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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5w2hng | Why do some people think cold temperatures will make you sick? Is there any truth to this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de6u99f",
"de6uy7t"
],
"text": [
"It's quite an elaborate mechanism, but basically, the cold air causes a reaction in the nerves associated with the upper airway which causes runny noses, watery eyes and congestion. If you want to learn more about it, look up \"cold air induced rhinitis.\" This causes many people to think that going out in the cold makes you susceptible to \"catching a cold\" when in reality, the microorganisms that cause most diseases cannot survive the cold weather, making you *less* likely to get sick when it's cold. It's merely a transient reaction some people have to cold air. Being out in the cold has nothing to do with catching a cold.",
"Besides the direct effect cold has on the body (which probably can weaken your immune system and make it easier to catch the Rhinovirus AKA common cold) One huge factor is that people spend a lot more time indoors when its cold outside. The Rhinovirus is contagious, but no matter how contagious it is, it cant spread if there is no one to spread it to. In the cold, however, everyone is inside, and so the number of opportunities it has to spread significantly increase. Ofcourse, most people still have to go outside, and the regular increase in the amount of common colds people get when its cold outside provide good anecdotal evidence its the cold that causes the common cold. The idea cold causes the common cold is probably older than Germ theory."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w327g | How was Germany able to take on the rest of the whole world, twice in 25 years, and even almost win | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de71gmd",
"de70rdv",
"de6ymvw",
"de7jmcf",
"de6xakm",
"de700kb"
],
"text": [
"German unification in 1871 was a HUGE deal. It united a hundred different states in the strategic heart of Europe into one nation-state with the biggest population and economy on the continent (apart from Russian Empire, which some historians don't consider a proper *Westphalian* country). Here's the population and economy of major European powers in 1914: Country|Population (millions)|GDP (billions US dollar)| :--|:--|:--| UK (including Ireland)|45|40| France|40|26| Russian Empire|125|42| Germany|68|46| Here they are at 1938: Country|Population (millions)|GDP (billions US dollar)| :--|:--|:--| UK|47|56| France|42|39| USSR|150-170|71| Germany|62|75| A country's military power is based on its population and economy. Germany was the most powerful states in Europe. And it took 2 world wars, American intervention, and 46 years of dividing it into 4 and then 2 countries that finally made it into a status-quo power. This may not hold for long though. Many analysts believe that if NATO fails to protect Germany (against Russia?), they would develop their own nuclear arsenal and huge-ass army which, as alerted by experience, isn't going to end well.",
"The two \"World Wars\" are badly named: they weren't really single conflicts that spanned the globe, but several different conflicts that happened to be connected. For example, in WW2, the war in Europe was quite different from the war in the Pacific, and Nazi Germany only supported Japan because Japan was fighting against the US. The First World War wasn't at all a case of Germany taking on the rest of the world, or even the rest of Europe. Basically, at the time, [Europe had divided itself into two blocs]( URL_0 ), the idea being that if a country attacked another country, then that country's allies would retaliate -- and so, in theory, peace was assured because no country would be foolish enough to start a war. Unfortunately, political tensions were high in parts of Europe, and when a Serbian terrorist assassinated an Austrian aristocrat, this gave Austro-Hungary the excuse to issue an ultimatum to Serbia that Serbia couldn't possibly accept, and this set in motion a kind of domino effect: Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia, so Russia mobilised its troops, so Germany mobilised *its* troops and invaded Belgium, so Britain declared war on Germany. Basically, the various European countries declared war on each other until the whole lot of them were slugging it out in the trenches. The Second World War was primarily caused by German aggression, although Germany wasn't alone: Italy, too, was on Germany's side. Hitler secured a pact with Stalin so he could concentrate on the western front. Germany had made huge advances in military technology and had been gearing up for war for a time, and also employed, very successfully, the tactic of \"blitzkrieg\": a sudden, powerful, early strike against the enemy to overwhelm them before they could properly respond. The Allies, still recovering from the First World War, had attempted to appease Hitler; when Hitler came to power, they had persuaded themselves that he was a jumped-up lunatic who was all bark and no bite, and would never be able to actually do anything. As a result, they didn't really expect a war and so hadn't prepared for it.",
"Premise is false. Germany did not \"almost win\" anything, and they weren't taking on the whole world. It took a while to beat them sure, but that's just because of the drastic measures they went through to desperately try to win even though it would have been impossible for them.",
"Nazi Germany did not 'almost win' by any means. They certainly occupied France, yet had no naval power compared to the Brits or plans to invade the UK or North America. The war would have dragged on a little longer without American intervention but the war would have resulted in an allied win regardless as soon as Germany turned on the USSR.",
"The economic strength of the entente and the central powers or the axis and the allies prior to the us entering each war were fairly even. Basically they weren't alone, weren't fighting anywhere close to the whole world, and, when you consider what it would have taken for them to force a favorable peace once the us entered either war, never really got all that close to winning.",
"In the first world war, it was basically Germany vs France with Britain helping France. Austria sort of helped Germany while other nations sort of helped various sides. In the end though, it ran down to a stalemate between Germany and France with USA coming in at the last minute to break it. Germany surrendered then. In the second world war, Germany crushed France, Czech republic, Poland and various other European states due to their advanced tactics and mechanised assault doctrine. They lost because they invaded Russia and lost 3/4 of their men and materiel to Russian winter and Hitler's idiotic strategies. In nether case did Germany take on \"the rest of the world\" and in neither case did the \"rest of the world\" combine to defeat Germany."
],
"score": [
24,
20,
10,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/WWIchartX.svg/640px-WWIchartX.svg.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w37of | Why do drug lords and kingpins in Colombia become so successful compared to those in other countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de6z3xg"
],
"text": [
"Alright, so I'm a DEA worker. Think of you having two countries, Country A has a good leader who is strong and not open to bribes, Country B however has a weak leader who is poorer than the leader in Country A, thus more susceptible to bribes. In Country B, there is a person who manufactures candy, which is illegal in both Country B and Country A. But because the candy is so popular many citizens of both countries want to consume it. The candy manufacturer operates itself in Country B, whereby they manage to hire the local citizens, who is poor compared to to the citizens of Country A. Thus the candy manufacturer is able to hire more locals than compared to Country A. The leader of Country B knows about this illegal candy manufacturer, but the candy manufacturer is often brutal, and will beat up the leaders AND their families if they attempt to stop the candy manufacturer. So the candy manufacturer offers to pay off the leader of Country B, the leader of Country B does not want to be beaten up, nor does he want his entire bloodline to be beaten up, will accept the money out of fear and out of greed, as he is also poor. Thus the candy manufacturer (drug kingpins) is able to be more successful in Country B (Columbia, Mexico) as opposed to the more prosperous and more highly regulated Country A (U.S). Hope this helps :)"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w4ous | What is the mental barrier that separates Tyrants, and Conquerors from people like us? Like Hitler, or Alexander The Great. | What is so fundamentally different in their head that makes them seek so much power? What drove these men to do what they did? Not just these two men, but every man who has held great power. Why is 99.999% of the human race different? And also, besides being born into it, what allowed them to reach such great lengths? Where others fell so much shorter. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de7e34d",
"de78o4c"
],
"text": [
"The willingness to take big risks, regardless of the consequences to themselves and others. For every Hitler or Alexander, there was a Lucius Sejanus or Guy Fawkes, who took those same risks. Their luck didn't hold up, and they were labeled as criminals. Those two were successful enough to be remembered, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of others who were completely forgotten by history.",
"Usually sociopathy. Sociapthic tendencies are very common in people who seek power, could be tyrants, conquerors, politicians, CEO's."
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5w5mha | High Fructose Corn Syrup. | I've had thousands of people tell me all about how, bad and terrible it is for you, and specifically that it's not a natural thing at all. I've also had people and commercials say it's just an alternative to sugar with very similar qualities. What's the real deal here? Is it TERRIBLE? Or just an "okay" alternative to sugar? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de7owlu",
"de7lfg0",
"de7vntk"
],
"text": [
"High fructose corn syrup is a mass produced alternative to cane sugar used in food products. In itself it's not all that much different from cane sugar, other than the taste is slightly different. However, it is cheaper to produce than cane sugar and its widespread production led to several foods that contribute to poor health and obesity. Its invention led to water + high fructose corn syrup + flavoring to become the default template for a variety of foods and drinks. For instance, here are the ingredients for Sprite: carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, natural flavors, sodium citrate, sodium benzoate You have the carbonated water and corn syrup as the base, the citric acid and sodium citrate to give it the \"citrus\" taste, a flavor pack to make it taste like lemon-lime, and sodium benzoate as a preservative. Essentially, high fructose corn syrup is used to mass produced flavored sugar water, which is what adds almost all the calories to the drink. Since the sugar offers little to no nutritional benefit, by drinking Sprite you are drinking \"empty calories\" of sugar. But it's not only drinks, consider these ingredients for a package of hamburger buns: Enriched Wheat Flour [Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Reduced Iron, Niacin, Thiamin Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid], Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Yeast, Soybean Oil, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Calcium Sulfate, Grain Vinegar, Calcium Propionate (Preservative), Datem, Monoglycerides, Cellulose Gum, Corn Flour, Citric Acid, Spice & Coloring, Potassium Iodate, Soy Lecithin, Calcium Carbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate, Cornstarch, Calcium Phosphate. So the base of the dough is flour + water + high fructose corn syrup. It's basically Sprite in food form. The issue is that high fructose corn syrup allows companies to cheaply mass produce food and drinks that are not all that good for you. Why make something out of high quality ingredients when you can just make a sugar water slurry or paste and flavor it into whatever you want to sell?",
"HFCS isn't *terrible* in and of itself, but it's bad because it's literally *everywhere* in modern processed foods and drinks. You know it's bad when sugar is the better choice 😂",
"Table sugar is 50% glucose 50% fructose. HFCS is 45% glucose 55% fructose. The problem with HFCS isn't that it's worse for you than sugar (it's not), but rather that it's so cheap that food processors include it in foods that didn't previously have sugar, so you end up ingesting more of it."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5w60jg | The use of words meaning mother/father are present throughout pretty much all languages. Is there any indication of when, and in what language we began referring to parents using these titles rather than individual names? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de7mdlu",
"de7zyd3",
"de7n6bi",
"de7vp7s",
"de7wyyw",
"de80jvc",
"de844wm"
],
"text": [
"I did a little research, and I suspect this question is backwards. The history of humans using names to describe each other likely predates the written word, so we don't have clear evidence on exactly how it evolved. It's likely that prior to having \"first names\" the way that we now use them, we still had \"relational names\" The evidence suggests that \"Mama\" and \"Papa\" (or the prehuman equivalent) existed first, then as social groups became larger and more complex we had to be able to differentiate between other adults and came up with an alternative system of naming.",
"Proto-Indo-European (3500 BCE) is believed to be the common ancestor to most of the languages spoken today and a great deal of work has gone into reconstructing it. In that language we have learned that mā́tēr meant mother and pǝtḗr meant father. It is also believed that ma and pa were the first words spoken by humans. The evidence is suggested in the similarity of mama and papa in nearly every language, including the Navajo word for mother amá, even natural barriers didn't influence early language.",
"Mama / Dada / Papa are the most basic sounds a baby can make. They start making these sounds and getting a response so they keep making them and associating them with \"parent\". Over time the association sticks. From the point of view of the parent, the child's first recognizable sound is (rightly or not) associated with themselves, further reinforcing the idea.",
"You may be interested the the speed at which different words evolve. Regardless, mama is proto indo european. Which we don't have records for, its a fascinating subject.",
"Not directly related, but I've read that the \"di\" phoneme is present in practically every language and always means something similar, God, gods, holy, sacred or something like that. For English speakers this is retained via Latin influences in words like deity and divine. Edit- it's the sound that's important and it follows all the rules that languages follow when changing over time. What this means is its not the spelled out word in English \"di\" that matters in other languages. It's the sound or some form of it. Example, ancient Chinese refers to God as Shang Di. This has changed over time to Shang Ti. Edit 2 - I'm feeling the hate right now guys. Not a good feeling. I'm not intending to present an academic peer reviewed study. This is just and fyi I thought OP might find interesting.",
"I am not a linguist but I will take an educated guess. The word \"mother\" ultimately comes from baby talk \"ma\" (like \"mama\") with a suffix indicating kinship. This understanding comes from linguists' reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, the common ancestor language of a vast number of modern languages and believed to be spoken around 3500 BC. So 5500 years ago, linguists believe (and this kind of thing is on reasonable footing) that people were already talking about their mothers. Reconstructing language further back than this is essentially impossible. Written records of PIE don't exist so all our work to reconstruct this language is very very complicated, painstaking guesswork, which academics have undertaken by comparing the words across hundreds of languages and finding common characteristics. It's likely that many aspects of the reconstruction are wrong just because random processes will have obscured the true origin of words. All this means that working out anything further back is pointless: we just don't have the evidence there to do so. So we cannot know for sure. One titbit though: Koko the gorilla (whether or not you believe she can use language is a tricky subject, but let's suppose you do) has signed about her mother. If Koko really understands the signs she makes, then this means that gorillas already can understand the concept of mother, which would indicate that it's very likely we have had a word for mother for essentially as long as we've had anything worth calling \"language.\"",
"We call each other 'names' like Theodore and Philip, but at the most fundamental level these are just words, and they have specific meanings like any other words. As someone else said, the question is backwards, we describe people as 'god's gift' and 'horse lover', and eventually we stop registering those words as having meanings outside their context of referring to people, and they become 'names'."
],
"score": [
1159,
165,
62,
61,
54,
47,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w6v8a | If we know that the war on drugs is a failure, why is it still going? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de81c1m",
"de7q5su",
"de7qs1l"
],
"text": [
"The War on Drugs creates a very lucrative environment for the for-profit prison system in the United States. Mandatory sentencing, plus guaranteed occupancy contracts, plus money per inmate, equals fat taxpayer dollars rolling into the shareholders' pockets. Shareholders then finance the campaigns of \"tough on crime\" politicians who will keep their racket going. The for-profit prison model creates \"prison towns,\" the same way the 19th century gold rushes created mining towns. Entire settlements exist solely to provide goods and services to the people working in the prison. Unlike mining towns, the resource in question (prisoners) is infinitely renewable as long as the legal system keeps shovelling people into cells. During Prohibition, alcohol production was pushed underground, where it could not be regulated by any accountable authority. Crime figures became fabulously wealthy by selling bootleg hootch and then had to deal with their peers trying to kill them to take over their business. The more-or-less exact same thing is going on with the War on Drugs: brutal crime lords control the manufacturing and distribution of illegal substances of dubious quality. The War on Drugs hurts society from both ends and benefits the wrong kinds of people in the process.",
"It's lucrative for police departments. They get funding based on their efforts towards the war on drugs so that's incentive for them to continue it and play it up.",
"There's two aspects of it - the domestic and international sides. On the domestic side drug enforcement is rarely about the drugs itself, but rather about getting criminals out of the community. I'll explain: Most crimes are never resolved. Your car gets stolen, you house gets broken into, you get sucker punched in a bar and the guy runs off? Chances are those are never going to get solved. But its not that the police don't know who committed the crimes. Rather they usually have a good idea, especially if its a one person or a small group doing most of them in an area. Its just that unless you catch someone doing one of those things red handed its almost impossible to prove in court. But you know what the people committing crimes like that are also doing? That's right, drugs. So the police figure out whose committing those crimes and then set up speed traps near those people's houses. They catch one of them speeding, running a stop sign, or whatever and pull them over and ask to search the car. When the person says yes, boom the police find the bag of cocaine the guy had under his front seat and now they can get that person off the street for a year or two. In doing that, the police are able temporarily stops or reduce the other crime in the area. There are also a lot of people that are just menaces to their community - they threaten their neighbors, they let their dogs run loose and and attack passersby, and just generally cause as much trouble for everyone who lives near them as they can. But these aren't things you can really send someone to jail for. But again, a lot of people that act like that are also doing drugs. So as above, the police begin watching people whose neighborhoods are complaining about them and if they can find drugs during a routine traffic stop then they can at least get those people off the street for a year or two and give the neighborhood some breathing room. ----------------------------- On the international side the US provides most of Latin and South America very large amounts of foreign aid to help in drug interdiction. Obviously this isn't anywhere near 100% effective, but it does drastically increase the complexity and cost of moving drugs into the US, meaning that only a handful of organizations around the world can even do it, and the idea is that without these programs the amount of drug trafficking into the US would be vastly higher than it currently is. Edit: and also, the organizations trafficking drugs into the US are rarely doing just that. They're usually involved in gang warfare, contract murders, extortion, and gun and human trafficking. So money sent to fight cartels in Mexico is helping to stop those other, non-drug crimes as well."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w6xw0 | Is the Chinese government worried about Chinese students in America becoming opposed to the government? | I have no delusions of "Murica inspiring freedom and democracy, hoorah" but I am curious how Chinese exchange students view freedom of government, and if the Chinese government has taken any measures in this regard. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de7t2js",
"de7sme9",
"de8dgv4",
"de7t989",
"de8fzun"
],
"text": [
"Chinese students in America are not ordinary Chinese people. They are typically from well-off families, families who are well-off because they are connected to the government or part of it. Though China is experiencing a growing middle class and more ordinary people are likely finding it possible to send their children abroad, many Chinese students will be the children of elites. As such, they are already benefiting extensively from the government and would see (consciously or otherwise) less of a reason to oppose it. In my own personal experience, the students can also be insular. They stick to groups of Chinese students. That means less of an opportunity to be exposed to other views. Additionally it's very easy for people to succumb to false equivalency. Regardless of your own political views, worldwide faith in the U.S. as a shining example of democracy has gone down considerably. Foreigners hear about how Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million yet isn't President. They hear about how we have the highest incarceration rate in the world (barring a tiny island country by the name of Seychelles). They hear about our government surveillance. It'd be exceedingly easy for a Chinese student to tune out any criticism of his native government when this \"shining example of democracy\" has problems like that. So overall, no, I don't think Chinese officials are particularly worried. America has the top universities in the world, and China knows that to become the top dog they need an educated elite. It is also partly propaganda on our own end that we think the average Chinese person would want their government to be toppled if they only knew the facts. They're much more concerned about economic growth. As long as that chugs along, most people are happy.",
"Relevant thread: URL_0 TLDR: Nothing really, since it is untrue that Chinese people are heavily oppressed and interested in toppling the government as portrayed in US media.",
"I'm an international student in China who is also an American citizen. I go to an American international school with an American curriculum. In my experience, people tend to stick with people of a common nationality. The Americans at my school stick with the Americans, the Koreans with the Koreans, and the local Chinese with the local Chinese. As a result, exposure to different cultures is dampened. The main requirement to go to our school is that you cannot be a Chinese citizen- local Chinese are only allowed to go to our school if they get special permission from the Chinese government. As a result, the only local Chinese students that go to our school have strong connections with the Chinese government and therefore are not likely to rebel against their beneficiaries. (Believe me, our school wants to take in local Chinese to improve their numbers and to make money- especially as more and more companies are deciding to send foreigners who don't have families- but they simply aren't able to because the government won't allow them to). American media has a very warped view of how Chinese people view government. People tend to not care about political issues until it directly affects them- for example, the only problem most people at my school actually complain about is the Great Firewall of China (we all use VPNs) and slow internet. Chinese values also tend to put safety over freedom. I was at a family dinner recently with a couple of local family friends, and one of the girls there is at a top local private school and planning on going abroad for education at an American university. All anyone could talk about was Trump and safety (they were concerned about sexual assault in the US- the university she wants to go to is notorious for being an unsafe campus, although the education is superb). Another girl with a green card for the US hadn't gone back since Trump arrived due to safety and immigration concerns (she had gone to a top American university- Ivy League type- but I won't name it for privacy). So yeah, like you said, America is hardly a shining beacon of hope and democracy. Many Chinese exchange students even leave the US after their education with a *stronger* sense of nationality- [the New York Times has covered Chinese exchange students extensively]( URL_0 ). > It’s a common sentiment among Chinese students abroad, who find that their foreign experiences sharpen their sense of national pride. Over the summer, Korbin started delving into Chinese history books and training in kung fu. In America, he found his Chinese core. TL;DR The Chinese government has it under control.",
"Are you worried American/Western students might change their views? Why not? Most of what we know is what was taught to us by other people. That's true for everyone! That means we can never really be *totally* sure if something is truer or better than another thing except!... when we take the time to learn all about it and measure it ourselves. Whether that's about the number of your friends' toys or what's right or wrong... But none can actually measure everything! So we need to think about *why* we believe something someone else tells us! Do they actually know better or is what they say made up so they can seem smart or wise? Does it match what other people say and, if not, what are the differences and where do they come from? If your friend tells you baseball is better than football you wouldn't just believe him would you? But you won't know why he thinks that and what might be cool about baseball that you hadn't heard before until you ask her.",
"Why should they oppose the Chinese government ? What you hear about China's anti-freedom stuff is Western propaganda. While China is officially a single country (the Chinese propaganda will say that they are a 3000 years old country), in practice it's an area under nearly perpetual civil war China is such a divided place that democracy would mean more civil war. After 50-100 million deaths under Mao, they don't want civil war anymore. It's like anti-freedom in Germany : it's illegal to create a nazi party in Germany and everything nazi-related is censored. Do you consider Germany an anti-freedom place ? Do you consider that German students in the US may become anti-German government after discovering the Land of the Free ? For Chinese people, it's the same for \"democracy\". It means mass genocide, the largest genocide in human history. Chinese people are not more brainwashed and ignorant than Westerners (and especially Muricans who are so ignorant about anything outside of the US that brainwashing isn't even necessary). So there is no risk of them becoming anti-Chinese government after going to study in the West. The \"anti-freedom\" part of China is perfectly justified for those who know the Chinese history."
],
"score": [
270,
40,
37,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/277he1/eli5_what_happens_after_chinese_students_go_to/"
],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/magazine/the-parachute-generation.html"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5w7c9a | Why does the porn industry seem to be financially strong, and still not care that many of its viewers are viewing it for free, while the music industry constantly claims to be hurt by people downloading free music? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de7uc0n",
"de7uuzx",
"de7ubt4"
],
"text": [
"I don't think they get royalties the same way musicians do. The actresses get paid once unless she is superstar. Musicians get paid on plays and albums sales. Plus porn has ad revenue from sites. The videos being shared is just free advertising. Why you think the put the name in the corner.",
"Just like Spotify took a huge bite out of music piracy while still paying artists (at least something), sites like Pornhub took a huge bite out of porn piracy where people could get their porn for free, but have to watch ads. So the porn makers still make revenue.",
"The music industry complains to get legislators to give them perqs. Longer copyright periods, DMCA, and many other laws have been made, mostly for no good reason, in response to music industry complaining. The porn industry doesn't complain as much, probably because legislators are less interested in being seen as \"pro porn\"."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w7hfp | Can somebody explain Scientology? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de7wshi",
"de7xcjo"
],
"text": [
"There once was a man who made a bet he could create a religion in order to avoid taxes. He won.",
"I am a bit of an afficiando, not a former member, so I hope I can do it justice. Scientologists believe they are saving the planet by \"clearing\" it of \"thetans\" which are sort of ghosts left over from when Intergalactic Warlord named Xenu dropped a bunch of people in volcanoes on earth and then dropped nukes on them, to solve planetary overcrowding which was a problem at that time. Scientologists dont find out the Xenu story until they have achieved a high level on the \"bridge\". To climb the bridge, you have to take expensive courses - the entire bridge can cost like $250k. By the time people find out about Xenu, they've invested tons of money and years of their lives and likely all their friends and family are Sci too. So, it sounds ridiculous but that's how people get sucked into cults. Cults mske you cut off ties with nonmembers and disavow anyone who criticizes or questions. They claim to be a religion which means they pay no tax, all the money from selling courses goes into buying gorgeous properties in cities around the world. Their membership was down and they are banned jn Germany and Austria and a few other EU countries, so (I've read) they are targeting Latin America and Russia. People who don't know better get hooked because the intro courses are actually helpful, focusing on communication and self improvement. Plus, Tom Cruise and John Travolta and other celebs are attractive to certain types of impressionable people. South Park probably did ELI5 best, if you search YouTube."
],
"score": [
20,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w7qlk | Why do children form such strong bonds with stuffed animals that those stuffed animals practically develop into separate personalities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de87syd",
"de88w5f",
"de8hsru"
],
"text": [
"The stuffed animals can take on whatever personality the child wants. If the child is scared, they can create a personality for the animal that comforts them. A child is shy, and has trouble communicating? The stuffed animal can become a perfect listener. Imagine the strong bonds you could create with your friends if they would be whatever you wanted them to be at any given time.",
"This is sort of on topic, just my story. I have an aversion to throwing away stuffed animals, I gave away a large amount of my childhood stuffed animals, I wanted to give them to my children. I saved a few special ones. I can't rightly explain why I feel bad or sad about throwing away a stuffed animal, I know it's not alive, it's just a thing, but anytime I see one I always set it right side up, I refer to it as if it was alive, give it a name(Like Mr. Bear), treat it gently. That probably sounds really weird now that I think about it. As an example I have a old build a bear I gave my ex fiance, and a bear she gave me. I can't bring myself to throw them away, don't even feel comfortable donating them, and I hate my ex. Maybe it's a reminder of my childhood, which I often miss because the world is a screwed up place. I'm rambling at this point but Toy Story 3, the scene where Lotso, Big baby, and the clown get left behind and go back to their house and Lotso sees he got replaced. That gets to my core, I cried at that scene. Stuffed animals aren't alive, but like animals they are always there when you need comfort.",
"I'm in my early 20's and I still do it. A select few have well developed personalities and sounds, while every other have names and a sex (e.g. Cali the fennec fox is always grumpy, except when doing his special dance, and he goes \"pao pao pao\"). They are all my friends whom I play with when I was lonely; the most reliable friends ever. Plus they can sit on a plane without needing a ticket."
],
"score": [
20,
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w8484 | Do Islamic women also believe in the notion of having 72 virgins in heaven? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de81hwr",
"de80vom"
],
"text": [
"The whole \"72 virgins\" thing is not necessarily a mainstream Muslim belief. It comes from something that Muhammad allegedly said but the evidence that he said it isn't always judged to be strong, and some believe that it is a mistranslation (and, as far as I can tell, all the actual hadiths say \"wives,\" not virgins. Could be wrong about that, though). However, terrorists tend not to be the most scholarly types and it's the type of thing you would tell people to get them to blow themselves up. There have been many female Muslim suicide bombers so one has to assume it's not totally lost on them. However accurate the 72 virgins trope may be, it does reflect a real Qur'anic concept called the Houris, who are essentially angels that live in paradise and are, shall we say, companions to Muslims in heaven (all Muslims, not just martyrs). It is implied that both men and women will be granted their company, but most references to them in the Qur'an and by Islamic scholars refer to them in the feminine tense (Arabic is a gendered language). Personally I'd chalk this up to 7th-century sexism since all the writings were done by men, but interpret it how you will.",
"That's still being disputed among those of the Islamic faith, with some attributing it to a bad translation. Shia Islam doesn't even include the controversial hadith that mentions 72 \"virgins\"."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w947r | Why is getting up early considered such a virtue? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de8adjp",
"de8fh8l",
"de8n13p"
],
"text": [
"It's largely a holdover from a time when things took a lot longer to get done, or when everything was manual. If you ran a bakery, you had to get up and do everything early - before machines, before large, easy refrigeration, before reliable ovens. That meant getting up early and taking a lot of time to get ready. For more agricultural societies, getting up early meant getting things *done*. Sleeping in meant work went undone which could potentially cause problems, especially for animals. So the ability to get up early was considered very reliable, since a lot of work called for it.",
"What soulreaverdan said, and also remember that in the past after sundown it was expensive to light your home/workspace enough to get anything done, so not only would you be less productive if you didn't get up early, you would also be wasteful.",
"Around here, mostly it's tradesmen that start early. Fair enough if you're working inside a roof in summer because that can be dangerous, but it's not about that. I was talking to one old sparkie, and he admitted that it was mostly to avoid the traffic: at the job before the morning rush, and knock off around 2:30 before school's out."
],
"score": [
58,
17,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5w974x | How do cultures who use non-Latin characters (China, Japan, Korea, etc.) make their signatures "unique"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de8aq5r",
"de8fnso",
"de8acxh",
"de8avkr"
],
"text": [
"The same way Latin languages work. How many ways can you write a word and have it still be legible? Or even illegible for that matter. Signatures is just a unique mark for yourself.",
"In Japan we mainly use rubber stamps of our names. There are lots of little shops that will sell you a rubber name stamp. You can get cheap plastic ones or really expensive metal/bone ones. I have several, including one on the top of a pen I got as a gift from work. The security of them is somewhat dubious, but they are a part of the culture now and I can't see them disappearing any time soon.",
"They use a personalized seal/stamp. I have one somewhere I use on occasion on a lark. It's legally binding though. URL_0",
"They don't need to. We don't need to, either. You could write your name in block letters and it'd still be your signature."
],
"score": [
8,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(East_Asia)"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5waldb | Where did all the smart people go during the Middle Ages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de8njhg",
"de8kg5y",
"de8l9bl",
"de8nq55",
"de8vrw9"
],
"text": [
"Reading through, you seem to be asking why big stone constructions and sculpture and general \"Advancement\" stopped in the middle ages. I replied elsewhere with some examples showing that art and building did keep going during the period. But I wanted to get at the core of the question. What you are noticing is that, during the Roman era you have lots of big stone buildings, and roads, and fancy sculptures, and aqueducts. Then, after the fall of Rome, that stuff mostly goes away in western Europe. But, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of smart people. Instead, it has to do with the presence of a large, centralized state. Rome was huge and centralized. It could organize the work required to build huge buildings. Rich people in Rome drew on the wealth of the empire to feed the artists who made those sculptures. Rome needed continent-spanning roads because that's how big it was, and had the manpower to build them. Rome had huge cities because it could organize the movement of food needed to feed them. After the fall of Rome, Western Europe fractured into a number of much smaller territories. None of these smaller political units could marshal the enormous manpower of Rome, nor would many of the things the Romans built have been a good use of resources. Building a huge stone aqueduct to water a village of 1000 people is a waste of time and energy, eg. Instead they redirected into doing things suited to the new political environment.",
"I don't understand the question. Constant progress was made on all fields engaged in at the time. 'Smart people' worked on their own, or for universities, or temples, or in the employ of rulers or in the employ of private patrons.",
"It's quite a misconception that the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages, where everyone was stupid. Mostly this is because a lot of cultures try to \"forget\" the indeed stupid religion wars and witchhunts. But there were plenty of artists, architects, inventors at that time. Gothic art is still admired today, and many beautiful casles and monasteries were built. Plows, liquor, clocks, glasses, ... were all invented in the Middle Ages.",
"There were plenty of smart people, there was just a bit less education to go around. You can be as smart as Einstein, but if you are from peasant stock and never get an opportunity to learn to read and write there is a limit to what you can achieve. Even if you somehow came up with ways to improve your peasant life and make work easier somehow, nobody will remember you because without a proper way to exchange, preserve and pass on knowledge, most innovation will be very slow.",
"As many others pointed out, there were plenty of smart people around in the Middle Ages. But you are right, that fewer big engineering, art, and science projects happened in Western Europe in this period than in Classical Rome. The reason for that Rome was a huge empire that could draw on all of its land for wealth and food to support an educated elite that didn't do manual labor themselves. When The Western Roman Empire fell people no longer had the structure of the Roman political system to rely on, and power returned to local strong men: knights and barons. These nobles might be ruled by a duke or a king, but for most of the middle ages they still were able to rule their own lands as they pleased. There were less trade and wealth were more spread out across landed nobles than massing in cities. These nobles might employ scientists, philosophers and engineers, but mostly these things are a luxury that comes with being wealthy. **TL;DR:** It's easier for a Roman emperor ruling over an entire continent to afford to employ full time scientists than it is for a knight or baron who only rules a very small area."
],
"score": [
41,
32,
12,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wboxc | catholic vs protestant vs orthodox? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de8u6a0",
"de8ut39"
],
"text": [
"Three primary denominations of Christianity, which together make up the lion's share of all Christians. Orthodox and Catholic faiths are outwardly pretty similar, but the Orthodox Church rejects the idea of a pope that \"rules\" over all Christians. The precise reasons for this (known as the Great Schism) date back to issues of Dark Age and Medieval politics, and the rivalry between the Byzantine Empire and the Vatican. Currently, Orthodoxy is primarily split into the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, and closely related to the Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and other Eastern faiths of the Middle East and Africa. Catholicism is taken to mean \"Roman Catholics\" in the modern context, although Orthodox believers will also see themselves as Catholic. Protestantism is a broad swathe of forms of Christianity that broke away from Catholicism during the Protestant Reformation. The primary issue of the schism was longstanding corruption of the Vatican, and was headed off by the selling of indulgences by the Church (think of it as a loan, but instead of collecting your loan in cash, you collect by making it easier to get into Heaven when you die). The Protestants left the Catholic Church, and formed their own various denominations. The precise views of those denominations are pretty varied, but all of them have the same central ideas (in addition to ideas like the Trinity that are held across almost all forms of Christianity). 1) That the Bible is the *only* valid source of authority with respect to the faith, as opposed to the Traditional aspects of Catholicism. 2) That there existed a universal priesthood, in that a person shouldn't be *forced* to commune with their God only through a clergymen, but instead that everyone should seek to form a personal relationship with God. 3) The concept of \"Sola Fide,\" such that the *only* thing that matters as far as getting into Heaven is concerned is Faith, rather than perceived split of a combination of Good Works and Faith that the Catholic Church said got you into Heaven (which is part of the issue with the selling of indulgences; the rich could more easily gain access to Heaven). And then there are the Mormons, who are themselves separate from the Protestants.",
"The Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all denominations of Christianity. Initially, there was one Christian church, centered in Rome. As the Roman Empire declined, much of Rome's legacy shifted east into the Byzantine Empire. Over time, the churches in the Latin west (centered in Rome) and the Greek east (centered in Constantinople) started to have differences in their interpretation of theology and rituals. In particular, the western church asserted that the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) should be the singular spiritual leader of the church, while the eastern church thought that all bishops were equal and alleged that Rome was trying to assert dominance over them. This came to a head in 1054 AD, when one of the western bishops excommunicated an eastern bishop (claimed he was kicked out of the church,) and the eastern bishops excommunicated him back. The western church claimed they were the true catholic (meaning \"universal\") church, and the eastern church claimed they were the true orthodox (meaning \"historically authentic\") church. Hence Catholic and Greek Orthodox. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church increased its political influence in the west, and in doing so became increasingly entrenched in secular affairs. This led to accusations of corruption. The straw that broke the camel's back was when church representatives claimed the authority to sell a \"plenary indulgence\" that would grant forgiveness and salvation for people or their deceased relatives, rather than earning it through prayer, contrition, and atonement. This led to one priest named Martin Luther writing a thesis in which he criticized several theological teachings and church practices. While he aimed to reform the Catholic Church, the Church rejected this and excommunicated him. After his death, his students formalized his critiques and formed Lutheranism, the first Protestant church. After Lutheranism, several other groups of disgruntled Christians began separating from the Catholic Church as well, an event known as the Protestant Reformation. This led to dozens of major groups of Protestant churches, many of which have several subgroups."
],
"score": [
19,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wbpnv | Why do some countries like Norway have compulsory military service after they finish school? | My friend from Norway was telling me about the Army and how he went after he finished school for a year because its compulsory. What are the benifits or reasons of a compulsory military service? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de8tths"
],
"text": [
"> What are the benifits or reasons of a compulsory military service? Having a competent pool of people to draw a military from in times of war. If you let everyone sit around not being trained to fight then when people come to take over your country you are SOL. Norway has about 5 million people which isn't very many for a country. Factor in that many people can't fight and your potential military is fairly small. A relatively recent memory of WWII and it makes sense why some compulsory service would be instated."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wcdwh | How can a viewer tell what the director did on a movie, as opposed to the cinematographer, editor, etc.? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9167e"
],
"text": [
"You can do some guesswork with directors with recognisable styles. For example Zach Snyder heavily (and unsubtly) relies on colour grading in post production, so the audience knows a certain editing choice was down to him. David Fincher, is known for his careful construction of a scene, and blocking his actors in a very specific way so the camera can capture the dynamic and relationship between characters in that scene. That is a specific directorial choice that the audience can pick up on. *(Recommended viewing: (YouTube) David Fincher - the fine arts of blocking and composition by Dan Fox)* One way could also be the lighting of the shot, in which I'd argue is the work of the cinematographer most of the time. Perfect example of this is the Godfather parts 1 & 2. While the blocking of scenes in the films were masterfully done by the director, it was really the cinematographers stylistic choice to dimly light the sets to create that distinctive dark tone. However the only way to know for sure, otherwise would be listening to interviews, Blu ray extras and reading the screenplay to compare. Take American Beauty for example: the script had a totally different, and much more tragic ending than what was actually left in the final film. Only by going back and reading it, do you realise that it was the director's decision to stray from the script and craft a totally different ending, which turned it into a very different movie. Check out 'Lessons on the screenplay' on YouTube, it is a fantastic study on this very concept. Edit: added YouTube reference"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wd0d9 | Why is a slice of pickle usually served on the side with sandwiches at restaurants? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de95hca",
"de953kh",
"de9b5z4",
"de979e9",
"de9bu02"
],
"text": [
"Highly vinegared pickles are traditionally served with meats that have a high fat content. The vinegar cuts through the rich, heavy taste of the fat, balancing the whole thing. These days not all sandwiches use fatty meats, but that is how the tradition started: the pickle as pleasant counter to the fatty meat in the sandwich.",
"It's a palate cleanser - \"a neutral flavored element in food that enables to clear the palate from one flavor to another. Some widely used palate cleansers are sorbet, bread, apple slices, and pickles.\" ( URL_0 ) I'd assume the pickle was chosen based on how the flavor characteristics differ from the entree.",
"In the past (not anymore) pickles were made in a way that they contained probiotics (similar to kim chi or yogurt) So, people would put pickles in sandwiches with fatty meat (like a cuban sandwich) and it would help people to digest the fat from the meat. Edit: link with information about pickle history URL_0",
"They are a cheap garnish URL_0 . And also because pickles are delicious.",
"I used to go to a restaurant in Orlando, FL (think pre-Disney small town, although it was the 80's) named Ronnie's. The waitresses were ALL over 70, dressed in strange 60's uniforms. Beautiful kosher deli food served in a diner style. On the table were: Small dill gherkins, medium dill pickles, mustard, and pickled onions. My stomach still grumbles that they're gone. Pickles on the side seem natural."
],
"score": [
529,
47,
38,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Palate_cleanser"
],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/food/the-history-kitchen/history-pickles/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnish_(food)"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wd2d1 | How did the color blue and pink become associated with masculinity and femininity (e.g. newborns are wrapped in blue or pink blankets from the get go)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9bx50",
"de9dyp8",
"de9g77l",
"de9epp7",
"de9b38h",
"de9h4hp",
"de9h66t",
"de9kkxk",
"de9icge",
"de9d5p2",
"de9gwyi",
"de9c6gl",
"de9ir0d",
"de9i7lx",
"de9hqcn",
"de9abcx",
"de9hb64"
],
"text": [
"If I recall, they switched after WWII, and not because of the Nazi's use of pink for homosexuals, despite popular belief, but because of marketing to make women's clothing \"pop\". Initially, I believe boys had pink to represent Mars, and girls had light blue to represent Venus.",
"And let's not forget, president FDR [had long hair and wore a dress]( URL_0 ) in his childhood, as was the custom of the time.",
"Edit: My apologies for posting a myth. ~~It's pretty recent (1940's) and I'm unable to find any credible explanation.~~ ~~*The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink , being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.* (1918 edition of the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department)~~ ~~In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart highlighting gender-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. retailers. Filene’s (in Boston), Best & Co. (in New York City), Halle’s (in Cleveland), and Marshall Field (in Chicago) all advised parents to dress boys in pink and girls in blue.~~ Regardless of color, in both cases, they wore dresses.",
"Eleanore Roosevelt had a big influence upon the change. Pink was her favourite colour. She wore pink and everyone wanted to emulate the great First Lady of the USA. She stood for women's rights and girls started to be dressed accordingly.",
"Pink is faded red, men used to wear pink all of the time because older red dyes faded easily...Red is a power color and is traditionally associated as such...This is why men gravitated to it.",
"Both boys and girls used to wear while dresses, which were easy for diaper changes and easily bleached. The concept of an individual color for each gender was appealing to clothing manufacturers who realized that they could sell an entire new set of clothing to families with a mix of boys and girls.",
"I'd suggest reading Michel Pastoureau's book \"Le petit livre des couleurs\" along with his other books focusing on each color, where he details the perceptions we had and have of colors and how they changed, especially between the middle ages and now. Petit Livre Des Couleurs (English and French Edition) ISBN-13: 978-2757841532, ISBN-10: 275784153X (Amazon has it out of order unfortunately, but it's absolutely a delightful read)",
"I did a psych paper while an undergrad and was hoping to find the answer there. What I did uncover was that it was actually the reverse around the 1920's but have no clue to why it changed. \"The definition of masculinity and femininity is inherited by the generation of that time and is manifested by the attire of infants (Maglaty, 2011). In a June 1918 article of the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants Department it dictated that the “generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls.\" The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” In the current 21rst century Infants whose sex is ambiguous are identified by the colors of their attire it is common knowledge that pink is for girls and blue is for boys (Ben, 2007).\" Yeah I definitely stop caring when writing this paragraph. Sorry OP",
"Here's a post from askhistorians: URL_0 The question comes up fairly regularly there.",
"In the 1920s and 1930s there was a trend to dress little boys in sailor outfits, which were traditionally blue. Hard to say if this was the whole reason for the switch, but by the 1940s pink for girls and blue for boys was widely accepted.",
"Tangentially related is that it was usual to dress boys and girls in what today would be considered feminine clothing up to a certain age, maybe 3 or 4. I don't know if throughout Europe but I think this was true in England and USA at least in certain circles. I think this practice did not stop until the early 20th century. Relationship to OP is that male/female colors would not have been a thing then, either probably.",
"I know this isn't actually an answer but Vox has an entire YouTube video on this question, it's only a few minutes long and really good!!",
"From the Smithsonian, [When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?]( URL_0 ). The article provides sources for many of the comments others have provided.",
"Interestingly enough, this is definitely a cultural phenomenon in America. When I did a study abroad in Spain, I bought a pink shirt and told my host mother that I felt funny for wearing pink, and she could just not understand that a color could be feminine.",
"In ny country almost all newborns are dressed in white. Presumably because that is the color angels wear.",
"Blue was for girls because it is the colour of the virgin Mary's coat. So pink was for boys then girls wanted to be masculine and started wearing pink so pink became feminine. Same thing with high heels",
"A history professor once told me that prior to WWII, those color roles were reversed. However, because the Nazis used the color pink as a label for homosexuals, soldiers returning home now associated the color with femininity. So the colors switched naturally as people adopted that sentiment."
],
"score": [
741,
210,
196,
154,
72,
58,
34,
34,
27,
27,
22,
14,
13,
9,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://crimeagainstnature.org/2013/07/26/fdr-dressed-like-a-girl-probably-in-pink/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5n8hdq/when_and_why_did_blue_become_a_boy_color_and_pink/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wd5uf | Why is it taboo to say exactly how a person died? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de95cps",
"de95ege",
"de955uu",
"de96319",
"de9b5yk"
],
"text": [
"It's a private matter & the personal business of the family. You don't deserve to know just because you liked some of his movies any more than you deserve to know anything else that's going on in their private lives. They're still people & don't automatically forfeit their private lives just because they get famous.",
"It's not taboo. In a great many cases the exact details are given. When they are not, it's simply because the family has decided to keep them private.",
"I think it's morbid. What surgery, what went wrong? I've had brain surgery myself and I don't like going into detail about it. And obviously I'm alive. Not all of my friends or relatives know. It's very personal. I agree that saying \"cancer\" could raise awareness about it. But, again, it's a very personal and private thing to do (dying) and people would not always want to share all details. It's not a taboo.",
"Because its none of your business? They will tell you he died, but there is absolutely no reason to give you all the details. What are you going to do with the information if you have it? It doesn't matter.",
"I've never done a comprehensive survey. However it seems like they commonly don't give too many details the first day after a famous person dies, either because they don't know or just out of a general sense of propriety. Also, the major news outlets often have prewritten obits for famous people so they dont need many details to publish a story that first day. If the cause of death is known, (which is almost certainly the case for Bill Paxton) they often come out with a more detailed statement a day or two later. If the cause is unknown, you may never find out, or you many have to wait a few weeks to a few months for an autopsy report. As for whether it is or is not the public's business how a celebrity died, I think the simple answer is \"no\" but it's really not strange or morbid to want to know, either. When someone dies, it can make people afraid or uncomfortable in addition to their grief. That is doubly true if the death in question was unexpected. While we aren't owed the information, knowing it can relieve some serious existential anxiety and help people put the event into perspective. Also, some people (like me) cope with stress, fear, and grief by feeding it as much information as they can get their hands on. So I'd say your curiosity is understandable. Just try to keep in mind that this was a person who has loved ones and you curiosity needs to take a back seat to their grief. You will likely find out what you want to know if you're patient."
],
"score": [
14,
12,
9,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wdibv | Why/how do actors choose their "stage names"? | Do celebrities choose stage names for some small piece of privacy or is it always about marketing themselves? What makes some names "better" or more marketable than others? Do they pick them themselves or is it usually a PR person? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de98xxa",
"de98dm0",
"de9872k"
],
"text": [
"Many reasons! Some pick their own, some are given one. * Avoiding confusion with someone else, sometimes per Screen Actors Guild rules. There was already a Diane Hall, so Diane Hall became Diane Keaton. * Hiding national/ethnic background, especially in the past. Margarita Cansino didn't want to be stuck with \"exotic\" roles, so she became Rita Hayworth. * Hiding family background. Francis Ford Coppola's nephew Nicolas didn't want people thinking he'd only made it on his uncle's coattails, so he became Nicolas Cage. * Some names are odd or difficult to spell, or don't seem marketable. Archibald Leach was given the name Cary Grant, Marion Morrison was given the name John Wayne, Maurice Micklewhite chose Michael Caine. (He had previously been going by Michael Scott, but there turned out to be another Michael Scott, so it's sort of a two-level stage name.)",
"Jamie Foxx actually chose his stage name because he noticed that female comics usually perform first so he chose an ambiguous name to perform earlier.",
"In a few instances it's because the Screen Actors Guild requires its members to have unique working names. E.g. Michael Keaton's birth name is Michael Douglas but that name was already taken."
],
"score": [
17,
11,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wdw4k | How do crushes work and why is it so hard to ask them out? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9dnp3"
],
"text": [
"Sometimes you like somebody, and sometimes you *like* like somebody. Usually it's because you think they're pretty cool and you want to get to know them better. Specifically, sometimes it's because they're popular and fit the idea of what people say they like. Sometimes it's because they fit a \"type\" you like. One theory is that this type may be based on something deep in your mind - impressions about how relationships work that were made when you were really young. Some believe the template is based on your opposite sex parent - how they look and behaved. Some believe that we're all attracted to familiarity to some degree. Couples may look similar, but this similarity also increases over time. On the other hand, some attraction comes from what's exotic. Genes need to mix. People who have differing immune system types generally smell better to you than people with the same type. Throughout history this has been true. All the way back to the stone age when modern humans and neanderthal coexisted, we can see evidence of genetic mingling. Nowadays, people still find the exotic attractive - the popular porn of the generation seems to be the culture on the 'other side'. Anyway, the two things together tend to ensure that genes are maximally different but people are socially compatible. Crushes perhaps come from the beginnings of figuring out your \"type\" and also from what traits are admired more generally - popularity, beauty, coolness, etc."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wei9f | Why hasn't there been another Beatlemania? What was different about the 1960s and 1970s that allowed a single band to influence culture worldwide? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9gmtm",
"de9hfp1"
],
"text": [
"The caliber of the band, plus right time and place. They symbolized revolution, but safe revolution. The kind parents could safely ignore",
"It was the pop culture of the time that everyone subscribed to. There were a few radio stations and that is where people heard music. There weren't other ways to find out about music. There were the top ten singles each week. Everyone heard them. the only way to get a record out was to get signed with a label. There were no independent labels. There were a few tv channels that everyone watched. There wasn't a lot of choice. The top films would play at the theatres - just one at a time. Even by the 70's, the Beatles would not have been possible. There was too much competition. Also, cassettes were out, so teenagers could make each other mixed tapes. By the 80's there were independent labels, college radio, hundreds of channels, MTV."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wejnf | Jimmy Kimmel's joke about OJ Simpson | I'm not native english speaker, but I think the joke on the Oscars was "OJ gets an extra slice of bologna on his sandwich tonight". Could you guys explain me with the context (if any)? **THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS, GUYS!** | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9h8ga",
"de9h3tn"
],
"text": [
"OJ is serving a prison sentence for armed robbery. Bologna is a cheap processed luncheon meat that is commonly served to prisoners in the US. Jimmy was making a joke that since Ezra Edleman's OJ documentary won the award for best documentary feature that OJ deserved to be some how rewarded too.",
"Bologna is a cheap meat product often served in prisons because it's a cheap form of meat/protein. OJ is in prison for his part in other crimes in which he took part years after the murders for which he stood trial. So basically, the joke is that OJ will be rewarded with an extra portion of food for his prison dinner."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wekrs | How do remote communities avoid inbreeding when the genetic pool is so low? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9ojda",
"de9iihk",
"de9pwaa"
],
"text": [
"They don't. Which is precisely why people make jokes about such people (in the U.S, Appalachian hillbillies, but there are probably similar groups in many countries) being stupid or deformed.",
"Err... You've never been to one, have you?",
"It's a little harder to hurt a breeding population by inbreeding than many people assume. Because of the way genetic diseases are expressed, there is a chance for a birth defect that goes up the closer your genetics are to your partners genetics. But the chances are still low enough that most children will be born without any obvious defects. Even serious interbreeding seldom causes large problems in the short term due to the wonderful way genes can express themselves. However, given a longer period of time, and repetitive inbreeding generation after generation, the risks for systemic defects goes up. Most of the time this results from deliberate inbreeding generation after generation such as the European royalty that people famously cite as a cautionary tale on inbreeding. Such as arranged marriages among close family members in order to keep political or financial power centralized within the family. The larger problem faced by small and isolated communities isn't obvious birth defects, but rather a higher incidence of genetic diseases and a lack of genetic diversity makes them more susceptible to diseases both contagious and genetic. Good genetic variety helps keep a population healthy in the face of disease and famine because there are enough differences among people that some will be resistant or immune to a virus or infection, even if others are not. So some will always survive. Where as if the community had low genetic diversity, a virus which could kill one person would be more likely to infect and kill others as they would have the same genetic strengths and weaknesses. There are however cases of generational inbreeding causing some pretty rare problems that are still the subject of study. I remember reading about villages in Turkey for instance that had small and closed communities of people who seldom inter married because of cultural or religious reasons. They became famous when several children in a single family developed a birth defect that caused them to [walk on all fours]( URL_0 ) and almost incapable of standing and walking on two legs."
],
"score": [
15,
9,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/17/the-family-that-walks-on-all-fours-and-why-they-cant-stand-up/?utm_term=.85e00a23d745"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wenhz | Why does the alphabet have an order? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9hu9j"
],
"text": [
"probably more than a few, certain helps for remembering it. but mostly as a filing system. being able to \"alphabetize\" something is pretty useful."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wf3k4 | Why was $1 worth in 1956 worth so much more than 1$ in 2016? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9lruy",
"de9mntp"
],
"text": [
"Inflation. The cost of goods go up which in turn diminishes the purchasing power of the dollar. Most every country has it, some tremendously worse than others. The reason for inflation is hotly debated and widely theorized. I believe there are many economic and political factors involved. However, there seems to be a consensus that two factors are the main issues. Cost-push inflation- This is where the cost of goods for a company go up, such as wages, taxes, or imported goods. This is the main reason increasing minimum wage will not work. Companies will all just increase their costs for items and the poor will remain just as poor, the middle class will become poorer, and the rich will remain rich. Demand-pull inflation- This means too much money is chasing too few goods. In other words, the demand of a certain item is more than the suppliers can manufacture, so priced go up because it is able. Normally you would be able to see this in a growing economy. For instance, this is why things have stayed relatively stagnant lately in the US... our economy is kinda just sitting idly, with good and bad happening just about at equal.",
"Currency, like a dollar bill, is just a medium of exchange and over time it value changes in relation to work which gets you money and goods you spend your money on. Pretend you work for $12/hr and a loaf of bread costs $1, which means you need to work 5mins to buy a loaf. If an economy is doing well people more people have jobs and in order to keep you as an employee you bosses need to give you a raise or you will might go somewhere else. They give a raise to $15 and now bread cost 4 mins work. But the bakery also have to pay more for their staff, so they need to raise the price of bread to $1.10, which means you have to work 4.4 minutes for that bread. A million transactions like this over time slowly change the value of work and produces over time. When economies are doing well the prices and wages tend to go up (inflation) and in poor economies the wages and prices tend to go down (deflation)"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wgpt0 | Why did London fail to build urban highways, while Tokyo succeeded? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9w6ko",
"dea3y6d",
"dea8fub"
],
"text": [
"London was just hurt by the bombings, Tokyo was levelled. London still had most buildings standing and so retained their old street plan. Tokyo was more or less flat wasteland after the incendiary bombings, so it was reasonable to do a \"dump and rewrite\".",
"They didn't \"fail\" to build inner city highways, they did come to the conclusion that highways where people live are a stupid idea and abandoned the project. The 60s were a time where building car-centric cities was still en vogue, but the first projects were already finished and city planners could observe what inner city highways do to cities: they create enormous amounts of traffic, pollution, destroy entire neighbourhoods, create de facto slums and cost a shit load of money. That is why many of these projects were abandoned or never even started. The US went all in with the car-centric cities, Europe was a few years behind and in many cases stopped just before it was too late.",
"Comparing the London Blitz to the 1944 bombing of Tokyo is like comparing a paper cut to losing your arm to a chainsaw. London got bombed by tiny, prewar bombers dropping ineffective bombs. 32,000 Londoner civilians died over the course of the war. Tokyo lost 3 times that many in a single day."
],
"score": [
51,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wgtrx | 3 out of 4 working age men do not work and are not looking for work? | I was listening to [NPR a few days ago]( URL_0 ) and the host, Scott Simon, and the interviewee, Nicholas Eberstadt, were talking about the unemployement rate and Nicholas stated "I mean, just to pick one statistic - for every guy between the ages of 25 and 54 - the so-called prime working age is that critical group - there were three guys who are neither working nor looking for work." This seems ridiculously high. That is great depression levels of unemployment. So could someone explain to me what that number actually comes from because I know some people are lazy but I have a hard time believing that all of them are "sitting and watching stoned." Thanks! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"de9wrn1",
"de9xixw",
"dea2f79",
"de9xiuz"
],
"text": [
"That isn't \"great depression\" levels of employment... that would be 3x worse. Unemployment during the Great Depression hit 25%, according to this report they are discussing it is somehow 75%? I'm gonna call straight bullshit. There has got to be some details, or they are intentionally shaping the data to to get what they want out of it.",
"He should have said \"for every **unemployed** guy between the ages of 25 and 54\". Using figures for men over 20 because that's the age range I can find, in January there 78.5m employed, 3.6m unemployed and 32.1m neither working nor looking for work. Of course that figure will include a lot of retired people since it doesn't stop at age 54. EDIT: The figures for 25-54 in January were 2.55m unemployed and 7.01m not in the labor force, so the claim isn't quite true now. However, it was true in November (2.05m vs 7.15m).",
"He is absolutely right, but the way he said it wasn't clear. Out of 4 guys not working, 3 are neither working nor looking for work. Source : URL_1 There is 61.8 millions 25 to 54 years men in the US. 54.7 millions of them are working, 2.2 millions of them are unemployed and 7.1 millions of them are neither working nor looking for work. That's where the 3 out 4 is coming out. 7.1 millions out of (2.2 + 7.1). Now that number can mean a lot of things. - Men with disability that could have difficulty working - Men choosing to stay at home with the kids (something that didn't exist in the past). - Men living off their saving or investment - Men taking their retirement early. - Men that abandoned the search for work - etc. Comparing this number to the great depression is stupid. During the great depression there was more people unemployed so of course as a ratio there was less men neither working nor looking for work. Let take invented numbers. Let say you have 100 men in your country. You are in a depression and 60 of them are working, 25 of them are looking for work and 15 are neither working nor looking for work. Now 20 years latter, you still have 100 men, 80 of them are working, 5 of them are looking for work and 15 are still neither working nor looking for work. See now you have 3 our 4 unemployed men not looking for work, but during the depression it was 1.5 out of 4 unemployed men that wasn't looking for work. That comparison is stupid by itself. What you need to look at is the labor participation of men over time. That will tell you if more or less men choose to not work and not look for work. URL_2 URL_0 We see that the guy at NPR don't know how to use statistic, but his point was still good. Less men 25-54 are participating in the labor force. From 91.7 in 1994, to 90.5 in 2004 and 88.2 in 2014. It got up a little since then. Around 88.5 in 2015-2016 and 88.9 for the beginning of 2017. But here it become interesting. It's not only men 25-54 it's everybody. And it have nothing to do with economic problems. URL_3 You see here that it keep going down slowly. It didn't dropped drastically during the 2008 recession to go up later. No, it dropped at a regular rate before, during and after the 2008 crisis. It seem to be a cultural and societal phenomenon, and not an economic one.",
"This statistic does smell like bullshit. But keep in mind that unemployment is tricky to measure. The official (govt.) definition is % of workforce that does not have a job, but \"workforce\" does not include anyone who isn't working/actively looking for work. So, for example, a stay at home mom/dad isn't included in the rate. Depending on how they specifically did their survey, they may have included self-employed ppl., students, the seasonally unemployed, etc. as unemployed. They also probably counted the whole population as the workforce, including those stay at home dads. When not using the official definition of the unemployment rate, there is a lot of wiggle room to present misleading statistics to achieve political goals."
],
"score": [
16,
11,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm",
"https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.pdf",
"https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300061",
"https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5whf3v | How were languages first translated? | Nowadays the relationships between languages are fairly well known and with thought anyone could learn anything. But how were languages of different families first translated, like Dutch and Japanese when traders first arrived in Japan? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dea1ka7",
"dea1qvu",
"deakn6o"
],
"text": [
"1) point at rock 2) make verbal identifying sound of rock 3) wait 4)???? 5) profit Repeat until sufficient vocabulary for communication has been acquired",
"This is an entire separate subject of linguistics. A lot of films actually gets this rather correct. You would first start off with learning simple words of things around you, names, objects, places, etc. Then you would learn the basic verbs of the language. By only knowing subjects and verbs you can start basic communication and start understanding and constructing sentences. So then you get the basic sentence structures in place and start being able to catch the smaller components in the language. And it goes much faster as you can ask and understand the answers about the specifics of the language.",
"Well, concrete nouns are pretty easy. If I hold out a fork and say \"fork,\" you know that's what I call it. Then you can tell me what you call it, and we can communicate. Verbs are a little harder, but not much. We can point out common actions to one another and name them. Once we have nouns and verbs, we can continue to introduce new words and more complex grammar by acting things out and otherwise indicating what we mean physically, the same way we teach babies how to speak their first language."
],
"score": [
6,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5whoy3 | Who or what decided what the months and days would be called? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dea3ynm"
],
"text": [
"The months, largely the Romans. The last part of the year still carries Latin numbers: Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec. Plus the ones named for Julius (July) and Augustus Ceasars. The days of the week, strangely, come in part from the Norse: Odin's Day (Wednesday) Thor's Day, Frigga's Day."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5whql6 | What benefits are there to dilluting US federal power and emplowering US state governments? | I have asked people the following question and didn't receive any real explanation or what the pros and cons are. I started wondering if I just don't understand well enough. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dea4mce",
"dea4p8q",
"deaaiz2",
"dea7ig8",
"deae7kc",
"deangyl",
"dea4iwh",
"dead82y"
],
"text": [
"Use recreational marijuana legalization as an example. You're starting out with zero states that have legalized marijuana for medial OR recreational use. It will take a LOT of public pressure to overturn this at the federal level - not just from more liberal states, but also conservative states. There's a lot of questions - what will be the societal impact? Will unemployment go up if people get easier access to a \"gateway drug\"? Will marijuana use among teens go up? How much tax revenue will we actually get from this? Will people just keep buying it illegally to save money? What are the health ramifications be in the medium to long term be? Will usage of harder drugs go up? These are all things we can debate ad naseum but can never figure out unless we actually try it. Is it better to try this out nationwide all at once, or bit by bit? If California legalizes recreational marijuana use, and it results in a negligible increase in \"bad\" things and we find out it generates a ton of extra tax revenue... Then it's that much more likely other states are going to try it out. If it turns out that tax revenue isn't what they were projecting and it has a lot of negative effects, it's only one state that's screwed up instead of 50. Furthermore, what might work well for California and Washington might not work well for Texas and Wyoming.",
"Power in the US does not start with the Federal Government, it starts with the States. The Federal government only gets those powers that the States let them get. It is suppose to be limited to only those powers granted in the constitution, but the Federal Government has slowly gained far more power than it is intended to have. There is a lot of pressure within US to give some of that \"Stolen power\" back to the States where it technically belongs.",
"The concept of federalism is that an issue is usually best handled by those closest to it. Power is decentralized into multiple smaller areas, ones that are made up primarily of those who care about and are affected by a particular issue, to be resolved by those same people. Virginians know more about issues that affect Virginians, and Californians know more about issues that affect Californians. Those groups retain their own authority to handle issues and policies for their own citizens. Only issues that a smaller level cannot do on its own, such as national defense, are given to the larger level of government. The goal of this is to create not a one-size-fits-all way of doing everything, but many ways of doing things, specific to those groups of people who want things done their way. In addition it creates what is commonly called the \"50 laboratories\" theory in that each state can experiment with the best ways of doing something for their people, and other states can look at how others are doing something to see if maybe it will also work for them. This system is overall far more dynamic, able to respond to the specific and varying needs of their own groups, and offers more opportunity to see what works and what doesn't. It also gives individuals much more of a say in how their own issues are handled. One of the criticisms of the electoral college is the oft cited disparity between the \"weight\" an individual voter in California has vs. one in say Wyoming, due to the differences in populations vs electoral votes. Well in federalism, this isn't supposed to be that big of a deal since the vast majority of issues that affect Californians are supposed to be handled at the state level by Californians for Californians in the first place. The amount of power a federal government that they might night have voted for (and had their population weight work against them in the federal elections) has over them isn't supposed to be very large in the first place.",
"America is a giant patchwork of different states, all of which have different problems, different expectations, and different cultures. Some scholars have identified around eleven regions that have inherited different value systems as a result of when, where, and by whom they were colonized. The difference between state and federal power is an acknowledgement that each state might have different needs and require different solutions. The \"Pro\" is that each state gets to make its own rules and thereby fulfill the wishes of its own residents. Low-population states can minimize the influence of high-population states, because the higher-population states have less power to impose inappropriate or unpopular policies. The \"Con\" is that having a patchwork of different laws making up your country can cause problems. Restricting guns or drugs, for example, doesn't make much difference if people can easily acquire them in a less-restrictive state. Or imagine your business asks you to relocate to a state where the laws are unfavorable to you, and you have to choose between your livelihood and your way of life. There is really no logic to having the difference between law and criminality decided by an imaginary line drawn in the dirt.",
"It makes government policy adapt more closely to the local population. The appropriate levels of say gun regulation might be different in Alaska than Connecticut. Pollution controls might make more sense in New Jersey than Montana. A one size fits all federal policy might not be better than one tailored to individual states. There are a few drawbacks: * historically states government power has been used to infringe on civil rights * it can provide a financial incentive to \"race to the bottom\" (like Missouri puppy mills) * there is economic benefit to having one set of regulations instead of fifty * it makes it harder to balance state contributions to the federal government...Alaska provides great benefit through its natural resources but lacks the population and tax base to maintain the needed infrastructure...granting Alaska more federal assistance benefits everyone",
"The US is geographically huge compared to most other nations. This means that what works in one part of the nation does not work as well in another. Distributing power to more local governments allows for solutions to be more tailored to the problems. In addition, although there is some debate on the matter, many people think the founders of the nation intended it to be that way and set the initial structures of government with that in mind so that distributing the power to the local levels will actually allow government to work more efficiently. Distribution of power also means the distribution of responsibility for the issues, which requires the balance of taxation to shift more toward the states. This means that citizens would see their tax dollars have more of an impact in areas closer to where they live.",
"From a historical perspective, the federal government never had that power in the first place. Under British rule, each colony governed independently with only minor control from the crown (it's hard to micromanage colonies when it takes months to send messages). The states were reluctant to give up any power at all after declaring independence from Britain. In the first attempt at a federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government barely had any power at all. It was unable to levy taxes, so all it could really do was issue sternly worded letters and rely on the states to enforce them. The US Constitution is actually the states giving up more power to the federal government, not the federal government giving up more power to the states. From a modern perspective, the federal-state divide is useful because it lets states act as experiments for new laws. It's very difficult to convince 300 million people across many different geographies and living styles that something is a good idea. It's easier to start passing laws at the local level, and then going to the state and then federal level if it turns out to be a good idea and repealing it if it is not.",
"There are three broad reasons: 1) Social (or Socioeconomic) 2) Legal 3) Political 1) From the founding of the nation, social differences have led Americans to value their control over their community at the state and local level even if they lack effective control at the Federal level. The Connecticut Compromise was designed to protect free states from being forced to allow slavery and to allow slave states to continue to enslave people. Today it means coastal communities can pass laws that enshrine equality while interior communities can pass laws that enshrine personal liberties (for example) without imposing their wills upon one another. 2) The power of government is derived from the people. With the exception of the enumerated powers in the US Constitution, the States are responsible for passing laws and regulating their communities. Congress needs to shoe-horn in some connection to the Interstate Commerce Clause (or others) to justify its actions, or the federal courts will find them an unconstitutional overreach. Civil experts can disagree upon where that line is drawn. 3) The party in power is generally interested in wielding that power wherever they are. The party running the state house wants more state power, the party running DC wants more federal power. The strongest power that Congress wields is the \"power of the purse.\" Regardless of dialogue to the contrary, both parties are happy to wield this power to effect whatever political change suits them. Direct funding of programs may be switched to block grants, but it won't be eliminated, because the political power of choosing where and how to spend money is not a gift to be given away."
],
"score": [
12,
9,
8,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wi5h5 | How are cults of personality formed? How are they maintained? And how can they be destroyed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deabgu0",
"dearwfg"
],
"text": [
"Aka how can I become a cult leader?",
"It's pretty complex and it varies from culture to culture. A good (non-controversial) example to mention would be the Kim dynasty of North Korea. Between the end of Japanese Empire and the Korean War, the Soviet Union installed Kim-Il Sung as the nation's Generalissimo. Within years he had been lifted to immortal godlike status. Unquestioned authority. Infallible decisions. Historically, Cults of Personality *all* fall apart. It's not a matter of *if*, it's a matter of *when*. Eventually something happens that drops the curtain and everyone can see the real \"wizard of Oz\". The illusion is gone. However to counter my own point, the Cult of Personality political phenomenon does not have a lot of non-Modern examples... Elizabeth II? Augustus Caesar? Adolf Hilter's cult ended (mostly) with the fall of Germany in WWII... but what would have happened if Germany never lost? Would his Cult of Personality still be going strong and defining German politics in the 21st Century? My personal opinion is that Cults of Personality are unsustainable. The personal ambition of the Leader (almost) always leads to a downfall. Overconfidence. Paranoia."
],
"score": [
22,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wj6fd | Why are people threatening all these Jewish centers and cemeteries across the USA? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deaht0m",
"deajvjz"
],
"text": [
"Trump. People elected him BECAUSE he \"isn't politically correct and says what's on his mind.\" And it turns out, what's on his mind is horrible racist drivel. Steve Bannon, an active racist and anti-Semite is now one of the key figures in the White House. White supremacist websites are now treated more favorably than actual news organizations. Depending on who you talk to, we might be witnessing the last dying gasp of white supremacism before their generation passes away and the new generations take over. Or we might be witnessing the biggest resurgence of white supremacists since the sixties. Especially given that they had to spend the last eight years listening to a black President. Either way, the hateful bigots of the world feel that they have a champion in the White House and feel they have been given legitimacy and a license to behave as they please. And, frankly, they are probably right. We haven't done enough to stop them, and voting Trump into power was a step in the opposite direction.",
"They are most likely political terrorists, people who hate Trump so much that they will create issues in any way possible to make him look bad. By someone that dislikes Trump trashing graves, they can then point at Trump and then say it's his fault for knocking over the graves because, well, he's Trump. It's sad that some people would rather see the world burn down then even give Trump a chance. There are numerous and documented cases of people intentionally causing a 'false flag' like stories, not just against Trump, just to garner media attention and it is increasing in rate. The media is quick to plaster false flag stories and rarely ever retracts them when found out to be fraud."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wjbx3 | Regarding the constitution, how far are public school teachers allowed to go when exercising their freedom of religion? | If you have a Spanish teacher passing out notes where she has written, "God gave you eyes and ears to listen and learn with", and the notes do not pertain to learning about any religion, is that legal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dealcnq",
"deaintx",
"deaolnq",
"dealkxx"
],
"text": [
"This is a complex area of constitutional law, and it can change over time. Generally speaking, government employees, including teachers, are paid in part to give up some of their rights when they are \"on the clock\". So, for example, we all have First Amendment rights to free speech, but public school teachers can still be fired for saying \"Fuck the police!\" to their students (if that's not part of the lesson plan); or they can be required to teach students that the Civil War was motivated by slavery even if they personally believe the war was motivated by industrialization (or vice versa). Likewise, teachers are paid agents of the government, and so it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for them to use their position to, for example, give As to students who say they believe in Jesus and Fs to those who say they don't. (This would be allowed in private school!) There are a few situations that are sort of in the middle. So, for example, a public school teacher can probably bring a bible to work and read it and pray silently to herself during her lunch break. The U.S. Department of Education has given guidance for many situations that commonly come up. I couldn't find the Department's direct link to it, but you can see some of the guidance at [this website]( URL_0 ). In the situation you describe, the question is whether a reasonable student would feel they have been placed under religious pressure by the teacher's comments. That may depend on the context. Public school teachers are not entirely prohibited from talking about God or even mentioning their own religious beliefs if there's no pressure on students and it's part of helping students learn what they need to. Without knowing more about the situation, I think the most natural way to interpret the notes you describe is that the teacher is really saying \"You have eyes and ears to listen and learn with -- be sure to use them!\". In other words, she is saying \"[Whoever or whatever created you gave you -- and I happen to believe that is God] gave you eyes and ears to listen and learn with.\" If that's what a reasonable student would understand her to have meant, it's probably fine and does not pressure students to follow a certain religion. However, perhaps in context (e.g. because of other things the particular teacher has said and done in the past) a reasonable student in that classroom would read that note and think the teacher was calling upon them to immdiately shout out \"Praise Jesus for my eyes and ears!\" and would punish them if they did not do so. If that was how a reasonable student would interpret the note, then what the teacher did would not be allowed.",
"It's legal, or at least no more illegal than saying the Pledge of Allegiance each day. At least in this case no one is making you say, believe, or agree to anything; it's just some words on a paper. There is no requirement to completely purge the mention or reference to any and all religious concepts from schools.",
"That is probably legal, depending on the exact circumstances. Teachers are allowed to: * mention religion as it pertains to the subject matter * use common idioms that invoke religion * talk about religion informally, outside of regular teaching duties Teachers are not allowed to: * require prayer or prayer-like activities * advocate any particular religion * exclude anyone on the basis of religion, explicitly or implicitly Whether a particular case falls into one category or the other is a matter of much debate. Note that schools in religious communities have a history for trying to push those boundaries, so the courts have typically taken a broad view of improper religious content. Also, lack of religious belief is typically given the same protections. In your case, that is probably covered by common idiom.",
"Currently, something like your example is not illegal. But as a whole the question of religion in public schools is still debated a lot. And what should and should not be allowed isn't well defined. One of the rules is that a public school can not force you to take part in any religion that you don't want. So a school can't force you to pray or say the line \"Under one god\" in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the same vein, a public school can not prohibit you from practicing your religion (within reason), so you are allowed to pray if you want/need. Some of the things still debated are should public schools teach different religions. If so, how? Do you just teach the history of how it came to be? Do you teach the basic tenants of the religion? And of course there is a lot debate, in the US, if the Federal government should decide these things or if the State governments should decide from themselves. Then there is the question of whether or not a public school can teach someone non-religious materials if their religious beliefs contradict. This would be the basis for the Evolution vs Intelligent Design."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://bjconline.org/department-of-education-guidelines-on-religious-expression-in-the-public-schools/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wjta6 | Why do news organizations report on "dangerous teen trends" that never seem to have any basis in fact? | Granted, trends will vary between age groups and it's not like I was the most trendy person in school, but so much of what they reported seems like utter bullshit, or sensationalizing. I work with teenagers now and it still seems like bullshit. For one thing, you'll see news pieces about crazy new teen trends sweeping the country, and they never seem to make any effort to put it into context (e.g., this actually happened twice at the same school and nowhere else). I've seen multiple lists of acronyms that the writer presents as near universal among teenagers, most of them awkwardly long and related to sex. Are the teenage children of journalists just making things up for fun? I get why it's a good story ("and coming up after the break, could your teen be involved in a dangerous new game?"), but it's crazy to me that it's acceptable to practically make shit up or make it seem like one incident is indicative of a larger trend. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deamhq1"
],
"text": [
"Media, has gone from a platform of information and morphed into a disfigured into a ugly beast. The media is now mostly controlled by powerful people and their cooperations so that already adds a bias.. Furthermore the media love reporting about dangerous trends and teen troubles because it plays to a parents worry.. Trust me its there.. Now it hooks viewers and gets them to stay on the channel. People these days dont fact check so any crap being spread will just keep spreading. I used to love the news.. A way to learn more about the world and what's going on.. Now its just depressing and sad. The media is infested and this shit and sadly a lot of people buy into it"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wk7oy | why are rabbits also called "bunnies?" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deaq0mh",
"deapx1h",
"deav8ua",
"deay1ng",
"deaug2o",
"deb02gj",
"deb01qs",
"deaxflq"
],
"text": [
"Because the word is cute and they are cute. [Actually, “bunny” is closer to the original word for the floppy-eared critters than “rabbit” is. Up until the 18th century, the common word used for adult members of Oryctolagus cuniculus was “coney,” which was pronounced “cunny.” Eventually, that word fell out of favor because of its similarity to a word that was becoming increasingly more commonly used as a vulgarity. So timid souls along the way chose a rhyming alternative, and “coney” became “bunny.”]( URL_0 )",
"\"Bunny\" comes from Scottish dialect and is of uncertain origin. It's pretty common in English that multiple terms will come from different sources, with none being exclusive. Incidentally, \"rabbit\" originally referred only the young, the species in general being called *coney*.",
"And then why do people use bunny and rabbit together?!",
"I always thought bunnies were the chubby, floppy eared sort that you cage as pets, and rabbits were the lean, quick bastards you see running around outside.",
"Welsh superstition: passing something menacing like a cemetery at night you'd say rabbit rabbit rabbit ended by bunny once you passed. Gordon Ramsey did this on an episode of his program.",
"This is what the OED has to say: ORIGIN early 17th cent. (originally used as a term of endearment to a person, later as a pet name for a rabbit): from dialect bun ‘squirrel, rabbit’, also used as a term of endearment, of unknown origin.",
"The other compelling question is why Manx Cats are not called Cabbits, despite many people attempting to insist they are cabbits, and should be called such. Genetically they're not a cat/bunny cross breed, but there's a lot of hilarity surrounding the mythos of the cabbit.)",
"There's also a French sailor superstition that states than any word that is even remotely close to \"bunny\" or \"rabbit\" would spread bad luck over the ship and it will never arrive at port."
],
"score": [
2064,
303,
93,
85,
48,
13,
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://mentalfloss.com/article/58247/how-did-bunny-become-cutesy-word-rabbit"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wkl82 | why has there always been a rebellion between the older generation and the younger generation when it comes to music and lifestyle? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deatjke",
"deb0zzk",
"debclwv",
"debibkl"
],
"text": [
"Older people can be cranky, and apparently they tend to lean conservative in a lot of ways. They miss things as they were back in the day, and modern music and lifestyle, whatever that may be, is often disruptive to that.",
"In my experience, things will always be changing. With most people we struggle through our lives until we find something that works for us. Whatever whyevere. When we have those comforts we embrace them over the change that naturally happens. Fast forward 40 years and the things weve embraced are warped and weird like a gnarled tree. And the world around it continues to change. Eventually that tree falls down by wind or axe.",
"Yes and no. To a degree there has always been social change. However, the pace of change has increase as time has progressed too. Consider some of the more tribal civilisations. The Australian Aboriginals for instance. Likely to have maintained very similar lifestyle with very little change over time. Similarly some of those in Africa and the America's before European settlement. However, even though there was slow change, there would have been *some* change. Perhaps the environment altered, a tree or animal died out or a new one was introduced. That change in environment would have led to societal and social change. How does social change link up to generation change? They're both related to temporality. The old generation dies out, the new one comes in. Say the old generation knew about the old trees that died out and the new introduced species. The new generation isn't going to. Just like we have no experience with horses and carts rather than cars, the change in environment is tied to generation drift. What's happened in recent years is the pace of environmental change has increased so much. Society itself altered into a form that encouraged change. New inventions, new ideas, new industries etc. And different generations that are alive at the same time will experience varying levels of exposure to these new things. Take new concepts as an example (the more contentious one and relates to lifestyle). 50 years ago the idea that gay people were normal and healthy was almost non-existent. And many in older generations grew up with that concept *for decades*. A 20 year old and their grandparents might both have been familiar with the concept for 20 years, but the 20 year old doesn't have to decades of other contradicting concepts to combat it. A similar line of thought for woman working, rather than being stay at home mothers. Similarly for music, each of us are exposed to music of our era and will reinforce it continuously. That reinforcement of music brings us to an interesting point. Playing a particular type of music is changing the environment we are in. Zoning out new music is changing the environment we are in. Humans are changing our environment. So we are both influenced by the environment in which we live and we also shape the environment in which we live! We've only got better at this with all our technology too and this is a big factor in why the generational drift is larger nowadays than back in the days of yore.",
"not long ago I read an article claiming that the youth right now is the first one to NOT rebell. They just want to fit in globally. there are almost no regional underground scenes anymore, everything that is \"cool\" is viral and mainstream in an instant. the age of the circlejerk."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wkumo | Why do we call cow meat beef and pig meat pork? | But we don't have separate names for chicken, duck, fish, rabbit, deer etc? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deauyyl"
],
"text": [
"English to French translation: * beef/cow - > boeuf * pig - > porc In England the nobility spoke French (specifically Norman French) for a long time. So the people who ate the meat referred to it in French, while the people who raised the meat animals referred to them in English."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wkv7a | Civil rights vs Civil liberties | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deavtcg"
],
"text": [
"The very easy way to think of it is that Civil Rights refer to the idea of all people having equal treatment, especially being free from discrimination based on factors like race, sex, etc. Civil Liberties are those freedoms protected explicitly by law. First amendment rights, etc. There's some overlap, obviously."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wkx5k | cars like VW Beetle proved that a motor can be refrigerated by air. Why this kind of design never succeeded to be the most popular and water/liquid refrigerated won? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deavw5p",
"deawpih",
"deavix1",
"deavvp6"
],
"text": [
"Just because somethings possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. Liquid coolants have a *much* higher heat capacity, and so can absorb much higher amounts of heat from the engine. This is good, because the engine generally runs more efficiently as it's operating temperature increases, but this necessitates a better coolant system to get rid of the waste heat from the engine block, which allows you to get all of the positives of a hot engine, with none of the negatives.",
"What works in a cheap, low powered vehicle doesn't necessarily scale to more powerful vehicles that generate a lot more heat and have more complex engines.",
"It's more likely to overheat. If you're at a standstill or going up a steep hill with a heavy load for example it's not being cooled enough for the amount of work it's doing.",
"Aircraft engines have been almost exclusively air cooled for decades. The thing with a car is designers want to have a handy source of heat for doing different things like heating the interior or defrosting the windows.Coolant solves that and has the added bonus of making the car safer when it comes to exhaust fumes getting in the passenger cabin.Plus the coolant also heats up the transmission to operating temp faster with a heat exchanger and keeps it from over heating as well.(automatic). When you use the heat from an air cooled engine (either off the heads or from the manifolds) you have an increased risc of exhaust gas getting in the passenger compartment and putting you to sleep,(bad). And the gas burning heaters (vw beetles) just killed your gas mileage."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wl0hm | How does renting out/loaning out console games work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deawkrj"
],
"text": [
"I'll use GameFly as an example. GameFly buys, say, 10,000 copies of Final Fantasy XV for $59.99 a pop. They then rent those copies out at $14 per month, making their money back after five months and then start making a profit on the game afterwards. They will also sell copies of their games at a reduced price. Unless something has changed, the publishers and developers do not get a monthly premium for this, and are only paid once for that initial purchase."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wl5pd | Increased efficiency and automation have been eliminating jobs for thousands of years (from the creation of aqueducts to the invention of computers and internet). Why is it such a fear now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deb3c2u",
"deaxmr3"
],
"text": [
"Always Follow The Money. Logic says that workers, ordinary folks, should be the ones fearing automation. But the articles I've seen spreading fear about automation causing massive unemployment seem to originate at media organs that serve the financial industry. And the financial industry serves the wealthy. So why would the wealthiest people in the world be even the slightest bit concerned if the working poor are unemployed in droves? They wouldn't be, we all know that. So what's the end game look like if automation eliminates 90 percent of all jobs? Well, at that point we will probably be a post-scarcity civilization. Meaning money might just go away completely. And that possibility would terrify the wealthy.",
"We are getting to the point where it could create mass-joblessness, which is associated with a stigma of being lazy or dumb."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wlc3w | Made up names in the black community | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deb03n4"
],
"text": [
"Most members of the black community in the US can trace their ancestry back to slavery . . . and no further. All they know is that their ancestors came over from Africa as slaves, but not which country they came from. Because of this, they've lost their heritage. They don't know what their original culture was, including what their traditional names might have been. It could be anything at all from any part of Africa. Because of this, black communities in the US have trended toward sort of \"inventing\" a new culture from whole cloth. New names and naming patterns end up being created as a substitute for the traditional names that have been lost."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wlofs | Since when and why did we use the word "layman" to describe "a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject?" | I've been wondering ever since I've seen it on the sidebar. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deb2hxu"
],
"text": [
"URL_1 It's been in use since the 15th century. The original meaning was to refer to somebody who wasn't an ordained priest but still involved with the church in an official capacity. By extension, it took on the meaning of referring to anyone who wasn't a professional or expert in a subject matter. See also: URL_0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity",
"http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=layman"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wm1so | Viet Nam vs Vietnam? Why are they sometimes separated? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deb5mld"
],
"text": [
"In Vietnamese the country is called \"Việt Nam\". In English it is commonly transliterated as \"Vietnam\" but \"Viet Nam\" is also correct. Because English often lacks the precise sounds to duplicate words in other languages transliteration is always a little fuzzy. Exactly why this happened is a long and complicated story that goes back at least several hundred years and involves a lot of people mispronouncing Chinese and Vietnamese words. [Wikipedia has a pretty good write-up if you're interested.]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Vietnam"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wmexs | Why do we enjoy music? Is it something we naturally enjoyed since the beginning, or is it something we've developed and have grown to enjoy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"debb71e"
],
"text": [
"I think it has to do with our recognition and enjoyment of patterns. It has evolutionary advantages (e.g., tracking a predator's hunting times and territories)."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5woi3m | Why the UK never made their overseas islands integral part of their country? | Why the UK never had any interest in converting any of their possessions into integral parts of their country?? and they created a complicated multiple layers of citizenship (British Overseas Territories citizens,British Overseas citizen,British subject,British National ) all have different passports etc... For example Almost all overseas possessions of France are part of France and all have a single french citizenship. A person born in mainland France or Tahiti(french Polynesia) have the same french passport and citizenship. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"debmwks",
"debscsi",
"debtaud"
],
"text": [
"In this case France is the odd man out. Most countries with oversea territories have different level of citizenship, different set of laws and different tax rules. There is some sort of superiority and ownership over these territories that is not part of the country but rather owned by the country. In the same way that a company do not allow the workers to vote in the board meeting a country do not usually allow their subject territories voting rights. However it is more complicated then that as there needs to be managers over the territory who may want to keep their citizenship and there may be loyalists who you might want to grant limited citizenship for their work, etc. As for why France got away with the difference between real French and a French subject in a colony it is because of the revolution and considering everyone equal.",
"There is no politcal will in the overseas teritories to become more intergrated nor is there any to leave. Bermuda Inderpendance 1995 74.1% Agaisnt 25.9% For Falklands Soverignty Status 1986 96.5% British, 2% Inderpendant, 0.3% Argentine Soverignty Status 2013 Remain UK Overseas teritory 99.8% No 0.2% Gibraltar Soverignty Status 1967 British 99.6%, Spanish 0.3% Gibraltar Soverignty Status 2002 No to joint Spanish-UK power share 98.5% We can not and will not force the hand of the good people who live there.",
"Prior to the Liberal revolution in the 18th century (the \"Age of Enlightenment\" which culminated in the US seceding and the French Revolution) most European states thought of \"colonies\" in fairly similiar terms. Treatment may vary, but it was situational and not related to any kind of overarching \"philosophy\" of government. As liberalism swept Western Europe though this sort of naked exploitation fell out of favor. European countries would continue to exploit colonies, but just not so \"nakedly\". The French experience was heavily informed by their revolution. It focused on the equality of all men. So in order to morally justify colonies everyone had to be French. Algeria wasn't a \"colony\" anymore than Provence... theoretically (practice was clearly different than theory of course). By contrast the British experience was more informed by the US revolution. They took a more paternalistic stance, I.e. \"The white mans burden\". They argued they weren't really holding colonies at all, so much as \"grooming them\", \"developing the people and the land\", all for some theoritical future point where they'd finally be \"civilized\" enough to be set free. Incidentally this was the US approach as well, which is why the Philippines was liberated post-WW2 and why Puerto Rico has such an odd position with the US."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wotm2 | Why can the POTUS be caught blatantly lying, red handed, time after time, without any consequences. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"debp89x",
"debpixh",
"debpgxv",
"debr9ki"
],
"text": [
"Because (last I checked) **lying isn't a crime**. Well.. lying under oath is, but President Trump is not under oath and the only people who could try him in any case is Congress.",
"Lying isn't illegal. The only consequences are that people stop trusting him, and won't elect him. However, people who are accustomed to being lied to constantly and eat bullshit for breakfast like religious folks, Fox news viewers, etc. have a shaky view of trust and will apparently elect anyone they are told to.",
"When you hold the people that are covering for him responsible. That would be your state's senators and representatives. If they don't hold the president accountable, vote them out of office and elect someone who will.",
"1. There are consequences of his lying, some of them quite severe. However, they are just not criminal/legal. 2. There is no \"moral judge\" that presides over the POTUS. Until he does something illegal such as lying under oath, the only consequence is for the public to reflect upon why they've elected such a person. 3. I know this is cynical and I will get down-voted for this comment but here it goes. Everyone lies, leaders lie, presidents lie. There have been times when lying has had disastrous effects/consequences. WWII is rife with these examples. The current POTUS has greatly damaged relations with multiple groups of people. Whether or not you view this as a severe consequence depends on: A) Whether or not you support his views and B) How resolute are you about A). I did not vote for Trump and I am not defending him as a person. However, the POTUS is the leader of my country, so I try to challenge our opposing views not because the President deserves it, but our country deserves it even if the President is a dickbag."
],
"score": [
16,
12,
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wpoyf | How does the witness protection program work? | Specifically, how severe does one's experience have to be to be submitted into the program. Is it voluntary? Do you get totally shut out from all friends and family? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"debydbs"
],
"text": [
"They take the person and their family and find another area in the country to work, change their name, and find them a job under that identity. All contact to their former life is cut. No person in the program who does this has ever been found. People are only found if they decide to retain some contact with people they knew."
],
"score": [
20
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wq0o8 | Why did people start celebrating birthdays? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dec2abu"
],
"text": [
"Way back, actually surviving the year was something to be celebrated; surviving into adulthood was not something that was guaranteed. Nowadays it's less of a \"congratulations you're still alive!\" and more of a \"congratulations you exist!\""
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wsgv2 | Why does the international community condemn Japan for shark fin soup, but not Spain for killing bulls for sport incredibly inhumanely? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"decmnm7",
"decmvh5",
"decmxw5"
],
"text": [
"> Why does the international community condemn Japan for shark fin soup, but not Spain for killing bulls for sport incredibly inhumanely? They do, at least as far as I can tell.",
"I'm pretty sure the world frowns upon it. That being said, there is a difference between the two. Bulls/cows are in no danger of extinction, where the amount of sharks in the ocean is decreasing due to over fishing. Many times these fishermen waste the rest of the fish.",
"Sharks do not produce off spring that often and when they do they can take decades to reach maturity. Also, there are currently 64 endangered shark species. Bulls reproduce like crazy and reach maturity quickly. Your questions kind of skewed IMO. Neither practice is all that humane but of the two the sharks get the shit end of the stick."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wsofv | What's the benefit of providing education credits and free choice of education for underprivileged children? | I have a hard time understanding how this helps those in need. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"decq3d5",
"decqdmw",
"decq43a"
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Betsy Devoss is full of it. She's unqualified and frankly unhinged. Just yesterday, she put out a press release claiming that racial segregation gave black children \"more choice\".",
"Let's assume that the issue of \"underprivilege\" you're addressing is that the public school the kid would normally go to is really crappy. The idea of these programs is to them afford the cost of sending their kids to a private school. They choose a private school that is not crappy, send there kids there instead of the crappy public school, and this helps the kid go to college/get a good job/stay out of trouble, etc. Of course, this relies on there *being* an available private school that is a better option. Not always the case. It also fails to address transportation and a variety of other factors that may prevent poor people from taking advantage of the better private schools. And it takes money that could be used to improve the crappy public school for everybody, and gives it to an outside institution that only benefits a few people. Now, it does burden the crappy public school with one less child to educate so it's not totally ruining the budget. But it can complicate or worsen money issues for public schools as well as make them a lower priority, because it is assumed there are alternatives people can simply use if the public schools are too bad... whether or not that's true.",
"It's about how we fund schools. We fund schools with property tax, so people in poor neighborhoods get underfunded schools. In theory, if you allow free choice and education credits, underprivileged children can go to better funded schools. It's one proposed/attempted solution to the problem of poor people being relegated to shitty schools."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wuvth | Why did it take so long for human's artistic skills to develop? | In the past we had cave paintings, hieroglyphics, Roman sculptures, etc... All were impressive in their own right, but why did it take so long for humans to develop such detailed and 3 dimensional drawings as we have today? Especially considering how detailed and realistic many ancient sculptures were. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ded2d7s"
],
"text": [
"For an accurate painting you need a flat canvas which will hold the paint, a paint brush to apply the paint exactly where you want it to go and quality paints which have the required colours and consistency."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5wv9ot | why aren't there movements actively trying to change society for the better that are not viewed as cults or strange or useless? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ded4805"
],
"text": [
"I think that depends almost entirely on what you mean. What society precisely are you trying to change, and in what way? Odds are very good that some organization out there IS trying to bring about the objectives you have in mind, probably many of them. Consider the literally thousands of charities, non-government organizations, government initiatives, UN projects, and start up companies all trying to eliminate diseases, or fund better education on various issues, combat domestic violence, support a free press, provide healthcare and emergency relief to the neediest populations, end human trafficking, defeat ISIS... I mean, I could literally write a list a thousand lines long. People ARE trying. You might think they aren't succeeding. In some ways, maybe not. Then again, consider what the world was like a hundred years ago. Global poverty has been more than halved since 1917. We've eliminated, cured, and treated diseases, beaten Nazism (mostly), pioneered space flight, increased the literacy rate dramatically. Most of us don't have to work in subsistence agriculture anymore. Women can vote in most of the world (hell, PEOPLE can vote in most of the world). So what are you hoping to see changed that hasn't actually changed? And what are you willing to do about it? Because odds are, SOMEONE out there is working on it, and could use your support."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wvulp | How did the practice of tipping originate in the United States and why is it so different from the rest of the world? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ded7oi6"
],
"text": [
"It's a product of the Great Depression. Before that time, tipping was considered un-American, as it gave rich people preferential treatment at establishments. During the Depression, bar and restaurant owners couldn't afford to pay their employees full wages, and so tipping became necessary to supplement the pay of workers like bartenders, wait staff, etc. I think most people would be fine with food being 15-20% more expensive in restaurants with tipping being optional. Unfortunately, margins at restaurants tend to be very narrow, and the population of restaurants have reached a Nash equilibrium. All restaurants would have to agree to make the change together, and that's not really feasible to coordinate."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ww2fv | Why is a simple referential phrase like "you people" or "those people" considered so heinously offensive when referring to a minority demographic? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ded8sns",
"ded92gk"
],
"text": [
"It's a non inclusive statement. Meaning they are separate and not a part of your group. It's also generalizing. Taking whatever you say next and applying it to a whole group.",
"It can often be followed by something extremely offensive, first and foremost. However, referring to \"those people\" can further reinforce a binary of \"them vs us\" where \"we\" are capital-N Normal and \"they\" are the \"other.\" Often used by people in positions of social power to differentiate between the \"default\" (ie. White, American/western, English, Christian) and \"those people\" (ie. Foreigners, Muslims, people of colour, non-english speakers etc). I'm sure many people will comment here about how everyone is over-sensitive and too easily offended so I figured I would try to explain objectively."
],
"score": [
23,
23
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ww3b2 | Why are some meats not identified by the animal they come from (deer = venison, cow = beef), but some are (dove = dove, alligator = alligator)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ded8ulk"
],
"text": [
"For much of the middle ages, the aristocrats in England spoke French rather than English, but the peasants spoke English. Since the peasants were largely responsible for dealing with the livestock, the English words for the animals ended up in modern-day English. The aristocrats were largely concerned with the meat of the animals (peasants didn't generally get to eat things like beef and pork), so modern-day English ended up with the French words for those meats. For animals that don't have a split, they largely weren't eaten by those French-speaking aristocrats, so they didn't get a French-derived word for their meat in English."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ww7qq | Where did alternative names originate and why do we use them? I.e. William=Bill, Robert=Bob, Richard=Dick etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deda4sy",
"ded9vgs"
],
"text": [
"If you go back to the Middle Ages and earlier, in many cultures there was a fairly limited slate of first names in use, and often people wouldn't have a last name (last names didn't start to be \"a thing\" for non-nobles until the middle ages). A town or even a family might have multiple people with the same name -- multiple Williams or Richards or Margarets. And so diminutives developed -- one person would be known as William, another as Bill, another as Billy, another as Liam, another as Will, and so on. Not all that different from modern teachers who might take two students and call one William H and the other William C, but less formal. So it's generally these older names that have the variants, just to tell people apart hundreds of years ago. William, Will, Will, Bill, Billy, Liam Margaret, Marge, Meg, Megan, Meggy, Peggy, Peg Robert, Rob, Robin, Bob, Bert, Bobby Richard, Rich, Rick, Dick, Ricky, Dicky, Richy Elizabeth, Eliza, Liz, Liza, Beth, Betty, Bet",
"It used to be a trend to give people nicknames that rhymed with their actual name, or a shortened version of their name. William - Will - Bill Robert - Rob - Bob Richard - Rick - Dick The trend itself died out, but some of the nicknames that came out of it remained popular."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wx5uy | Why is the east coast divided into so many smaller states compared to the west coast? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedjxyz",
"dedphc4"
],
"text": [
"Colonization! The administration of the colonies had to be done at a local level because the head of government was in London and that was very far away. You generally wanted a short ride from wherever you were in the colony to the courts, governors, tax offices. This was both for the convenience of the people who had to do business with the colonial government and for the effectiveness of the colonial government, which could not administer justice or collect taxes hundreds of miles away. There are some exceptions to this, however. New York, for example has the Hudson River which allowed fast movement between Albany and Manhattan, for example. As the cost of travel per mile and the speed of communication increased, it became possible to administer government over a larger area. Territorial governments originally covered very large areas but were divided into the states we know today because they were seen as of a reasonable size to administer in the days of telegraph and railroad. Alaska became a state in the aviation age, when it became reasonable to travel throughout the state within a day's journey. As a consequence, one of our most recent states is also the largest.",
"East coast states were original chartered by various other entities. Western states wanted to join the union as fast as possible, usually. One of the bars to entry was population - you need _____ people to be a state (cutoff varies over time). If you have a bigger chunk of land, it will have more people, ergo quicker statehood."
],
"score": [
19,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wxayj | Who is Thad and why is China bullying South Korea because of him? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedib63"
],
"text": [
"THAAD stands for **T**erminal **H**igh **A**ltitude **A**rea **D**efense and is a missile system placed in South Korea by the US ostensibly as a defense against North Korea. China doesn't like it because it reasons it could be used against China, so has taken lots of actions against South Korea as a form of protest or objection."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wytm6 | Why were natives Americans less "advanced" than the Europeans at the 15th and 16th centuries. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dedw6rr",
"dedvxzq"
],
"text": [
"Native Americans lacked animals that could be put to work. The Americas had dogs, llamas, and alpaca, but these were difficult to domesticate and couldn't do much work. AfroEurAsia had many more animals able to be domesticated. Cows, water-buffalo, yak, oxen, sheep, pigs, horses, goats, etc. Due to this lack of raw power, it was difficult for the people of the Americas to create time-saving and work-saving technology. This is why the wheel wasn't invented in the Americas, not because they couldn't do it, but because they had no work animals like horses or donkeys to pull them. So the wheel would have been of no use to them. Also, Europe was in a constant state of competition and warfare with itself after the fall of the Roman Empire. Since Europe is divided by many rivers and mountains, no country could conquer all of the rest, and this 1000 years of competition caused a race to better technology and weaponry relative to their European neighbors. This lead to them jumping past the rest of the world with regards to technological development.",
"Technological progress doesn't happen at a uniform rate. Economic, cultural and political factors can slow it down or speed it up. For example, there were great advances in nuclear physics due to World War II; this is because the U.S. government spent a lot of money with the aim of developing the atomic bomb. In the \"Old World,\" some of these differences were smoothed over by travel and trade. If one culture made an advance due to local circumstances, the knowledge would eventually make its way to other places. But it wouldn't make its way to the Americas. This means that New World societies (many of which were indirectly connected to each other, at least) developed at a separate pace."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wzf0g | Why was Scott Pilgrim a financial failure when release in cinema's but quickly became a classic film within 3 years? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee170g",
"dee0zqn"
],
"text": [
"Primarily, poor marketing. Most people who would have seen it, myself included, had no idea it was actually a cool movie. They didn't give enough of an idea of what the movie REALLY was. It also wasn't a well known comic book at the time, and so not showing off the movie that way hurt the audience it could have had. Movies like John Carter and Fight Club had similar issues. The previews made the movie look like something drastically different than what the film was. Another thing it didn't have going for it is that it was up against the Expendables, which did the exact opposite in marketing, and Piranha 3D was a pretty surprising \"hit\". The audience was there, they just didn't go to the movies. It was also only 2010, so the \"every comic book movie is pretty good\" thing hadn't happened yet, so I imagine the studios didn't fight too hard for it.",
"The same reason Pinkerton by Weezer was a commercial failure, but it's now considered their best album. Sometimes you don't realize how good something is until years later."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5wzluw | What's the difference between the different schools of kung fu? | In a lot of kung fu movies, there's talk of various schools of kung fu. Was/is it accurate to say that there's also various schools of kung fu in reality? If so, what's the difference? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee2n42"
],
"text": [
"Yes it is accurate to say there are different schools. In terms of the differences, it can be as small as different techniques for common actions to entirely different movement types and philosophies. Westerners like to think of kung fu as one type of martial art with multiple variations, but that isn't really accurate. Kung fu just means any skill achieved through hard work and discipline."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5x0b3w | What happens if a citizen marries an undocumented immigrant? | Will the undocumented get a green card? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dee8c19",
"deedrgr",
"dee8k4d"
],
"text": [
"No. Marriage does not confer automatic immigration status. The undocumented partner would need to leave the US and then apply for entry on a spousal visa.",
"No. Marriage doesn't change an alien's immigration status. Explanation: If the undocumented immigrant *legally entered* the US, overstayed their visa (for example an international student,) which makes them an illegal immigrant, but now they are married to a US citizen, they CAN apply for a green card, and doesn't have to leave the US. The US citizen would have to file form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, for their spouse (the undocumented immigrant.) Since the undocumented spouse is considered immediate relative of the US citizen, they are eligible to file form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (AKA Green card application) at the same time, allowing them to stay in the US legally while waiting for the green card application to approved. This is called concurrent filing in immigration law. Now, if the undocumented immigrant didn't enter the US legally (they crossed the border for instance,) then they are NOT eligible to apply for a green card in the US. They would have to go through a process called \"consular processing\" meaning they would have to go to an interview at a US embassy/consulate in their home country. If the total amount of time of their unlawful presence in the US was > = 180 days, they would be banned from entering the US for 3 years. If it was > = 1 year, they would be banned for 10 years. So basically, the US consulate in their home country would still possibly give them a spousal visa (K3), but the undocumented spouse wouldn't be able to enter the US until the ban has been lifted.",
"When someone marries an American citizen, they don't automatically get citizenship -- they can apply for it under a special category."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5x0hvu | What is Lent? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deebebh",
"deeae1m",
"deekwwm"
],
"text": [
"Lent is a season of forty days, not counting Sundays, which begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Saturday. Lent comes from the Anglo Saxon word lencten, which means \"spring.\" The forty days represents the time Jesus spent in the wilderness, enduring the temptation of Satan and preparing to begin his ministry. Lent is a time of repentance, fasting and preparation for the coming of Easter. It is a time of self-examination and reflection. In the early church, Lent was a time to prepare new converts for baptism. Today, Christians focus on their relationship with God, often choosing to give up something or to volunteer and give of themselves for others. Sundays in Lent are not counted in the forty days because each Sunday represents a \"mini-Easter\" and the reverent spirit of Lent is tempered with joyful anticipation of the Resurrection.",
"A period of time preceding Easter (or the Holy Week before Easter) that traditionally involves extra prayer, fasting (giving up some or all food), repentance, atonement, charitable giving, and self denial (giving up things other than food) to prepare spiritually for the Easter celebration. It's traditionally described as lasting 40 days long in honor of Jesus' [40 day fast]( URL_0 ) in the desert.",
"Only Roman Catholics have to fast from meat on Fridays. Many years ago they had to fast from meat for all of Lent. The Orthodox Church has different fasting requirements. Most Protestant denominations have no fasts. Some Lutheran church (ELCA) congregations have extra services on Wednesday nights during Lent. The church sometimes picks a book or practice that congregation will read and discuss together (participation is optional). They sing certain hymns, use different liturgy and do not say Alleluia until Easter Sunday. Fasting during Lent makes a lot of sense before modern times. It takes place at the end of winter/ early spring. Most food stores are running empty. There's nothing growing in the garden yet. If you hunt at this time of year, all the animals will be very lean and tough. The wild animals can get over hunted and will jeopardize the next generation of the herds. Cows usually dry up in winter because they are pregnant with new calves. Fat Tuesday / carnival / Fasching is when the Northern European countries had to use up all their fats before Lent. These fats were part of the fasting rules from the Vatican. This was a trade issue as olive oil was not forbidden during Lent. Olives do not grow in Northern Europe. The oil from Italy and Spain traded with the north was low quality and expensive. The main fats used in the north were animal fats such as butter and lard. This was an issue in the reformation and probably explains why Protestants do not have fasting rules."
],
"score": [
20,
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-11&version=NIV"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x0vpx | What are "EU Citizens" and why are they at risk of deportation in the UK after Brexit? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeddrs"
],
"text": [
"An EU citizen is a citizen of any country that is a member of the EU. A feature of the EU is that any citizen of any country in the EU can move to any other country in the EU. Think of it like moving from Kansas to Florida, it's supposed to be that easy. Now that the UK is no longer in the EU (or won't be in the near future), there is a question about what to do with citizens of EU countries, who are living in the UK. It's like if you were from Kansas, you moved to Florida, and then Florida seceded from the union. Do you get to stay in Florida? Or do you get kicked out?"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x10hf | Why do video game controllers use "ABXY" instead of "ABCD" or "ABYZ" etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeh3ah",
"deejilh"
],
"text": [
"Starting with the original 8-bit [NES]( URL_2 ) had only two action buttons; A & B. It's major competition, the [Sega Master System]( URL_1 ) and Atari 7800 simply labeled them \"1\" and \"2\". When we get to the 16-bit era, Atari is done with hardware., the [Super Nintendo]( URL_0 ) added two more buttons, labeling them as X & Y. The Sega Genesis had 3 buttons; 'A', 'B' and 'C'. The NEC TurboGrafx-16 only had two buttons. If you look at the SNES controller, it visually groups AB and XY together - as if they're meant to work together. The next generation of hardware gives us the Sega Saturn with ABC + XYZ, The Sony Playstation with shapes & L/R shoulder buttons & the Nintendo 64 with A, B, Z (trigger), \"C\" up/down/left/right & L/R shoulder. The only real divergence here is the Saturn where, IMHO, ABC + XYZ stick in the memory better than ABCDEF. Next generation brings us Dreamcast (AB, XY, L/R), PS2 (shapes again), GameCube (AB, XY & L/R) and the introduction of Microsoft with the XBox (AB, XY). Looking at the GameCube, it's obvious the naming reflects the intention of using the X & Y buttons as secondary buttons. The Dreamcast just carried on from the previous generation but decided to simplify things down to only 4 buttons. Microsoft had worked with Sega during early development of the Dreamcast's OS & it's pretty clear from looking at the devices that the XBox controller is just a clone of the Dreamcast's. The current generation of hardware gives us the PS3 and XBox 360 - both of which simply copy the previous generation's controller - and the Wii, which has simplified their controller to only have two primary action buttons. So, to answer your question, \"modern\" PC gamepads copy the XBox. The XBox copied the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was a variation of the Saturn. The Saturn had 6 buttons and somebody decided that ABC XYZ felt better than ABC DEF - making it clear which buttons were on the top & bottom.",
"The Neo Geo and some other systems used ABCD buttons. ABXY is really the convention used by the SNES and XBox. If you want the meaning for choosing something in particular, the Playstation shapes probably has the most intention. O represents yes in Japan while X represents no. The square represents a menu screen(sheet of paper), while the triangle represents the head(point of view). This point actually caused some confusion, since in English speaking markets, the position of accept/reject is swapped from no/yes in Japan to yes/no elsewhere, hence why the O button is used to cancel out of things in western markets instead of X. This is partially because Japanese reads from right to left. The AB XY thing is more arbitrary and doesn't have much meaning."
],
"score": [
19,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41aqbyIKdcL.jpg",
"http://videogamecritic.com/images/systems/mastercontroller.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/NES_controller.JPG"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x1wml | What is wrong with "Not seeing race"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeljre",
"deelo7w"
],
"text": [
"You erase people's cultural heritages and backgrounds. You white wash them. Race is important, people grow up differently and experience things differently. You wipe that all away then you choose \"not to see race.\"",
"It's stupid because race does make a difference in many facets of life and just flat out ignoring it doesn't help the problems but literally sweeps them under rug"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x27ka | How do people create cults? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deeq1i1",
"deenr5i"
],
"text": [
"I've briefly been a part of a multilevel marketing company. I've also been a part of a self-improvement effort. Luckily, I got out of both of those before I lost too many close people. Looking back, I noticed that the behaviour of people in such groups are similar to cult behaviour. I'm no expert in this, but here's my understanding: Creating a cult is not easy. You need natural leadership and oratory skills. But most importantly, you need to have absolute conviction that you're fighting the good battle. And you need to keep up that conviction for years in order to make other people believe that they're fighting the good battle. That all the rejection they face is because they're moving forward. That their purpose is bigger than the friendships they lose and family members they alienate. To create a cult, you will need to indoctrinate other people. Step 1: Find out what they want. Some people want to feel more secure, some want to make a bigger difference to the world, some want to break free from the norm etc. Whatever it is, find out what drives them. Step 2: Show them how your cult is the solution. And SHOW them. Not TRICK them. You can't convince another person to do something that you don't quite believe in yourself. This is where your conviction comes in. Step 3: Get them to invest as quickly as possible. This is important. Making a person lose something will make them believe that they're gaining something valuable in return. We are all conditioned to believe that. Once they are willing to give your cult a try, get them to invest. (\"I could tell you more, but I'd be breaking the rules. You know you'd have to invest to get to the next level. I really want to help you, you know. I have NOTHING to gain from this, while you have EVERYTHING to gain.\") Step 4: Indoctrinate. Hold regular meetings. Speak to the newcomer as regularly as possible and keep feeding him/her with your ideology. Step 5: Isolate. There will be resistance from their loved ones. Teach them that it is expected and that it shouldn't stop then from racing their highest potential. Again.. TEACH them, not TRICK them. Step 6: Empower them. Guide them to find other people who can be indoctrinated. The strength of a cult lies in its numbers. The larger the crowd, the stronger the brainwashing. You do realize that as you're creating a cult, you lose your own life to it too? Yes, this is where the conviction part comes in again. To Indoctrinate someone else, you need to Indoctrinate yourself first.",
"Let's use my username as an example. You create a mindset, no matter how wacky, weird, nutty, immoral etc. You take that mindset and some serious natural leadership and you brainwash this technique into your followers. Many times it's religious, for instance Scientology. Many times is pure hate disguised as religion, like yours truly with the Westboro baptist church, or ISIS terrorism. The main thing isn't the mindset... people are sheep and will blindly follow as they're told... look at America being fully controlled by the media. The main thing is having a leader/leaders who have the natural ability to control."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x3da7 | How did early humans reach islands such as Hawaii or the Easter Islands? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def2j14",
"deezpd1",
"deevbay"
],
"text": [
"\"Early humans\" didn't reach those islands. The Polynesian culture reached them, and fairly recently...Hawaii was colonized around 400AD, Easter Island around 1000AD. The Polynesians weren't just some primitives in canoes, either, they were some of the best damn seafarers on the planet. They had enormous outrigger canoes, which could reach more than 100 feet and hold up to 100 people. These had two hulls with boards stretched between them to make a platform. They also had triangular sails, allowing for more maneuverability than square rigging alone. URL_1 In terms of navigational techniques, the Polynesians appear to have used not only stars, but wave patterns and observations of clouds and seabirds to help them find islands. For example, the marshal islanders made [stick charts]( URL_0 ) of wave patterns to map the waves between islands. These sorts of techniques vastly increased the area over which land could be detected...you didn't have to see the new island directly, just signs of it. When going on a colonizational voyage, Polynesians also had a \"starter kit\" of foods and plants to take with them. These included bamboo and gourds (for building things) taro, banana, coconut, breadfruit, tumeric, and many other plants, as well as pigs and chicken. You see these spread all across the Pacific.",
"The outrigger canoe is extremely stable and allows for transporting a large amount of food with the travelers as they make long journeys between islands. As for locating new islands, they had extensive knowledge of seasonal winds and understood large currents in the water as well. Supposedly they could figure out where land was based on the changes in currents and wave movement as they were impeded by islands far beyond the horizon.",
"Depends in what you mean by \"early\", but it's widely believed, maybe proven, that many ancient cultures were seafaring."
],
"score": [
18,
13,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands_stick_chart",
"http://www.waimea.com/culture/canoes.html"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x3l1u | Why is it such a big deal, that any of the American politicians have been in (or not in) touch with Russian politicians? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deex00g",
"deex1cp",
"deex3l6"
],
"text": [
"American diplomats talk with Russian diplomats all the time and negotiate deals between the two countries. However it is illegal for private citizens to do the same. These laws are in place to prevent spies and foreign supported revolutions from being effective. If for example someone were to negotiate with Russia to lift sanctions if they get elected in return for support during the election then it would be considered treason. Russia might for instance be able to use their spy network to get access to secret campaign documents from the adversaries. So there is no need to send in your own spies to get the documents like the Nixon reelection campaign did. There is a defense for citizens who are already elected into power but have not yet been inaugurated. It would still be illegal but not as serious. It might even be considered a positive thing as they are able to hit the ground running. However when confronted with the allegations you can not start lying about it. Especially to your own people. It is better to let the people you trust and the officials investigating it know the truth and get some help explaining your actions to the public with a positive spin.",
"The issue isn't that they've been in contact with russians - It's that people who were not authorized to speak to the Russians in an official capacity were having conversations with them about foreign policy, and they lied under oath (a crime) about it.",
"It's not bad that designated American diplomats are talking to their Russian counterparts. It's a little bad when other Americans start their own, independent foreign policy discussions with the Russians, particularly folks that are saying \"I'm really good friends with the President-elect.\" It's really bad when the nominee for Attorney General, the guy in charge of enforcing laws, lies in his confirmation hearings about meetings he's had with Russians prior to the presidential inauguration. The US has only one official foreign policy at a time, and undermining that is a bad thing. Having a meeting in your Senate Office and then later saying the meeting didn't happen is simply a checkable lie."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x3qmi | Why do people clap to show their enjoyment of something? | It seems pretty weird to hit your hands together when you like something. How and when did this start? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def8zyb",
"deffwvb",
"defcfn5"
],
"text": [
"I guess it comes from the urge of making noise when being excited. Babys for example slap on surfaces when they like something very much vor See something funny.",
"Vsauce actually has a great video explaining this. URL_0",
"Well actually it was invented in Europe so people in theaters had a way to show they liked something without much effort. But bc people didnt know that, there had to be people that would sit in the audience and clap so others would catch up. Fascinating really.."
],
"score": [
26,
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD037VSAG2I"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5x3w9o | What rights have been actually changed for individuals since the election? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def0yud"
],
"text": [
"That depends on what you are defining as \"rights,\" which can be a critical distinction. The President's travel ban has limited the ability of green card holders to leave the United States for fear that they would not be able to return. Some agents have taken this above and beyond and begun aggressively questioning anyone with a muslim name, regardless of their country of origin. And still others have begun checking identification on domestic flights, something which is they arguably have no authority to do. The Department of Justice immediately dropped a case six years in the making that accused Texas' voter ID law of being discriminatory. With Sessions in charge of the Civil Rights division, it's become clear that he does not intend to seriously pursue cases under the Voting Rights Act. Trump withdraw Obama memos and federal guidelines directing public schools to allow transgendered children to use the bathroom of their preferred sex rather than their biological one. Those are the three that come to mind. There are other things he has done which I find objectionable, but it would be a stretch to call them an infringement of rights."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x41h6 | Why a stronger relationship between America and Russia would be a bad thing | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"def12ku",
"def2dry",
"def12by"
],
"text": [
"It depends, in which fashion is this stronger relationship forming? By peaceful concessions and agreement on a broad range of issues? By one entity subverting the rightful government of the other? The former, it may very well not be a bad thing. Having powerful friends is good, and having people respect our values is (at least in our eyes) good. In the latter, it's bad because you are unilaterally giving up what you stand for, or your values, or your right to elect your own leadership, or your sovereignty to some extent, depending on the extent of the subversion. At the extreme, being a 'vassal state' would be a stronger relationship. But we obviously don't want that. The questions being poised at the moment are less \"Why shouldn't we be friendly with Russia?\" but \"Is Russia being hostile to us in a way that is hard to see?\"",
"The relationship between Russia and America improving would generally be a *good* thing. However, the relationship between Putin and America improving is more up for debate. Putin has repeatedly challenged the ideologies of freedom in his own country and abroad. Internationally, he's been behind the annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine, the attacks on Georgia in 2008, the support of Syria's despot, and international intimidation of former Warsaw Pact members. Internally, he has quashed Russia's free press to the point where it now functions as a state propaganda machine, he has bilked his country's wealth and put it into the bank accounts of his cronies and himself, and it is pretty obvious that he's assassinated several political opponents. He's enacted regressive legislation that punishes minorities. In short, Putin is a former KGB spook who wants to reform Russia into the global power that the USSR was at the height of the Cold War. Historically, he was allowed to \"get away\" with this sort of thing because Russia has massive oil reserves and basically all of Europe gets its oil from Russia. You know how most of the government's money in the US comes from taxes? In Russia, the vast majority of the state's money comes from its state-owned oil companies. With the recent collapse in oil prices, Russia's economy has taken a massive hit. Putin wants a \"stronger relationship\" between his country and the US because it would help his floundering economy. So ultimately the choice is this: The US, and to a greater extent Europe, may benefit economically from loosening the economic sanctions placed on Russia over the last few years. Russia and the US typically don't engage in much trade due to their relative location, but if the US dropped sanctions it is likely that most of Europe would follow, and Russia has much more significant economic ties there. Is that economic benefit worth the moral loss of letting a de facto autocrat (although admittedly an elected one) impose his will on other countries? I tried to write this as neutrally as possible, but in the interest of full disclosure, I'm personally against the \"normalization of relations\" with Russia. Putin has made a habit of blaming the US for everything that's wrong with the world, but the truth of the matter is that he needs us a lot more than we need him.",
"So the main thing is that Russia is currently doing some questionable activities towards other countries in Europe, being an aggressor. The fear is that a stronger relationship would entail turning a blind eye to the aggressions Russia is behind. Likewise, the fears are also that a stronger relationship based on the President being blackmailed or financially compromised would just favor Russia and not be beneficial for the US."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x55ay | If you were stumble across an undiscovered island, what would you have to do to make it your own country? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defao8r",
"defauxt",
"defmvpx",
"defb74t",
"defloym",
"deffe6x"
],
"text": [
"Go to the island. Set up what you need to defend it from anyone else who would want to take it from you, which probably involves cannons and missiles. Declare that you are a country to other countries and hope that they agree. That is pretty much it. What areas are countries is up to who recognizes them.",
"1) Hire private security to sit on the island. 2) Go to the US and get them to recognize your claim and provide for your defense. In return, the US can set up a base there. 3) Congratulations; you're now a puppet state of the United States, but are recognized by everyone else because we have nukes.",
"You can claim any land you want so long as no nation holds it. A fine example of this is the [Principality of Sealand]( URL_0 ), a English nation 7 miles of the coast of England, UK. The nation declared inderpendance in 1968 on a old sea fort, at the time the area of sea owned by a nation was much smaller and these forts weren't maned by the Royal Navy so it was free for the taking. The Royal Navy did think of taking it back however it wouldn't look good on the papers if they shot dead Prince Bates, the Royal Navy did however destory all forts outside UK waters. The founding of the nation can be found in a court case in 68, Prince Bates was enjoying himself on the platfrom and as was his sister, workmen working on a bouy harrased the sister. The good Prince dischagred a firearm in their general direction, shooting to scare not kill. Prince Bates was summoned to a court in England, he came pointed out Sealand was outside UK waters so UK law had no weight and the court accepted this and dropped the case of weapons discharge. The Princapality was also taken over by rebels in 1978 when the so called Prime Minister of Sealand tricked Prince Bates to leave the nation and took it over. Prince Bates and his son, also a Prince Bates went to retake the Principality via a hellicopter assult at break of dawn, the Prime Minister and his Dutch mercenaries surrendered, likely shocked by the response. The Prince then took prisoner the Prime Minister and his retinue. The Prime Minister was charged with treason and found guilty, Germany tried to get the UK to release the PM but the UK said they had no authority to do so as Sealand wasn't theirs.",
"You'd have to be able to claim it by being there and then defend it by force. In theory you could request recognition from various governments but in practice they wouldn't bother listening to you unless you had something valuable they wanted and in that case, you'd have to be able to defend it by force.",
"Go there without telling anyone, start a tribe that looks primitive until youre \"discovered\" by modern people. then suddenly assimilate into modern culture while still claiming your ancestors lived there for centuries.",
"There is a principle called *terra nullius*, which basically means if land isn't being used, anyone can claim it. However, this typically applies to people claiming the land on behalf of a country. I am not aware of any full-fledged countries being founded based on a personal claim."
],
"score": [
23,
20,
19,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x5l0o | What's the difference between a chef and a cook? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defela6",
"defeb92"
],
"text": [
"The chef is in charge of the kitchen, usually in a gourmet/fine dining place at that. In some places, they come up with new dishes and instruct the cooks on how to prepare them. A cook is someone lower ranking who has no creative input. They follow the recipes available to them. In chain restaurants there is no actual chef, only cooks and kitchen managers, because they still have to follow the policies outlined by corporate headquarters.",
"Technically, there is only one chef in a restaurant kitchen--that's the head guy. In other words, chef is a title, cook is a job. Edit: According those I know in the restaurant industry, only someone very pretentious who works in a kitchen would refer to himself as a chef instead of a cook."
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x5nrs | Japanese Name Suffixes | When I watch anime or read manga, or do anything related to Japanese culture, I find people saying certain suffixes after names, such as -san, -kun, and -sensei. Do they have any certain meanings? I know sensei is "master" or "teacher," so I assume that's what you call an elder or a teacher, but what about all the others? There are quite a few, and since I'm teaching myself Japanese, I would like to know. Thanks! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deff8i0"
],
"text": [
"They represent the speaker's relation and standing to the listener. I don't know them all (you can look it up easily), but, just off the top of my head: -san is the standard. It's neither formal or informal. -chan and -kun are for children, -chan for girls, -kun for boys (typically, there's exceptions), they may also be used as sorta pet-names when referring to a significant other, or REALLY good friend. Also, check these out: Honorifics: URL_0 Family Honorifics: URL_1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfUvcquILWg&list=PLwm8bXB4yDrAt76CVFt6wFrz_CvPk1PUC&index=6",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJoOMfiaTCE&index=4&list=PLwm8bXB4yDrAt76CVFt6wFrz_CvPk1PUC"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5x5r4c | How did Tony Hawk become a household name while all other skateboards are mostly unknown? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defxzmb",
"defnuag",
"defv17l",
"defg6eo",
"defgv1t",
"defjdf7",
"defyp8m",
"defiulw",
"defwqm3",
"defvbvx",
"defu2y2",
"defwtyy",
"defx7fy",
"defybg1",
"defttn4",
"defxzk7"
],
"text": [
"Something that a lot of these other posts don't mention is that, in the 1980s, Tony Hawk's father, Frank Hawk, founded the National Skateboarding Association which provided a series of contests to promote skating every year. And Tony Hawk was one of most dominant contest pros of all time. I can recall Transworld repeatedly referring to him as 'The Michael Jordan of Skateboarding.' Also, he was on the most popular skate team throughout the 80s, Powell-Peralta, that invented the concept of a skate video. And Hawk's parts were legendary. Bones Brigade Video Show and Animal Chin both helped get Tony Hawk's skating into people's living rooms early on. And long before he landed the first 900, he landed the first 720--a trick that only a handful of skaters could land, much less in competition. Then he founded Birdhouse, one of the most popular skate brands of the 90s and made himself a household name all over again by winning the X-Games broadcast into people's homes year after year. People love watching winners, even if the sport isn't usually popular. How many cyclists could your average American name when Lance Armstrong was winning the Tour de France every year? Or how many swimmers other than Phelps and Lochte? And so finally, with his career of contest wins on some of the most popular teams of multiple eras, with tricks nobody else could match, and with a fairly clean public image as a skateboarding goodwill ambassador (in no small part to Frank Hawk's involvement,) Hawk was approached by Activision about a series of skateboarding video games with his name on it. Those games reached demographics that would never touch a skateboard in real life and Hawk's name was front and center.",
"I've worked with Tony Hawk once in a prior job (it was related to his autobiography \"Hawk / Occupation: Skateboarder.\" [edit: corrected title]). Both he and his management staff were incredibly professional and gracious. From what I can see, everyone who's worked with him wants to work with him again. I have to think that over the years that's been a huge factor in his enduring success. Also his parents never fucked him over/stole his money, which definitely sets him apart from many/most people who became celebrities when they were young.",
"Must have been 1988 or so. My best friend Sean and I were HUGE Tony Hawk fans, and skateboarding was really taking off at that time. There was a skate shop 2 blocks away from our houses, and we hung out there a lot during the summer. No internet back then obviously, so we would just loiter in the shop for hours watching the newest skate videos and reading Thrasher Magazine. There was a flier up on the wall for a show to be held at the fairgrounds, and Tony Hawk and Gator Rogowski were going to be skating. I remember two things from that show, one was the first time a saw a t-shirt gun, and second was watching Tony Hawk ollie over a Porsche. Here we are 29 years later and Tony is still the most popular skater in the world. Gator is in prison for rape and murder.",
"Business savvy, and luck. Tony Hawk put his name on the front of a video game in a time when playing video games was starting to become the norm. Whoever the smart guy was that convinced tony hawk to put his name on the pro skater franchise is the real money guy.",
"Tony Hawk has also been the first to land certain tricks and jumps in official competitions.",
"A lot about being successful in skateboarding is knowing how to market yourself. You can be an amazing skater, but if you don't have the skills necessary to appeal to an audience you won't sell things with your name on it. Tons of pro skateboarders fall off and lose endorsements and sponserships because they lack in this area.",
"I'm not a gamer and even I know why. In 1999 when *Tony Hawk's Pro Skater* came out, video games hadn't yet exploded to the level they are today so each year produced just a handful of major hit titles. It was hard *not* to know which ones were the huge hits even if you didn't own a console. *Tony Hawk's Pro Skater* was one of those games that everyone who played games, even those who didn't skateboard themselves, seemed to be playing. Added to the fact that for 12 straight years he was the National Skateboard Association world champion, plus during the early days of the X Games he was major of star. It was at the 1999 X Games that he performed what is still believed to be the very first 900 and the first *Pro Skater* video game came out that same year. Plus, he is very media friendly (ie, cleancut) back in an age when almost any drug use even weed made media outlets & advertisers nervous.",
"Because he was marketable and started marketing himself from a very young age in the 1980s. The very few other pro skateboarders willing to do the same in the 80s and 90s just didn't do it as well as he did",
"\"..his mother says that he was \"so hard on himself and expected himself to do so many things.\"[4] One time, Hawk struck out in baseball and was so distraught that he hid in a ravine and had to be \"physically coaxed out\" by his father. His frustration with himself was so harsh that his parents had him psychologically evaluated at school. The results were that Tony was \"gifted,\" he tested with an I.Q. of 144..\" From his wiki. He's smart and driven?",
"He was much more marketable than other skaters because he was clean cut and had better upbringing than most skaters who portrayed the alternative lifestyle. He became a household name because he is a because the media wanted him as the face instead of drug using, swearing, tattooed, punk.",
"It's just like how Michael Phelps and Shaun White are household names. People remember people who are the best at what they do. Tony Hawk was an amazing skateboarder for a very long period of time and was the first to land a 900 (2.5 spins). He has also been great at monetizing his success with his video games and brand, which has kept his name around longer.",
"The smartest thing he ever did was put his name on a videogame, the Tony Hawk games really influenced a generation of kids that wanted to try out skateboarding for real. Other than that he simply put his name out there a lot, talk shows, interviews, marketing campaigns for multiple products not always having to do with just skateboarding and generally being extremely successful in the sport plus a pleasure to work together with for most people. He's definitely had missteps too but in general he was just never cast in a particularly bad light and all the kids knew him, so that leaks forward to adults too and those kids have now grown up and are adults themselves. If I remember correctly then before Tony Hawk it was pretty difficult to make a name for yourself as a skateboarder let alone live from the money you earn, but he did it and was the first household name.",
"IMO it was the video game. I remember when PlayStation magazine used to include a demo disc in every issue, and the one with THPS (tony hawk pro skater) changed my world. All that my friends and I did was play that demo over and over, untill we could finally get the full game. That influenced all of us to go get real skateboards, and start skating.",
"He got on top because he's good but stayed on top by pressuring sponsors to keep anyone that could challenge him from competing against him in competitions. There's a cool documentary floating around out there about a couple of Aussies he boned. They were bothers and one of them was closer to landing the 900 than he was so he had him taken out of the competition.",
"He came along at the perfect time. It was the peak interest of extreme sports, and the Tony Hawk N64 game was huge. He also was miles ahead of the competition much like Sean White, or Travis Pastrana he could get so much air on a half pipe it was amazing. Street skating doesn't come with the spectacle that ramp skating does too so it makes it harder for street skaters to be more famous.",
"Tony had a ton of support getting into skating. His parents embraced him fully and supported his dream. I think his dad was the president of the officiating board of skate competitions or something like that. Tony had a cement pool in his back yard as a teen. I remember him clearing some fence in between two pools in some old Powell Peralta video from back in the day. Tony was smart and had a very technical style as opposed to say Christian Hosoi. Hosoi was all about big air and air christ's and shit. Tony would pound out the points with tricks while Christian would use strength and agility. Tony had good management, possibly his parents. Most those kids were latchkey kids, and tony was full on middle class."
],
"score": [
1608,
275,
189,
167,
144,
39,
34,
33,
26,
22,
19,
9,
6,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x61p7 | What made Teddy Roosevelt so bad-ass? | I've heard a lot of stories that are neither here nor there, but any history buffs have the low-down? Thanks in advance! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defk5ok",
"defj5vn"
],
"text": [
"Some [explanation here]( URL_0 ):Teddy Roosevelt had horrible asthma as a kid; his family tried a bunch of different things to cure him, some helped and others made it worse, but fresh air and the outdoors, and a lot of exercise, helped a lot; he had poor eyesight, which he used as a reason to practice shooting guns to improve his accuracy. He was also from a relatively well-to-do family, which had the resources to build him into a healthy, burly, gun-shooting guy. This also involved a burgeoning interest in politics, where he tended to be on the war-and-police end of things; he had a positive sense of social justice and worked on cleaning up corruption; he fought in wars and lived in remote North Dakota; he was an all-around tough guy. There's lots of books about the guy; go read some. jpbandit's \"Ron Swanson\" equivalency is close, although Teddy wasn't quite as Libertarian; Teddy is probably more comparable to Ron Swanson's alter ego Nick Offerman.",
"Not sure what \"made\" him bad-ass, but he generally has that reputation. Roosevelt had a larger-than-life personality and an image that radiated masculinity. I imagine him being a \"Ron Swanson\" kind of character. As for specific things he did, he is famous for things like: (1) Fighting in the Spanish American War, (2) exploring places like Africa and the Amazon, (3) getting shot at a public appearance and giving a speech while bleeding instead of going to the hospital."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/8931/1/The-Health-Of-The-President-Theodore-Roosevelt.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5x62e3 | What it means to "recuse" yourself. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defit4k"
],
"text": [
"It means you have a conflict of interest or a reason you cannot be impartial. In the case of Sessions, he cannot be Attorney General in charge of investigating his own misconduct. You wouldn't ask a prosecutor to prosecute themselves, would you?"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x68r3 | what exactly did Sessions do, and why is is such a huge deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defkc60",
"defkjyf"
],
"text": [
"He was in communication with Russia during a time when Russia was suspected of tampering with our election. While this is not illegal, Sessions lied about this contact while under oath which IS illegal.",
"He had two meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the United States during the Trump campaign for the Presidency. This in and of itself may not be of significance. However, he did not disclose those under sworn testimony to Senator Al Franken, instead saying, \" I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians.\" This could potentially constitute perjury, although his defense so far appears to be that these meetings fell within his (reasonably possible) job duties as a US Senator on the Armed Services committee and so he did not mention them as they were not relevant to the Trump campaign for the Presidency. However, whether they are perjury or not, given the intense suspicious currently hovering over the administration regarding communications with Russia, they present yet another uncomfortable stumbling block for the administration in avoiding at least giving the appearance of being compromised with more Russian influence than many consider proper."
],
"score": [
14,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x6vhp | What is so special about the first 100 days of a presidency and how did it become a "thing"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defrlkn",
"defrn06"
],
"text": [
"It's a Great Depression era thing. When FDR was elected in 1933, he used the term in his radio address to the nation. In 1933, things were really bad, and FDR was elected president on a platform of making things better, and fast. During FDR's first 100 days in office he pushed through a lot of legislation and policy as part of his \"New Deal with the American people\" that he campaigned on. The idea is that a President is at their height of power and influence in the first part of their presidency, right after the election, before any scandals could happen.",
"In the first 100 days, it's sort of the honeymoon period, they just won the election. The public voted them in, so they probably support the president's ideas. Over time various people find different reasons to dislike the president, their policies, and party."
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x71ho | Why is political corruption worse in some countries than others? How does a corrupt country become less corrupt? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"defu8gb"
],
"text": [
"I’m being completely serious here, although it may seem that I am trolling, but IMO a lot of countries “reduce\" corruption by simply legitimizing it and calling it something else. That way, they can claim less corruption, because they have set up a complex technical framework that gives it another definition. Essentially, it seems to me the more I read about corruption, if you just add a couple of steps in between the parties, enough plausible deniability is gained that people can pretend the process isn’t corrupt."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5x9x3i | Why are Americans saying special words for school years, like "sophomore"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"degmtsj",
"degms9i",
"deghy4h",
"degkla1",
"degrkfc",
"degtsk0"
],
"text": [
"Cambridge! In or before 1688, Cambridge University used a ranking system for students to help professors keep track of student progress: Fresh Man, Sophmore, Junior Sophister, Senior Sophister. These terms relate to the Greek \"Sophos\" meaning knowledge and were meant to reflect the amount of knowledge the student possesses. Every major English-speaking University copied this in some form or another. It is why we now consider 4 years necessary to obtain a bachelors degree. The actual names of each rank varied from campus to campus. Importantly the names used at Harvard University were \"Freshman, Sophomore, Junior Soph, Senior Soph.\" Sometime before 1800 \"soph\" was dropped from the upperclassmen titles. In the 19th century the US greatly expanded its high school and university offerings. With many founders educated at Harvard, their system was exported across the US. So the question should be, why did the British Empire stop using these terms? The answer is Empire. The older Universities in Scotland and Ireland adopted the 4 year system but, because they were not founded by Cambridge alumni, they adopted their own ranking terms. At St. Andrews University, for example, the ranks were bejaune, semi-bejaune, tertiand, and magistrate. As the U.K. sought to standardize education throughout its territory, it sought to not impose one campus culture on another, instead going with very clinical 1st-4th year. The U.K. Terminology translates easily and is unambiguous even in the US, so it should be used in most cases. TL;DR - Frontier principals had ~~dilutions~~ delusions of grandeur.",
"These English terms originated during the Renaissance at Cambridge University, which had a three-year course of study. As other answers have pointed out, *freshman* is a compound that means \"new man\", \"novice\". At that time, the upperclassmen were split into *junior sophisters* (\"lesser\", \"secondary\") and *senior sophisters* (\"superior\", \"greater\", \"primary\"). *Sophister* is derived from the Greek *sophos* meaning \"wise\", and in that time meant \"arguer\" or \"debater\". In the 1600s, a fourth designation came into use: *sophumer*, which was a synonym for *sophister*, derived from French instead of directly from the Greek (Think *regal* vs. *royal*). This term denoted advanced underclassmen, but at the time was not a separate year of study. Over time, and probably in America first, *sophumer* became *sophomore*. John Harvard, the founder of the university that bears his name, encountered the categories during his study at Cambridge and brought them over to Cambridge, Mass. in the 1630s. Being used at Harvard, they spread to other American universities and came into use in high schools in the early twentieth century. Source: URL_0",
"As an Aussie who hasn't quite grasped this slsng, does sophomore come between freshman and senior? What's the hierarchy?",
"in high school, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade are used synonymously with freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior (respectively). in university, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year are associated with these terms. these terms are used both in high school and college/university and are uncommon outside of the US. canadians typically use grades 9-12, and they'll use first-fourth year (or further, if they've taken extra credits) for university. a freshman means someone who is new, or a novice. it's a slang term that eventually became official. how it became official? it's unknown but it's likely that because these terms were in use for so long, they started being used in official capacity. sophomore comes from greek, meaning sophos (think 'philosophy) meaning wise, and moros (think 'moron'). something that is sophomoric, is something that it thought to be a good idea but isn't at all. basically a beginner mistake. why sophomore is used for 2nd year or 10th grade specifically? again: we don't know. it may be that the term was a denigrating term used by juniors and seniors. junior and senior are upperclassman levels. upperclassmen are people who have been in the school system longer, and may have been a subjective term in the past. now, it's fixed. a junior is a 'junior upperclassman', meaning they're a younger upperclassman. a senior is a 'senior upperclassman', meaning they're an older upperclassman. so... why these terms instead of year 1, 2, 3, and 4? in high school and university, one's 'year of study' is not denoted by how many years they've been in the system. it's denoted by how many credits they have toward graduation. this may be an explanation for why 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th year are not as commonly used: their year of study does not adequately describe how many credits (or years of study) they have to graduate. it's not a perfect explanation, though, but it's the best non-etymological one i can think of. to make things more confusing, there are multiple types of freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. there are 'redshirt freshmen', who are in their 2nd year of study but play a sport at a freshman level. there are '5th year seniors' (or further on such as 6th year, often called 'super seniors') which are a result of the above paragraph: people which not enough credits to graduate but have been in the program for longer than 4 years. 4th year juniors are often a result of redshirting one's freshman year (or delaying eligibility to play a college sport while still enrolling in the school)",
"Thanks OP, for asking. I've always wondered what these terms meant but never really bothered to find out.",
"As said in other posts, the upperclassmen were split into the junior and senior sophisters. Eventually they split the underclassmen into two groups as well. The moronic freshman that had passed their first year would now be called sophomores, a combination of sophos (knowledge) and moros (moron, fool). So freshmen are morons and sophomores are knowledgeable morons."
],
"score": [
1493,
86,
18,
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1982/whats-the-origin-of-sophomore"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xacjv | What would the impact on the world and food chain be if all humans became vegan as of now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"degis04",
"degimy3",
"deh50a8"
],
"text": [
"One negative aspect would be that in many parts of Europe the forests would start to suffer quite badly. As there are no predators like wolves left in these areas the deer would breed completely uncontrolled if humans would stop controlling their numbers by hunting. Uncontrolled amounts of deer mean uncontrolled browsing inside the forests. So deer would eat most of the saplings and damage trees and other plants.",
"Unfathomable. Within 10 years most of the farm cows/pigs would still be harvested for leather, or dead due to natural causes. Presumably the land dedicated to feeding them would be converted to Soy or something to replace the protein demand. Greenhouse gases would be down drastically. Water needs would shift dramatically, and may actually become a problem. A whole bunch of food waste would need to find a new purpose. Whole industries that support livestock would shut down overnight, putting a not-insignificant amount of people out of work.",
"There would be a catastrophic failure in the meat markets resulting in financial ruin for ranchers, butchers, fishermen, and farms of all sizes. Generally prices for food would go up as the availability of food drops (either by not counting meat as food or by economic effects) while the demand for food remains the same. The surviving or recovered farms would all rely on artificial fertilizer. The animals spared from the slaughter would need some sort of care, though most would probably not receive it and, lacking an economic intensive to keep them, many would die of neglect. Feral pigs and chickens would run the streets in some communities. We would have a lot of surplus water. We can just let that run to the sea, so that's not really a problem. While I think a gradual shift toward consuming less meat is pretty clearly healthy for people, I massive sudden prohibition would have pretty horrible echo effects."
],
"score": [
13,
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xaegf | How does sports betting and spreads work? | I always hear people talking about game spreads such as: - "Cavs are -5" - "Patriots are a 10 point favorite" Was hoping to just a quick explanation of what that kind of stuff means and what I would be betting on by selecting some of these spreads? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"degii8m"
],
"text": [
"TL;DR: Cavs -5 means cavs have to win by more than 5 points Sport teams aren't always evenly matched. So to make it fair in betting circles, they give points to the lesser of the two teams so people would feel comfortable putting money on the lesser team. The Packers are better than the Lions. So to make betting closer to 50/50 they will make the betting line: Packers -5. -110 Lions +5 +110 I'll explain the 5 and the 110. If you choose to bet on the Packers they will need to beat the Lions by more than 5 points for you to win the bet. If you choose the Lions, they can lose by less than 5 points and you will still win the bet. If they lose by exactly 5 points it's a push. Some bets will add a half point so there is no push. In which case it would be: Packers -5.5 Lions +5.5 In this situation, packers have to win by 6 or more, Lions can lose by 5 or less. The -110 and +110 refer to returns on your bet. The figures revolve around $100. The negative implies what I would need to bet to win $100 and the positive refers to what I would win if I bet $100. For an odd of -110 I would need to bet $110 to win $100. For an odd of +110 i would win $110 off my $100 bet. Some games have both choices as negative odds. Some have two positive odds. Then there is money line and over/under betting (O/U). Money line is you pick the winner straight up, no lines. Typically you would see worse odds for these. Money Line: Clemson -250 Virginia +350 You would pick Clemson to win straight up. You would need to bet $250 to make $100. If you pick Virginia to upset Clemson you would make $350 off a $100 bet. Over under is the total combined score of both teams. You'll see a line like O/U 55.5 Over -110 Under -110 There's that half point, meaning there will be no tie. You bet on whether you think the total combined score will be 56 or higher or 55 and lower. We have two negative odds so on both choices you would need to bet $110 to win $100. That's most of what you'll see. And for clarification you DO NOT need to bet in increments of $100."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xb9f6 | The U.S. President just said in his Weekly Address that the U.S. Air Force is the smallest it's been since 1947. How is that possible since the AF was established in 1947? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"degp2ct",
"degozgt"
],
"text": [
"Because the US Army Air Force transferred all assets and personnel to the US Air force upon its creation and in 1947 they had a lot of assets having just finished fighting WW2. More pertinent should be just how stupid that talking point is in terms effectiveness. If you only measure the effectiveness of any branch of the military based on numbers you get the wrong answer. One F22 is equivalent to an entire fighter squadron or more from 1947, and if you were to pit it against a bomber fleet from 1947 then none of the bombers would ever return. More to the point who are the USAF supposed to be fighting? The US Air Force, 2017 version, is the largest air force in the world, the second largest is the US Navy.",
"I'm going to explain to you something about the president. He says things. He says LOTS of things. He says them not because he read it somewhere, or heard it somewhere, or was told it by someone who is an authority on the subject. He \"feels\" it. And then he says it. That's all."
],
"score": [
14,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xbbmt | Why does ICE need a criminal conviction in order to deport illegals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"degq935",
"degpmjk",
"degw3yx",
"deh9e57",
"degph9j",
"degss83"
],
"text": [
"A person can always be deported if they are found to be in the country illegally; don't have a credible fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group; won't likely be tortured; and the US has relations with their home country. In other words, if you can't claim asylum, can't show you'll be tortured, and don't live in Cuba or somewhere similar, the US can deport you. Before you can be deported you have the right to a hearing in immigration court. The point of the hearing is determine if there is any legal argument for why you can be in the country. There are a lot of exceptions in immigration law and a lot of time immigrants don't know they exist or how they work. That's why a lot of people prefer the term \"undocumented\". Just because you don't have papers doesn't mean you're deportable - a court has to determine that first. Deportation proceedings are technically civil since immigration law isn't criminal law, but they often appear more like criminal proceedings since liberty is at stake and all the cases are prosecuted by the US government. For that reason they're often called quasi-criminal proceedings. What you're thinking of is probably the fact that most people who get deported have been found guilty of a crime. There are three reasons for this. First, the police don't usually just go around asking about immigration status for no reason. They usually only find out what your status is if they arrest you. So far more criminals have their immigration statuses checked than non-criminals. Second, the government prioritizes deporting criminals. They would much rather get gangs out of the US than hardworking families whose only illegal act was entering without a visa or overstaying a visa. Third, having a criminal conviction makes you much more likely to be deportable. For instance, you can ask to not be deported if you have been here for a long time, have US citizen family members, and can show good moral character. A criminal conviction makes that last part pretty hard to show.",
"I believe what you're referring to is the process by which someone is deported. In order to be deported, most persons must first go through deportation proceedings. These proceedings are to determine if the person is truly here illegally and if they're eligible for any type of relief that would permit them to remain in the U.S. It's akin to our justice system... innocent until proven guilty.",
"They don't *need* a criminal conviction. However, they have limited resources, and need to prioritize how they use them. Also, deporting illegal immigrants can be politically unpopular. Convicted criminals are both easy to find and no one will get too upset when they get deported.",
"Because we still want Mexicans here to work for cheap with no benefits, while still looking like glorious nationalists.",
"They dont need a criminal conviction to deport illegals. They can deport anyone simply for being in the country illegally or with an expired visa. They just dont usually bother people without a reason. And depending on what government is in power, they dont even deport major criminal illegals.",
"They don't. But the public would freak out if the government started rounding up everyone without priorities. There are many criminal aliens still in in the United States that they can focus on. Our system likely could not handle rounding up everyone without priorities there's a process that has to be followed."
],
"score": [
68,
30,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xc4sc | Why aren't there many movies when the bad guy wins? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"degx0l8"
],
"text": [
"People have a sense of justice, and want that reflected in their entertainment. That is partly how suspense works. We are willing to accept improbable turns of events that make things look bleak because we know that somehow they will work out to a happy ending If the protagonist goes through hell then dies at random, it just isn't satisfying. When movies do let the bad guys win, it is usually for a specific reason. They are setting up a sequel, there is ambiguity about who really is good and bad, or they are making some grand statement about society."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xcz1x | Why is nipple exposure considered to be so vulgar in media? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deh3h4j",
"dehbj9g",
"deh63ke",
"deh3bpn"
],
"text": [
"In the US it's the equivalent of showing genitals. And such displays are considered to belong to the private sphere. Such as taking a shit. Someone pointed to me the following remark: female nipples, which are exactly the same as male nipples, are vulgar. Male nipples are not. However, sideboob, underboob... exclusively female things, are perfectly fine. It's worth thinking about it to realise how ridiculous your nipple fear is in the US.",
"Because universally, female breasts are found to be sexually appealing. There's nothing wrong with that, but in our modern, increasingly sexualized culture it would make most depictions of breasts/nipples the equivalent of softcore pornography as it's likely to cause sexual arousal. It's also the reason that in most places a women showing her breasts would be counted as indecent exposure.",
"Because female breasts are hyper-sexualized in American culture, to the point where people find a woman breastfeeding in public to be an act of indecency. In fact, nipples on men and women were at one time considered indecent, and it was [illegal for a man to show his nipples in public.]( URL_0 )",
"Broadcast TV regulators have a \"no nipples\" rule. The folks on cable TV have been making fun of it for decades (Dream On in the 90s had a nipple in every episode)."
],
"score": [
19,
7,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/the-weird-wild-legal-history-of-breasts-and-104942336487.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xczl1 | why is "playing doctor" a euphemism for sex? Where does it originate and what does it mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deh3h5q"
],
"text": [
"\"Playing Doctor\" is not a euphemism for sex. It is a euphemism for body exploration and foreplay, often involving heavy petting but ending before sex actually occurs. It has similarities to an actual doctors visit as you are \"examining\" each others body."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xd1p2 | Can someone explain the ramifications of the EU parliament's decision to ban visa free travel for US citizens? | Hi, There seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation about this story. Can someone explain the following? 1. Is this a binding resolution or a non-binding resolution? I.e. is the European Commission now required to follow through on this? 2. The parliament has given a deadline of May to implement this. Again, is this binding or not? 3. Is it likely that the European Commission will follow through on this immediately or will they delay it? 4. Given that passports are controlled by EU member states and not the EU in Brussels, can any of the member states veto this resolution? Thanks | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deh3x6k"
],
"text": [
"According to the EU Parliament press release: > The resolution, approved by MEPs Thursday by a show of hands, urges the Commission to adopt the necessary legal measures \"within two months\" but is non-binding. The US grants visa waivers to most, but not all EU countries. The EUP wants all EU countries treated the same. They want the US to extend visa waivers to Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania and Cyprus. The US seems unlikely to do this given their current anti-immigrant President."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xe5s5 | Why isnt there a capslock version of punctuation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehd8i0"
],
"text": [
"There used to be - we used to have a SHIFTLOCK button long ago (you'll see it on some old typewriters, for example). Turns out that on a computer keyboard that's even less useful than capslock is - and let's face it, capslock is one of the least utilised keys out there."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xea76 | Why is media so much more resistant to show vaginas than it is to show penisis? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehfcox",
"dehetx4",
"dehljg5",
"dehfqa3",
"deheu49",
"dehova8",
"dehtwoc",
"dehxxjq"
],
"text": [
"The MPAA. You can show a flaccid penis but not an erect one, because that's too sexual. A sexually excited vagina looks the same as a normal one, so both are banned.",
"Can you give examples? I can't think of the media (other than tmz) showing either.",
"IN the olden days, when pubic hair was still a thing, you would sometimes get some bush on the screen. The pubes masked nearly everything, so no detail. The male equivalent, not so much. That dong kinda just sticks out there. I think maybe with all you crazy kids removing all your body hair, maybe it changed the rules for women. I think maybe no one is sure how much labia is safe to show. Now ask yourself another question: how much *erect* penis do you see?",
"Look. You're not gonna like this buddy, but sometimes a large group of people gets together and they spread ideas. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, it happens. Now this group spread an idea a long time ago that women's sexuality was bad, mmk. And anything representing, promoting or even pertaining to their sexuality is bad by extension. Also THINK OF THE CHILDREN.",
"I kind of disagree. I feel like I've seen more bush and the top of a vulva than penises. Also, you'll never see an erect penis in a TV show or mainstream movie.",
"I feel like this is a new thing. Growing up, I saw vaginas all the time. Go watch Porky's or revenge of the nerds, or any other similar movie from the 80's. You never really saw penis though. Nowadays it seems to be all penis, very little vagina. Especially if it's a Viggo Mortensen movie. He is contractually obligated to show his penis in every film. His penis has it's own agent.",
"There are several reasons: - Penises have the somewhat convenient nature of having two clear states, *flaccid* and *erect*. And you'll note that erect penises in film and art are just as rare as vulvas. It's about intent. As a flaccid penis can have other uses, as... - The image of the penis has often been part of visual gags throughout history. We can't seem to resist [drawing penises]( URL_1 ) everywhere. As a result, there's a great deal of [desensitization towards the image of a penis in media]( URL_0 ). It's considered much more acceptable and even quite funny. The vulva not so much. - The nature of the penis means it can't really *hide* anyway. There are plenty of works of art [involving nude women]( URL_3 ), but you'd need to go to some lengths to show genitals. Men though? A simple statue of a [man stomping some random babies]( URL_2 ) has the penis on display, because it is always on display. More desensitization throughout history.",
"Hbo is taking this by the balls. They show a penis every chance they get and sometimes for no reason."
],
"score": [
40,
36,
35,
30,
15,
12,
12,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/DAB0WzTnMl4?t=92",
"http://d2jv9003bew7ag.cloudfront.net/uploads/Wanksy-Penis-Graffiti.jpg",
"http://i40.tinypic.com/2uz9gjl.jpg",
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ba/a5/96/baa5961ef132ec4584be87b79f214e6a.jpg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xed7t | Why is it that maps are all oriented with North at the top? | It makes sense to me with the axes of Earth as they are that modem maps would have North on top and South on bottom. Why is it, though, that even maps made years and years ago are still North-oriented? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehetjq",
"deherdd",
"dehhnrb",
"dehxzxs"
],
"text": [
"Polaris! While medieval maps were oriented toward Jerusalem (hence our word \"orient\" means both find our bearings and the east), renaissance cartographers rediscovered Greek/Roman maps and liked their use of Polaris, the north star. Explorers used stars to navigate to the new world. So as they added to the maps, they did them in reference to the stars.",
"Funny you say north oriented. Orient means east, which is the direction I believe the old Roman maps faced. Hence Asia being oriental, it was the land to the east.",
"They aren't all oriented like that. I have several maps from hikes I've done where north isn't straight up.",
"Not all maps are oriented north. The west has a shared cultural heritage and thus similar map making standards. Western map makers used celestial observations to orient their surveys. Being that Polaris is always looking north, it was a convenient way to begin. I've heard that sub Saharan African maps had south facing up. They felt they were near the top due to the flow direction of the Nile."
],
"score": [
36,
10,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xeiab | How did New England end up as the least religious region of the US, considering that it was largely colonized by Puritans? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehgfid",
"dehlogs",
"dehip02"
],
"text": [
"Perhaps it has to do with a high concentration of educated people? ..colleges and universities...",
"It's actually the religiosity of the Puritans that drove the higher education levels. Puritans believed that everyone needed to be able to read the Bible in order to be a proper Christian. So, the various towns in Massachusetts made it mandatory for children to be educated, both boys and girls (at a time when educating girls was very uncommon) and both rich and poor. Prior to that, education was limited to sons of people that could pay for it. That spread from Massachusetts to the other New England states. An excerpt from Colin Woodard's \"American Nations\": \"The Puritan belief that each individual had to encounter divine revelation through reading the scriptures had far-reaching implications. If everyone was expected to read the Bible, everyone had to be literate. Public schoolhouses, therefore, were built and staffed by salaried teachers as soon as a new town was established. While the other American nations had no school systems of any kind in the mid–seventeenth century—education was a privilege of the rich—New England required all children to be sent to school under penalty of law. While few Englishmen could read or write in 1660, two-thirds of Massachusetts men and more than a third of women could sign their own names. And while basic education was universal, those with higher education were accorded the sort of respect and deference other societies reserved for the highborn. Early New England had an “elite, a group of leading families who intermarried and came to dominate political and religious affairs, but it was an elite based not on wealth but education. Of the original 15,000 settlers who came to Massachusetts Bay, at least 129 were graduates of Oxford or Cambridge, a shockingly high figure for the age; virtually all of them assumed leadership roles. None of the men who served as governors in early Massachusetts or Connecticut was a noble, but many had graduated from the English universities or Harvard, a homegrown alternative founded just six years after the first Puritans had arrived. (It was instituted, according to a 1645 brochure, “to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches.”) Boston today is said to be the intellectual capital of the continent; indeed, it has been so since its very foundation”",
"The more restrictive a religion (or dogma) that bases its message in guilt and fear of the Almighty, the more likely it is to be thrown off and freedom of choice embraced. That's why a lot of cults (media term) like Waco's for example, can still be restrictive but adhered to so adamantly by members, when the Almighty is loving and the leader is smart and charming, creating a sense of specialness and love, instead of judgement, personal guilt, and personal fear. The puritans were restrictive, public shaming, and guilt-mongering. Oh and they killed a bunch of young girls for eating spiked wheat germ, while calling them witches."
],
"score": [
28,
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xesk6 | What is the difference between a succubus and an incubus? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehiocp"
],
"text": [
"Traditionally, a succubus is a demon in the form of a beautiful woman who seduces men, luring them to sex and stealing their soul. An incubus is a demon in the form of a handsome man who seduces women. Pretty much the same idea, but succubi prey on men, incubi prey on women."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xeuri | How are ethnic restaurants able to exclusively hire people of that ethnicity? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehksvn",
"dehl7wz",
"dehkr2i",
"dehkzbm",
"dehldka",
"dehkz2p",
"deht9pk",
"dehpa0w",
"dehlw3a"
],
"text": [
"They are able to exclusively hire people of one ethnicity because of a loophole called most qualified; if they are actually trying to discriminate based on race. The only ethnic restaurant, I personally know, that tried to racially discriminate hires had a language requirement. It was a language which one only learns if they're from that ethnicity. The realistic reason is because of how they hire. Most ethnic restaurants hire through networks they have and in most cases the owners are immigrants. Their networks are typically limited to only their ethnic group which results in their staff being primarily whatever their network is made of. In addition, they often hire family members which also happen to be homogeneous in the ethnic spectrum. It's not like most owners are actively trying to discriminate but rather their methods of hiring has a side effect of discriminating.",
"Many restaurants, particularly ethnic restaurants, are family run. The people who work there are related to or are friends with the owners, and that means they are likely to be of the same ethnicity. Apart from that, people of the same ethnicity are likely to be more qualified, as they know the cuisine better. They also might prefer to work in an environment that supports the ethnicity, and preferentially seek jobs there. Finally, a lot of ethnic restaurants are run by immigrants, who will actively seek employees within their immigrant communities. Legally speaking, in most cases they are not allowed to specifically discriminate on the basis of race.",
"A lot of these restaurants are actually hiring family or friends of family. I know one such Chinese restaurant in my hometown is run entirely by Chinese people, who are all part of one family. So to really answer your question about how they get away with it, it's usually just because they're family owned and ran. So they strictly hire family members.",
"They can't exclude people that are protected under the law, but they are rarely in the position of having to decide between candidates when openings occur. Most of the time in an environment where English is not the first language, there will be a list of candidates waiting for an opening. This isn't because of racism or anything nefarious, but simply due to friends and family getting word around. In certain circumstances, I'd also bet that they can require a certain level of proficiency in a language to be considered viable. A fancy restaurant, or one serving international customers, might need their wait staff to speak a language other than English simply for appearances or customer convenience",
"Not mentioned, but pretty much every employment law excludes businesses with fewer than 15 employees. So, a lot of small businesses/restaurants have small staffs and aren't required to follow employment law. For example, under Title 7 of the CRA 64, the prohibition of discriminatory hiring based off race/national origin doesn't apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. URL_0",
"My fiancé was in an asian interest sorority and I've made friends with a few of them. Essentially, they tend to hire family members into the business. The same applies to other businesses such as nail salons. They tend to be family owned and help each other out. But in larger chain restaurants such as buffets, I've noticed that only the front-end staff (waiters, hostess, cashier) will be of the same ethnicity while the back end (cooks) are much more diverse. I'd imagine that's to maintain a certain atmosphere for the clientele. I went to an Indian Bazzar and an Honduran was behind the counter and it was a bit jarring lol.",
"When there is an opening at a restaurant, it's not like they are required to put out an ad on the internet or a \"help wanted\" sign for everyone to see. Chances are they will casually hear about cousin so-and-so who needs a job and then offer it to them.",
"There are exemptions for race discrimination which apply easily to acting and somewhat to restaurants. For most jobs, sure race has nothing to do with it. However if you want to say film a biography of Bill Gates then you blatantly can't hire a black actor. If you want to make an authentic Chinese restaurant the same exception lets you hire only Chinese. Combine that with the tendency for these places to be family run as /u/kouhoutek said as well as the requirement for knowing the culture as /u/tomanonimos said and you get the distribution you see.",
"1. They use statements that seem very neutral/unbiased but defensible, e.g. \"most qualified candidates\" for hiring X ethnicity, but \"no available positions\" whenever other ethnicities appy. Personal experience. 2. Networking. Typically ethnic groups, esp Asian ones, come here with no connections. So they go to whoever they're most familiar with: others of \"their kind.\" Since due to basic psychology/survival instinct (people are naturally more open to those similar to them, e.g. even if someone isn't overtly racist or \"racist\" at all, they'll still help their own race more than others naturally), they're more likely going to benefit for sticking to their own race/ethnic group."
],
"score": [
183,
72,
18,
12,
10,
9,
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://topics.hrhero.com/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/#"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.