extending Russian influence, so obviously Ukraine joining NATO would put that port out of reach if conflict developed with NATO. Up against a wall with this port issue Putin decided to secretly invade Crimea with Russian military forces and claim it was a popular uprising of the Russian-speaking locals, seizing the port and annexing the territory. Nobody was really fooled by the lies but as Ukraine didn't have mutual defense treaties with anyone it didn't start an outright war. However the US didn't want to set the precedent that such invasion was OK so economic sanctions were imposed. Russia is a large oil exporting nation and it would really hurt the Russian economy and tax income if the price of oil were to go down. Saudi Arabia basically controls the oil prices of the world and has a simple but effective tactic to keep out competition: Lower prices and sell from massive oil reserves while the competition cannot afford to keep operations going. Saudi Arabia is also a close US ally (of necessity, not because the US loves their policy or culture) and the US knew exactly how to force this reaction. The US relaxes regulation of the oil industry within the country allowing things like fracking and oil sands to be exploited, causing a big oil industry boom. Saudis drop prices as expected and gas suddenly gets cheap. Russia's economy really feels the burn! Now to Venezuela, I haven't forgotten about them. Venezuela is headed by Nicolas Maduro who much like Hugo Chavez is in effect a populist dictator who buys votes with government handouts. The majority of the economy and basically all government income is provided by the government owned and operated oil industry which exports crude oil. Following the typical Banana Republic model of corruption and mismanagement the oil industry is less than competitive and there was no money stored away for a rainy day. When the economic warfare of the US against Russia occurred the oil price crashed and Venezuela saw their income plummet. Since they were pacifying the population with government handouts without a buffer of cash to keep things going, this sudden lack of government funds meant people living off the public dole now can't live at all. Massive lack of basic necessities like food appeared almost instantly and the unrest followed. Without the ability to maintain dictatorship through populism Maduro reverted to force, seizing power and putting down dissent through violence."
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vka29 | why do drivers who hit/kill cyclists with their vehicles seem to get just a slap on the wrist mostly? | Maybe this question could be applied to any driver who hits any vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian and kills someone. Barring bad weather and including things like drunk driving and speeding, I've seen a lot of articles on /r/bicycling over the years where the drivers don't seem to get in too much trouble. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2szq0",
"de2pu99",
"de32mef",
"de2q0ez",
"de3lwc6",
"de2wb1w"
],
"text": [
"The US criminal justice system requires one of two things; intent or actions that were reckless to the point they willfully disregarded human life. A standard car accident where you didn't see the bicyclist, and weren't driving unreasonably(speeding, weaving, on your phone etc) is not a crime. Now you would be civily liable for damages you caused the cyclist(medical bills, lost wages etc), but that's another matter.",
"Because that's just how the laws are structured in most places, such that the worst charge you can receive is vehicular manslaughter. Manslaughter generally means that you killed someone, but it was completely unintentional, so it's a matter of the intent the driver to kill or not. [This]( URL_0 ) Freakonmics podcast discusses this exact subject.",
"TBH: This could happen to anyone. You are driving down the road, sober, obeying traffic laws, etc... And a cyclist comes out of nowhere. It happens all the time. I've narrowly missed many bicycles as they seem to avoid following any rules at all. You may not have time to react to save their life. There's a reason we call them \"accidents\". Would you think this person should go to prison because the cyclist was riding recklessly and got themselves killed on their car?",
"Same thing with motorcycles. Generally the answer is that it was just an accident. If there's an extenuating circumstance--DUI, texting--maybe the penalty is stiffer, but on the whole it's perfectly normal for the car driver not to get any more punishment than if they hit a car. The problem is that hitting a cyclist has larger consequences for the cyclist than the driver.",
"I was struck by a car last July while on my peddle bike. I spoke with the officer who was filing the report and asked him the same question, mostly it is misunderstood laws. The man who hit me walked away because I was on my bike as I was crossing the street, on a crosswalk with the right of way. Technically I was not a pedestrian because of my bike, so I should have been riding as if I were a car or get off of the bike and walk to cross.",
"There are a few reasons and this is pretty USA specific: USA doesn't have a strict liability law like other countries. The gist being that two parties in a collision are always equal. In a place like the Netherlands if a driver strikes a cyclist then the presumption is that the driver wasn't in control of their car enough. In other words, a driver has to do a lot more to prove that they couldn't help it. The USA also is predominantly full of drivers. There are pockets of the country where people walk and bike a lot but most people just drive for everyday tasks. That leads to changes in infrastructure that can make it hard to bike/walk and it also develops a culture where people can't ever see themselves from the perspective of a cyclist/pedestrian because they hardly ever are one. That \"Windshield Perspective\" can make it hard to come down hard on someone who messes up because people easily see themselves in the same situation. That also means driving isn't seen as being as dangerous as it really is. For a long time drunk driving was treated flippantly and only a sustained PSA campaign combined with tougher enforcement led to changes. We're starting to see that with distracted driving as well but a lot of safety PSAs for walking and biking talk about what the pedestrian/cyclist should do to keep themselves safe (back to that strict liability thing again)."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://play.google.com/music/m/D2j3goktui2eck7sev6dsfevdqy?t=The_Perfect_Crime_-_Freakonomics_Radio"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vl295 | Why do the Japanese have a sort of "let's just not acknowledge it" attitude towards their actions in WW2? | I've heard all the time that Germans learn about Nazi crimes and feel great remorse for what they did during that time, but with Japan I often hear it's almost the opposite. Why is that? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2w5eo",
"de316xv"
],
"text": [
"Ask any American about the Japanese Internment camps during WWII. We're pretty head-in-the-sand about that as well.",
"I lived in Japan for a year with my wife and can say that this attitude of denying something extends to many aspects of Japanese life. I have read that Japanese people subscribe to a pseudo-religious belief that stems from ancient times, that there are 2 worlds. One world is on the surface of things (What you can see), the other world is what lies beneath (The true nature of things), and both are equally real. Sorry, but I cant remember the Japanese words for these concepts. The Japanese culture is very superficial. Everyone is polite and nice, which is great, but its just an image. On some level they believe that this image is what's real. If they act happy then they are happy. If they act like everything is ok, then it is ok. For example, domestic abuse is a problem in Japan but no one acknowledges it. No one acknowledges it because they don't want it to be a problem. So by sweeping it under the rug, it simply doesn't exist. This is the same mentality applied to the atrocities that Japan committed during WW2. By denying that these events happened (despite all of the evidence and proof), the events simply didn't happen. As one comment mentions, they feel shame for what they did, however this is not entirely accurate. They WOULD feel shame IF they admitted these events happened. However, by denying these events, they don't feel shame, because in their reality, they never occurred. EDIT: I feel like I should say this is simply an observation of Japanese culture form my time living there. It is in no way a criticism of the Japanese culture or people. I loved my time in Japan, and my wife and I are going to Japan later this year for vacation."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vl2dn | Why are field sobriety tests done when we have breathalyzers? | I just dont understand having someone try to "prove" they arent drunk when we classify DUI's usually by the level to which they were over the limit from the breathalyzer, so why give someone who could possibly act sober for a few minutes a chance to get away with it | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de2ylp2"
],
"text": [
"Portable breathalyzers (the ones you blow into) are in most jurisdictions considered \"presumptive tests\", meaning they can be used to detect the presence of alcohol, but not the amount (BAC). They aren't as precise as blood tests, and there are many factors at play that can muddle the readout. What they can do is provide a reasonable suspicion for the officer to take a driver back to the station to get those more precise readings from a blood test or more accurate breathalyzer. In the same vein, roadside sobriety tests can also provide reasonable suspicion to an officer to take a driver in, if they seem impaired while doing the tests. So essentially the tests and breathalyzer serve the same purpose. You can also refuse one or both of the tests, but in a lot of places you can have your license suspended for that."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vm9na | Why do different countries have different electrical outlet layouts and voltages whereas (almost all) cars/trucks are standardized at 12v and the little round outlet (cigar lighter)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de3bsl5",
"de3bwqf"
],
"text": [
"Cars wear out and get replaced, so over a period of two decades 99% of all cars on the road will be replaced with new ones. The last several decades in the auto industry have been ones of consolidation into a few enormous multinational companies that sell cars in dozens of countries around the world. So they've standardized, and that standard can be seen in every vehicle you're likely to enter. There are still the odd 6V and 24V vehicles out there, just not many. Same thing with computer/phone connectors: a few standards take hold and spread worldwide. On the other hand, electrical outlets installed in the 1920s—when even different parts of the same country might have different standards—are still in use in millions of homes. The cost and difficulty of retrofitting is not inconsequential, nor is there much need to, so long as appliances are imported country by country.",
"From my understanding about cars and trucks, most are made European, American, and Asian. Asian nations started a little later in time. It was competition that made voltage and outlets become universal. There isn't a competitive drive for countries to change their ways in accord with another. There's a lot more to it, hopefully someone knowledgable elaborates clearly"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vn8xf | What Causes common trends in mispronounced words? | For instance I work for a medical equipment provider and it's really, really common for CPAP patients to instead say C-PACK. Is there a linguistic reason that PACK sounds more correct to people than PAP does? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de3g7sy"
],
"text": [
"There are actually predictable ways in which languages and pronunciations tend to drift, mostly based on ease of physically forming the words (all words are tongue twisters, some are just easier than others) or due to similar patterns in words. In your example there are likely 2 things at play. 1 is that \"pack\" is actually a part of most people's vocabulary in a way that \"pap\" is not, meaning their mouth has practice and patterns to produce that sound combo, making Cee-pack a more natural patern than cee-pap. Secondly, at least in my short experimentation, \"pack\" just seems easier to form. Pap requires a close lipped p out to a somewhag clenched cheek a back to a relaxed close lipped p. \"Pack\" allows the p to blow the mouth open into the a and then lets the tongue complete the ck. These kind of linguistic drift in pronunciation is actually a way that linguists try to reconstruct the evolution of languages."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vnv6t | Why is it such a big deal to require voters to provide photo ID when it is expected for other daily tasks? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de3i6qv",
"de3htli",
"de3iitz",
"de3ji6r",
"de3jbd2",
"de3ii51"
],
"text": [
"There are lots of people for whom this is not true (needing it for daily tasks) and for whom getting an ID is really not as trivial as it probably sounds to you. Do you think getting an ID is easy if you are: old, sick, physically disabled, without a mode of transportation, homeless, or living far from a photo center? Voter ID is also seen as the first step in an obvious ploy to make voting more difficult so as to discourage those who often don't have the ID (typically people voting for Democrats) from doing so. Not to mention, the fact that voter ID solves a problem that doesn't exist. There are a statistically meaningless number of fraudulent voters in a typical election, yet voter ID laws put up obstacles for thousands of legitimate voters. For the record, I don't care if there is a voter ID as long as it is stupidly easy for absolutely any citizen to get one. I've yet to see a Republican call for voter ID along with funding transportation to photo centers, or some kind of mobile I'd vehicle. But in many states it's simply a plain-as-day scheme to make it more difficult.",
"A lot of it has to do with older people, they usually vote and they either have lost their ID from years of living life or didn't have transportation to get to locations to get a new voter ID or renew their old one. Since a lot of older people vote its much more difficult for them to get to the voting booth let alone the dmv where if you get there late you may end up standing for hours. In undeserved or poor areas they tend to have less resources at the dmv, I grew up in a poor area and I remeber waiting atleast 5 hours just to get my first id, most old people don't have the stamina. Another issue is keeping all those documents after so many years of life you need your ss, your birth certificate, mail in your name a bill etc. While it's not a problem for all older people a large amount of them do have these issues. Unless us tax payers for the bill for busing them or finding a new way to direct deliver older people id's and other forms of identification.",
"Like what daily tasks, exactly? If you don't drive a car I don't see where a photo ID would be expected. Requiring voters to be literate doesn't sound like a big deal but in practice literacy tests were used to disenfranchise black southern voters for a century.",
"Consider the opposite question: How prevalent is voter fraud that we need to consider new laws to prevent it? There is very little evidence voter fraud is occurring on a scale that could impact an election. Why fix a problem that doesn't exist, unless you have some ulterior motive?",
"Because areas where the voting populous is less likely to have an existing photo id, are also areas where gaining access to these ids is more difficult. Short office hours (i.e. open only four times a year) for example. The idea is to prevent a group from voting who would normally not vote for the party introducing the legislation. Specific example(s): URL_0",
"Other tasks aren't rights. Growing up in NYC many people don't have licenses because they don't drive. They don't have a need for them. Or they let the license expire because they don't need to renew it since they don't drive and these laws require an up to date id. My grandmother hasn't driven in 20 years. I think her only proof of id is her insurance card. Also, it's usually the type of id that is deemed acceptable by these types of legislation. Gun licenses are ok but college IDs are not. More conservatives tend to have gun licenses while college students tend to be more liberal. It shows a bias in who they want to vote. Also their is no proof of wide scale or even more than nominal voter fraud. So the only effect the id laws have are making it harder for people to vote who don't have the proper ids. Which tend to be poor people, minorities, and college students... who tend to vote liberal/democrat"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/feb/19/john-oliver/office-provides-id-voting-one-wisconsin-burg-open-/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vp3ns | Why is Chinaman considered racist while Englishman, Frenchman, Scottsman, etc are not? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de3pt2c",
"de3ptnz"
],
"text": [
"Context and history. Words pick up a lot of their meaning form the way they're used. Most racist terms didn't start that way, but being used in a derogatory way has pretty well tainted them and whatever the old meaning was has largely been overshadowed by the new use.",
"I'd say it's because Chinaman was historically applied to other asian people who are not actually chinese, whereas the other descriptors were/are usually only used in the corresponding cases."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vpivy | Why are some people so threatened by someone else's sexual preferences they lash out against them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de3srx4",
"de3sy6i"
],
"text": [
"People lash out at what they hate. People tend to hate what is different. Hating what is different is default and therefore very easy. The same reason why bullies exist. Putting the little bit of effort in to understand the differences is beyond people. Because it is much easier to just slip into the default \"different therefore bad\" mindset than it is to put the effort in to think about why people being different isnt at all a bad thing. This applies to everything. not just sexuality but religion, politics, relationships. literally everything.",
"Fairly often its due to some issues with masculinity in our culture. Most often it seems to be men who lash out, I know women can be intolerant of sexual preference too but they tend to really lash out less at least from my experience which is certainly not exhaustive. There's a whole complicated thing going on with masculinity right now. There's not a whole lot of space for men to demonstrate classically masculine ideals of going off and fighting a war with courage and bravery, hunting dinner and protecting against invaders. These things do sometimes come up but they're not realities of modern life that are faced. A lot of modern masculinity is defined by being not-feminine, and more women are earning wages and culture is willing to accept more assertiveness from them femininity then masculinity as the non-feminine is diminished. Women tend to be far more willing for example to buy a product in a storm that's packaged for men, then men are to buy a product packaged for women. Man-food is food that's going to kill you. There's this precarious aspect of masculinity that's currently behind a lot of alienated young men out in the world who aren't getting to live up to the stories they were told about what it means to be a man. So just as masculinity is the not-feminine its not-gay. Kids on the schoolyard call each other gay, and that's a thing that undermines the self-worth of men as *men.* So much of the current male identity is tied up in these things its not. And so finding themselves in a position where they have to confront sexual identity, even just being made to think about, can for some of them undermine that sense of self. The response is to assert their dominant masculine presence by lashing out. Its not exactly rational, but its part of needing to posture so that their manliness can't be questioned due in large part to their being so few positive (as in logically positive an assertion of what masculinity is about instead of a negative assertion about what masculinity isn't) sources of that definition."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vr8ri | Whenever I see pictures of people from the 1800's I never see them with shorts. Was it looked down upon to wear clothing that covered up less? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4oaw1",
"de460jf",
"de495ic",
"de4icbc",
"de45ztx",
"de4hcbe",
"de54884"
],
"text": [
"Until around WWI, getting your first pair of long pants was an important male rite of passage called [**breeching**]( URL_0 ). Until between ages two to eight, boys wore gowns or dresses. Clothing was expensive, and a young child could wear a dress for a lot longer before they outgrew it than they could a pair of pants. FDR was born in 1882 and wore [**dresses**]( URL_1 ) as a toddler. The transition from wearing dresses to wearing pants was a big deal, often celebrated with parties, and it often marked the point at which male children left the primary care of their mother and their education was taken over by their father. From the mid-1800's on, an intermediate phase was introduced where toddler aged boys first progressed from dresses into shorts - again because a fast growing child can wear shorts longer than pants before outgrowing them, as well as shorts just being cheaper than pants. At around age 9 or 10, the boys would finally get to wear long pants. And few adult men would willingly be caught dead wearing shorts after that point, because they would look like they're dressed as a little schoolboy.",
"Uh yeah...until the 1920's, men and women covered up mostly from neck to ankle. Shorts were only for men doing sporting activities. The advent of electricity, industrialization, and a new period of wealth for the modern world brought about major changes in fashion. The sleeveless shorter dresses worn by flappers were a cultural revolution and were considered quite scandalous.",
"Shorts were considered a clothing item fit for young male children to wear. It would be considered highly embarrassing and taboo for a man to wear shorts, and it would be scandalous/indecent if not outright illegal for a woman to wear shorts. It was scandalous for women to wear pants during that era.",
"One thing to keep in mind is that photos back then were a very formal affair. Because of the time and effort required to take a photo, candid photography wasn't something that would happen until much later. So, when people had their photos taken, they would usually be sure to wear their sunday best. Even if shorts were ok in a casual setting (although other answers suggest that usually wasn't the case), they definitely wouldn't have been appropriate to wear to a photo shoot.",
"Most people owned very few clothes, probably only 2 or 3 changes of clothes at most. Shorts would have been so specialized that very few people would have bought them.",
"My grandmother was a minister's wife. She used to tell the story of the women who came to her to talk about the female parishioner who wore dresses so short the women could \"see her ankles!\"",
"To add to what others have said, look at photographs of Woodstock, which was 1969. Apart from the skinny dipping, you'll see the majority of young men in long pants, even though it was hot enough for many of them to go shirtless. It wasn't until the 1970s that it became common in the US for men to wear shorts other than for sports or other limited circumstances."
],
"score": [
81,
68,
35,
22,
7,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys\\)",
"http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/pink-and-blue-Franklin-Roosevelt-2.jpg__600x0_q85_upscale.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vrx2r | How did the middle finger become taboo? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4byrh"
],
"text": [
"The ancient Romans (around 500BC) are documented as the first users of the middle finger gesture. It is believed that the gesture was originally intended to say \"My penis is longer than yours\", thus showing the longest finger. As we all know, Romans brought culture to basically all of Europe. The gesture stuck. Made its way from Europe to the Americas, and all around the western world."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vs0b1 | what does the Islamic world think about the holocaust? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4df1x",
"de4dj6j"
],
"text": [
"Which Islamic world? This is kinda like asking how the Christian world views Homosexuality. Some aggressively deny it, which makes for great news and publicity. Especially when you're trying to dehumanize Jews that are bombing and aggressively agitating your community. Most see history as it is, and don't make much of it. But that's boring and doesn't make sexy headlines.",
"No such thing. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth split across several denominations and a couple dozen countries. Some undoubtedly deny the holocaust happened, some undoubtedly think it was a good thing, and most think it was a tragedy. Same as everyone else on earth."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vtf5k | Why has communism always failed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4qnnm",
"de4w7rl",
"de539mb",
"de4pvvi",
"de4plak",
"de56ums"
],
"text": [
"There hasn't ever been \"communism.\" Marx said there were stages of socio-economic development that would lead to communism, but we've never gotten there. The first stage is \"primitive communism\", which is basically tribal cooperation. It works because tribes are small and there's no existing power system. As humans develop technology and gain material wealth, societies turn into city states with slavery with an aristocracy. Once the aristocracy is established, societies become feudal with aristocrats controlling the means of production. Feudalism leads to capitalism, where the merchants/capitalists take control of the means of production from aristocrats. Capitalism leads to socialism, which is social ownership of the means of production. As technology progresses even further, socialism will eventually turn into communism, which is a stateless, classless society based on the principle \"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.\" It's important to note that Marx saw this historical advancement as inevitable. Capitalism wasn't necessarily bad - it was better than slave societies - but it had issues and would eventually be replaced by socialism. Also, Marx's history is far from perfect by modern standards, but it's his predictions about how socio-economic relationships will change that most people focus on. Based on that breakdown, it's quite clear that no one ever got to communism. Most of the different types of Marxism you hear about (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.) are distinguished based on how they think the historical progression will go. For example, Leninism argues that you can go directly from feudalism to socialism if you achieve a revolution and install a proletariat dictatorship to make it happen (Russia was more feudal than capitalist in 1917). The reasons that each attempt to accelerate Marxism failed vary with the nation involved, but most involve abuse of totalitarian power. Since you need a strong government to forcefully shift over your economic policies like that, you typically end up with totalitarianism, which often backfires due to corruption and oppression.",
"Communism fails because it doesn't properly take into account human nature. It assumes that all things being equal enough people will choose to be a producer rather than a consumer when given the choice. In order for communism to work at a mass scale it requires an authoritarian government or people would not contribute their share. And an authoritarian government that makes you a slave of a government system is always rebelled and generally results in mass murder of its citizens. People who say \"true communism\" has never existed are just being ultra-politically correct to defend an ideology they hope could work. We could say the same thing about capitalism, socialism, etc. \"True < insert whatever economic/government system > has never existed\" is true for all systems of government. Economic and government systems are complex and the intricacies of each are defined differently by different people and every country implements them differently to their needs.",
"Prices contain information. The fact that NY strip steak costs more than hamburger tells us something about both the resources required to produce the two goods and how desirable the two goods are. In market economies there are profits to be found supplying more of desirable goods or making them more cheaply. In planned economies it's really difficult for a central planner to figure out who gets what and how much of everything to ration out without having the information that prices carry. In market economies prices automatically ration goods. I may like steak more than hamburger, but do I like it enough more to pay the extra cost? Of course, this causes a whole new set of concerns about how much money people have and whatnot, but price mechanisms are really good at rationing things. This issue with central planning is called the calculation problem and it's a reason that communist countries are generally awful at producing stuff for people as consumers, even though they might be able to flex their central planning muscle to make tons of tanks for killing Nazis. So, on top of all the other problems that come from trying to completely remake society and destroy centuries worth of accumulated institutions, they have trouble allocating resources. I should note that this is a criticism of central planning in the Leninist model, not communism per se, but what all self identified communist states have used. (Note for economists: I'm not an Austrian, Praxeology is nonsense, but Hayek had a point about prices)",
"Communism necessitates the state allocates resources (food, shelter, work, etc), while under capitalism resources are allocated by market forces such as prices. One of these methods is much more efficient than the other. A trip to the DMV will tell you which one.",
"Because true communism never existed. The USSR had stalinism, China state capitalism and North Korea is just a large prison. One requirement according to its own ideology is the absence of a state, while all \"communist\" states had all powerfull dictatorships known as totalitarianism. But a place without a state would mostly lead to either anarchy or a tragedy of the commons.",
"Communism necessitates a level of selflessness and trust in your fellow man that humanity, to date, has not proven itself capable of."
],
"score": [
16,
13,
6,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vtgon | How do good actors end up in flop movies? | The first example that comes to mind is Kevin Spacey acting in Nine Lives. He has [a number]( URL_0 ) of awards and has acted in hugely successful movies and shows, but he still chose to act in a movie that he had to know would get scathing reviews. How do actors that could get roles in any movie they want end up in movies they know won't go anywhere? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4pzxj",
"de4qgz4",
"de4rbmq"
],
"text": [
"It's sometimes surprisingly hard to tell that a movie is going to be bad. Every movie involves a new set of people and ideas; very few movies are made by the same whole team that made a previous winner, as people tend to move around. So there's always a lot of risk. And with so many kinds of artists and creators having so many ideas, it can get messy.",
"Money. When a big pay check or sometimes a smaller pay check for a smaller role or from a lower budget film (look at their inebriated IMDB and you will find they make a lot a films you have never heard of ) comes their way and they take it so they can own more crap. That reason they like the smaller pay check for the lower budget film is because it's even better for them when the film sucks because then no one will remember it, the public only remember the good films anyway so it hasn't hurt their career and they can continue to make more crap that no one will see or remember or here about a week after it's released. No producer or director intends to make a terrible film and therefore an actor cannot intentionally select a bad film to be in, it just happens to turn into a bad film and it is mostly out of everyone's control and so although the actor was merely paid to do a job that ended up a pile of crap he will cash his pay check and live the Hollywood lifestyle without the downsides of being associated with a terrible unmemorable film.",
"First and foremost, if the movie has the budget to hire the actor, a lot of times the actor will take it. Being in a bad movie doesn't really ruin an actor's career because nobody will see it. That said, actors don't really know which movies are going to be flops. Movie studios have a much greater interest in a movie not flopping because they are investing a lot of money into it, and yet they make mistakes quite a bit. An actor will consider the script, the director, the costars, etc... before committing, but nothing's a sure thing. Even great directors make flops some times. Take Disney, add Johnny Depp, and one of the most successful directors of all time, and you might get Pirates of the Caribbean... or you might get Lone Ranger."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vtk0z | What happens to people who have severe mental disabilities once they age out of high school? | I was thinking about all the services available to mentally disabled kids in the public school system, and I wondered, what happens to them when they get out? Are there special colleges for them, or is it something else? What are the options, if there are any? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4r4c8",
"de4s9et"
],
"text": [
"They get put on Supplemental Security Insurance, which is a Federal program that pays about $750 per month. They may get some additional money on top of that if there is an equivalent program in their state that they are covered under. From there either their families take care of them or, if their families cannot do so, they'll be placed in a group or assisted living home which will be paid partially out of their SSI and partially out of Section 8 funding. If they are non-violent and capable of following instructions there are charities that will \"hire\" them for below minimum wage under a special provision of Federal labor law. They usually don't make more than a few dollars a day, but it gives them something to do other than sit around.",
"This is just anecdotal, but when I was in Grade School we took a trip to a place called \"The Star of Hope\" in Coos Bay, Oregon. They hired people with severe mental disabilities. I vividly remember an old man working a huge loom, threading what turned out to be plastic shopping bags tied together; and creating what would become a large, durable, and unique rug. That's all he did, I don't know how many hours a day. They created work for these people for extra income, so that they could actually do something rather than sit in a little room in a mental ward, or even get them away from perhaps having to stay at home with family to be taken care of, while the family has to go on assistance because they can't work themselves. I haven't thought about that place in years. Thinking about it now, I just looked it up. [Here is their website]( URL_0 ). [Here is the loom]( URL_0 businesshome/rug%20making/rug%20making.html). And this has just triggered another memory of my (I think it was 3rd grade) class going to a nursing home to sing for the residents, and a tiny old woman was so happy that she pulled me out of the line and danced around the room with me."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.star-of-hope.com/",
"http://www.star-of-hope.com/businesshome/rug%20making/rug%20making.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vtu4i | Since video and photograpic is so advance, how will courts be able to determine what evidence is real? | I meant video and photographic MANIPULATION | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de4tln6"
],
"text": [
"He means video and photographic editing. It is extremely advanced now and with the top people, you won't be able to tell. They do have computer algorithms that can tell if an image was doctored and how much, but I believe that goes off of what it knows how the previous compression algorithm works. If you carefully doctor a raw image pixel by pixel, you can probably fool the algorithms. I've heard that they are starting not to accept all video and picture evidence in courts because of this. But people have been doing it for years and it's been up to the judge to figure out what is real. A person 20 years ago can still doctor an image by smashing more of their car or using makeup to make a more serious looking injury and then taking a photo, or colorizing the image to make a certain mood."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vubuz | the Islamic revolution | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de50qqo"
],
"text": [
"TL;DR The Iranians are a different people in the Middle East. The so-called Islamic Revolution is a mixture of religious and secular/nationalist movement. It is part of a continuing evolution where an ancient people trying to transform itself in the modern, globalized world. Iranians always harbored great expectations of themselves: they are the scions of a great Persian past, have a rich yet distinct language/literature heritage. They are mostly Shiites---a different, albeit the smaller, faction within Islam. All those distinctions make the Iranians stand out in history and in the region. But they were treated by the Imperial Powers (the British, the Russians and later the Americans) like yet another uncivilized area rich in natural resources. The middle class and the Intelligentsia rebelled first. They elected a Nationalist prime minister who were set to nationalize the oil industry. The American intervened and staged a coup as if it was another Banana Republic. After that, a heavy-handed Shah was enthroned to keep the country where it was in an exploitive relationship with the West. Pretty soon it was obvious to the Iranians that the Western/secular route to modernity is no longer viable: elections and democracy took them nowhere. At the same time, an alternative, religion-based ideology rose from the ashes of failed but widespread Nationalistic experiments in the region. People are hopeful again: maybe secularism is the source of corruption and ineptitude. Maybe religious purity is the new salvation. So revolt they did. Even though it is called the \"Islamic Revolution\", it has a strong undertone of Nationalism in it. And relative to the Saudis or other countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, which traditionally label itself as the leader of Islamic World, Iranians are more focused at building a strong secular State and a strong national Economy."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vug8q | Why is Alabama's state constitution (367k words) so much longer than even the second lognest (Texas at 87k words)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de55shb"
],
"text": [
"All laws passed in any Alabamian city/county must also pass through the state's houses of congress. These laws are put into place by amending the state constitution for every single law. This ranges from taxation to the placement of a stoplight by the local courthouse. It's a process called \"[home rule]( URL_0 ),\" and raises a number of objections to the balances of state/local power. I'm not sure about Texas specifically, but I do know that this is the major contributor to why Alabama has the longest constitution in the world. Souce: Alabamian living under this stupid rule"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/without_home_rule_the_state_al.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vvgvv | Why do the Bloods and the Crips hate each other so much? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de57pht"
],
"text": [
"It wasn't always that bad until drugs got involved. With the advent of cocaine and crack, the gangs needed to have places to sell it because it was an extremely profitable revenue stream. Eventually, those territories began to overlap and what was once minor disagreements turned into outright violence. In short, C.R.E.A.M."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vw7kj | Why did purple became a 'dangerous' colour? (Like potraying poison) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de5ds2g"
],
"text": [
"The earliest strong association between the color purple to danger or harm would probably be during the bubonic plague (aka \"Black Death\") that ravaged Europe during the 1300's. The bacterium responsible for all the carnage, *Yersinia pestis*, gave its victims **purple** or black buboes (basically, raised sores) that were made up of congealed blood and necrotic tissue."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vwlqm | How did the whole world agree on the duration of a second? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de5s118",
"de5i4tr",
"de5gu9i",
"de5h8m2",
"de5vuuj",
"de5ysoc"
],
"text": [
"The first clocks were sun dials, and originally the duration of a day was divided into 12 equal segments by the Egyptians. These became hours, and obviously over time we discovered ways of counting the hours during night time as well. The Babylonians divided the hour in 60 minutes, but it took a long time before minutes could be accurately measured. In Medieval times in Europe a wide variety of mechanical devices were created that mimicked the sun dial (which is what decided which direction clockwise was). The mechanical clocks started to measure out minutes, although they were frequently inaccurate especially at this level of precision. In the 1600s Christiaan Huygens invented the pendulum clock, and this was the first device that could accurately and reliably measure minutes. Over time the pendulum clocks were improved and made more accurate, **it was only at this point that we were able to measure seconds**. Around this time we began to redefine time. Previously time was based on the Earth rotation, the passage of the sun across the sky, as reflected by the sun dials of old. With these new mechanical devices we were able to have a more accurate way of measuring time. For a while a second was defined as a fraction of a year, 1/31,556,925.9747 It wasnt until the invention of atomic clocks that we settled upon the now standard length of time elapsed by a second. Technically a second is defined as: > the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom We chose the caesium-133 atom because it has an extremely regular periods. And we chose that 9.1 billion number because it was extremely close to the accepted length of a second at the time.",
"If the invention and initial spread of the second is what you are asking about, seconds minutes and hours were invented as timekeeping units by ancient Babylonian mathematicians. The reason there are 60 minutes and 60 seconds is because Babylon's numbering system used a base of 60 instead of a base of 10. This is also why we have 360 degrees for a circle. Babylon was one of the first empires to attempt to standardize measurements in history. The staying power of the second has much to do with the fact that it is just a very old concept that no one saw fit to replace.",
"The definition of 1 second is \"the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom\". With the development of the atomic clock in the early 1960s, it was decided to use atomic time as the basis of the definition of the second, rather than the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. Following several years of work, Louis Essen from the National Physical Laboratory (Teddington, England) and William Markowitz from the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) determined the relationship between the hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium atom and the ephemeris second. Using a common-view measurement method based on the received signals from radio station WWV, they determined the orbital motion of the Moon about the Earth, from which the apparent motion of the Sun could be inferred, in terms of time as measured by an atomic clock. They found that the second of ephemeris time (ET) had the duration of 9,192,631,770 ± 20 cycles of the chosen caesium frequency. As a result, in 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the SI second of atomic time as stated above. This SI second, referred to atomic time, was later verified to be in agreement, within 1 part in 1010, with the second of ephemeris time as determined from lunar observations (the previous SI for 1 second) Although, for specialized purposes, a second may be used as a unit of time in time scales where the precise length differs slightly from the SI definition. One such time scale is UT1, a form of universal time. The SI second is not the 'legal standard' for timekeeping throughout the world, only that \"over the years UTC [which ticks SI seconds] has become either the basis for legal time of many countries, or accepted as the de facto basis for standard civil time",
"The international committee for weights and measures have conferences periodically to decide on the definition of different units. These are called SI units (basically the official metric system). These SI units are what people in stem fields all around the world use.",
"Everyone needs to read the book called Longitude about John Harrisom, one of the coolest books I've ever read.",
"My understanding differs slightly from others posters. The Sumerians (predecessors to the Babylonians) had a numerical system based on 60 as opposed to ours based on 100 (tens, decimals, whatever you want to call it). Their system of 60 naturally resulted in their measuring of time based on 60. Their system originated in using one hand to count to 12, so I doubt the claims that it was based on breaths or heartbeats. URL_1 URL_0"
],
"score": [
275,
177,
34,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Mesopotamian_units_of_measurement",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vyelz | Why is it illegal to eat lungs in America? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de5tzqd",
"de5tyat"
],
"text": [
"It is not illegal to eat lungs in the US. It is illegal to sell them as food to people in the US. The reason for this is that lungs and other offal are internal organs that are prone to decay quickly and also prone to harbor disease. The regulatory bodies that make our food safe have deemed them too big of a risk.",
"A) Who would want to? Yuck. B) Probably some sort of law from back in the 1800's meant to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. Edit: I was close: URL_0"
],
"score": [
22,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://munchies.vice.com/en/articles/the-usda-doesnt-want-us-to-eat-lungs"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5vzk05 | With the concept of MAD, Why would it matter how big our nuclear arsenal is, If no one wins in the end anyway? | I see things in the news about the U.S Increasing their stockpile of nuclear arms, and it concerns me that most people don't seem to grasp the concept, that if Someone were to use a nuclear missile in defense of their homeland, that other countries would use theirs as well, and essentially bring about the destruction of our planet. Right? With that being said I don't fully understand why anyone would continue to produce these weapons just to show who has the "bigger stick" I feel stupid asking this, but i just don't understand the point of all of it. Thank you for taking the time to read this post. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de66kub",
"de646oi",
"de6977t",
"de663ka"
],
"text": [
"There is a lot of reason to continue producing nukes. The goal of having nukes is to make sure the other country know you can use them against them. If they know that you need 6 hours to launch your nukes at them, they can simply launch their own nukes at your and destroy all your nukes before you can do anything. So let's use fictional numbers to try to explain why we need to many of them. Let's assume that in order to ''destroy'' another country you need 10 nukes of 5 MT each. But you need to be able rapidly, so you can just have 10 missiles because you don,t have time to redeploy your nukes. For the US, they probably at the very least be able to target Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and India (they probably want to target iran too). So now you need 60 missiles to target all of those country. Maybe 80 so you could target specific country if needed in a crisis for example. Ok, but from time to time, your missiles, warhead, installation, launchers, computers, etc will need repair. Your guys will need to train, etc. You can't just have 80 nukes because then you will never have 80 nukes ready. It's impossible for me to estimate that exactly, but you probably want 2 to 3 times more nukes produce for that. Let's cut it in half and say 2.5 times. So now you need 200 nukes. But if you launch 10 missiles at a country it will defend itself no? There is two way to do that. One is MIRV. Basically, instead of 1 missile having 1 warhead, you have 1 missile launching 8-12 smaller missile. Lets say you decide than instead of 5 MT for 1 missile, you use 10 warhead of 500 kt per missile. So now you have 2000 nukes. But again, you still have 10 missiles, someone could intercept them before they are high enough to launch their 10 warhead. So you want to launch 20 missiles just in case. So now you are at 4000 nukes. So how fast you end up with big numbers of nukes when you have multiple targets, have to maintain your nukes and need to compensate for the defence your target may have? And those nukes will eventually get old like any equipment. As they they older you need to replace them because you don't want a bad nukes in your arsenal.",
"I always loved this quote from Oppenheimer, and i feel like one day it will come to this. \"If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and of Hiroshima. J. Robert Oppenheimer\". I greatly appreciate every one answering what must seem like a silly question. Thank you again.",
"It's just strongman politics. Our proportional inventory to our adversaries matters far more than the absolute number. We already take into account Russia's numbers as we (and them) slowly decrease the numbers from hundreds of thousands to a few thousand a piece. The current rhetoric about needing to stockpile more nuclear weapons than we already have is populist nonsense. Yes, you need more than 100% destruction capacity to ensure MAD, but once each form of delivery is over 100℅ destructive capacity, there is very little to gain except for dick measuring and postuering.",
"Propaganda and alliance-building purposes. Mutually assured destruction does not have to be total. Just a few missiles in Cuba was enough to precipitate a crisis that nearly led to an apocalypse, because losing even 2-3 towns is an unacceptable disaster. So why, as you point out, have more weapons than that? The Soviet Union and the United States were both aware that they could never achieve their goals through force of arms. Instead, they were engaged in a cold war, where both sides had to demonstrate strength and authority. They did this in a number of ways, from a space race, to development aid, to wars in small countries, and lastly, to ever-expanding nuclear arsenals. Whenever they order more bombs or develop new ones, the announcement of that is a threat and a promise heard around the globe. It is a way to make every newspaper write 'Russia is serious business'. That's why they did it, and that's why the leftovers are there."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5vzmq8 | Who decided popcorn was the official movie food? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de653kr",
"de64vye"
],
"text": [
"The great depression. Also, the dawn of talkies (movies with sound). This made movies more of a general entertainment for everyone, instead of being only for the upper crust, and popcorn was a cheap and popular snack. Previously, popcorn was associated with fairs and festivals, and theaters wanted to stay *classy* so they didn't have loud crunchy food, but that changed in the 20s.",
"I could pretend like I know the answer, but I didn't until I saw your question. I looked it up and found an interesting article for you to [read.]( URL_0 ) Enjoy! I did recently hear that movie trailers were once displayed at the end of the film, hence the naming."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-do-we-eat-popcorn-at-the-movies-475063/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w0jui | The difference between criminal and civil crimes? | I understand what a criminal offense is; rape, murder, assault, etc. I also understand what a civil case is - suing someone, divorce, etc. How are those differences actually classified when one party of a civil case is a government and not a private individual? Who determines what type of crime a crime is? Why are some crimes that break the law not considered "criminal", for example, speeding, getting a nuisance ticket for not mowing the lawn, etc. Can a city/state decide to make any law a "criminal" offense? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de6d56u",
"de6cuz4"
],
"text": [
"Criminal cases concern the violation of the criminal statute, whereas civil cases involve a civil tort. Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) and operate under a different set of rules. US states are given a lot of discretion in how they write their laws. Most separate offenses into 3 basic classes in statute. Felonies, misdemeanors, and civil offenses against the state. What acts qualify for each category is up to the state's legislature to determine. Generally very minor offenses are classified in the lowest category and considered torts against the state rather than crimes. This allows states to enforce certain regulations without going through the whole process of bringing charges in a criminal court. It is much cheaper and simpler to enforce a civil penalty than a criminal one. States have very wide discretion in what they can consider a criminal vs a non-criminal offense. Generally so long as penalties do not violate a citizen's constitutional rights they are legal. (Prison time for failure to water the lawn would likely be seen as an 8th Amendment violation for example). Cities have much less discretion when it comes to making law. Most states have strict guidelines on what exactly a municipal government is allowed to regulate.",
"In civil litigation, the plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendant to remedy a wrong, often in the form of monetary compensation to the plaintiff. In contrast, in criminal law, the case is filed by the government, usually referred to as the State and represented by a prosecutor, against a defendant. So the difference is that in a civil case, the court is being used to handle a personal dispute so to speak, whereas in a criminal case, the government itself is involved in a more direct sense."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5w0qex | Does the ban on news outlets from the White House press briefing violate freedom of the press? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de6e672",
"de6ekcb"
],
"text": [
"No. Those outlets remain free to report whatever they want to report. The 1st Amendment does not guarantee anyone access to White House press conferences.",
"Can someone explain honestly why they got banned?"
],
"score": [
67,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w1h9n | If we were to come into contact with an intelligent alien race, how would we determine what language to teach and speak to them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de6lcpu",
"de6kao1",
"de6mydq",
"de6kdxs"
],
"text": [
"Honestly, we can't even speak to intelligent species on our own planet (dolphins, whales), I'm not sure how wed go about even beginning to understand a being from another planet",
"I think it will depend where they landed?",
"Just watch the movie \"Arrival\" that is the most scientific answer to your question. Really good to: URL_0 Source: I am professional alien translator. Can confirm this is how we do do it.",
"Why are we assuming that an alien species advanced enough to manage interstellar travel would use a process as relatively primitive as \"vibrating certain flesh structures with air current in order to produce tones recognized by others of our species\" in order to speak? We're talking about a completely different species, who's to say that they would even speak at all?"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w22zu | a neckbeard | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de6pw91"
],
"text": [
"Imagine this situation. Being raised pretty much by yourself, either neglected as a kid or if anything constantly criticized by parents for the smallest things. Now you don't want to interact with people because of all that neglect. You miss out on real life experiences and give up on body image and hygiene. You instead turn to these fun fantasy worlds to quench your thirst for a better life, a better world than the one you live in. As you go deeper and deeper into these fantasies, such as anime and video games, you look towards body pillows and figurines to give yourself the impression of love and company. After all, an anime pillow would never see you ass an unloveable neckbeard, right? You also use online chat boards and games as a form of socializing, chatting with strangers without having them see yourself. Since you have the benefit of anonymity, you can vent your real life frustrations and issues on people with flame wars and arguments over which episode of Naruto was better. You go deeper and deeper into these escapes from reality, only occasionally leaving your house to go to anime conventions or game tournaments. No matter where you go online or what you do with a body pillow, you still are at a standstill in life, as an obese virgin who never leaves his room and is seen by his parents as a waste of space."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.