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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6p0c4o | Who were the people that came up with Gods from Greek mythology and how did they to be so well known | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkloewj"
],
"text": [
"Many of the gods in Greek mythology were local deities of individual city-states that existed before there was much contact between them. As Greek culture became more consolidated, mythology concerning the interactions between these gods appeared. For example, it is possible that Athena was the main deity of Athens, and may have been a solar goddess originally. As Greek culture formed and Athens became known for being a center of learning in particular, Athena became known as a goddess of wisdom. Similarly Mykene was worshiped in Mycenae, and Thebe in Thebes. Since Athens became a more important city in Greek culture, she plays a more prominent role in mythology. It is thought that at least some myths may have been metaphors for the relationship between these cities in ancient times: the gods of cities with common origins were siblings, wars between cities were symbolized by fights between their gods, etc. Other gods represented more primal natural forces, like the sea, the sky, and the seven visible heavenly bodies. Some myths were very old, often appearing in ancient Babylon or Egypt, and the Greeks often adapted these same themes even while changing the names of the players."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p0evu | In terms of volume, pitch, timbre etc., what exactly is the "emotion" we can hear in songs? | I'm not talking about major or minor chords that would lead to a happy and sad feel respectively, but how one person can sing something pitch perfect and yet the person who sings a tiny bit flawed is receive better because people will say there was a lot of emotion in the performance. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dklrxy9"
],
"text": [
"I'm not 100% sure, but I feel like it's because the person who sang it perfectly is really only interested in getting all the notes and stuff correct. Whereas the other, just wants to sing it whether it's perfect or not. It's sort of the same with jazz music. There's white jazz, and there's black jazz... White jazz is about the notes, the chords, and the timing. But black jazz really just focuses on the groove, whether or not the notes are correct. Hope this helps a bit, it's a bit vague, let me know if it needs more explanation."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p10up | Why is it so difficult for publications to keep and use copy editors? Put another way: why is everything I read online riddled with typos and missing words/punctuation? | Edit: This turned into a fine post, with lots of discussion. Exactly what this site is supposed to be - thanks Redditors! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dklsopy",
"dklu0lb",
"dkm3ewe",
"dklvrev",
"dklqxcw",
"dklupy1",
"dklw84y",
"dklv823",
"dklx18u",
"dkluv16",
"dkm57t8",
"dkls6y8",
"dklukb8",
"dklwsqe",
"dklyb9b",
"dklzxc6",
"dkm16g9"
],
"text": [
"As a copy editor, my view on this is: people don't believe they need to get their copy edited by a professional. Most people running websites will pay for writers, but comparatively few seem to see the need to pay for a copy editor. Further, some just don't bother with editing at all, and others say they want to keep it \"in house\" (i.e. done for free by staff members or mates, which means they will pick up varying degrees of errors but the copy won't be professionally edited). The latter works fine for some sites — and up to a point in their growth — but less well for others.",
"Simple - there is a significant population who think these things don't matter. *Hence why your seen this on other sights* Did you ever notice how people who can't spell are the same ones who think spelling doesn't matter?",
"I worked for my local paper, which is owned and part of New Zealand's largest media company, for five years as an editorial assistant. Basically I was a group secretary to the editorial team. The job involved doing grunt work like typing up letters to the editor, sports results, paying the editorial teams bills, research, and putting content online from the print edition. This was from around 2008 to 2013 or so. At this time we didn't have business plan for our web site, which was part of a larger news site ran by the parent company, it was just something we had to do. We weren't selling advertising on it yet (the parent company was, but we couldn't sell it locally) so we just put it online for free and it was expected of us by the public. Now it's worth noting, that in the print edition of our paper, journalists, who had spell checkers at their finger tips, were expected to submit their stories with no grammatical or spelling errors. The chief reporter would then check it, send it back if he spotted any errors, or send it on to sub editors. Sub-editors would then check it, correct any errors they spotted and then set it on the page. At this stage it been checked three times, so there should be no errors, but there still were. After the parent company's website started to generate revenue we were pushed to start gearing our content for online. Everyone in the newsroom had a large meeting in the news room to discuss how we would be moving forward. The main thing that we had to worry about was generating, and making available, as much content as quickly as possible. Get it up and errors can fixed later if it's worth fixing them we were told. One of the journalists asked if this basically meant journalistic integrity would be diminished in this quantity versus quality approach and was told yes. Some people are catching flak and downvotes for saying it's because it's not as important as it once was, this is the answer. We were a proud paper that celebrated its history and tomes of the past were scattered around the buildings, including old staff lists. Back in the early 1900s half of the list of 100 or so people was made up of proof readers. One proof reader for every other member on staff. By 2000 only three people checked a story before it to print and no one was hired specially to do this job. When I left, a journalist could write a story, and put it online with only their eyes ever seeing it.",
"Because content generates revenue. Grammatically correct content doesn't add much monetary value.",
"This is not a complex concept. Editing copy costs money and takes time. Some websites prefer to be fast and cheap. This is important since most users refuse to pay for website usage.",
"I recently finished a manuscript for my first book. I realized that I was too close to the project, so I needed someone to edit for content, as well as copy edit the pages. I began to seek professional editors and discovered that they charge around 4000-6000 dollars to edit a 400 page book. So one reason self-publishers might not get an editor is that its really expensive, more so than the actual process of publishing is (some vanity publishers only charge ~1000 bucks and of course there is always the createspace/amazon route which is free.) I eventually found an English lit student in her junior year to do it for much less, but it won't be a \"professional edit,\" as I had to show her a few of the standard editing marks before we started.",
"As a programmer, a lot of times I find myself noticing small things on websites that look like grammar errors but because of the error I know it's most likely a code/formatting thing. An example I see really often is missing spaces between one sentence and another, which happens because of the way the code is written. For example, say you're designing the Netflix menu page. At the top right of the page you want to display \"Welcome back, acc35791!\" and then a second message, which may change depending on circumstance. For example, maybe by default the message says \"Here are your suggested shows!\", but if you have logged in on the day that your favorite show releases new episodes, the message should change to notify you of that. In code, that'd look kind of like... string welcomeMessage = String.Format(\"Welcome back, [0]!\", userName); // this creates a message, or 'string', named welcomeMessage, that will be different for each user depending on what their username is. To allow for this, we use the [0] to tell the computer \"populate this area of the string with whatever variable immediately follows this formatted sentence\", which in this case is your name, or userName string secondMessage; // this creates a string variable named secondMessage which will hold the second message. But it's currently empty, because the content of that message depends on the following 'if' statement. if (your fav show released new episodes) { secondMessage = String.Format(\"[0] has released new episodes today!\", yourFavoriteShow); } // So IF (your favorite show released new episodes) (and assuming yourFavoriteShow = \"The Walking Dead\") then secondMessage = \"The Walking Dead has released new episodes today!\" else { secondMessage = \"Here are your suggested shows!\"; } // but if no new episodes were released today, then secondMessage becomes the default: \"Here are your suggested shows!\" So now you've finally worked through the formatting and determined what your messages (strings) will say, it's time to print them to the reader. Print( welcomeMessage + secondMessage ); And that output looks like... \"Welcome, acc35791!The Walking Dead has released new episodes today!\" There's no space between the content of the first and second message because we didn't include an empty space after the ! in welcomeMessage or add it to the beginning of secondMessage. To do so would feel unnatural to a human, and a computer will never assume or place it there for us. Programmers can have a lot of moving pieces to keep track of within code and often simple things like this will slip through the cracks and cause some weirdness in the final product. Kind of a tangent to the original question but hopefully interesting to someone...",
"Sadly I'm noticing this all over my Apple news app in stories from every publication from CNN to InStyle magazine. The smaller publications I can understand due to the above answers in this thread, but when CNN stops noticing/caring about grammar even in headlines, it's sad. Also, to add a potential explanation for outlets like CNN, I think the 24 hour news cycle must account for some of this. When it only had an effect on TV, that was one thing. Now, news directors are likely pushed to be the first to turn out new content for their apps and break a story before anyone else. Haste can be good, but IMO inaccuracy is downright unprofessional.",
"It used to be vitally important for publications to fix errors before they got into print. Redoing a print run was prohibitively expensive, and therefore once an error got into print it was effectively there forever. Copy editors and proofreaders saved money and reputation. With online publications, it's so much easier to just fix the errors later and save a buck. Moreover with modern content management systems and online publishing a lot of the formatting type stuff that copy editors used to do has been automated. In journalism school we worked hard at making headlines fit into the allotted space, editing articles so they would fit the page, etc. No need to do that on the Web.",
"If it is online, I would take caution as to whether it's been written by a professional or not. Most things written online are written using content mills such as Demand Studios. They pay you a flat 25 dollars or something per story (very very low compared to the normal rate). Anyone can do this and they are very frequently wrong and inaccurate. A piece written by a professional copy writer is immediately obvious compared to the demand studios drivel.",
"I do freelance writing on the side for some pretty big papers, and my experience has been a combination of a few things: 1. Production/copy editors' roles are increasingly being combined. The same editor that approves your pitch also has to schedule it, and give it a quick proofread (on top of the other 50 articles they're deali with). 2. A shocking number of copy editors are just bad at their jobs. They confuse that/which, or common expressions, or mix up their affects/effects. I had one copy editor correct 'sea change' to 'sea of change', although I caught it before it went to print. tl;dr: Fewer dedicated copy editors, more jack-of-all-trade editors, and a healthy mix of those with a lax grip on the finer points ofmthe language.",
"In order to post an article online you primarily need just 1 person, the writer. Everything after that is an added expense that companies try to minimize as much as possible because every additional person is an added expense.",
"Yes. Don't assume everything online uses a copy editor. Or even a professional writer. So, eli5: People are cheap and don't know they should hire a copy editor.",
"I've worked in print and digital publishing. In short, everything is produced on a budget. When print was the only (or at least primary) information source, the production budgets were larger because sales were greater. That meant publishers could put more money into copy editing, among other components. The permanency of print was another incentive to pay for top-notch copy editing, which, as others have noted, is quite expensive. Fixing digital copy editing errors is not only feasible but cheap. And as readers have gradually become acclimated to mistakes in blog posts and news stories, the potential risk of a few small errors is less. We expect to see some mistakes, so they don't undermine credibility. To all the copy editors out there, we publishers desperately wish we could pay for copy editing more often. But editorial budgets continue to get squeezed, and, unfortunately, there are few financial benefits for great versus good copy editing. Edit: Minor copy editing :)",
"Something I don't think a lot of people are mentioning is that, since the world is in such a fast pace, everyone just wants to post-post-post. Even if there was someone sorta proofing things? They might just read the title and say, \"sounds good Joe, post it!\" And just look at view counts. That's all companies care about now.",
"I originally submitted the comment below quoting from Gene Weingarten's 2010 column in the Washington Post. But here's the one that *really* makes the point. URL_0 Back in 2010 Gene Weingarten had this to say about copy editing at the Washington Post: > Beset by the need to cut costs, and influenced by decreased public attention to grammar, punctuation and syntax in an era of unedited blogs and abbreviated instant communication, newspaper publishers have been cutting back on the use of copy editing, sometimes eliminating it entirely. I'd recommend the whole column as worth reading. URL_1",
"Copy writer/editor here. First off, a lot of companies just don't have the budget to pay for copy editors/proofreaders, or they don't think they need them. Secondly, a lot of companies *do* hire copywriters to write their content, but most copywriters suck. Anyone can call themselves a copywriter, so you have a lot of so-called copywriters that really have no business being in the field. The problem is that they don't get weeded out, because a lot of people who make hiring decisions - like business owners, HR personnel and recruitment agencies - can't spot a shit writer. You wouldn't believe how common shit writers are. I have come across numerous senior copywriters who don't know how to use semi-colons, for example. Some of the better copywriters will hire their own proofreaders."
],
"score": [
335,
290,
275,
134,
56,
44,
28,
21,
18,
14,
11,
8,
5,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061902920.html",
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091304476.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p2843 | What happens to children put up for adoption if no one adopts them before they turn 18? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkm0ni2",
"dkm01z7"
],
"text": [
"It's called \"aging out\" at which point they are on their own. There are programs in place to help kids who age out, but their resources are slim. The 1999 [Foster Care Independence Act]( URL_0 ) was a helpful move in that it earmarked resources specifically for these kids, but IMO a lot more need to be done. In 2015, more than 20,000 foster kids aged out without placement, but I'm not sure of more recent stats. These kids are significantly less likely to get their GED or attend college. They often have few financial resources and minimal positive family support.",
"They would be released from the foster system, given that they have turned the age of emancipation, and would then be considered their own legal guardian."
],
"score": [
16,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_Care_Independence_Act"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p28ls | Why in Western music do minor keys tend to be associated with seriousness or negative emotions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkm3bkw"
],
"text": [
"There is some debate about this, but I would say it is simply a matter of association and relation. You grow up listening to minor keys which accompany sad scenes, and vice versa. Some arguments for this: 1) Major songs can also be \"sad\" simply by association. For example [Amazing Grace]( URL_0 ) is regarded by many to be sad, yet it is in major key. 2) Other cultures which developed music independently of the western system did not have the concepts of Major and Minor keys, but used other means to convey emotion. 3) The smoking gun: If you take a major scale, and just start from a different note in that scale, you'll get a minor scale (For example, C Major becomes A Minor simply by starting from the A note instead of the C note). If you have a Major scale playing continuously then one person will interpret it as happy while another will interpret it as sad if they started listening at different vantage points. This means that there's nothing intrinsic about the notes that makes them sad or happy, but only how they relate to each other."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://youtu.be/M8AeV8Jbx6M?t=6s"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p2ltl | Why has the War on Drugs been so unsuccessful? | What are the main reasons the War on Drugs has been so unsuccessful? (also, just a little request: i'm dyslexic and find it hard to read long walls of text so if you have a lot to explain could you use bullet points and lay each point out coherently? you don't have to but it would be helpful, thank you: :) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkm4vu1",
"dkm3xho",
"dkm3k78"
],
"text": [
"While there are many criticisms of the War on Drugs, there are certain points to really consider: -It was implemented in the 1970s by Richard Nixon, right around the time of the Watergate scandal which could be seen as a clever distraction from his failings. -The counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s was heavily influenced by what would later become illegal drugs. LSD and marijuana were considered mind expanding. The hippie culture was very threatening to the older generations. -Vietnam veterans, often suffering from PTSD, severely injured, maligned by much of society and at times out of work, often turned to drugs and alcohol as a means of killing both physical and emotional pain. -It gave a legal excuse to prosecute and jail poor, namely African American communities where selling drugs was many times used as a means to an end, making up for the fact that poor people weren't as well educated, worked lower paying jobs, and used and sold drugs to cope with these factors. Needless to say, it didn't begin with good intentions. As to its lack of success consider this. -A huge part of the prison population is jailed on drug charges, whether it be dealing, possession, or crimes committed by users. -Addicts are commonly not treated but jailed, this does little to break the cycle of addiction. -It attacks small-time offenders more frequently than big time operations. -The scare tactics used to \"educate\" children in schools about drugs don't work. -The War on Drugs takes a lot of tax payer money to operate, (police, legal proceedings, prisons). -Pharmaceutical companies in the past two decades over prescribed addictive pain killers like Vicodin and OxyContin, leading individuals who might have otherwise not been exposed to drugs addicted. When their prescriptions ran out, they turned to street drugs. But what you really should take away from this is... It punishes addicts. It doesn't help them. It punishes dealers who sell because they have limited career options. By incarcerating them, it only further limits their options. It's hard to control the real cartels abroad. A new, mislead and overmedicated generation are major offenders. All this results in people using and selling more, not less.",
"The same reason that prohibition failed. The same reason gun control laws fail. These are laws that are an attempt at social construct that a significant portion of the population has not agreed to abide by.",
"The War on Drugs was never really about helping people to get off drugs but to enforce control in favour of governments and corporations. This \"War\" prevented the study of banned substances and their recreational or therapeutic benefits while spreading propaganda about how every drug can only be harmful."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p32wo | Why is it so important and commonly requested in the United States, unless you opt out, to specify your Race/Ethnicity? Specifically, why is there a completely separate 'are you latino' category? | Why are there a remarkable amount of services that request this from you when signing up? And why is Hispanic/Latino always a standalone option opposed to being included in most drop downs like White and African American? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkm7x1y",
"dkm7s9u",
"dkm82xd"
],
"text": [
"The United States has a long and ugly history of racial discrimination. By keeping tabs on how different racial groups are using services, we can see if certain groups are being disproportionately effected by something, compare how they're doing over periods of time, and just generally assess the efficacy of various programs. As for Latinos, that is categorized as an ethnicity and not a race. Since you can be black, white, mixed, native, etc. and still be Latino.",
"Since it's meant to mean somebody who can trace their ancestry to Latin America, which isn't necessarily an ethnicity. You can be white, native, black, etc. and also identify as Latino or Hispanic.",
"The Latino/Hispanic community in the States is probably the largest group where English isn't necessarily the first language of many speakers. Also, Latinos/Hispanics settled the Southwest and California coast long before other whites arrived, so their culture is highly influential in many places in that area of the States."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p3ctg | is there any reprucussions to eating only the complimentary chips and salsa and leaving? | In the US most Mexican restaurants provide chips and salsa free of charge and serve them to you before even ordering a drink. Is there anything wrong with just eating that and leaving? Is there a policy against it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkm9isy",
"dkm9ukw",
"dkmb6hy",
"dkm96ia",
"dkm8x1r",
"dkm91kx"
],
"text": [
"It certainly wouldn't be illegal, but it's pretty obnoxious. It's not like they can prevent you from leaving without ordering anything, but if you made a habit of it and the restaurant got wise, I would say they would be right to ban you. At the very least I would leave a tip for the waitstaff who brought you the chips. There are legitimate excuses for having to leave a restaurant before ordering anything, but no excuse for being an asshole.",
"I've actually seen small text on the bottom of the menu that says something along the lines of, \"Chips and Salsa are complimentary with a meal. $4.99 without additional purchase.\"",
"If you buy a beer at least, then I'd say it's ethical enough. A beer or two, and chips and salsa constitutes a pretty solid mid-afternoon snack. I've done that plenty of times. Never tried just eating their chips and salsa and bouncin'. There is an implied social contract here which you probably shouldn't violate.",
"If you order nothing, eat this, and leave, you are definitely breaking an implied agreement that you were going to order something and pay for it. The restaurant would not try to prosecute you, but would be (rightfully) upset, and might eventually ban you.",
"Not that there is anything against such a practice, but they are served to you with the understanding between you and the establishment that you will be ordering other goods and services. If you did that you would be considered \"cheap\", which is usually a derogatory term.",
"Legally there is nothing wrong with just eating the free chips and salsa with water, but morally, if I were you and planning to do this, I would tell the sever up front and also leave a tip."
],
"score": [
30,
22,
15,
7,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p4576 | How did people who found other people who speak a previously unknown language translate it to the point of perfection? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkmfg1e"
],
"text": [
"The same way children who previously don't know any language learn it to perfection: someone learns the unknown language. As soon as you've got a few people that can translate, the accuracy of it snowballs."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p4qzl | How do you make a citizens arrest? | I am in Canada, not sure if this is a thing from other areas too or not, but how does a person make a citizens arrest? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkmocy2",
"dkmlqhx",
"dkmpt84",
"dkmlqiw",
"dkmn48q"
],
"text": [
"You have to know they did it because otherwise you're kidnapping them. You need to not do more than use reasonable force or that's assault. Reasonable fits the crime. You can probably rugby tackle a mugger, hit a terrorist with a car, maybe dont do either to a litterer. But, basically you restrain them, and get a message to the police for them to take them into custody immediately. Like, you can't hang about with them restrained... Again... Kidnap. I read that you should say \"I'm putting you under citizens arrest, I'm prepared to use reasonable force to restrain you, so do not struggle. The police are being called so that a uniformed officer can take you into custody.\" Partly for them, partly to remind you of the rules, partly for bystanders who see you sitting on someone.",
"I don't know about Canadian law but I'd imagine there are legal provisions that allow you to use force to prevent imminent harm or crimes while waiting for the police to arrive. The level of force allowable in the course of \"citizen's arrest\" is based on the threat being faced, if someone with a gun is trying to kill you, they're trying to use deadly force, which may necessitate deadly force in return to defend yourself. If someone isn't using deadly force, then you shouldn't either. It varies by state, same as use of force in self-defense laws vary by state. Basically just use your brain and act reasonably based on normal standards of morality and judgment, if someone is trying to kill your mom or steal your shit while threatening you, there are laws in place to allow you to detain them while waiting for the police. URL_0 > In general, to use physical force a private citizen must in fact be correct that a person has committed an offense, while a police officer must only have a reasonable belief. > Apart from the \"citizen arrest\" statutes of New York, which authorize any \"person\" to use force necessary to arrest and hold a guilty offender in custody until the police take him, there exists a separate common law/statutory privilege that permits property owners, including shop-keepers and landowners, to restrain or \"detain\" persons whom they have probable cause to believe have committed or are about to commit violations of their property rights (e.g., by theft or by trespass or property damage): > \"[G]enerally, restraint or detention [of trespassers and/or of their personal property (e.g. vehicles)], reasonable under the circumstances and in time and manner, imposed for the purpose of preventing another from inflicting personal injuries or interfering with or damaging real or personal property in one's lawful possession or custody is not unlawful. … And although confinement reasonably perceived to be unlawful may invite escape, the person falsely imprisoned is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care for his own safety in extricating himself from the unlawful detention.\" Sindle v. NYCTA, 33 N.Y.2d 293, 307 N.E.2d 245 (1973); Fieldston Prop. Owners Assn. v. City of New York, 16 NY2d 267, 269; Forest Hills Corp v. Kowler, 80 AD2d 630; Forrest Hills Corp. v. Baroth, 147 Misc. 2d 404. > In the event that the defiant guilty intruder is an unknown stranger in an act of malfeasance, a landowner or lawful occupant may choose to invoke his statutory right to \"arrest\" the intruder and to hold him for, or to \"deliver\" him promptly to, the Police. CPL 140.30 et. seq. > The privilege of Citizen's Arrest in New York is granted by statute to \"any person,\" and is a right that a land-owner enjoys in addition to his privilege to use force \"in defense of premises.\" (PL s. 35.10(6)). Private persons may only \"arrest\" those offenders who are in fact guilty of any \"offense\" (e.g., Trespass PL s 140.05 or ECL 11-2113). > New York Penal Law, sec. 35.30, titled \"Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape\", provides: \"4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense [in his presence] and who in fact has committed such offense; and [after giving due notice of the grounds for the arrest] he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to: > (a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom[1]. > \"A Canajoharie, New York, car thief's efforts were put in park after a potential victim pressed a shotgun to the criminal's throat. Daniel J. Stetin foiled the crime after awaking for work and discovering his car already running outside. He grabbed a shotgun and went to investigate, while his wife grabbed the telephone and dialed 911. Confronted by an armed and angry Stetin, the crook rested quietly on the ground and waited for police to arrive. (The Sunday Gazette, Schenectady, NY, 5/21/95)\" The Year 2000 Annual Report of the New York State Police, carried an article, titled \"He Sure Picked the Wrong House,\" featuring a hunter not unwilling to arrest a criminal at gunpoint, and to shoot as \"necessary\" to defend himself, and as necessary to prevent the escape of the burglar/thief. In NY for instance, you can use force against private citizens when such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor (you), and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.",
"ELI5 answer: Bad guy hurt or attack you or your stuff. You see and hear it. You defend self because bad guy could hurt you. You hold bad guy temporary until police come.",
"From Canada with a security guards licence. You arrest someone by removing their right to freely move about. You can do this simply by informing them they are under arrest or by restraining them physically. The latter has a bunch of technical ways to go about it but you basically only use equal force as the person you are arresting. You must immediately deliver the arrestee to an Officer of the Peace and transfer the arrestee into their custody. Then you go eat a putine. This is for Ontario only and might have changed since i stopped being a guard 5 years ago",
"If you don't mind reading the legalese, check out section 494 of the criminal code to see when an ordinary person can arrest someone. To see about use of force, read section 25. Keep in mind that if you are going to use force to arrest someone, they have to know that they are being arrested, and not just being attacked by some rando. Tell them plainly \"You are under arrest for X.\" Best bet, if you can wait for a cop, wait. Cops have tools, and it seems to me like Joe shoplifter might be more likely to try and dismiss a citizen's arrest, and met try to fight back. Do you really want to get into a fist fight because you saw that guy steal a ham at Sobey's?"
],
"score": [
14,
8,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_defense_(New_York)#Citizen.27s_Arrest"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p54wu | If the Romans were so accepting of different cultures why did they persecute Christians? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkmo3ml",
"dkmnhxj"
],
"text": [
"There was less \"persecute them because they're Christian\" and more \"Hey, those Others over there are different! Lets blame them for the Great Fire!\" or \"Hey! Those weird Others have only one god and won't make a sacrifice for the new Emperor Decius! Welp, that's a capital offense, off with their heads....\" The Christians were weird by Roman standards. Most peoples they conquered had cultures that were easy to appropriate, most ancient religions had gods with similar roles so Caesar rolls through trans-alpine Gaul he just has to stop by the temple and swap the name plates under each of the statues, and Voila! They're worshiping Roman gods! Christians were weird. They only had a single god, they refused to accept the divinity of the Emperors, and they were just generally making trouble within Rome itself and because of this they were just generally disliked by citizens of the Empire. When the Great Fire ripped through Rome and Nero blamed it on the Christians because they were Others and everyone hated them so it should be some free points. When Decius passed a decree that resulted in many getting killed, it wasn't a decree to kill Christians. It was a decree to make a sacrifice for the new Emperor When you think of Christians fighting in the Colloseum remember that in 66-73 AD and 132-136 AD Rome was dealing with revolts in Judea which led to significant losses(on both sides) and a huge number of Jewish(and presumably Christian) prisoners",
"Romans were accepting of others, to a point. That point was that you had to recognize the God-Emperor of Rome as your superior. Christians began to follow Jesus as the son of God, which turned them away from the authority of Rome, so early Christian Era Romans looked on them as dissidents."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p58vy | What does the title Executive Producer really do? I see a lot of actors and actresses star in films and they are also executive producers for them. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkmombj",
"dkmoolr"
],
"text": [
"It really doesn't have a single meaning, but indicates someone contributed to the production in some way without being directly involved in the creation of th movie. In some cases, this is because they originally created characters that appear in later works. This is the case with Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Kaz and Fran Kuzui are given Executive Producer credits for the TV show even though they had no involvement in it, because they were involved in the movie that established the character. Most commonly, it's because of financial backing. I (along with many others) have an Executive Producer credit for contributing to a Kickstarter campaign, even though I was not involved in any other way.",
"They finance the film, directly and by selling others on investing. Producers are the ones that handle the business aspects of creating a film. So an actor who's listed as executive producer might get that title by investing some money (or doing so by the way they take their pay as a cut of profits rather than straight cash) and may have a part in lining up other investors or talent to join the production."
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p6dmz | Why does there seem to be a stylistic difference between the handwriting of men and woman? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkn6euw",
"dkn1xf5"
],
"text": [
"Part of it might have to do with the differences in the genders when the children are first learning handwriting. These are generalizations, but at ages 6-8, boys are a bit more hyperactive and focused on bulk motor skills while girls have an easier time sitting still and have more developed fine motor skills. These things even out by age 12 or so, but by that time your handwriting has been imprinted and you're focused on using your skills for other things.",
"It's been a while since I check out other people's handwriting (less and less opportunities with the prevalence of laptops, smartphones, etc.), but from my limited experience, I have noticed that women do tend to write in a more rounded fashion, while men tend to have a more angular style. I'm just guessing, but any anatomical difference —hand anatomy, slightly different brain networking— would perhaps not be sufficient to account for this variance. In the case of latter, one has to consider that society and culture have an active role in the wiring and re-wiring of different neural 'road maps', depending on the activities and roles you are expected to fulfil either as a male or a female—yes, it turns out that the brain is a very malleable thing that is constantly updating itself depending on your actions. So this leads us to culture as probably the main culprit, with the ideals of what is supposed to be 'feminine' (delicate, nurturing, pleasant) and 'masculine' (rough, determined, aggressive) actively informing how we perceive the world and identify ourselves within larger societal structures, and thus physically affecting our actions in the way we express our individual selves. This in turn leads us once again to the original question: do we perceive a stylistic difference between male and female handwritings because of objective and recurring formal variations, or because of gender-biased perceptions? I'd say it's a fair mix of both."
],
"score": [
21,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p8ale | How come pineapple on pizza is so hated yet so loved at the same time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dknbjf4",
"dknb6fy"
],
"text": [
"Because it's a fruit. Fruits are sometimes not popular when there is a lot of meat around. When there is an abundance of salami or sausage in the house, fruits are frowned upon by some. Personally, I like a fruit by my salami. Sweet and salty all the way!",
"Because some people like the taste of it and some people are offput by the texture, taste, and tenperature gradient. Then people would jokingly fued about it and the issue just got larger and larger until WHAM it's a whole thing now."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p8ioo | Why are some websites transitioning to video content over articles when users say they'd rather read? | Over the last few months, some sites (Fox Sports, Vice, MTV, etc.) have laid off writers to instead focus on video content. From what I have seen, users still want to read content. And if an article like [this]( URL_0 ) is true, it's even users in key demographics. So why is there such a push to move away from what people say they want? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkncrqh",
"dkneo15",
"dknmqhe"
],
"text": [
"It's easier, and of more financial benefit, to make \"readers\" watch an ad than read one. And, in the end, those sites are more about the financial benefit than they are about actually providing information (the info is a tease to get you to come see the ads, just like on TV). Or, maybe that last comment was because I'm kind of cynical....",
"1) Video ads pay out better than banner ads and are less likely to be blocked. 2) Page view time. If you're reading an article, you might read the first couple of paragraphs in 10 seconds and then click away, but if you stay for a whole video, you dramatically increase the time you've spent on their site, which lets them brag to advertisers about the impressions they'll get.",
"There's a few reasons. First is what consumers say they want vs what they actually want are often not the same thing. In addition certian minorities of users tend to be much more vocal than large masses of people who just consume content. So say you have a print article that gets 5,000 views. It's really long but people who read it loved it. Next article you decide to do a video. Your print readers are really pissed off because they loved that long format article. The video gets 500,000 views... Both took you the same time to create. The ad rates for banner ads (or other kinds of click ads) are incredibly low. Consumers basically just pass their eyes over the add without even seeing it. For the most part, the adds are ignored and therefore they don't pay very well. On the other hand, unskippable pre-roll video ads are hard to ignore AND get much better click through rates. So they tend to pay a lot more to the content creator per view. So video ads make more money per view, and while consumers say they prefer print, videos actually get more views. So more money per view and more views mean videos make considerably more than print articles. Videos are more expensive to create but the return is also generally better. So lots of content creation people are pushing to create videos. Last reason is the distribution model. The fact is that Facebook drives a HUGE amount of users to most content creators. Facebook has made it clear that they are making video content more of a priority than a simple print. So that means, even more, potential viewers."
],
"score": [
15,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6p9k1x | What is the difference between Anime and Cartoons? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dknl9we",
"dknlbc5",
"dknnx1v"
],
"text": [
"Technically, nothing. Colloquially, anime refers to animated tv shows made in Japan, typically with a set of cliches (fighting sequences, expressions, plot lines, hairstyles etc.) and an animation style 'unique' to japan. Cartoon refers to animated tv shows most commonly made for/by American/European audiences, with their own distinct set of cliches and art styles.",
"It's the difference between a 13yo in your basement laughing on a Saturday and a 31yo in your basement crying on a Friday.",
"While the answers I've seen here are 'good' it gets kind of interesting. The most recent 'dividing line' I saw was this: *Anime: Animated series, produced and aired in Japan, intended for a Japanese audience.* The reason for the specific definition is a [music video]( URL_0 ) that has caused a bit of a [kerfuffle]( URL_1 )."
],
"score": [
17,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://YouTU.be/fzQ6gRAEoy0",
"http://kotaku.com/drama-over-music-video-ignites-argument-about-what-anim-1787972349"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p9nuw | How did belly dancing become such a customary ritual in the Middle East? How does this compare in contrast to strippers or "exotic dancers" in the Western World? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dknqi26"
],
"text": [
"Belly dancing is actually about dancing and is not explicitly sexual. Stripping is entirely about sexual arousal and not exactly about dancing as an art."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6p9rmu | Why has television become more appealing to actors than movies? | Or at least far more than 20 years ago. Not necessarily broadcast tv but, you know, shows. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dknmw7d"
],
"text": [
"More consistent pay. You may get paid more for a movie, but that's only one event, and there's no guarantee that you'll get another movie role after that. But if you manage to get a secure role on a television series, you'll have steady income for however many seasons you manage to last, *and* you can still do movie roles assuming your contract allows it and you're good at time management. TV roles are also a good starting point, and build up an actor's resume. Do a good job on a well liked TV series, and people will know you and recognize your skills, and you're more likely to get a role for a movie or the TV series that you want to do."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6pawy7 | The reason(s) for increased divorce rates | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dknwm8v"
],
"text": [
"Is the divorce rate increasing? I thought I read somewhere that it's actually on the decline. Could you post your source?"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pf4y1 | Why some movies get low rating on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes but it's still enjoyable and well liked by a lot of people? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkotfqv",
"dkoudda",
"dkp1578"
],
"text": [
"Because an enjoyable movie doesn't necessarily have to be a good movie. The directing or acting or whatever could technically be \"bad\" but you still might like the story for example.",
"On Rotten Tomatoes you are the in the percentage that liked the movie. If it is at 30%, you are one of the 3 out of 10 people that liked it. For me I liked the Speed Racer movie. I know it is not a good movie, but I liked it. So I understand the 39%",
"I took a media critiquing course in college and something pointed out to us by my professor was that professional critics have to see *every* movie that comes out, and that will quickly change their perspective. So, when you and your friends are going to out to dinner then want to watch a Transformers movie with a few mindless explosions while the crowd cheers, you're seeing it in a much, much different setting than the critic who sees it during an early-preening, possibly his or her fourth movie that week."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ph4kh | In old cartoons, movies, and tv shows, the character when given a coin will bite it. Why??? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkp8mwb",
"dkp8d7r",
"dkpibat"
],
"text": [
"Actually, this is a common misconception. People think coins were bitten to see if they weren't made of pure gold, gold being soft. But in reality, this is quite the opposite. Coins were never made of pure gold, so they weren't soft. However fake coins were made of lead that were soft and would leave marks to the teeth. They bit t hem to make sure that there were NO teeth marks left therefore indicating that it was probably a real coin and not a lead one.",
"It's to see if the coin is real. In the olden days people would test whether coins were real or not by biting into them and attempting to bend them, if they bent they were fake.",
"I really like /u/Madaboutsnails 's comment. I might however take it one step further: Your mouth is a great chemistry set, and chemistry is an unforgiving mistress. If we assume that a gold coin has to have three properties 1) be the right size, and 2) be the right weight, and 3) have the right color, then there are a very, very, few ways to adulterate gold that will result in the coin having the right taste and the right maleability (softness). No gold, not even gold minted today, is 100% pure. But most gold that is actually used for coinage has both significant impurities from the mining and casting process, but also deliberate impurities introduced to it. Regardless of whether the coin you are getting is supposed to be too hard to dent, or soft enough to dent, if you put it in your mouth and bite it expecting it to taste and behave a certain way it will almost certainly not behave that way if it was adulterated. I was never really one for chemistry, but this question makes me wish my chemistry professors had tasked us with trying to make a fake gold coin of the correct size, weight, color, and taste/malleability. That would have been a heck of a course."
],
"score": [
30,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ph7t5 | Why do we use A.D./B.C. terminology to talk about years on Earth? Wouldn't it have been easier to go in numerical order of how old we think the earth is? If we did, what year would it be now instead of 2017 A.D.? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkp93w6",
"dkp9o0p",
"dkp979c",
"dkp9c5i"
],
"text": [
"It is somewhere between the Year 4,490,000,000 and 4,590,000,000 by that method. While this is an impressive level of precision for geological events, it's really not a great way to get to your appointments.",
"Because for a long part of history, we didn't know how old earth was. Several systems did use a guess (like the hebrew calendar, it's currently the 2nd of Av, 5777), and now our knowledge would make that very unwieldy. Several other systems used an important date (like the foundation of the primary city) to count off of. Roman dating was...complicated, because while they did sometimes count from the foundation of Rome (ad urbe condita), they mostly referenced the current consuls (chief political officials). AD/BC was popularized by the Christians, because what better decision than to make the most important date the birth of Jesus (which probably actually happened around 6BC...oh well)",
"AD/BC gives us a reference point to work from that is common to a lot of the world, and even those non Christians. As for the \"easier\" option, how old exactly is the earth; 4 billion years, or 4.5 bn, give or take a 100 million? not the most accurate measurement system, and who decides how old the earth is anyway",
"It actually seems easier to use BC/AD as a marker, because its a set point people can agree on. Say we pick some year that we believe is the start of time. We want to make that Year 1. Ok does everyone else involved also agree to use that as year one? What happens later when some new scientific process suggests to us that earth is even older? That there are 200 years BEFORE \"year 1\". Where do we put those? By going off a set point (BC/AD) it allows us expansion in either direction. We never run out of years to place an event."
],
"score": [
36,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pila1 | Why didn't America start off using the metric system? | I get that it would take too much effort to change it now and it probably wont happen anytime soon, but why didn't we start out with it. Why did we pull numbers out of thin air (or how ever they made the current system) instead of using metric at the time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkpkhkg",
"dkpx5cf",
"dkpksi9",
"dkpp28d"
],
"text": [
"It was actually introduced (by France) after the USA was founded. France introduced the whole system in 1799, America was founded in 1776. Parts of it have been around for much longer, but the system as whole was not introduced until after we were founded.",
"Side note: It's slightly incorrect to say that the U.S.A. does not use the metric system. It's very common for people in technical fields and in science to use the metric system in the U.S.A.. I say slightly because the general public does use the imperial system (Americanized. For example the American gallon) almost exclusively but there are notable exceptions (2 litre bottles anyone?).",
"It was not invented yet. The US was an independent country almost 25 years before the metric system was first established in France, and it did not spread to the rest of Europe until after Napoleon conquered much of it.",
"There are two types of countries, those that have been to the moon, and those that use the metric system!"
],
"score": [
26,
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6pjk6f | Why is being bare foot seen as taboo? Why is it different between being barefoot or in flip flops. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkptftx",
"dkq228p"
],
"text": [
"Where i work its an insurance thing, yes we clean our floors but there is no guarantee there is not an odd shard of glass somewhere, if you cut your foot the company could be held liable so we would just rather you wear your fucking shoes please, hippy.",
"I don't think you understand what taboo means. Also, being bare foot is quite very simply disgusting in modern cities."
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pkf2z | Why are purses considered a feminine thing? They are just bags you hold your stuff in | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkq3gnt",
"dkq63x1",
"dkqfht7",
"dkqc75y"
],
"text": [
"Men don't really need purses because they generally use pockets. Women's clothing rarely has effective pockets, so they need an external satchel such as a purse for even small amounts of gear like keys and change.",
"Women's clothing often lacks pockets. Also, women often carry more things than men all day, notably make-up and menstrual hygiene products.",
"Purses actually developed from the type of pockets in use in 17th and 18th century clothing: basically a flat bag with a slit, with ties that wrapped around the waist. Skirts and dresses were constructed so that there would be discreet access to these pockets. When the silhouette of women's clothing changes from wide full skirts to much clinger lightweight Empire gowns, there was no place to hide a pocket, so the reticule (a purse that looks very much like the earlier pockets) was born. Men's coats as a general rule held comparable pockets, since pants/trousers/breeches were usually cut too tight for pockets.",
"Because appearance is more emphasized with women, it has historically been unfashionable to have bulky, bulging pockets to distort the fashionable line of one's dress. A purse allows a woman to carry things without needing to resort to unsightly pockets. Men don't worry about this so they put things in their pockets."
],
"score": [
11,
8,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pkylq | Why some Asian companies ask candidates to put their photo, weight, height on their resume? | I've noticed when I applied this Korean company and they asked me to put my photo, my weight, height, birthdate, whether my parents graduate university, my grade in universtiy etc. I was just talking to my friend in China.. and she said it is pretty much same there as well. Why do you think they ask us to put those things in resume? Do you think it is vital info to sort out people based on whether their parents' went to university? Anyone works in HR for Asian company, it would be really appreciated, if you could explain whyyyyy | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkq4r0j",
"dkq5l2y"
],
"text": [
"> Why do you think they ask us to put those things in resume? Because they are going to use them to make hiring decisions. They want attractive people who are the age range they desire, from parents of the proper educational level, etc. Not discriminating based on appearance, family history, etc. is a more Western idea. Prejudice, classism, and racism are not only extremely common in Asia but not even socially unacceptable.",
"I know in Japan at least there's a fat tax and the companies are the ones that pay the fine if their employees are overweight, so makes sense they wouldn't wanna hire bigger people if they didn't have to. URL_0"
],
"score": [
56,
16
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6po2wp | Why do Americans think the USA is the best nation on Earth when people from my country don't say this about our homeland? How did it develop to be socially acceptable to say this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkqt6l6",
"dkqtztg",
"dkqt585",
"dkqsad0",
"dkqsdn3",
"dkqy5lo"
],
"text": [
"The US has an enormous population, with varying socioeconomic status and culture. Throughout history, this is really too many people to naturally stay as a single country. Rural people in Mississippi are as close to a New Yorker working on Wall Street as they are to an English person in culture. Therefore to keep the country together, patriotism is taught from a very young age. By teaching people they are the luckiest, from the greatest nation on earth, they then form as 1 to support the national cause. It is easy as a foreigner to make fun of US exceptionalism and patriotism. But without it, the country would likely degenerate into another civil war and break up. Other large population countries have their own way of keeping the country together. China monitors opposition politics, and shuts it down quickly (as well as benefiting from the economic miracle, it's tough to be in opposition when everyone is getting rich from the status quo). India has a patriotism very similar to the US. Try saying something negative about India to an Indian person(why do you treat lower caste people poorly). Then say something negative about the UK (why do upper class people get benefits beyond their wealth and abilities) to an Englishman. The Indian will likely get very defensive, explaining India's greatness. The Englishman will probably shrug their shoulders and say how you may be right. Very large populations of disparate culture and economics don't have a reason to feel together as a country, unless they are taught to be from a very young age.",
"Europe suffered greatly at the hands of \"nationalists\" in both WW1 and WW2. They killed off practically an entire generation in *each* of those conflicts, so nationalism and patriotic zeal are associated with truely horrific events in their culture. By contrast, the US only showed up at the tail end of WW1 and lost comparatively few soldiers, and the post-WW2 boom elivated the US to obvious Superpower status, so the patriotism pushed as part of the early 20th century war efforts was associated with success and heroism.",
"Most nations are a people who have been in a land for a very long time. America is a nation of people who paid a high cost to leave their homelands and the decedents of said people. Such a people are likely to believe America is better than other nations, if for no other reason than so they/their forefathers don't seem foolish for accepting the costs to move there. Further, because America doesn't have many people who have lived here a long time, one of the ways America adapted to allow a very diverse group of people to live together, was to channel lots of pride toward American uniqueness. In other words, [many Americans lost much of their original heritage]( URL_0 ) to assimilate, but trading their heritage for being part of the \"best nation on earth\" makes the loss seems more acceptable.",
"We are told this over and over from an incredibly young age. Americans are conditioned to believe that we are the greatest, and people would risk their lives to live here, so we “appreciate” our homeland. Most people who have spent a lot of time in other countries know that it isn’t the greatest place in the world, but a lot of people are just overly patriotic.",
"The USA was a revolutionary country, created with an entirely new form of government in response to a belief that the European model (the British Empire specifically) was unfair. So this pride started early. Winning World War II contributed greatly to our national pride, and right after the war, as the *only* non-devastated great industrial power, the USA was the clear leader of the world economy. That boosted our ego too, until the other countries rebuilt.",
"I'm an American and I certainly do not think this at all whatsoever. Young children in America are indoctrinated to believe America is the greatest so that they don't question our leaders. Most are so heavily brainwashed that any questioning of 'American' actions is met with 'what, are you un-American?' or 'you must hate freedom.' Fortunately, our current administration is leading many people to question their unwavering patriotism."
],
"score": [
24,
9,
7,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/opinion/whatever-happened-to-german-america.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6prtrn | Why do sports with weight classes weigh the fighters a day in advance, and not, say, 1 hour before the fight? | Weight cutting is dangerous. If they just weighed everyone less than an hour before the fight, no one would cut weight, as they wouldn't have time to rehydrate. So fighters would fight at their regular weight. It would still be just as fair, but much less dangerous for the fighters, and no fights would be cancelled because fighters cut weight badly and have to be taken to the hospital. What am I missing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkrojy5"
],
"text": [
"If you think fighters wouldn't still cut water weight, you're mistaken. The day before is safer because it gives them at least some time to replenish electrolytes and rehydrate. Fighters miss weight even now, with cutting water weight and dehydrating. There would absolutely be fighters who'd still do it if they were going to miss weight. There's a lot of money on the line for fights and typically fines for failing a weigh-in. The only difference would be that fighters enter the ring/octagon/etc even further dehydrated"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6prveb | Why are Cowboys called Cowboys and not Horsemen? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkrop3q",
"dkrrxmc",
"dkryd6c",
"dkrsze2"
],
"text": [
"They have many duties involving tending to cows while not on horseback, such as branding, help with calving (births), etc.",
"The modern idea of a gun touting cowboy is far removed from reality of an actual cowboys job. Their main job was to tend to and move large amounts of cattle over large distances, however these people would often be experienced farm workers with a large skill set. They would protect them from the odd bandit or predator and make sure none of them get lost along the way. Not every cowboy even carried a gun, as they weren't going out looking to take down a corrupt sherif or local thugs.",
"In the mid to late 19th Century, western states raised a lot of cattle. The railroad didn't make it to where the cattle were, so you had to bring the cattle to the railroads, often a journey of several hundred miles. These cattle drive represented a significant economic activity and required a lot of manpower. Those men become known as cowboys, because of the cows they tended, not the horses they road. The term's meaning broadened over the years to include anyone involved in ranching. The early 20th Century movie industry romanticized the cowboy, and broadened the term further to include just about any man of action in the Old West.",
"Many \"cowboys\" aka cattle punchers, didn't own their own horses. They worked as hired hands and rode horses that the rancher owned if they needed to ride at all. Their main job - the reason they were hired - was to look after the cattle. The horse was just a tool for this, it was the cattle that were super important. The job started because there were not fences back then and cattle roamed so the cowpokes joke was to stay with the cattle and keep them in a general grazing area, or to find them after they went in larger areas to graze for a while - they would have brands so ranchers knew whose cattle where whose."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6psdvb | why did people say their phone numbers as "Wilson 4-8038" or similar, and why did this phase out? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkrwf7b",
"dkrtxrx"
],
"text": [
"In the UK, in the early days of telephony, you couldn't dial direct, so you called the operator and asked for the town and local number. Eventually this was replaced with STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling), where you would dial a prefix for the town, followed by the local number. In the UK, the prefix numbers corresponded as closely as possibly to the town name using the letters on the dial/keypad. e.g. 0533 for Leicester 5 & 3 correspond to the first two letters of **Le**icester. People who were used to the old way would still refer to the town names, even though they didn't have to ask the operator. Basically, it phased out because younger people never experienced asking for a town name, as they could dial directly, and they didn't dial the town name in full, so it made no sense.",
"The first 2 letters corresponded to the telephone exchange the number originated from. For instance; our old number started like, Tuxedo 1 -2345. The t and the u were 88 on the dial. The switching office was called the Tuxedo exchange and all numbers starting 88 came from that office. If looking at an old rotary dial or touchtone keypad, the w and i in Wilson would be the first 2 numbers."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pt2tc | Why is the word "Reich" always used in texts about Germany, instead of translating it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkrzbtv"
],
"text": [
"Because the word \"realm\" (the closest translation) is too general. Even German has multiple words for \"realm of a king\" vs \"realm of an emperor\" vs \"realm of someone else\". By saying \"the Nazi realm\", what do we mean? Do we mean Germany and Austria, where the Nazis actually ruled directly? Do we mean those two AND all the surrounding countries they conquered, where they held control though puppets? Whereas if we say \"the Reich\", we know immediately what was meant. They themselves distinguished between \"Reich\" and \"occupied territories\"."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pxawu | why do people from the US 'count' their different nationalities through their parents/grandparents but other countries don't? | For example, I have a friend in the US who calls herself "Irish-American" because her great grandfather was Irish. But, in the UK, we don't really 'count' that kind of heritage in our titles. For example, my grandfather on my mother's side was Indian and most of my father's family is Scottish. But I find it strange to refer to myself as British-Indian, and even my mother and father find it unusual to refer to themselves as Indian or Scottish in any way. I don't mention it unless I'm explicitly asked about my much darker skinned grandfather (I look tan but I'm definitely white so it does get brought up sometimes). Is there any reason that these titles are given a special place in the US but not here? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkt4j1d",
"dksy9cm",
"dkt162x"
],
"text": [
"The US likes to pretend we're a giant melting pot and a homogeneous culture, and we may be getting closer to that in urban areas, but in Smalltown USA and some cities like Chicago, it's really very segregated. Where your ancestors came from had a lot to do with where they settled when they finally reached the US, and lack of a strong overarching culture led immigrants to settle and live with other immigrants. A great example of this is Chicago - it's a city comprised of neighborhoods and those neighborhoods were really just collections of people who came from a similar area. Where I lived, if you walked East you ended up in the middle of a \"Little Vietnam\" and Vietnamese groceries, bakeries, and pho shops lined the streets, where if you walked West you ended up in the middle of Andersonville, which is where a bunch of Swedish settled and you could find really great beer, the Swedish bakery and museum, and lots of festivals that are celebrated in Sweden. This effect becomes more pronounced the more spread out everyone is. While I only have to walk a half mile over to have a completely different experience in Chicago, I'd have to get in my car and drive for 20-30 minutes to get a different experience living in rural Illinois. Half of my family is Italian and lived in one town and held one set of traditions and the other half is Irish and lived a few towns over and held a completely different set of traditions. When immigrants left their country for the US, they really didn't abandon their sense of cultural identity and instead they brought it with them. This becomes even more apparent if you move cross country. A lot of Irish and Italians settled in the Chicago area, but when I moved to Texas I found that the main European settlements were Scandinavian (I don't blame them, it must have been nice to be warm after living somewhere so cold!) and that bleeds through into the modern experience in the type of foods available, what holidays get celebrated and what those holidays look like. \"I'm Italian-Irish\" is really just shorthand for \"hey, this is the set of experiences I grew up with, did you grow up with them too?\"",
"The US is a huge country without a homogeneous culture. It is entirely understandable that people here identify with a more local cultural identity. Someone from Texas and someone from Massachusetts are going to have very different cultural identities and viewpoints. In the not-so-distant past neighborhoods of recent immigrants were fairly homogeneous and retained their immigrant cultures. Identifying with those roots a little bit is a holdover from that.",
"While the UK and other countries have a lot of people that immigrate there, the US defines itself as a country of immigrants. How a family's ancestors came to be in the US might dictate how their lives might turn out. Did they settle in NYC or North Dakota, for example. Immigrants bring their food, dress and other elements of their culture, some of which might get adopted by other Americans, which helps drive cultural change. Because immigration is such a huge part of American history and American culture, it makes sense that people who identify as Americans might also identify with their ancestry as well. For some of us it's harder or not as important because my family has a large mix of ancestry and none of my immediate family are immigrants (great grandparents on mother's side and on my father's side I have relatives that can trace their ancestry to before the American Revolution and are members of the DAR)."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6pyiq9 | Wasn't the Basque country the one with the independence movement (ETA) - why is Catalunya the one getting independence now? | Or having a referendum anyway. Is there going to be a referendum for the Basque country too? Why/not? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dktbo32",
"dktj588",
"dkt7v51"
],
"text": [
"For a Marxist take that I teach my undergraduate students: Catalan independence is a bourgeois (middle/upper class) project. The people who front and fund it are wealthy and have access to levers of power (one of the more prominent pro-independence Catalan politicians is a former president of FC Barcelona). Given its access to power and general 'institutional' position, the pro independence movement is in a position to hold a referendum through political mechanisms. The Basque independence movement by contrast is a more working class phenomenon that is typically located outside political institutions. This means advocates have traditionally been unable to penetrate political structures and instead have resorted to extra-political activities (e.g. The terrorism of ETA). As a result, today, the Basque independence movement is in a comparatively weaker position to the Catalan one. A very loose analogy is the case of Scotland (a largely bourgeois independence movement) versus Irish reunification (a more working class one). Though this case is more complex that is also coloured by religious division as well as class division.",
"From a catalan here: Its diferents movements i can't explain the bosque one because i don't have enough information. The catalan one have many differents points of view, the economic one or the history for example. Its a really interesting theme but in my opinion there's to much information and every side have their own true and lies.",
"Spain is made up of 17 Autonomous communities, I don't know where you are from but this is similar to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK and USA states. The Government of Catalan (one of the Autonomous communities) has approved a referendum on independence, this isn't legal and goes against the Spanish Constitution and even if 100% of the people vote Yes Spain has no legal or moral (strictly speaking) requirement to grant it. Again this is a decison made by Barcelona not Madrid, Vitoria-Gasteiz or Pamplona or Logroño holding their own referenda though it won't be biding."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6pzva4 | Why is the modern mindset to extend a human life as long as medically possible without any consideration of the economic, societal, and human cost? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkthpnh"
],
"text": [
"In theory that would be wise and productive, And Different societies have tried that in the past, with less than satisfactory results. The problem is that the decisions about what it's worth to keep you alive as an individual end up made via laws passed by to politicians or those with monetary interest in your potential for return on investment spent in the form of medical care. If that doesn't bother you, just think about the current state of politics right now. so you really want those guys making medical decisions for you or your loved ones?"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6pzzt0 | how do slang words (like selfie) and memes go from being completely unknown to viral sensations? | I've always wondered if it starts with just one person posting and then by some miracle it just takes off.., | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dktiygp",
"dkthvd2"
],
"text": [
"Think of the term \"friendzone.\" The act of a woman putting a man who wants to date them in a platonic state, is as old as humanity. I'm sure ancient cultures experienced it too, certainly it's not something that happened in the 90s and early 2000's only. It was given a name by a writer for the show \"friends\" later made immortal by the actress who said it. The writer thought of it, maybe he made it up, or maybe he heard one of his or her friends say it. Maybe the notion was fresh in their minds as they felt themselves being purposely put in this zone, or maybe he saw other people talk about how this guy wants to date them but they don't see them in that way. Regardless, before that episode, that term was nonexistent in the public's eye. The show \"friends\" was immensely popular at the time and watched by many people. Once that episode aired, millions of people saw her say and explain what the friendzone is. Now several million people can either agree or disagree with the term. Turns out, it was a great word to sum up a complex phenomenon. Many women and men related with that term. All it takes is for another well known celebrity, author, what have you, to use the term again and now the populous hears it twice. Maybe some relationship article says it and a few thousand men go \"omg you're right.\" That word gave a phenomenon a label and it opened the gates for discussion on the subject now that many people could accurately conceptualize the concept. It gets more complicated from there as a sect of men now voice complaints on something they can now point to. Now women can say they are or aren't doing it. It goes on. Art is about perspective. We look at something and think \"omg I never saw it from that angle.\" Perhaps it's with a word or a gif or a painting. In today's day and age, the younger generation struggles to understand reality and to come to terms with it. They're in a constant state of discovery and relation to one another. As soon as they find something in the wild that accurately describes an internal phenomenon, they use that object as a metaphor for communication. Where are our youth these days? Twitter, tumbler, snap chat, reddit(I guess), 4chun the hacker, all communicating, all sharing thoughts and ideas. Someone somewhere said \"oh, let's just call that (the whole act of taking a picture of one's self) a selfie.\" Maybe a professor did, or a popular girl or guy somewhere. Maybe a musician did or a celebrity. In all cases it was someone with an audience and many people liked the idea because it accurately described something that was happening at the time. Then it got repeated. Reblogged, retweeted, all because someone else related to it. These terms are typically simple and simplicity is what pierces cultures across languages. Also the term selfie was topical for the time. Smart phones were getting smart and everyone was bombarding social media with pictures of their faces now that phones had front facing cameras. That's Earthboom's take on the matter anyway. TL;DR: Tumblr, blogs, and Twitter, breh. It all starts with someone else going \"omg that perfectly captures what I've been thus far unable to voice but has very much been on my mind!!\"",
"[Slang Gang]( URL_0 ) might be a good place to start?"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/pEDit2uJCvY"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6q00zl | Why is there a market for all-black films like Girls Trip or Soul Plane, but there are no similar films for Asians, Latinos, or other minority ethnicities in the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dktmneu",
"dktizr3",
"dktjpat"
],
"text": [
"There is a lot of unique qualities to consider when discussing African Americans. African Americans have culture rooted in America, and are pretty far removed from African customs and culture. Much of this is by no choice of their own, many African Americans are unable to trace their lineage to a specific tribe or country, so their own culture has emerged. Asian and Latino culture in America has not faced this challenge. Many of them have immigrated more recently and have closer ties to their home country and its' culture. So a Japanese American can watch a Japanese film or tv show, or a Mexican American can watch Telemundo with programs oriented to Mexicans. African media does not offer much relevant to African Americans, so they have to produce their own.",
".....Asia has a huge film industry. That caters specifically for Asians. And Asian Americans. And it's 99.99% filmed of Asian actors (with exception of Matt Damon) So why does American Hollywood cater alot to a population thats 15% of the American audience but not Hispanic minority thats 17% of the population. That'd be the real question.",
"Asian films makes more financial sense being targeted at Asian countries where the bulk of the audience are, and then brought over to the US if the distributors sees any potential of it making profits there."
],
"score": [
68,
22,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q157u | What happens if you never give your child a name? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dktrfbo",
"dktrs6b",
"dktt86e"
],
"text": [
"If you don't put a name on the certificate then it will get listed as \"Baby (Surname)\" If you later do name the child then you will have to go to court, and pay the fees, to have the name formally changed. Each state has their own laws about how long the parents have to formally name the child before the default is used. Some states will use an alternate common name like Jane or John instead of Baby, as this type of issue is more common with abandoned infants than with parents who just aren't sure what to name the child.",
"Interestingly, if you don't give your child a name you are violating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, for whatever that's worth. [Article 7]( URL_0 ) states that every child has a right to a name and nationality. Likewise, if the governing body fails to record the child's birth or to assign them a name then they, too, are in violation of the convention.",
"At a bank I worked at, there was a guy whose account name was under baby. His ID also stated baby. The notes on the account said he went by Kevin. Guess he chose his own name at some point in time."
],
"score": [
32,
17,
13
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.crin.org/en/home/rights/convention/articles/article-7-name-and-nationality"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q1bgc | How did being a "romance language" skip the area between Eastern Italy and Western Romania? | Austria, Hungary, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia are situated between Italy and Romania (both of which are romance-language-speaking countries), yet they do not speak languages that are considered "romance languages." Why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkttw2q",
"dku16j4"
],
"text": [
"Because immediatly following (and to a large extent overlapping) the roman empire onenof the major forces in europe were germanic speaking tribes vying for territory in the north (which planted the predecessors of austrian and german) and slavs and russ in the east who each brought their own languages.",
"It didn't really \"skip\" that area; in the past other Romance languages were spoken between eastern Italy and Romania, as well as in much of the Balkans, so it was all a \"connected\" area. These regions were Romanised during the Roman Empire, so they had their own Romance languages, like Dalmatian (in Slovenia and Croatia), Pannonian (Hungary), and even others more in the south, like the Vlach language. However, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Balkans were invaded and re-populated by Slavs, who spoke Slavic languages and that replaced the Romance languages once spoken. Romanian survived for a few reasons, some argue that remaining as part of the Eastern Roman Empire for a longer period of time could have been one of them. Bear in mind that Romanian is not the only one of these Eastern Romance languages that still survives, although it is the most spoken. Aromanian, Meglinitic and Istrian are still spoken by small communities across the Balkans."
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6q1mru | Why are there two separate titles to differentiate married women from unmarried women (i.e. Mrs. & Ms.) but for men, there is a universal title regardless of marital status (i.e. Mr.)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dktvp70",
"dkuavax",
"dku4fae",
"dktvka8",
"dku05ls",
"dkugd2w",
"dku6ypc",
"dku6zs8"
],
"text": [
"Men did have two honorifics. The one for unmarried men is Master, or Young Master. I do not know the abbreviated forms. Think of how Alfred refers to Batman as Master Bruce.",
"First you have to understand that Miss/Mrs/Ms date back to the early 1900s, when women's lives were obviously split into two stages. As Miss y, they lived in their father's house, under their father's name. Until marriage, women - regardless of age - were treated as dependants of their father, because women did not/could not work. Once they got married, they took their husband's name, became Mrs x, and moved into their husband's house as his spouse and partner, becoming the lady of the house. If you go far back enough, it wasn't all that unusual for women to be referred to *by* their husband's names in certain circumstances (e.g. Mr John Smith's wife could be referred to as Mrs John Smith, eschewing her own first name entirely). Ms was conceived as a term to be used where you didn't know the marital status of the woman in question, and you would switch to Miss/Mrs once you knew if they were married. By the time we get to the late 60s and early 70s, women were embracing much more independent ways of life, and escaping from the model of maiden-to-wife. The feminist movement began to rally against the idea of a woman being defined by her marital status, and started to push the use of \"Ms\" as a generic title of women, independent of marital status, like \"Mr\" for men. The term has been gradually gaining steam since then, and becomes more and more widespread by the year. \"Miss\" is now only used for very young girls, with \"Ms\" being preferred for adult women. Some married women are also choosing to continue to be known as \"Ms\" even after marriage, in the same way that some married women are no longer taking their husband's names. tl;dr relic of older, less equal times. Ms is now generally more accepted, and Miss/Mrs are less popular",
"Mrs is a married woman. Miss is for unmarried. Ms is for both but in the UK it started getting used more frequently when women started getting more divorces in the 70s so it is associated with feminism in the 70s. Personally it seems like a remnant of when women were defined by their connection to a man, taking a man's name on marriage as your dad hands you over at the altar, but that doesn't really matter now as long as all 3 are acceptable and women are happy with them. The equivalent of Miss for men is Master but it was never as common for unmarried bachelors (once they were over 18) as for unmarried women. Men are Mr from birth nowadays but girls are Miss not Ms or Mrs. Traditionally a woman's name would be omitted in formal correspondence like \"Mrs John Smith\". It would totally have been a status thing if you married a rich man and moved in circles of powerful aristocrats or businessmen. Titles were really important too (duchess, baroness, lady). In Jane Austen it's quite apparent how they use Miss to advertise availability for marriage or as a badge of shame for an unmarried spinster.",
"I had been told that Mrs. was for married women, Miss was for single women, and Ms. (pronounced mizz) was for undefined status. As to why we use it, no idea.",
"Many societies still differentiate between virgins/non-virgins and it was considered extremely important whether women were touched or untouched - female titles reflect this status.",
"Not completely true. Master and Mister. Miss and Misses. Now we've added Ms. Women have 3 titles, 1 of which is ambiguous. Men still have 2.",
"I just write Ms or designate Ms anytime something asks me. Firstly I am unsure why it matters to them if I am married or not. Secondly I am actually married but did not take my husbands name. So it's weird when someone calls me Mrs. husband. That's my mother in law. And if they call me Mrs. dorisito, well that's my mom.",
"I always thought that historically a woman's status was related to her marital status, so the different tiles allowed people to know where she fit into society. A man was not judged on his marital status and so different titles were not needed. While a young man was called master, this was indicative of his age, not whether or not he was married. On maturity he became a mr. A young woman was called miss, but her title did not change until she married."
],
"score": [
125,
89,
55,
12,
4,
4,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q24xd | Seeing all of these Harambe & Deez Nuts votes in the presidental elections, What would happen if one of them actually got the majority of the votes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dku0e6e",
"dktz2cn"
],
"text": [
"If the person behind the name *was* eligible, then he or she could get the job. In the last election in the UK, Lord Buckethead stood against Prime Minister Theresa May in her constituency: if he had one, she would have lost the PM job (since the PM has to be a MP), and he would have become an MP.",
"Harambe is not human, and is deceased so does not qualify. All votes to him are void. Deez Nuts is not the real name of the child, and they are under 35 and so not eligible. All votes to him are also void. So the electors for that State would give their vote to the eligible candidate with the most votes."
],
"score": [
11,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q2huo | Why are words in most languages written and read from left to right but in other languages like Arabic or Urdu they're written and read from right to left ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dku1qsn"
],
"text": [
"Here are some possible reasons for either direction: RTL: Writing from right to left is more intuitive for right-handed people, who are the majority. LTR: If you're right-handed, it allows you to see mistakes more quickly, and it's FAR easier when using ink. Seriously, I'm left handed and writing with actual ink is a nightmare. The Arabic script is written from right to left, because it's ancestor Aramaic was written from right to left, because Phoenician was, for whatever reason, and they stuck with it, for some reason. Whether a people decides to switch directions is probably decided by whether they feel like it and consider it beneficial. Some do, some don't. There have also been writing systems where it switches every line: the first one is written RTL, the second LTR and so on. Greeks used it for a while."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q2mdd | Who are these 'Hari Krishnah' guys? | I live in Russia and these people are out on the streets here every couple of weeks; either singing and dancing in costume or trying to push some book into my hands (that they then want me to pay for). Who are these guys? Are they a cult or what? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dku238m"
],
"text": [
"The name is \"Hare Krishna\" actually. It is a new-age cult/religion from the 60s based on ancient Hindu religious scriptures. They are actually not that active anymore in the west but have had something of a resurgence in former soviet countries after the fall of communism."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6q38m7 | why are Macs always used in adverts, instead of anything else? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dku7pzb",
"dku7al5"
],
"text": [
"I always assumed it was the large role the Mac has traditionally played in advertising and design. For the people who came up with the ad, it's probably the only computer they really are familiar with. And in cases of print ads or the like, the designer can literally design the \"on screen view\" using their actual computer or perhaps their own laptop in a photo shoot. When I worked in advertising, we would occasionally get calls asking if we had a spare Mac in inventory that could be borrowed as a prop for a shoot. At some point demographics may play into it, and they want their ad to subtly appeal to people who either own Macs or see Macs as an aspirational product and they want to associate their product with an Apple product. Wintel PCs were occasionally used as well, but usually deliberately when they wanted to create a \"boring\" business environment. Source: I worked in advertising for 13 years.",
"Apple probably pays them to use Macs as it a form of advertisement for them. So when they are getting paid for it , the and companies are only too happy to use Macs on their ads. Also it might be because a Mac is widely used in the country where the ad is airing and if it is a software ad they need to show that their software is compatible with a Mac. Hope this helps"
],
"score": [
10,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q3cjv | Why do we clap to compliment someone? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dku8g9y"
],
"text": [
"Whistling is hard. Collective screaming is chaotic. Clapping seems to be the best option for compliments. Or sarcasm if you do it in slo-mo."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q3dxc | I was watching Master of None and two characters were signing the word 'twinsies.' It made me wonder how ASL incorporates new slang terms as they get introduced? | Let's say a somewhat recent term like "fleek." Is it just spelled out, or is a new sign created? If so, is there a "What the hell does that mean?" moment, like when people hear a new term for the first time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkuh6s9"
],
"text": [
"The important thing to remember here is that sign language is, at its core, another language. So it has its own wording, grammar and way of saying things. So 'twinsies' would likely just be the sign for twins. There is no direct twinsies sign. Slang in ASL develops the same way it does in English. People start saying one thing and over time it morphs. There's a period of time when people ask \"what does that mean?\" but the word is catchy enough that it catches on. You think \"fleek\" was understood the first time someone heard it?"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6q3qap | Why do most women wear 2 piece bikinis while most men wear board shorts? | I went to the beach and realized literally no one was wearing a speedo or something short, every dude was wearing long board shorts, why is that? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dku9ln6"
],
"text": [
"It's just the fashion trend right now and it will change. Men use to wear short shorts and before that women use to have to wear long 'skirts' to swim. It will change again. I also think it's hilarious that men wear the longest shorts and women wear the shortest shorts they can find."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6q55wz | Why do Americans refer to microwaving as nuking? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkulscd",
"dkulu51"
],
"text": [
"A misunderstanding from the 50's. Someone referred to \"microwave radiation\" meaning it gives off microwaves to heat food. The general public took the radiation bit and ran with it.",
"Microwave ovens were first invented during the Cold War, and it's kind of a shorthand. We know it's not actually nuclear radiation, but it's quick to say and widely understood."
],
"score": [
23,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6q71jo | How does protesting work? | Please don't let me down Redd. Protesting seems like a temper-tantrum, it feels good but rarely results in change directly. How does a march or demonstration turn into motivation for politicians? Has anyone does the energy in vs energy out analysis? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkv45my"
],
"text": [
"Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why does protesting work? You see massive nationwide protests when there is civil unrest, but why can't the government just ignore it until the protestors give up? ]( URL_3 ) 1. [ELI5: What is the rationale these days behind protesters blocking Traffic? ]( URL_2 ) 1. [ELI5: What do protests accomplish? ]( URL_0 ) 1. [ELI5: What Exactly Do Protests Accomplish? ]( URL_1 )"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34azw6/eli5_what_do_protests_accomplish/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gux67/eli5_what_exactly_do_protests_accomplish/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v2c7r/eli5_what_is_the_rationale_these_days_behind/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ssqni/eli5_why_does_protesting_work_you_see_massive/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6q9u2e | What role does the dalai lama have in the modern day world? | How is he chosen? And by whom? And why did he say that he will be the last one? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkvojua"
],
"text": [
"The Dalai Lama is a highly influential figure in Tibetan Buddhism. He is considered an enlightened being, who reincarnated by will. Short excourse: In buddhism, the ultimate goal is to achieve enlightenment and break the cycle of death and rebirth. The Dalai Lama achieved enlightenment but still returned in order to help other people. In Tibetan Buddhism people who are enlightened and returned are considered something similar to patron saints. The Dalai Lama is the head of the Tibetan government in exile (Tibet is still occupied by China) and is the highest teacher in Tibetan Buddhism. Important to note is that the Dalai Lama is not chosen or elected, but *found*. Buddhism believes in reincarnation so every Dalai Lama is considered the same being. You cannot become the Dalai Lama, you are found out to **be** the Dalai Lama. He is found by the highest lamas (priests) with extra authority given to the so called panchen lama. The panchen lama is also a reincarnated being that has been found by the highest lamas and the current dalai lama. Now, the current problem is that the current panchen lama went missing 20 years ago, possibly abducted by the Chinese government. The Chinese claim that he is fine and just camera-shy, but this is met with ... scepticism. The whole point is that the Chinese would love the next Dalai Lama to be pro-China and would officially recognise Chinese rule over Tibet. So it is possible that the Chinese government abducted the panchen lama and either replaced him with somebody loyal to the Party, or indoctrinated him. So the current Dalai Lama suggested that he might not reincarnate again, because \"he is no longer needed\" which is probably just a theological excuse to keep the Tibetan government in exile active. The Chinese government (officially atheist, by the way) refused this and said that the Dalai Lama has no choice over whether he will reincarnate or not. When the current Dalai Lama dies, it is feared that this might split Tibetan Buddhism between those who support the Chinese Panchen Lama and those who either support the Dalai Lama found by the government in exile or who believe this Dalai Lama was the last. If this sounds weird, well welcome to the world where religion and politics meet."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qa5qq | As a Filipino, I don't see why divorce is necessarily better than annulment, which is what we have. Why is divorce better than annulment? | I really don't see why annulment is seen as worse if it has more procedures and can cause less mistakes. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkvpvv4",
"dkvpv5x",
"dkvzcqb",
"dkvpxxc"
],
"text": [
"An annulment is basically canceling the marriage retroactively, as if the couple had never married. Annulment is not always possible. If the couple had already been married for some time, share a house, money and children, then you can't just pretend the same never married - they have to decide who takes what, how will the children be cared for, etc. In this case they have to be properly divorced.",
"I feel like the fact that it has more procedures is your answer. I'm also not sure how it can have less mistakes",
"A real annulment only happens if the marriage was illegitimate in some way. Someone was already married, they misrepresented their identity, they weren't of sound mind, etc. A fake annulment is what people whose religion doesn't allow divorce, primarily Catholics, get so they can say they didn't get a divorce. They make up so flimsy excuse, no one asks too many questions, and everyone is happy.",
"Annulment for the most part are a religious action, not a legal one. At least for the US. They also do not address important issues like the dividing of jointly owned property, dividing of liquid monetary funds, and the custody of any Children had. They also have a time limiter (that is nebulous) and so are not available to people who have been married for an extended period of time."
],
"score": [
13,
4,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qbv1p | Why do trauma victims fetishize the things that caused them the trauma? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkw2omu"
],
"text": [
"My best guess is that it's a way of taking back control. The original trauma probably left them feeling powerless. Turning it around, making it their own might make them feel like they're the ones in control."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qbzpb | Why can't Indians lie about being a member of a higher caste? | How are members in a caste stuck in that caste? Why can't they lie about being in another caste and assume that identity? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkw387w",
"dkw4y3y",
"dkw8609"
],
"text": [
"if you cant confirm your caste, then you are at the bottom. Your family and lineage would be easily known and confirmed if you were upper class. Its like you trying to convince people your an A-list actor. but if that were true, Id know who you are.",
"Can a German go to Paris and lie that he is an Italian? Sure he can, but eventually people will catch on. Mannerisms, accents etc. Same thing with caste. Contrary to popular western beliefs, the Indian caste system isn't a simple vertical hierarchy in a homogeneous society. Caste is an ethno-religious tag. It describes a person's relgious and ethnic background. You can't just stop being an ethnic German or Swede can you?",
"The caste system in India is slowly disappearing as higher education becomes more available to everyone. When I lived in India forty years ago it was still a huge presence but more and more the old social systems are being replaced by people who work for foreign companies and they don't care about your cast."
],
"score": [
24,
14,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qcj3e | Investing money for the future. | Does investing in gold have anyway of being useful for the future? And does gold really keep its value? I'd like to know more about the whole investing scene, for this reason all information is welcome about investing. I'm 17 looking to invest with money around 100$ to 300$. What would be the best options and why would that be the best option? Apart from that experiences about investments and things that happened during the process, are welcome too. Any kind of information is welcome. Thank you for reading the thread. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkw7gn7",
"dkw7w9a",
"dkw85za"
],
"text": [
"Your post may be removed as it asks such a broad question. But go to /r/investing for guidance. Start here: URL_0",
"Gold's not a great investment, gold prices can swing wildly. It's more of a volatile stock than a index fund. /r/personalfinance and /r/investing are where you should go for more concrete details. In general, you should first max out your tax-deducted opportunities like your 401k and a Roth IRA. After that, you can consider dumping some money into a vanguard account, etc. Index funds have low fees and often come up with far better returns than managed funds. If you have *a lot* of money and are looking for a way to safely store it for long periods of time without it eroding away to inflation, US Debt is a great place to put it. Possibly the safest investment of all time. Look into US Treasury Bonds for that.",
"You should probably go to /r/investing or /r/personalfinance instead. If you're in it for the long haul, ignore gold. Invest in stocks that pay dividends, and then use those dividends to buy more stocks that pay dividends. Once you want to retire, have the dividends go directly to you instead of reinvesting them and use them for income. Then, when you croak, give the stocks to your kids, and have them go back to reinvesting the dividends into more stock for their own retirement. In addition to that, make sure to invest in your own 401k and Roth IRA. Back it up with some low-risk-low-reward US treasury bonds to diversify, and you're all set. With respect to gold; it's not a good investment unless you really know what you're doing. The problem with gold is that it basically does nothing for you. Gold, like any commodity, just exists and doesn't generated new value over time; it just has it's own value change. Investing in gold or silver or platinum or whatever takes work, because if you want to actually generate value from it you have to short it (which takes some skill to pull off repeatedly), whereas stocks that pay dividends are literally fire and forget. Generally, if you want short-term wealth, you go after volatile things that have their prices change quite a bit (of which, gold can work, but there are much better things out there). But that also means you have to constantly monitor and work on your investments in order to keep them generating value. It's honestly easier to go to Vegas and play Blackjack or Roulette."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qd369 | Why do models scowl while on the stage ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkweilh",
"dkwfxoo",
"dkwnmld"
],
"text": [
"I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that it's supposed to be neutral expression, so as to ensure the models don't accidentally make funny faces and take the attention away from the clothes they are modelling. I guess some of them looked like they're scowling because they're biting their cheeks to stop them from making any sort of expression?",
"Because the director told them to. The expression is supposed to be somewhere between blank and fierce, at least in theory. Basically, they don't want you staring at the model's bright smile, so they have everyone stare into space with a boring, off-putting expression. There's also a traditional runway walk, which would look equally weird if you saw it on the street. It's just a specific set of performance skills, like ballet or juggling.",
"Same reason why so many are built like cloths racks: the star is the garment. With the wild fashions, they have to act serious. The goal isn't to show what the cloths of the future will look like."
],
"score": [
29,
22,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qdq1e | why we associate radiation and radioactive materials with the colour green? | In movies and games, especially fallout franchise I see nuclear waste as the colour green, are they actually green in real life? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkwhafr",
"dkwh81a"
],
"text": [
"Many uranium containing chemicals are either pale green or glow green when exposed to UV light. For example in the early 20th century, uranium was sometimes added to glass to make it a nice pale green colour. This type of glass would glow a strong green if exposed to blue or UV light. Similarly, radioactive materials such as radium or tritium were used as an energy source to charge glow in the dark materials, such as zinc sulfide. Zinc sulfide would glow green in the dark after being charged by light, or if it was mixed with a radioactive material like radium. Paint made from a mixture of zinc sulfide and radium was often used for clocks and watches, so that you could read the clocks in the dark. Radioactive materials tend not to glow in air - they have to be extremely radioactive to glow in air, but if they did, they would usually glow blue. When highly radioactive materials are placed in water, they may glow due to \"Cherenkov radiation\" which is a pale blue. You can see an example in this video: URL_0 A used, and highly radioactive, fuel assembly (high level waste) is being removed from a reactor and placed into temporary storage. The process is performed under water, and you can see the Cherenkov radiation from the fuel.",
"This was asked in r/askscience a while ago, and they did an extremely good job of summing it up: URL_0"
],
"score": [
19,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LIu7bhRDXE"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1g51b1/why_is_radioactivity_associated_with_glowing_neon/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qe19y | what happens when we run out of social security numbers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkwjahv"
],
"text": [
"Currently the government does not have a specific rule/plan in place for addressing. We've used a little over half of the available numbers thus far, so we've definitely got some time to figure it out. When it arises the situation could be remedied simply by adding a 10th digit, but hopefully we'll take the opportunity to overhaul the whole system considerably. Make it much more complex, and add in extensive measures to help prevent identify theft."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qexw5 | Why are advertisers suddenly demonetizing so many popular youtube creators' content? | It seems like this just happened in the last several months. Many popular you tubers are no longer getting ad revenue. Why wasn't this a problem for the advertisers in the last several years, and why is it suddenly a problem now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkwrs32",
"dkwqt8m"
],
"text": [
"They were more or less ignoring the Youtubers political/racist/sexist/controversial views until it became a national story and they were 'forced' to pay more attention and demand Google stop putting their ads on (insert politically incorrect flavor of the month) videos. More generally you can no longer speak to different audiences differently *once you get caught*. Microsoft got flack for white-washing a black actor for advertisements to Norway, which is 98% white. It wasn't 'hidden' very long. Now they just air different ads in different countries, but this costs more. Some companies like to advertise on off-color sites so long as it doesn't cause a problem with them with the population at large, but once it is they are always *SHOCKED gambling was happening in this establishment, we'll fix the problem right away.*. And a lot of companies were content to advertise 'everywhere' until a technological means was provided to easily blacklist certain kinds of content. At it's heart this is a story of technology. Prior to a couple of years ago the kind of deep-learning AI that can watch a video and decide if it's racist or violent or adult or underage simply didn't exist, at least not without a lot of human intervention. The recent hub-ub about racist Youtubers forced Google's hand and they rolled out the AIs they had that understand racism better than most liberals. And cussing, and adult videos, and everything else a wholesome family-friendly multi-national mega-corp might not want to be associated with.",
"My Hypothesis: Most likely because a lot of Youtubers will suddenly open up about their political views. Think of it like this, Joey is a youtuber. Company A endorses Joey but at the same time Company A says that they are not involved in politics. Joey suddenly releases a video stating how much he hates America and the world is flat. People look at company A and go \"Oh that company must agree with him\". Company A looks bad. Loose ends."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qey0w | How and why did the tradition of throwing bread at ducks and geese originate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkwqsoz",
"dkwvelu"
],
"text": [
"I assume it's because bread is a common food people have and it's fun to feed the animals especially for children thus duck brrad",
"As long as people have had farms with livestock, they have thrown their unwanted stale or rotten food on the ground outside for the livestock to eat. Since bread is a common food, and cheap, it was among these."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qf4rh | How did society withstand the sun prior to sunscreen? | I'm thinking of all societies prior to the invention of sunscreen as well as those lost at sea on a lifeboat. How? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkwvblw",
"dkwsdqu",
"dkwsf9g",
"dkx1g0o"
],
"text": [
"For thousands of years, people in sunny regions had dark skin, while people in non-sunny regions sometimes had light skin, due to evolution. Only in recent centuries, with modern transportation, have millions of people been moving huge distances. So the problem of \"I have the wrong skin color for this climate\" is fairly new.",
"I've often wondered how people who have survived at sea for days (I'm thinking of Louis Zamperini as described in the book Unbreakable by Laura Hillenbrand) and all societies who exist with long exposures to the sun. How?",
"People who are naive to hotter, more tropical places tend to have much more melanin in their skin. People who spend a lot of time outdoors in their lives tens to develop long lasting deep tans as well. In other places it was customary to cover up with long robes and sashes. For people like colonial era settlers & travellers, it would have been more of an issue. In a survival situation like being stuck on a boat, you're going to burn, tan, and suffer through it.",
"It's pretty recent since we've been informed of the dangers of UV light. My 52 year old dad never wore sunscreen as a child, and because of that, he's had skin cancer and bi-annual trips to the dermatologist. I can only imagine that skin cancer was one of the many factors that contributed to the lower life expectancy back in the day. Of course people suffered from sun burns, so those were usually prevented with bonnets, umbrellas, hats, and shade structures etc."
],
"score": [
15,
9,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qh9pd | Why and How did 'Slipping On A Banana Peel', a rarely occuring event, become the cliché in TV shows and Movies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkx9sql"
],
"text": [
"It is a rare event these days, but in the late 19th century/early 20th century it was a genuine hazard as there was very little organized litter removal, while bananas were a very popular fruit. Note that banana peels get more slippery the more they rot, so it was only because rubbish remained in the streets for a long time that it became a real hazard. Jokes about slipping on banana peels existed in vaudeville at this sort of time, and also appeared in early silent films, and it has stayed in the public consciousness ever since."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qhr0v | Why does seemingly every movie theater in existence have smaller concession stands on either side of theater, but put them out of commission 3 months into opening? I'd rather like to use one of those mid-movie rather than walking up to the front. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxdydx",
"dkxe06c"
],
"text": [
"They are there for really really packed days. Doesn't make sense to have them open on regular or even normal busy days because it takes extra staff to run them. But weekends with 3 or 4 major openings you'll see those stations open. Source: former Movie Theatre employee.",
"Building excess capacity does not cost much. It may cost $100,000 to add all that, but if you ever run into a situation that can use it you'll be looking at maybe a 3 million dollar remodel. Movie theaters make their money off concessions so the number one thing they want to do is always have enough room to grow their concessions business as needed. It is the most important part of the movie theater."
],
"score": [
35,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qi35d | Why are Camillia Bowles and Kate Middleton Duchesses and not Princesses? | Can someone also explain the difference between a duchess and a princess (if there is any). | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxi44o",
"dkxfdai"
],
"text": [
"It's slightly complex. This is close, if I think, but maybe not exactly right. There are basically two kinds of princes: A Prince of the United Kingdom is an honor granted by the sovereign to her sons and grandsons (and now, great-grandsons). They are addressed by their first names, and a 'the.' \"The Prince William,\" \"the Prince Charles.\" Separately, there is the title of Prince of Wales, a peerage customarily held by the heir to the throne, as it is now. The holder is addressed as _____, Prince of ______. \"Charles, Prince of Wales.\" To make it more confusing, royal family members are often given other titles, usually named as Dukes when they get married. The wife of a peer is may use the feminine version of her husband's title: the wife of the Duke of Somesuch is the Duchess of Somesuch, the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales. That does not extend to the wife of a Prince of the United Kingdom, since that's not a peerage, and the title is linked to their name, only. The wife of the Prince Billybob is \"the Princess Billybob.\" Accordingly, Diana was both \"Diana, Princess of Wales\" and \"the Princess Charles,\" and used the former. Camilla is, actually, also Camilla, Princess of Wales, and \"the Princess Charles,\" but chooses not to use describe herself as a princess, because it's so strongly associated with Diana. Since her husband is also the Duke of Cornwall, she calls herself the Duchess of Cornwall. Prince William is *not* the Prince of Wales, he's only the Prince William. Kate would have to be \"the Princess William\" to use that title, which isn't favored. But he is the Duke of Cambridge, so she is the Duchess of Cambridge. When the Queen dies, and Charles becomes King, William will become the Prince of Wales, and then she will be Catherine, Princess of Wales.",
"To be a Prince or Princess you must be the child of a Monarch. Being the Consort (wife) of a Prince is not enough. They are Duchesses because the are the wives of Dukes (who happen to also be Princes). Duke/Duchess is the highest rank of Nobility that is non-Royal in the British Peerage system, though members of the royal family are often given this rank in addition to being a Prince or Princess."
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qinqb | how did the Romans and Greeks end up sharing the same Gods (although slightly different)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxkbpx",
"dkxk2gf"
],
"text": [
"When Rome conquered Greece during the Republic, there was an influx of educated Greek slaves who were employed by their owners as philosophy teachers. There was also an influx of Greek art and culture as a result, causing a \"Hellenizing\" period in Roman history. It happened so fast that Cato the Elder complained about it in writings that still exist, and said true Romans shouldn't emulate their slaves. Since the Italian and Greek mythologies came from similar pastoral origins, and the two peninsulas had roughly similar environments, there were a lot of similarities in the types of myths and gods that arose in their cultures. And since philosophy took an agnostic approach to religion - by necessity, as outright atheism was illegal - it tended to emphasize the commonalities among beliefs rather than distinctions. And as the people teaching it were Greek, that phenomenon tended to take the form of showing the commonalities among Greek and Roman gods. It succeeded because ancient polytheism was typically non-exclusive, and saw other gods as simply unknown to them or the same gods under different names. As Greek culture infused Roman culture, the similarities in their mythologies made it easy to fuse them together. Jupiter was just another \"perspective\" on Zeus, whereas Jupiter/Zeus were considered quite distinct from the gods of a more foreign religion like the Egyptian - although the Egyptian was considered no less true.",
"This was largely due to the Romans tendency of adopting the Gods of their recently conquered subjects into their own pantheon. Classical Roman religion, though state controlled, wasn't as exclusive as our modern monotheistic religions and the cultures assimilated into the empire were free to keep to their old gods provided they payed taxes."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qiusa | in medieval battles how did people know who is on their side and who needs to be killed. If it was as chaotic as in i.e. GoT depicts there is no way to tell who is who. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dky62x0",
"dkxmhpx",
"dkxn0bm",
"dkxqp16",
"dkxoyfm"
],
"text": [
"Everyone is mentioning uniforms, but that's incorrect. Having any form of uniform wasn't very common for a lot of histoey. Standing armies night have a mandated uniform and armor, and later on livery became common (even then, not everyone had one), but for most of history you bought your own armor and wore your own clothes. There was no uniform. Of course by medival times, on which game of thrones is based, livery was common. And it does show up in game of thrones with, for example, the very distinctive Lannister army gear. However, the fact that armies have only had uniforms or livery for a relatively short time but managed not to kill their own men even before that suggests that isn't the explanation. Instead, the problem is that game of thrones is really bad at depicting battles. Very little warfare in history involved skirmishes where everyone got into a giant mess and people paired off and fought their duels, with everyone else fighting around them. It looks awesome on tv, but it almost never happened. For starters, most warfare was seiges and maneuvers. You sit outside a town or castle until the people inside starve, or you lead a giant army and yell \"you better watch out or we're gonna attack\" and breathe a sigh of relief when the other guys slink away. When a battle did happen, it looked very different from battles on GoT. You didn't pair up and fight other people. Instead, your army forms a few lines, their army forms a few lines, and the two groups stand across from other and try to kill the other side while doing their best to not die. Some units might move around, cavalry might charge, arrows would be shot, but it almost never happened that the formation broke up and the battle broke down into a bunch of duels (if the formation did break, it's because someone was running *away* from the fighting). You fought the entire battle surrounded by your own men, which made it really easy to know who to kill. You kill the guys opposite you - the ones poking a spear in your face - and you don't kill the guy behind you. Now, skirmishes did happen of course. A unit might get isolated from their army, a small part of the formation might break down, a travelling group might get ambushed, a ship might be boarded, etc. But they were between small groups, not entire armies. You would know everyone on your side because you've been travelling and fighting with them.",
"Uniforms were very important. Even when there is no money to make proper uniforms there is some way of identification they found. This is actually how the German flag got its colors. Some time in the past they had a war coming but couldn't afford to get everyone a proper uniform so they ordered them to dye their clothes black (which is a very easy color do dye) and handed out red pockets and some (goldish coloured) buttons. They were then easy to identify and the modern flag got it's colors from it. I am sure other countries/tribes etc found similar ways.",
"You came from the Greyjoy ambush, didn't you? I thought of this too. In history, uniforms distinguish who from who. And also the shields, in the matter of the BoB.",
"Thats what uniforms, flags/banners and sigils on shields are there for. One guy in your squad normally knows who is who and who is allied to you. In GoT, we see Bran learning sigils of Houses and Tyrion testing Pod on the Dornish banners. It is very important important knowledge for commanders. Also, battles were rarely as chaotic as the Battle of the Bastards. Most battles were in formation and relatively orderly. You normally knew the people left and right of you because those were the guys with whom you marched and sat around the fire. And when you know the people to the left, to the right, and behind you, and somebody runs to you from the front screaming and raising a sword, it's easy to find out who is friend or foe.",
"They didn't have uniforms in a modern sense, but they had liveries, which were like vests worn over your armor. The livery would carry some emblem of the nobleman under whose pay you were fighting."
],
"score": [
127,
110,
79,
25,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qj3pu | Why do people generally stick with people of their own "league", is that a subconscious effort? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxpiya"
],
"text": [
"I don't know if not being a psychologist/professional disqualifies me from answering, but this is what a believe. A person's ego needs to maintain a minimal power balance in a relationship. Batting above your league gives up some power resulting in stresses to the ego. The ego also strives for maximum fulfillment (aka self-actualization). Aiming below your league would leave you feeling like an underachiever, again causing stress. The same ego needs are in play whether a person succeeds or fails to match with people outside their league. The ego can only take so many rejections. Whether the above dynamics play out consciously or subconsciously is a matter of argument. But there are certainly conscious factors too, like when your friends/family explicitly tell you when your crushes are out of your league, or not good enough for you. Eventually you get a sense of your league with enough feedback."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qjxww | The End Of Evangelion | Mainly the differences and similarities of episodes 25/26 and DaR/EoE. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxzr44"
],
"text": [
"Basically different points of view Eps 25/26 show the end of the world from Shinji's point of view EoE show what happens to the outside world"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qk1ef | How did "lucifer", which means "lightbringer" in Latin, become one of the names associated with Satan? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxvpog",
"dky2yhe",
"dky3ztb",
"dkxy300",
"dky2bvn",
"dkxuiol",
"dkydvzr",
"dkys08n",
"dkz0k5f"
],
"text": [
"While /u/TheGamingWyvern has given you the usual explanation, it doesn't even hint at the whole story. The passage in Isaiah 14:12 is a type of poetry called a \"taunt song\" a sort of Old Testament celebrity roast. Isaiah is actually sarcastically referring to the King of Babylon: one of his titles was \"The Shining One\", which was also what they called Venus, the Morning Star; another of his titles was \"Son of the Dawn\". And that's how Isaiah addresses him: \"O Shining One, Son of the Dawn...\" It's just that the King James Bible decided to use the Latin word \"Lucifer\" at this point. This Lucifer actually has nothing to do with Satan. In verse 4, God tells Isaiah that he is to give the following prophecy to the King, and then the taunt starts. Verse 12 basically means: \"Hah! You call yourself the Morning Star? Well look at you now, fallen out of the sky!\" In the New Testament -- Luke 10:18 -- Jesus is quoted as saying, \"I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.\" Actually, a more accurate translation of the original Greek would be \"I was watching Satan falling...\", and he was reacting to his disciples' report that they had been successfully driving out demons. Nobody really knows whether Luke was deliberately referencing Isaiah 14, but in the popular imagination the connection took hold and people equated Lucifer with Satan. The idea of Satan as a fallen angel is a much more modern idea. EDIT: Thanks for gold.",
"It's been a while since I did my degree (theology) but I focussed heavily on the Satan myth in my dissertation and if I had pursued academia further word have been the basis of any doctoral work. If memory serves the simple explanation is the character is actually a mix of translational issues, biblical references, pagan artifacts and several apocryphal stories that have all been amalgamated into one overarching narrative. Satan in either Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic (can't remember the language for the source text) is actually a title, the correct term being something like 'Hasatan' or 'Hashaitan' (it was 10 years ago I did the research, bare with me). This title was actually a political stab at some infamous despot or another at the time. I think the literal translation is 'the adversary'. This was interpreted by early scholars as a proper name and was characterised into this malevolent persona. Over time it got swept together with things like the serpent myth in Genesis, Origins poems, the signs of the first rapture in Daniel and the second in Revelations, Hades from Greek myth, Zaroastrian Angra, Chernobog, Djinn Legends from Persia, Enoch's story of the Fall and a thousand other cultural influences into this broad overarching narrative. Satan itself just represents 'that which we are opposed to', whereas the Lucifer tale of the fallen angel comes from Enoch, Dante, Blake and Milton. It's important to remember that there is no one 'Bible' there are thousands of texts, written across hundreds of years by thousands of authors in dozens of different languages (most of which we can only guess at reading). What you commonly think of as the Bible is just what a few old dudes decided they wanted to cram together into one book at Nicea, or under King James or in some church or university somewhere. What one you refer to just depends on your chosen breed of insanity/sun worship. There isn't really one Satan story because the story is actually a cultural phenomenon. It's a persona we invented as a society over two thousand years of culture. I'm sorry if that's a bit of a tangled mess to follow, but I'm skimming over a lot of detail from my memories of research I did a decade ago. Fun fact: Of all the characters associated with Satan in the NRSV edition of the Bible, not one of them ever tells a lie. The devil always tells the truth (which probably had a significant impact in tying him to the Lucifer story from Enoch). Ninja Edit - Forgot about my boy Dante Alighieri",
"Satan in Hebrew is just \"adversary\" or \"accuser.\" There is no one Satan in the Old Testament, it's just a title; the New Testament is where the singular Satan/Devil is developed as a figure. That's important to bear in mind because there are so many misconceptions about Satan. Lucifer is attached to Satan because of a prophecy in Isaiah 14 regarding the king of Babylon at the time who is sarcastically referred to as the \"Shining Morning Star\" in translation. For some ignorant reason, despite the text quite literally prefacing the statement by saying it's about the king of Babylon, people have relentlessly attached it to Satan because of speculation about his origin. Tradition is a powerful thing and it's not helped by the influence of various religious groups, especially Gnostics, on contemporary understanding of pseudo-religious myth.",
"In biblical lore, before Satan was cast from heaven, he was the leader of the angels and the most favoured angel in heaven. But a rift between God and Satan resulted in Satan being cast down to earth. In history, the Babylonian king referred to himself as the first star. Kings always think very highly of themselves, and the first star of the morning is impressive. But this title of first star of the morning comes from an scene that occurs on many clear mornings. This scene is the shining of a star as the sun rises. That is, it is the last star visible before the sky is flooded blue. The light bringer refers to this star, also known as the first star of the morning, or the morning star. Lucifer is a Roman translation that means morning star. This was apt for early Christians because they considered Satan to be the first among the angels, or the leader of the angels. However, the morning star to which they are referring Venus. Venus appears as the brightest star on the morning depending on the time of year. This is because it is relatively close to earth and reflects the light of the sun easily. It's usually the last star to disappear form the morning sky as the sun rises. So when Isiah was referring to Lucifer, he was in fact referring to Venus. The later Roman translation creates Lucifer, which became the name of Satan, as a means to identify a fallen star, or the great first star among the angels, or the angel that was cast from heaven. The translation was wrong, and Lucifer as Satan was born.",
"It's interesting to note that the figure of Satan/Lucifer is actually an amalgamation of three figures in mythology. 1) The Serpent in the garden of Eden. A figure of corruption. 2) Ha-Satan, which means 'The Adversary.' Think of him as a celestial District Attorney that lays out your sins when you die and stand before God and are judged. He also has a spot in Heaven and converses with God on a regular basis. 3) Lucifer, fallen Angel, which others here have covered very well. They all sorta got mashed together over the last two thousand years.",
"Its in the bible. Specifically, [Isaiah 14:12]( URL_0 ). Here, it talks about the angel who wanted to put himself above God, and it calls him \"Light-bringer\" or Lucifer.",
"At the Bible college that I attended, one of the OT professors said that the first tie-in of Lucifer and Satan was contributed by Jerome, of Vulgate fame.",
"I'm not sure what the origin is, but it is interesting, because \"lucifer\" in roman refers to the morning star. The last thing that Jesus says in the book of revelations is, \"I am the bright and morning star.\" I kind of see it as a commentary on the duality of man, but I'm no biblical scholar.",
"2 Corinthians 11: > 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. > 14 And no marvel; **for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light**. > 15 Therefore it is no great thing if **his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness**; whose end shall be according to their works."
],
"score": [
1399,
172,
114,
21,
13,
12,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14%3A12&version=KJV"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qkk7d | Why is it okay in the U.K for people to have sex at 16 but not watch porn until they're 18? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkxyk00"
],
"text": [
"It's not illegal for people under 18 to watch porn in the UK, because private possession of porn isn't illegal. So a kid at 16 could legally watch all the porn they want. URL_0 > The sale or distribution of hardcore pornography through any channel was prohibited until the rules were relaxed in 2002, however the rules are still quite strict.[citation needed] The possession of pornographic images for private use has traditionally not been an offence in the UK. This means that UK citizens have been able to access content on sites overseas without breaking any laws, except for child pornography.[citation needed]"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_Kingdom"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qmliu | what's the difference between a strategist and a tactician? | In an article I read today, putin was referred to as a good tactician, but not a good strategist. I thought the we're synonyms. To be honest. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkyev5o"
],
"text": [
"Strategy is big picture, tactics is more technical. A military example would be: \"let's move our armies to X area to damage the enemy's food supplies\" - strategy \"let's go this way and flank the enemy with our soldiers\" - tactics"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qmr6i | Why do we tend to have a different name for countries than the native language's name? For example: we call it "Japan" in English but the Japanese word is "Nippon", or how the French call Germany "Allemagne" when it's "Deutschland" in German. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkyg5li",
"dkz7img",
"dkzmg49",
"dkz3k9t"
],
"text": [
"[\"Names of Germany\" has its own Wikipedia article]( URL_0 ). They are all historic, in this case named after different tribes that were present in today's Germany at some point. Once a name is established in a language (family), it tends to stay that way, but that happened at different times and for different regions of what is known as Germany today.",
"OP, I like how your second example is why France calls Germany 'Allemagne', when the English \"Germany\" is obviously distinct from the real name, \"Deutschland\"",
"Interesting exception: it seems Canada is the same (phonetically) in pretty well every language. I assume for two reasons: 1) Canada is derived from the Iroquois word 'kanata', which doesn't have an obvious translation. (Kanata means 'village', but Canada is almost the 'brand name', like KFC, if that makes sense) 2) The country is new enough that everyone just accepted the name and didn't have a few hundred years of chance encounters to 'telephone' it into something different.",
"Not sure if this abides the rules as it's not really an explanation but as someone who is bilingual, other languages do the same thing. I know for a fact other languages don't always call America by it's English name, or Americans by the English name either."
],
"score": [
50,
19,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Germany"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qnbax | why are rappers often involved in feuds with other rappers? Is it necessary for their career in order to attract media attention or is all of it just made up for the purposes of making money? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkyll56",
"dkz5dp9",
"dkyun4y"
],
"text": [
"While there are always legitimate dislikes between people in the same field, much of it is for the same reason you see a lot of \"featuring\" credits on songs: it broadens your audience. If you write a rap song attacking another rapper, you get not only your normal audience but also a share of theirs who will listen to your track because it mentions their guy. Likewise, when that rapper drops a track attacking you in return, you both profit from the increased attention. It's important to remember that the stage persona of musicians is a managed fiction. There are a lot of very clever people who are selling a certain story to get you to buy albums. While some degree of reality will always seep through, most of the drama you hear about is drama you're *allowed* to hear about because it serves the purposes of those cashing the checks.",
"One part of it I can't see anyone having mentioned is gang affiliations. While most rappers probably aren't in gangs, there are certainly some. The beef that claimed Biggie and Tupac was most likely due to the gang affiliations of their producers (Suge knight and Puff Daddy)",
"Couple answers here are almost there - the one thing I feel they're missing is the conflict between community and capitalism. Hip Hop and it's five pillars - Rap, DJing, Graffiti, Breakdancing and beat boxing - were locked down back in the 70s and 80s - ostensibly by the now disgraced Afrika Bambaata, as a method of cultural expression but also conflict resolution. The use of art and music as conflict resolution has a deep history in African and Afro-centric cultures (here's [a source]( URL_0 ) ) and a good book, but also check out essays on by Richard Schechner) Feuds between artists aren't uncommon - Byron and Keats hated each other, Shakespeare and Jonson had their issues. The difference between now and then are the communities that form around artists. Hip Hop artists on the whole come from deprived and low-income communities. US Hip Hop culture (as opposed to UK Hip Hop culture) has a long history of apprenticeship and philanthropy. Artists often bring up their retinue through the ranks, or take care of them. Hence, when a feud begins you'll often have communities rushing to the defence of their artist (a la subreddit brigading). Record labels, managers and PR companies have recognised this as a business opportunity. Conflict content generates ad revenues on sites and channels such TMZ, worldstar etc, giving greater opportunities for brand placements etc. Just as 'real' state-level conflicts are exacerbated by outside forces, the same is true here. Battle rappers, just the same as battle bboys and bgirls, graff jammers, battle dmcs, beatbox battlers *can* and do earn a living from that conflict - but it's nowhere on the same scale as someone on a Universal subsidiary contract. TL; DR - Yes and No; rap is confrontational by its very nature, but capitalism and labels ruin everything."
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PaaM4u5q0R0C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=hip+hop+as+conflict+resolution+afrika&source=bl&ots=57QJxw2b3g&sig=BtmrV7mRPCbY2Eu2g3B24Qykj14&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiorrH64bPVAhUBVxoKHdkGB3gQ6AEIUzAM#v=onepage&q&f=false"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qo8tv | Why do words hurt? | I've just been thinking about it, and I'm genuinely curious why people can be so affected by them, is there an actual reason our brains take a nasty insult worse than a punch? And also why some people can easily shrug off insults, where it can completely break others. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkyoupi",
"dkyq14d",
"dkyps2c",
"dkz43f6"
],
"text": [
"Human are a social species. How others perceive us is very important to our future success and well-being. So, discovering that someone disrespects you is a somewhat serious problem. It's not the words themselves, it's what they imply about your status.",
"> is there an actual reason our brains take a nasty insult worse than a punch? Yes. [Humans are a social animal]( URL_0 ) Humans are descended from millions of years of social species, and it's deeply hardwired into our brains. Our ancestors survived against much stronger, much faster and much more numerous odds because they cooperated long-term. Exclusion from a group means you'll get attacked by stronger predators, or you'll starve from being unable to provide for yourself. This means that a really nasty comment from a peer will affect some primal areas of your brain that signal danger, even more so if other peers seem to agree. > And also why some people can easily shrug off insults, where it can completely break others. Too many factors to list, let alone explain. Genetics, parental upbringing, peer-group upbringing, greater community culture, unique personal experience. Humans are the most complex social animals we've studied, even though we're humans.",
"According to [Maslow's hierarchy of needs]( URL_0 ) Love/belonging is the 3rd basic need out of 5. Here is an excerpt from that section. - After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third level of human needs is interpersonal and involves feelings of belongingness. This need is especially strong in childhood and it can override the need for safety as witnessed in children who cling to abusive parents. Deficiencies within this level of Maslow's hierarchy – due to hospitalism, neglect, shunning, ostracism, etc. – can adversely affect the individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general. **According to Maslow, humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance among their social groups, regardless whether these groups are large or small.** For example, some large social groups may include clubs, co-workers, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, and gangs. Some examples of small social connections include family members, intimate partners, mentors, colleagues, and confidants. Humans need to love and be loved – both sexually and non-sexually – by others. Many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression in the absence of this love or belonging element. This need for belonging may overcome the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure. (additional explanation if it helps) When others put us down it affects our feeling of belongingness, especially when in a group (getting yelled at in private vs infront of a group of peers). How you take it depends on your perceived social status of the one insulting you; if a homeless man says you suck most would brush it off due to his social status; but if your boss said you suck infront of your co-workers it would have a greater effect. This could come from a natural survival need where an outcast in a group could be left behind or given less food/water/shelter than someone perceived as more \"alpha\" and \"more important\".",
"There are some great answers here already, but something less-scientific: I believe it has to do with an individuals history and their personal narrative inside of their head. That's why you can say the exact same thing in the same way to two different people and they react differently. I recommend reading a book by *Don Miguel Ruiz called Mastery of Love*. It goes on to describe how we have emotional wounds - like physical wounds - that are usually never healed. When people say things to us, sometimes it touches on these wounds, and the individual feels hurt by what was said. Sometimes what was said doesn't touch any wounds or doubts and the person shrugs it off while others completely internalize the \"poison\" that the speaker has tried to spread (because they themselves are hurting and releasing the poison from their wounds relieves their pain). People are very familiar with how physical injuries are cared for and heal, but most of the time people aren't taught how to heal emotional wounds. Instead they cover them with bandages (lies). Only truth can heal emotional wounds, and the truth hurts. Truth is the scalpel that's used to cut out the poison in our emotional wounds so we can heal. Once you understand how people are walking around with emotional wounds, it's easy to see how they may be lashing out at others, and you can either let them poison you and take it personally, or you can refuse to be poisoned, know that it's their issue and not let it affect your day. A great test is imagining someone else saying it to you. Would you have reacted the same way? Many times when you ask this question the answer is no, you would have shrugged it off as someone being a little crazy. Which points to the issue not being yours, and you can let go and not hold onto what's going on - don't take it personally. For example: You had the day off and your spouse has been working all day. You make sure dinner is ready when they get home because when you're at work you're hungry when you get home. They walk through the door, and are in a really bad mood. There is some comment about the food, or maybe it's the kids, or something else going on in the house or the room. You can either get upset and take it as a personal attack, or you can pause, imagine if someone on the street who you never knew said that. You'd think, 'wow, they must be having a bad day, that sucks' and keep on your way. This is how you know that your emotional state is making you take it personally. This allows you to rise above your own emotions, recognize that it's not a personal attack and your spouse is hurting in some way and probably needs your support but doesn't know how to ask for it."
],
"score": [
28,
22,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animal#Eusociality"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qomml | Is there an official IQ test? Also why do many people online seem to know their IQ but in real life I've never heard someone mention it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkyrrv6",
"dkyrzzs",
"dkys44c",
"dkyt327",
"dkyvoyl",
"dkz3b4g"
],
"text": [
"There are official IQ tests that you can pay to have done. (Keen parents often have their children take them). People mention it online because they confuse IQ, which commonly tests pattern recognition and speed, with something that affects their logic or inherent knowledge. They believe that a higher number (100 being average) is inherently an indicator that they are more likely to be right, regardless of the situation. People who mention this in real life tend to lack the social awareness to know that the above is not true, and don't socialize as much, making them less common.",
"dont underestimate the likelyhood that they are lying, or that they took a poor imitation from a shoddy website. Those that are truly smart are unlikely to brag about it. In any case, the IQ test is a poor representation of the intelligence we appreciate, so even if someone does manage a good score on it, if this is their only claim to fame, it shouldnt count for much.",
"The closest to \"official\" will be the tests organised by Mensa in various countries. These are supervised paper-and-pencil tests, not online. The thing about IQ is that it's something you were born with. If a test is a genuine measure of IQ, you did nothing to earn it and can take no credit for it. So it's generally not considered polite to talk about it. But it is real, and correlates strongly with success in education and life in general. edit: never been to /r/iamverysmart before. I think the title is meant to be ironic ...",
"There are several internationally recognized IQ tests out there. Any legitimate test will need to be paid for and given by a trained, professional adjudicator, in person, several times. The results will vary slightly between the different tests and between test taking, and very high or very low scores can indicate a different test needs to be given for more accuracy. The current Wechsler test is only accurate between 70-135 or so, and the Stanford-Binet is only accurate between 60-160 or so. These are the two most common tests because they account for 99% of the world's population.",
"There are various tests designed to measure various aspects of a person's intelligence in all the various ways that can be interpreted / manifested. It's not an exact science and there is no real single score for human intelligence - plenty of incredibly smart people are terrible at things which \"average\" people are good at. It's quite ironic that a lot of IQ tests seem aimed at getting people to pay money to be told how smart they are.",
"Some people online claim to have a very high IQ, because there's no way to dispute their claim, and they think it makes their opinions more valid if they have a high IQ. But this makes as much sense as claiming to be a better cook, because their hair is curly. In real life, people don't often go around claiming a high IQ, because you interact mostly with people you know, and no one is going to believe the guy who was just eating paint chips is walking around with a 150 IQ."
],
"score": [
47,
7,
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qp8lf | What is a Groom's cake and why do people have them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkywljc"
],
"text": [
"It can be very difficult to make a wedding cake large enough to feed all the guests at a wedding, so in the American South they started to have the tradition of having a second cake that was called the groom's cake. Where the wedding cake is normally white and highly decorated (thus bridal) the groom's cake is normally chocolate or red velvet and far less decorated."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qpat5 | Why do we have upper and lower case letters, but not numbers? | Did we ever have such a distinction? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkyy5uc",
"dkyx2x6"
],
"text": [
"[Who says we don't?]( URL_0 ) In fact, upper-case numbers are pretty much all you see these days, you just didn't realize it.",
"Upper case letters are useful to indicate proper nouns, sentence starts, acronyms, etc. What would upper case numbers be helpful for - basically, where in math would an uppercase 1 mean something different than a lowercase 1 without just turning our mathematics into a base 20 system? And if that was the case, why not just have new characters for the numbers?"
],
"score": [
38,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/54423/why-dont-upper-case-numbers-exist"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qpkg7 | How does the "Meta" in Video Games develop? | How does the metagaming come about in game that are played competitively like Street Fighter or Overwatch? Do developers account for that or is it a entirely fan made thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkz5y1t",
"dkz1sdi",
"dkz1ie6",
"dkz6dzn",
"dkz7irr"
],
"text": [
"The metagame is almost always originally created by players. Players want to try to win, typically certain strategies are more effective. Even with \"perfect balance\" players' preferences tend to congregate (for example, a group of influential people agree a strategy is good, so they begin playing it. As they become experienced with that strategy, writing guides and so forth, they get better with that strategy so the strategy becomes even better). It's inevitable that certain strategies will become more common. Developers will often influence the metagame by nerfing strategies that are deemed too powerful or \"too stagnant\" so the players and fans don't get bored. Developers might also choose to reinforce the metagame. Somewhat famously in League of Legends, developers force players to play with assigned lanes fitting predefined roles. It was a bit controversial, because this means every single league game follows the same formulaic lane assignments. (Compare to other MOBAs where the lane you choose to go is a very important strategic decision.) But there are advantages as well. When you log in and play a game of League, you know exactly what you're doing and what your responsibilities are. For a 30 minute game with 9 other complete strangers, it makes it a lot easier to jump in.",
"The developers can make changes to the game to steer it in the direction that they want it to go, but for the most part it's a top-tier-player made thing. They figure out what is THE most efficient thing to do and then do it because if they're anything less than perfect, they will lose. Using Overwatch for example, the recent change to Roadhog to prevent him from being able to one-hit most of the cast has made him drop out of the meta. I doubt that was the intent, but it happened because there are now better options available.",
"ELI5: What is the correct definition of Meta gaming?",
"The \"meta\" is just what the playerbase is trending towards, in terms of gameplay. When it comes to competitive PvP games like Overwatch, the \"meta\" basically means which characters are most used, typically perceived as the \"best\" at that point in time. An example of the meta changing is with Super Smash Bros Melee, how Jigglypuff was, for a long time, considered to be a mediocre character, but then a player named Mang0 (and later another player, Hungrybox) showed that the character was actually very good and could compete with the \"high tier\" characters if you got good enough. Jigglypuff is now considered \"high tier\" as well.",
"From the perspective of competitive PvP gaming, a metagame is generally driven by the players. The point of a metagame is that to describe the landscape of what strategies lead to a higher win-rate given the current state of what other players are doing. Think of it if you were playing a competitive Rock/Paper/Scissor league. If you know going into a given match and knew that your opponent throws Rock 40% / Paper 40% / Scissor 20%, you would choose to start with Paper because you only lose 20% of the time by doing so. The metagame of a competitive scene is much like that where you try to gather statistics and intuition about what other players' strategies are, and pick your strategy to maximize your win rate in that environment. Developers can influence how the metagame looks by making the game unbalanced such that one strategy is dramatically stronger than others, but most decent games won't truly have their meta controlled by the devs for too long since no matter how strong a given strategy is usually there will be some way to counter it."
],
"score": [
63,
41,
14,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qq4c6 | What's the Mandela Effect? And why is it named after Nelson Mandela? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkz49bz",
"dkz3th0"
],
"text": [
"The mandala effect is a phenomena that occurs when something incorrect becomes accepted as fact by the public, even though what's accepted isn't true. Examples being \"The Berenstien Bears\" is actually \"The Berenstain Bears\", The monopoly guy having a monocle (he doesn't), and the fact that Darth Vaders famous line is often quoted as \"Luke, I am your father.\" When in reality it's \"No, I AM your father.\" As for its origins, it was \"Common Knowledge\" that Nelson Mandela had died in that South African prison, but in reality, he got out after 27 years, became president, and eventually died in 2013 from a respiratory infection.",
"It's a pop culture term for \"false memories,\" a concept where people believe something happened when it didn't actually happen. It's called the Mandela effect because one of the common false memories is people believing that Nelson Mandela died in prison. Some people speculate that these false memories are proof of an alternate dimension... but the most logical explanation is that some incorrect memories are socially reinforced."
],
"score": [
43,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6qy47a | The persistence of end-of-the-world claims. | Even people that don't believe in religious texts can get swept up in end-of-days panic. In this century alone, we've been through two abruptly canceled Apocalypses (Y2K and 21/12/2012). Is it psychological, something people are simply prone to believe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl0ujy6",
"dl0wprp"
],
"text": [
"Y2K was not \"abruptly canceled\". It was prevented, through an incredible amount of work. We saw it coming, and we fixed it, with millions of hours of coding and bug-fixing. The cost of all the work to prevent the problem is estimated at over $400 billion in today's money.",
"Y2K was fixed, as another commenter said. 21/12/2012 was a widespread misunderstanding. > Is it psychological, something people are simply prone to believe? Yes. But it's not an unfounded fear, either. There is ample evidence that worldwide cataclysmic events take place with alarming regularity. For example, if you look at graphs of ice core samples, around 11,000 years ago there are drastic swings in temperature coinciding with deposits in the sedimentary layers that point to asteroid strikes. These kinds of events happen all the time, and if one happened now it would be a wordwide disaster the likes of which we have never seen. Heading into speculation here, so don't crucify me, but humans have been anatomically modern for about 200,000 years. If we have records of these disasters as recent as 11,000 years ago, it would stand to reason that humans would have an innate fear of these kinds of events above the normal rational fear."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6qynr9 | What exactly is happening at the White House and why are so many people being fired? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl0zmx7",
"dl10p59",
"dl1274t",
"dl12nl1"
],
"text": [
"The man's catchprase is, \"You're fired!\" He has recieved a lot of positive reinforcement from that action and so he defaults to it when he is unsure.",
"A man with no political experience and no experience running an organization with any significant number of employees is having difficulty running a large political organization with a large number of employees. That he's also vain, stupid, old, fat, and narcissistic doesn't help.",
"Oy. Well, there's a lot going on. Lots of books are going to be written about what's going on. So I'll try to make this as short as possible. There's a power struggle going on in the White House right now, between two factions. On the one hand there are the Republican party faithful--the people who have been working for the republican party for many years and whose political approach is pretty mainstream republican. These are Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and some others. They have no particular loyalty to the president, and the president wasn't particularly drawn to them or close to them. But they're loyal team players who want to advance the goals of the republican party and want the country to thrive. Most Republican congressional members would fall into this same camp. Then on the other hand are the Trump loyalists. Trump tends to like people who are not the typical people hired by the republican party faithful. People like Anthony Scaramucci or Steve Bannon. People who are narcissistic and power-hungry. People who are loyal only to Trump. People who may be destructive, who are not team players, and who have a selfish agenda. People who may not have the normal set of skills that those in such positions have, but who Trump likes because they remind him of himself. Or who are family and may not have any decent experience in the area they're asked to work in, but Trump doesn't care because he doesn't recognize what skills people need to succeed in a given role. Trump has a history of hiring sycophants and flatterers who may not be the best person for the job. So his children and son-in-law have been given wide-ranging responsibilities that they don't know how to do. These two factions--party loyalists vs. Trump inner circle--don't work well together. Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer don't fit in well with such people, who they see as dangerous and problematic and maybe incompetent for the job they're called upon to do. Like Bannon, who has said \"I’m a Leninist ... Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.\" For example. This has caused tensions. Spicer was originally hired as Communications Director of the White House, but Trump forced him to take on the job of White House Press Secretary, which he wasn't happy with and wasn't good at. A more traditional politician would soon find someone for the Press Secretary job and keep Spicer at the job he wanted and was originally hired for and was good at--Communications Director. Trump isn't a good manager and didn't see the point of doing that so things continued in that not great way. He didn't listen to the experts or people with experience. His inexperienced son-in-law wanted trump to hire Anthony Scaramucci as Communications Director, despite the major misgivings that experienced people had about the guy. Eventually, both Spicer and Priebus said they'd quit if Scaramucci was hired. But he was still hired. In a face-off between the inner circle (Jared Kushner) and the traditional people (Spicer and Priebus), the inner circle virtually always wins. This is an example of the waning power that the old guard has in the Trump administration. But there IS one non-inner circle type that Trump will still pay heed to, and that's military men. He went to military school himself and likes to associate himself with power and the military, notwithstanding his draft dodging. So he chose a general to replace Reince Priebus--4 star general John Kelly. Kelly said Scaramucci had to go, so Trump went along with what he said, even though 2 people had just quit because trump insisted on hiring Scaramucci. But the loss of Spicer and Priebus was no big deal to Trump, he hadn't wanted them so much anyway, and they weren't inner circle. There'd been a battle going on behind the scenes between Priebus and Bannon since the beginning. Another tension going on in the Trump White House is the Russia investigation. Russia tried to influence the election. The extent to which they did that is currently being investigated, as is whether or not Trump and his associates were complicit in it. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not they were complicit, the investigation alone is causing a lot of tension and stress in the White House, and Trump periodically lashes out about it. So first there was General Flynn, Trump's National Security Advisor, who was found to have not disclosed many interactions he had during the campaign and before, with Russians and Putin. The non-disclosure was severe enough that he was fired. Jared Kushner has also been found to have not disclosed many interactions with Russians, which should get him fired, too, and is in fact a potential felony because he filled out a form for security clearance and concealed this info. Anyone else would be fired and possibly prosecuted for this. But Trump isn't doing that because Kushner is an inner circle member and, literally, family. There are all kind of government rules about who you can hire and can't hire, and there are rules against hiring your own family, but Trump has been shown in his life to push and push and push the envelope of acceptability and legality, so he just went ahead and put the family in close advisory positions. There's a strong case to be made about this being wrong, but because the Republicans control congress, they're not doing anything to curtail such activities, so it ends up being accepted. As the investigation into the Russian ties continued, Trump fired James Comey, FBI director who was investigating Russia's involvement. This was very suspicious looking as Comey didn't do anything wrong and Trump's explanation for why he fired Comey was specious--he said he did it because he treated Hillary Clinton unfairly, which nobody believes Trump actually would care about. That said, it's totally legal for him to fire Comey for any reason he wants. So then a independent investigation was started, with highly respected former FBI director Robert Mueller heading it. This is causing the same problems for Trump as Comey was, so he *wants* to fire him but isn't doing so because it would look even more suspicious. And unlike with Comey, Trump can't directly fire Mueller, because it's a Justice Department investigation. The Justice Department is supposed to be independent so only the Attorney General can fire Mueller. Which brings us to Sessions. He was a Trump loyalist from the beginning--the first senator to say he supported Trump's candidacy back in the early days of the primary elections. Trump liked him and considered him to be a loyal guy early on. He, too, did not disclose a number of interactions he had with Russia and Putin. As a result, he was pressured to recuse himself from any Russia investigation, which he did. So Ron Rosenstein, who works below Sessions, became the one to oversee the Mueller investigation. This angered Trump because of course he wanted Sessions, a loyal insider to be in this high position in the investigation. Trump has said that had he known Sessions would recuse himself, he wouldn't have hired him and Sessions should have told him before he was hired that he'd recuse himself, so Trump could have picked someone else. But that's a bit odd because at the time Sessions was hired, there was no investigation going on so how would Sessions have known that there would be anything to recuse himself from in the future, and why would Trump think at that early date that there might be anything suspicious enough going on that it should be investigated? In any case, Trump is angry at Sessions and wants to fire him, but that, too, would be suspicious and upset Republicans, so he's not doing it.",
"You're missing on so many levels; except stating your own polarized opinion. Both sides serially lie. Both sides serially sling mud. Both sides have their share of corrupt and deluded asshats. What we are seeing here is a cabinet and president with far less experience and political sophistication being fed to the machine in Washington. And - yeah he is making it worse for himself by stepping on his dick every other step. . People who are continuously disappointed that there hasn't been an impeachment simply don't understand that impeachment is more political solution that a criminal / justice process. The president is -for all intents and purposes- immune from prosecution. Impeachment happens when a majority of congress, including the presidents party, loses faith in the president's political viability. Yes- criminal actions can lead down that path- but it's less about punishing crime than it is about removing an unviable leader. But I'm saddened if that's what we are all rooting for. What we need is a viable third party, term limits and serious campaign finance reform. We may as well update how we vote in the process and investigate both sides for manipulation of voting rolls and blatant gerrymandering. If only we had a charismatic outsider with enough money of his own to take on this mission without being beholden to the lobbyists and cronies in DC... oh wait. until the left steps off their high horse and joins the rest of us in facing the real issue- which is the rotting cadaver that our federal government has become- we won't get anywhere. Just look what happened to Bernie. We all know Hillary's issues- they were too obvious to ignore. Trump shelled both parties with his message and convinced people he would take a stand against corruption. I don't personally buy it - it's just the same old populist rhetoric. But enough voters either bought it or saw nothing to lose given the \"turd sandwich\" alternative. So - Dwayne \"the rock\" Johnson 2020. He has a real Shot unless Kanye cannibalizes the multi talented B-list celebrity vote. Welcome to democracy in the 21st century."
],
"score": [
14,
11,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6r17g9 | The events leading up and causing the Korean War | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl1m2bd",
"dl1lp5g"
],
"text": [
"How far back to you want to go? :) The roots lie in the 1853 Opening of Japan, where Commodore Perry a few modern steamships basically started shooting stuff until the then technologically backwards Japan agreed to trade with the US. This was a wakeup call for Japan, which lead to a period of modernization and westernization know as the Meiji Restoration. Meanwhile, the Opium Wars were going on in China, where the west was continuing its tradition of treating China like a punching bag. A few decades later, an emerging Japan decided, like other world powers, it needed colonies, so it invaded and annexed Korea, then Manchuria, a part of China. The west was not pleased, especially the UK and France, who were weakened by WWI and feared for their colonies. They responded with an embargo, and Japan strarted to get bogged down in Manchuria due to shortages, particularly rubber and oil. This was one of the cheif reasons Japan participated in WWII. At the end of WWII Japan lost its new colonies, and Korea, like Germany, was divided between the US and the Soviets. The Soviets bravely hopped over the border to northern Korea when most of the fighting was over, while the south rushed to surrender to the US instead. There was supposed to be an election to decide the fate of Korea, but neither side would agree to an election that wasn't rigged in their favor, and Korea remained divided. Kim Jong Il led the North, while Syngman Rhee led the South. Both were active in the fighting for Korea independence against the Japanese, but were essentially puppets for the US and USSR. In 1948, Russia gambled that the US was weary of war and would not defend a country so far away they lacked cultural ties to, and backed a North Korean invasion, with ~~Kim Jong Il~~ Kim Il Sung quickly controlling most of the country. The gamble was wrong, and the US and UN intervened, and pushed Kim back, also almost completely controlling the country. At that point, a sleeping giant awoke. During WWII, China was fighting a civil war as well as the Japanese. The Mao Jedong led communists came out on top, and quickly consolodated their power. No longer weak, China decided to flex its muscles, and supported their fellow communists. They entered the war to a degree the Soviets were not willing to, and fought the UN forces to a draw. This is part of the reason why China supports North Korea, as it has great cultural significance to them. The fact North Korea exists is a testiment to China exerting its strength in the international area for the first time in centuries.",
"Korea had been a colony of Imperial Japan for several decade. After they unconditionally surrendered to the United States, their territorial possessions were taken away. Korea was granted independence with the caveat that the country be split in half at the 38th parallel, with the North being a communist State, and the South being a non communist State. In 1949 the North launched an invasion of the South, and quickly took over most territory in the country. A UN force consisting of primarily Americans were sent in to respond. The US has drastically downsized the military after WW2, and many of the Soldiers and Marines were sent in with minimal notice and very little training(2 weeks or less in some cases). The US was very successful, and quickly pushed the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel. The US made a decision at this point to push further North. They got too close to the Chinese border, and China responded by entering the War. They pushed the US almost all of the way back to the 38th parallel. After that it stayed in a deadlocked stalemate for a couple of years until a ceasefire was negotiated."
],
"score": [
22,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6r2p51 | Where do last names come from? | I mean I can kinda figure out Smithson, but there are so many names that seem to have no meaning or at least a meaning that makes no sense to use as a last name like the italian Ariette | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl1y37j",
"dl1vdq7"
],
"text": [
"Arietta is, I believe, a Spanish surname (\"Ariette\" would be French, or else the plural of the Italian word \"arietta\" which means \"short aria\"), and would describe a family that originated in the village of Arietta, which is in the Basque region of Spain. The name of the village comes from the Basque \"Harrieta\" which means \"stony place\". There are many different types of surname. Some are derived from the given name of an ancestor, others from the place the family comes from, still others describe an ancestor's physical characteristic or, more rarely, their personality, and others describe a profession. Some names began as nicknames or even insults. In many cultures -- European cultures certainly -- families were forced to adopt surnames, sometimes against their will, in order to streamline the collection of taxes and track inherited wealth. This sometimes leads to some anomalies: for example, when the English made the Welsh adopt surnames, many Welsh families opted for the common English surname \"Jones\" (which means \"son of John\") even though there was no \"J\" in the Welsh alphabet. People simply had to come up with a name, and different people used different strategies. For example, \"Rothschild\" comes from German, and is actually pronounced roughly \"rote-shilt\": it literally means \"red sign\", and comes from the 16th-century practice of identifying houses by using differently coloured signs and symbols. The name \"Hoover\" is the anglicised version of the German \"Huber\", and this word means a person who owns a hide of land -- a hide in Germany was the area of land that could support one family (something in the region of 20 acres or so). So \"Hoover\" essentially means \"comfortably well-off landowner who can support his whole family\". Another German surname is Wagner, denoted somebody who makes carts -- which means that the name of the composer best known for his epic Ring Cycle, especially the piece called [*The Ride of the Valkyries*]( URL_0 ), translates as \"Dick Cartwright\". Meanwhile, the Italian Giuseppe Verdi, famous for such classics as *Rigoletto*, translates as \"Joe Green\"; as a surname, \"Green\" probably indicates somebody who lived in the country.",
"In English, and probably a lot of other languages, there are 4 main sources for surnames. - Place of origin (Washington, Lincoln) - Profession (Baker, Cooper, Smith) - Physical description (Long, Young) - Objects or animals (Bush, Hawke, Gates) Names can also be introduced from other cultures (generall with similar origins to the above) and then maybe they get altered because the words don't mean anything specific in the new culture."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRU1AJsXN1g"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6r2ywz | Why humans are so inclined to seek any form of "drugs" | It seems every culture we know of have only one thing in common. They all discovered alcohol. They drank for recreation. Hell, agriculture itself was discovered by accident in the making of alcohol. Marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, the list goes on. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl1y57p",
"dl1wxq1",
"dl1wyuf"
],
"text": [
"Neurotransmitters are a kind of chemical found in the brain. The brain uses them for many things, and one of those things is to reward you for good behaviour. Good behaviour can include activities that increase your likelihood of surviving and spreading your genes - things like eating tasty food (to make your body stronger) or having sex. When you do these things, your brain will release, among other things, dopamine or serotonin, which are two types of neurotransmitters. Drugs are a way of bypassing the good behaviour part and going straight for the rewards. Its like eating your dessert without having to eat the vegetables first. They're a quick, easy way of feeling good, without having to go to the effort of doing the activities that normally make you feel good. Now, Our current brain physiology evolved long before we could make alcohol or other drugs. The neurotransmitters were not designed to be used in this way. You also get far larger releases of neurotransmitters from drugs than you would naturally. Drugs are basically a way of hacking your brain to feel way better than you could have without them. The cost, of course, is that our brains are not meant to handle those levels of neurotransmitters. If not used with caution, drugs can upset brain chemistry and cause depression, aggression, etc. They can also make us less sensitive to the reward chemicals, so that we need more of them to feel anything. Sometimes, we can control it and act rationally, using drugs sparingly. But sometimes, the reward can be too irresistible, and can sometimes override our rational thinking or decision-making. This is especially true for people who have suffered in their lives and struggle to feel good naturally (like with PTSD, for example). In certain circumstances, and with certain drugs, people will do things that they would never normally do (e.g. stealing), just to secure their next dose of artificial reward. The pull can be just too strong. This is why addiction is so dangerous. Edit: spelling",
"They're fun, feel good, and if used correctly can be effective tools for exploring your thoughts and feelings.",
"Recreational drugs feel good. Humans like to feel good. There are lots of substances that make you feel terrible, and humans generally don't take them unless someone can convince them that they're effective medicine. The ones that are used recreationally all make people feel good, and that's by definition something people want to do."
],
"score": [
21,
18,
13
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6r3rtc | Is it just a huge coincidence that the words "Brutal" and "Brute" has the same "stem" as the name Brutus who killed Caesar or did his name shape these words? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl22gge",
"dl2271v",
"dl232so",
"dl28t6i"
],
"text": [
"The words shaped his name. In traditional accounts of Roman history, Lucius Junius avoided death at the hands of King Tarquinia by pretending that he was less intelligent than he was, and therefore not a threat. \"Brutus\" references this apparent lack of wit, meaning at the time,\"stupid.\" In essence, a nickname, which later became a cognomen (a third name that had become hereditary). Much later on, the word brutal also became associated with 'animal behavior' (unthinking, inconsiderate, savage).",
"They both share a common root that Latin absorbed hundreds of years before. Brutus was also a very common name within Brutus's family, dating back, again, hundreds of years. While they derive from a common word, the actions of Brutus did not change the meaning of the Latin word brutus",
"Possibly it's not a coincidence but not in the way you're thinking. Brutus in Latin is more slow-witted than violent. Like \"Caesar\", \"Augustus\" or \"Cicero\" (= chickpea), Brutus is a cognomen, something like a nickname although they became traditional names in families. There are other Bruti in Roman history. URL_0 English kings used to have something similar - Edward the Connfessor, William the Conqueror, Aethelread the Unready.",
"According to the [Online Etymology Dictionary]( URL_1 ) the word's origins go back to [the Proto-Indo-European language]( URL_0 ). PIE is the reconstructed common ancestor of almost all the European languages including Latin, English, all the romance languages and the Norse languages including Norwegian. The original meaning in PIE was something like \"heavy\". By the time of Latin and the various Brutuses it had connotations of \"dull\" or \"stupid\" as of something or someone heavy and slow moving. Later in French the meaning had shifted a little to more like \"coarse\" and \"crude\". From there it entered English around the early 15th century from Middle French, this time with another slight shift in meaning to \"animal-like\". From there the word continued to shift towards the current meaning. Given that the modern meaning evolved gradually over such a long time it is more reasonable to see the name Brutus as being taken from the meaning of the word at the time of Latin, rather than the other way around. The similarity in all the later languages is primarily due to the word coming from the common root of all the Indo-European languages combined with various later borrowings and influences between those related languages."
],
"score": [
274,
26,
17,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cognomina"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language",
"http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=brute&allowed_in_frame=0"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6r5zj6 | Why do some cultures typically eat 3 square meals, whereas some other cultures eat 5-6 meals a day? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl2t9v1"
],
"text": [
"When a community typically eats - and how much they eat when they do - is decided by a multitude of factors, but most of which boil down to, \"when do we have time to eat?\" So in a culture that has predominantly been \"self-employed\" - people are working for themselves (i.e. sustenance), and controlled their own schedules, they'll eat when they feel hungry, and only eat until they're full. This would predispose them to eating several smaller meals. However, in cultures where the majority does not control their own schedule - employment by others, or if you go back far enough, enslavement by others - the person who employs you or owns you will generally be seeking to extract as much work from you as possible. As such, they want to give you as little downtime as possible, which typically translates to only one meal during the work period (instead of many). This, in turn, predisposes you to eat less meals, and eat more during those meals. In America, at least, the trend of 3 square meals a day has largely been the result of marketing. Even living an employment culture, we didn't have such strict food assumptions - we ate what we had, and during whatever time we had. But during WWII, America developed a huge manufacturing capacity out of nowhere - and had no where to put it and nothing to do with it afterwards. So there was a massive, massive cultural push towards excessive consumerism, and a marketing movement to go with it. Instead of equating consumption with luxury (which was the previous norm), they created the image of tremendous consumption as the default or the norm - that your home wasn't a proper home unless it was a big suburban house, that your kitchen wasn't a proper kitchen unless it was filled with all these appliances, etc. This created a much bigger market, one which was also much more reliable (since people wouldn't just buy stuff they wanted, but what they felt like they actually needed). So, if you need to push people to buy a ton of food and a ton of kitchen appliances, you're going to need to convince them to use it. So not only was there a greater push for structured meal times, but for certain foods to be associated with meal times, i.e. pancakes and bacon as breakfast foods but steak as a dinner food. That way, even if you have a lot of steak, you're not just going to keep eating that until it's gone, because it's not a breakfast food - so you'll also get bacon, because that is a breakfast food! And if you have a lot of pancake mix, you won't just keep eating that until it's gone, because it's not real dinner food - you'll also buy proper dinner carbs like bread. You can't just eat dinner leftovers for breakfast, you have to get actual *breakfast food*. This established a cultural norm of only eating certain foods at certain times of the day, which would not only push you to buying more food in general, but also more appliances to make those foods (i.e. you can't make pancakes in a regular ol' pan, you have to use a skillet). So take a cultural trend in one direction that pushes for \"less meals where you eat a greater amount of food\" right into \"eat only certain foods at certain times of the day because that is 'proper'\", and you get a predisposition to a big dinner, and a big-ish lunch or breakfast (or both)."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6r67d3 | Why are college institutions like Sororities popular in American and some Canadian universities but unknown in other countries? | When I travelled abroad I tried to explain to people what the Greek system is all about. From my explanations some thought it is a charity organization, others probably imagined it as an after school social club and housing community. In Russia, I showed a friend photos of sorority girls all dressed up at a formal dinner event. She said "The girls are pretty but I think it would be boring for me to be in a sorority" Why is it the concept of the fraternity/sorority system so foreign in other countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl2n0sa",
"dl2ocb9"
],
"text": [
"In the U.S. (and Canada, to some extent), the social element of college is fairly significant. In contrast, higher education in most other countries tends to just be where you happen to take classes. They're much less likely to have on-campus housing, commuter students are far more prevalent and they tend not to have non-academic pursuits like big name sporting events.",
"American/Canadian colleges are a different experience in that people tend to go further away from home to go to school, live in dorms instead of living at home with family or getting apartment, have more of a self contained world on campus, plus the fact that most college students can't legally drink/get into bars. All these are reasons for wanting some sort of surrogate family, social structure with which to connect."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6r6xqt | Why does every show with two people in the title end with the person with a Y in their name? | that question may sound really confusing but let me give an example. Max & Ruby Rick & Morty Zack & Cody. I've always wondered why shows always have the person with the Y at the end. ((I meant shows who have a person with the letter Y) i know shows exist that don't have people with the letter Y.)) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl2s3jb",
"dl2scy9",
"dl2rqib",
"dl383fl",
"dl2rvf9"
],
"text": [
"Meter. We tend to find regular meters more pleasing and/or memorable. One well-known poetic verse meter is called \"trochaic.\" A single \"foot\" of trochaic meter is a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed one. (Think of the words \"FA-ther\" and \"MO-ther\"; one of those would serve as a trochaic foot, for example.) Well, a one-syllable name followed by \"and\" is going to read as stressed-unstressed, and two-syllable names scan the same way. (Also, two-syllable names ending in \"y\" are really common.) So it's an easy way to establish a memorable and pleasing pattern to the name: MAX and RU-by RICK and MOR-ty ZACK and CO-dy EDIT: Formatting EDIT 2: I *really* want to go in depth here with some of the other comments here, because a lot of the counter examples demonstrate either a similar or different type of metrical pattern, but I don't have time to right now. Sorry.",
"Thelma and Louise Batman and Robin Rocky and Bullwinkle Beavis and Butthead Dharma and Greg",
"the simplest answer is that really, it doesnt sound as good the other way around. Having the y-ending name second makes the title roll off the tongue more easily.",
"Guys I think op means in regarding the order of the names. I.e. why is is Zac and Cody not Cody and Zac. I really don't know the answer but I think that's what op means",
"It's going to depend on the style of the day. If you look at the 90's, 2 popular sitcoms were Will and Grace, and then there was Dharma and Greg. No Y's. Rick and Morty was originally based off the two main characters of Back to the Future. Doc and Marty. It was changed to avoid legal problems, but in this case, it had a basis for a Y name."
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6r908h | could a person who is massively ripped like dwayne johnson be able to join the military, or would they be refused because of their skewed BMI ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl399cn",
"dl39aej",
"dl39kp6",
"dl3bbi5"
],
"text": [
"They would join, but they'd have to get tape tested (or whatever the current methodology is) every single time they had to make weight. Source: US Army vet that was always 6 pounds over the max weight for my height, but taped good every single time.",
"Yes, they could. If you fail weight they take measurements to determine body fat percentage. Each branch handles it differently. I worked with one guy who was routinely 40-50 over weight but had a calculated body fat of about 11 percent. Same guy warmed up bench press with 225 bit did reps at 425. Absolute beast.",
"They would be able to but would have to undergo additional fitness testing to receive an ARMS waiver. Usually this is applied to fat candidates that would otherwise be successful in the forces. Overly muscular candidates often find difficulty in keeping up with endurance training as they are toting a more significant load so they might still wash out even with a waiver",
"10yrs in the infantry had to get weight and tape tested about every year if your squared away they will just pencil wip it, if your shit bag they will use it to kick you out, just a little fyi"
],
"score": [
42,
31,
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6r9xcs | What are the stolen generations of Australia and what was the motive behind it | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl3ie6z"
],
"text": [
"In short, a lot of White Australians thought that Aborigines were backwards at best, and little more than savages at worst, and wanted to \"save\" their children by taking them away to be raised in boarding schools. The idea was that those Aborigine children would grow up like White Australians and learn the superior European culture. In practice there was an enormous amount of physical and sexual abuse, and when interest in the program waned the children were basically abandoned."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6raqa6 | What is 4chan, and particularly /b/? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl3mfmz"
],
"text": [
"4chan is an imageboard. Imagine Reddit with pictures for subjects instead of actual subjects. Don't just ask about it, head on over and check it out for yourself. You'll get a much better understanding of how it works. Here's the very work-safe literature board; URL_0 You're not going to get a virus, no one is going to hack you, and you'll be perfectly safe. Don't click links. /b/ is the random board, where there are very few rules about what can be posted. It is not work-safe. You will likely see things you don't want to see. The fashion of late is trap porn and gore threads."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://boards.4chan.org/lit/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rb518 | Why does getting your own place and leaving your parent's home such a big goal for Americans even though it could set them back financially. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl3ptlx",
"dl3wy13",
"dl3x77z",
"dl3uzuc",
"dl3paxr",
"dl3wu20",
"dl3vmlf",
"dl3vn4d",
"dl3owjn",
"dl3wccw",
"dl3wu6q",
"dl3w7dk",
"dl3ur7m",
"dl3w8yp",
"dl3v75d",
"dl3q7pc",
"dl3ufyx",
"dl3xjpl",
"dl3xwq4",
"dl3woe3",
"dl3u3t5",
"dl3wsk2",
"dl3ztm7",
"dl3uobl",
"dl3ykry",
"dl3w0gh",
"dl3z4y7",
"dl3xi97",
"dl3v4ho",
"dl3vajo",
"dl3s548",
"dl4488k",
"dl3vq8y",
"dl3wzmj",
"dl3ynca",
"dl42b2z",
"dl3yprb",
"dl444h8",
"dl406bz",
"dl3z1th",
"dl42ag9",
"dl3xblg",
"dl3zuc2",
"dl3uw49",
"dl3ztbo",
"dl3yslz",
"dl3y610",
"dl3xdgy",
"dl3xyh6",
"dl40h7j",
"dl3znyl",
"dl41gra",
"dl42crx",
"dl3vl0e",
"dl3wxmy",
"dl40zkf",
"dl3vwaz",
"dl3xlpn",
"dl3yfqr",
"dl3ylmz",
"dl41cm6",
"dl3xt7f",
"dl41hy4",
"dl3z0zb",
"dl418pf",
"dl3za09",
"dl3wqxb",
"dl3w83f",
"dl3x37m",
"dl40lhg",
"dl42426",
"dl40vo9"
],
"text": [
"*TL;DR*: **It's not all about money**. There's all sorts of different reasons why it's worth shelling out a lot more cash for. A big one is pride due to social expectations. There's a certain negative and slightly embarrassing status associated with living at home versus a more adult-seeming being-in-charge of your own surroundings when you're living in a bachelor pad or equivalent. It's doubly so when your peer group of friends or workmates all have their own places and you don't have the freedom to invite them over. Ditto the mooching aspect of being a stay-at-home adult/child. Eventually, to a lot of people, it just doesn't seem... right or fair and so they move out. And we as humans want to \"own\" stuff, and be able to look around at our own little spot and say \"this is mine because I'm paying for it / renting it out of my own pocket.\" Some people find that being too close to their parents eventually drive them nuts. They want to live a certain way or not have any limitations on their behaviors. But there's often conditions on having someone else's roof over your head and those eventually become too onerous. OP asked about this from an American perspective, and so it's quite appropriate that one of the key reasons is \"freedom\". :) Others reach a point in a relationship where it's too clumsy and confined to enjoy that relationship at their parents. Most parents don't appreciate their kid having a sex-buddy in their bedroom for a whole weekend. Thumpthumpthump from the second floor becomes old rather quickly. The parents have a say too, particularly if they're approaching retirement. \"Junior, get the hell out so we can live our own life and we won't have to waste our limited money on feeding you!\". They want the house to look and feel the same as before they left for that one-week tour in the camper, not come home to an empty fridge and an unwashed sinkful of dishes.",
"Most cultures have \"coming of age\" rituals, whether they realize it or even recognize what they are. For Americans, getting a car is one, as well as moving out on your own. A lot of this is stemmed from the fact that we value independence and self motivation so much. Staying with your parents implies that you are being lazy, or continuing to be a burden on them. It's similar to people judging someone who is letting their children breastfeed at six-years-old. By staying with your parents, who don't need your help and are often eager to get you out of the house, you are \"delaying\" maturity. Personally, I think this stems from a couple of different things. Historically, Americans had their children young, and had a lot of them. My grandmother never went past the 4th grade and had three children by the time she was eighteen. While she was married, my grandfather was in construction and would use that as an excuse to leave them months at a time, drinking all of the money he earned and never giving her any. So she stayed with her parents. This was considered shameful. While she was working in a shirt factory, my great-grandfather was the main means of support for them, even though he was older and had health issues. She was a burden on them. In Asian cultures, there is a big emphasis on staying with your parents and getting a good job so you can send them money in their old age. But in the last fifty years or so, American culture has gotten accustomed to the idea that parents are wealthy enough to take care of themselves, so your filial duty to your parents is more akin to making sure you visit them. But even then, when the economy has required most people to move for their jobs, it's commonplace that children live states away, which compared to Europe, is like having all of your children live several countries away from you. Now, we have a conundrum. Young adults struggle to find non-service jobs, and when they do, they are still struggling to support themselves on one income, leading them to stay with their parents. While they are belittled for this, within a decade or so, that same generation will have little to nothing saved up for retirement. With medical expenses looming, they are starting to demand that children who don't live with them to come back and help them. Once upon a time, our society was capable of the older generation sustaining themselves while the younger generation did the same in the same immediate area. This led to a lot of our current perceptions. But now, good work is scarcer, causing people who stay in their hometown to have jobs that barely keep them floating above water, or moving and not being able to care for the family that once wanted to kick them out.",
"As an middle aged American, there was a time especially in the 1970s and early 1980s that you would be publicly ridiculed if you hit 19 yo and you were not: 1. At college, 2. In the military, 3. Living in your own apartment while working a full time job. The terms \"loser\", \"moocher\", \"deadbeat\" were common insults heaped upon those legal adults still living at home with their parents. The reason was that apartment rents, cars, college tuition, food, utilities and entertainment were ridiculously cheap compared to today's world. You could work a factory job 40 hrs a week and could afford a new car and your own apartment if not your own home. That world is gone today. Wages have generally stagnated for the past 40 years but the cost of living has skyrocketed. I can't think of a single person including me who borrowed money to attend a university because it was pretty cheap especially the state colleges. Unfortunately, parents today who are my age think that their kids are not doing as well as they did due to their own fault. This is ignorant and naive thinking. Smart kids will not even go to college at all today and start a small business like a pizza place or get a skilled trade. Animal house is long, long over folks.",
"The simplest way I can put it... From the time you are born, your parents are trying to develop you into a self sustaining, functional member of society. When you move out of their house and start your own home, it is your first proclamation of freedom and maturity. Until you do that, you are just living off of someone else, which suggests that you haven't properly developed into an adult yet.",
"I think its a cultural thing. Everybody does it and its a sign of growing up. Therefore you want to do it too. Also you can do what you want if youre not home. Speaking for myself even if youre in your late 20s your mother asks you \"where are you going\" \"why are you doing this\" \"take a scarf with you\" So I think its a mixture between cultural \"pressure\" and beeing fed up to justify everything you do. Also I guess its natural behavior even by animals. If youre raised you leave and found your own family.",
"Independence is pretty important in American culture. That's why so many Americans move far from their hometown upon graduation, this usually begins in College. Americans get their first taste of \"freedom\" from the dominance and control of their parents. We want to be able to do the things we like, without judgement from the previous generation who may not agree with the decisions we make. On the flip side, not leaving your parents home in your 20s is seen as negative here if you are a healthy fully functional adult. It is viewed as incompetence or laziness from some Americans because you don't have the financial independence or education to provide for yourself, let alone a family. It is also seen as more acceptable for a woman to be living with her parents than a man. That I don't really have an explanation for besides maybe it's a sexual/dating thing. If both parties live with their parents then who's home would you go to? Since still in this day and age men are primarily considered the providers, they're the ones more likely expected to have a place of their own. This also speaks for financial independence which because of the previous statements is typically viewed favorably on a man by the opposite gender.",
"This is a somewhat complex question because I believe many factors come in play. In more eastern cultures, children don't move out until they have graduated university or landed their main full time job (source: am easterner). In many western families it's 18-out. And I think a comparaison of these two philosophies goes a long way. And I think it's hard to ELI5 it. Basically IMO the western culture one (note: not every western family does this obviously) puts you in a shit position at first, you're young and poor and clueless. But you learn on your own and become very responsible because of that. On the opposite, the eastern one, you move out only when you're comfortable financially. You live no pressure and arguably an \"easier\" young adulthood. But is that good? Maybe it causes more happiness due to less stress. And it might also make you less responsible and auto-sufficient because you haven't been through the shit those 18-out people have. I think a middle ground is ideal. But to answer your question, it's a mixture of social expectations in the west, and also getting the person to be able to live on their own. Kinda like the bird mama who watches the baby birds jumping off the nest so they can eventually fly on their own thing. Idk.",
"Well, money wasnt an issue in my decision because my step mother was making me pay at least $500/month for just a room in a house which I felt was a shitty deal. She had no job so I was pretty much paying her to be lazy at that point. I'll GLADLY take a bit more of a financial hit for 100% freedom! I wanted to actually see my GF, of 4 years at the time, every day without needing permission from both my parents and hers. I hated my step mother so I wanted to get out as soon as possible. I wanted to be able to throw parties and let friends crash at my place if they drank too much. I wanted the satisfaction of knowing I could make it with out my parents help and wanted to make sure I was ready for the real world and what ever came next in life. I wanted a BIG dog and I wasn't allowed to have one. Now I have a big doofy Lab/Malamute mix that is fucking adorable! Social expectations had nothing to do with my decision. I am a home owner at age 22 (bought an awesome double wide mobile home :D). All of my friends still live with their parents still so no real pressure at this age. After I started looking for my own place, my father was looking to move 3 hrs away and my first career job was here so I definitely needed to find my own place. Biggest priority tho - Being able to walk around my own place naked as the day I was born",
"There is no single explanation for this as life is too fluid and everyone has their own reasons specific to them. In my opinion, as a Yorkshireman, my parents effectively put their lives on hold to raise me and my brother. We both felt leaving home and setting up lives of our own would be the grown up thing to do and give our parents the space and freedom they deserved. Having your own home is much more satisfying than having just a room in someone elses house. Also, I couldn't wait to get out of our shit pot town.",
"Not american, but nobody could get me back to live together with my parents. I have a good relationship to my mother and my step dad, but hell no thanks. Having an own home and be it just a room and a toilet is so much better. Money is not the point here in my eyes. If it works for you - nice, stay with the fam. But it is really nice to be independent and have some space of your own. Edit: Also - girls.",
"I think a lot of it depends on your culture. I'm 100% Italian (3rd generation. Both sets of my great-grandparents came over from Italy.) In my family, you simply do not leave home to move out until you're married. That wasn't just my own parents' house - my cousins were all the same, as were both of my parents & my aunts & uncles. Most of my friends (all of who were not 100% Italian) were chomping at the bit to get out of their parents' house. They wanted all the freedom and \"Adult\" status. Though I really didn't like living with some of my parents' rules, I was able to save a lot of money so that when I did meet my SO, we were able to move into a nicer house than we would have, had I left when I turned 18. I would infer that the Italian tradition to stay home until you're married is b/c family is so important and strong a bond. Honestly I never really thought much about it and when I was younger I thought most families were the same.",
"It's a cultural thing. For the baby boomer generation and most of Gen X, the economy was so good that living with your parents meant you were a failure or there was something wrong with you. As a consequence moving out and getting your own place is viewed as a rite of passage. Now things are different. Personally, I don't understand the stigma. I did move out between my third and fourth years of university, but there was plenty of room. Looking back, it would have been much smarter to stay there for another few years, even contributing ~$500/m back for rent/groceries/etc I would have saved a TON of money I wasted on shitty apartments.",
"I moved out because I wanted to sleep naked. I never could because my mom always snuck into my room to kiss my nose while I was asleep and if my cat was my little spoon and sleeping with me my mom thought it was the cutest fucking thing in the world and would take pictures. Tbh they are cute pictures. I'm glad I have them now that my cat is dead.",
"33 year old successful Hispanic male here who married a woman with two adult children. First being a stepdad is hard and being a stepdad to a mom who coddles her kids is even harder. The reason leaving home is such a big goal is because success and maturity comes with struggle. When I was younger my family couldn't afford to send me to college and could barely afford to feed me. I knew it was best for me to move out and make a good life for myself so that's what I did. Now I am married to a woman with a 21 and 19 year old. They live at home don't pay rent, complain when asked to do chores, and just have this crazy sense of entitlement. Overall they are great kids, good grades in college, don't steal and not on drugs. However, I know they would be more mature, successful, and appreciative of the little things if they just went out on their own and learned how the real world works. Sometimes taking risks and being on your own is good and will teach you who you are as an individual instead of always relying on the safety of others.",
"For the most part, being *truly* independent can't happen until you move out of your parents house. Most adults like their independence.",
"Well, if you can't provide for yourself, you're surely not going to be able to provide for anyone else. Think of it less about being set back financially and more about actually setting off financially, i.e. demonstrating an ability to manage your own affairs.",
"The reasons would vary depending on your family, but I believe most people leave the parent's house so they can have more independence. For the most part, if you depend on your parents financially then they have a greater influence the decisions you make. For example, lets say you like to stay out until 3 am in the morning. If your parents don't like that, you're going to hear about it. If you lived on your own it wouldn't be an issue. There are an infinite number of examples, all different depending on the family dynamic, but it's all about independence.",
"i'm 22 and about to move back in with my parents after being in the military so i can go to school full time. personally, i don't feel ashamed at all. the fact that i have an educational goal makes me fully grasp the fact that this is a financially smart decision for me, not to mention the support of my parents. i think a big reason why people make it such a goal to move out of your parent's home is because there is such a focus on independence in american culture. it's too bad because a lot of people are screwing themselves because they have too much pride.",
"**MILLIONS OF YOUNG ADULTS REPLY:** *have you met my parents?*",
"Not American here (Swedish), but this was important for me as well. Personally, I moved out when I was 16 (country-side and senior high would have been a 2 hour commute one way). It would have taken A LOT to make me move back after that. I like my parents, but living with them is a different story. They expect conformance to what they consider \"normal\" in terms of daily rhythm, activities, etc. No more balancing my personal needs and wants with my parents' idea of what should be or happen. I got to decide when meals will be had is, I got to cook my own food, I go to bed and get up when I do and I keep as much or little order as is natural for me. Just as I would not move in with a room mate who expects the house to be dead quiet between 10pm and 7am. I still occasionally visit my parents for a week or so at a time, but anything longer than that and I can see old roles starting to set in. If you really get along with your parents and your lifestyles are compatible then it's a different story, of course. For the people in bigger cities the situation is a bit different since housing is more expensive and harder to come by, so people live with their parents for longer.",
"Yeah ive learned now from talking to people of other cultures that they believe it completely taking care of all expenses and housing until a child is finished with school. Thats usually not the case here. My parents took advantage of me and was taking my money since i started working so i left when i was 17 and been on my own since :)",
"I like my family better when I'm not living with them. We fight constantly now and it's really tiring. I also like being independent. I don't like relying on people at all.",
"Let's be real- it's so you can rip bong hits in the living room and get drunk and bring home whores from the bars at 3am and fuck all over the house",
"Even asking this question would make you look like a loser in America. The mindset in my culture (mexican american) is have a bunch of kids, baby them until they're adults, then kick them out when they're done with school and can work.",
"Just had a flood with 3-4 inches in every room of my house. Because of this I had to move into my parents house with my wife, 2 kids, and dog. As grateful as I am that I had my parents here and as much as I love my parents I really thing living with them actually jreally hurt our relationship. There are things that I do that they don't aprove of and vice versa. When you are an adult having your parents dictate your life is obnoxuious and belittling. The last 5 months have easily been the hardest 5 months I've had in over a decade and it wasn't because my parents and I don't get a long it's just at some point your life deviates from being your parents \"child\" to being their \"loving offspring\". It's hard taking orders from your parents as 32 year old with his own family. Especially if the way that they parent differ from the way you would like to parent. It is nice being able to visit my parents. But having my own home and my own space gives me confidence and let's me run my home the way I intend to run it. I don't know if this make sense and may just be babbling but yeah.",
"Is there a country where people live with their parents their whole lives? Who doesn't want to get out, take control and start their own lives?",
"Capitalism. It forces people to split from their families and thereby creates more and more consumers. Staying with parents under parents insurance Coming out buying independent insurance Paying rent is not even a thing Pay your own rent Vehicle your parents bought Using your own by borrowing loans And many more",
"I love all my family but I typically use the 3 Day rule. As in I will stay for 3 nights and leave before everyone wakes up in the morning on the 4th day(I just say good bye the night before) because typically the fourth day is when arguments start. I think there's just something about waking up with someone(weather it be a relative or friend) in your house that just pisses people off. Thats why I typically make an excuse about a business trip if someone tries staying longer than 3 nights at my house",
"Even try sneaking a date past your parents?",
"I'm a grown up and like to make my own decisions. If I lived with either my mom or my dad they would try to run my life like I didn't make more money than both of them combined. Not saying I have it all figured out, but I'm no moron and I don't need anyone reminding me when to get haircuts.",
"Because at one point in history the government made it extremely easy for white middle class men to get their own suburban home, decent car and steady job in the city. This ideal image stuck with the culture until today, which is problematic because some of those opportunities are now gone or have been warped. It used to be incredibly easy to buy and pay off a house. Now it's basically impossible because bankers and our parents seriously messed up the housing market.",
"I am 39 years old. I share a 4-bedroom place with my brother and two very long-term friends. We are all single guys with no kids, so splitting all of the living bills 4 ways makes it so much easier. To find a 1-bedroom place on my own that is worth living in and is not someone's closet, I would have to substantially pay more than what I am now. A couple weeks ago, I was talking to a woman on the phone and my living situation came up. Her response what \"So you have never had to be an adult yet. This is not an episode of Friends, you know\". Never before had I wanted to reach through the phone and strangle someone as I did with her. She assumed that since I was not living by myself that I was not acting like an adult, rather than not wasting resources for no good, goddamn reason. If I ever ended up meeting someone and it progressed to the point where I would want to consider living with that person, I would definitely look into getting a place together, rather than her trying to move in to this place (which is patently ridiculous). As a single guy, why would I be required to have a place that is empty all the time except for when I am there? Why is it expected that I live in solitude to be considered an \"adult\"? Fuck, now I am pissed off again.",
"My parents are abusive. I needed to get out for my sanity and I have never once regretted it, even when money has been tightest.",
"Just moved out last month. For me, after living on my own for 4 years, it is tough to go back to a place where you are treated like a child still. Being our on your own, you can do whatever you want, when your want, because you want to. At home, it is always under a watchful eye who wants updates constantly and with parents who don't give you a choice on the matter sometimes. For me, I felt my life was on hold after moving back with my parents",
"Many parents fail to realize that they have to stop being the way they have been all your life and begin treating you as an equal or how they would any other adult. Its a hard balance of trying to do whats best for you, but also letting you learn on your own by your own failures and experiences. Parents need to make the shift of a guardian to an adviser and its a hard one. Most young people value their parents opinion, but crave the independence that comes with being on your own. Constantly having that caged bird feeling is a very stressful way to live your life. Ultimately these two issues combine and it simply just becomes to much to deal with. So they move out, regardless of the cost. This allows them to keep their sanity and also a healthy relationship with their parents.",
"It's weird to see the financial trends and over all economy change so much over a few short years. The entire way Americans and the rest of the world does things is changing economically, as well as psychologically. Is it because we are so much worse off financially, or is because the younger generations are just tired of trying? History of such atrocities like ww1 and ww2 behind us too far in the past, it may become a Grimm future. We need to put our youth first, stop being so selfish and wilfully ignorant. Knowing the newer generations are staying closer to family and utilizing a multi income situation is key in the world today. Stuff is expensive, and only 10% of the world falls into exec positions, 30% professional, the rest are just meaningless replacement jobs. Those jobs are not moving in scale with the current economy. That's why people are struggling. Not because they are choosing to.",
"Basically it is a benchmark of growing up. To become a full-fledged adult, you need to be independent of your parents so that you can begin taking charge of your own life. A big part of that is having your own residence, especially if you are going to marry and start your own family by having children. Multi-generational homes are not bad and are common in some parts of the world, but (correct me if I'm wrong) usually the home is owned by the working-age children who house not only their children but their parents as well. That still meets the independence criteria because you own the home and provide for yourself and your dependents. That is what makes you an adult: you take responsibility for yourself and those who naturally depend on you. **tl;dr** An adult is someone whom other people depend on. A child is someone whom no one depends on and who depends on others for their basic needs.",
"I can tell a lot of these responses are from young adults. As an old(er) adult, with a man-child at home, I can explain my reasoning. I want him to have a job and be able to live and function on his own. I want him to be a productive member of society. I may die tomorrow or in 30 years. He needs to know how to survive without me and his mother providing for him. Where he is right now? Watching Twitch 90% of his free time, with no prospects for work other than working as a helper at a car wash. When he does leave the house, it's to go smoke pot with his friends. In other words, he is not doing one single thing to better himself. I guess I should just let him do whatever he wants? No. He needs to learn how to take care of himself so he will be successful in life. I dont care if he is a doctor or a janitor or a mechanic or a lawyer, etc ,etc. He just needs to do something and he does nothing. That is the problem with kids living with parents as an adult. They dont learn that you have to work and pay for things in the real world.",
"I can only speak for my self. I'm 27 now and still live at home. I' m now saving money to get my own place. Not renting but actually buying my own place. My parents have always told me: move put when you feel you are ready. Stay at home as long as you feel you need to stay home. They always helped and supported me. The way I'm saving now, within a half year I will be able to afford my own place. I however contribute financially at home. I don't want to live on my parents expenses. So what we do, is we have a same bank account and on that account everybody at home deposits money every month. This makes it a little bit easier ( more money for our expenses ). My goal was and still is to buy my own place. I don't want to rent as that, in my opinion, sets you back. Why pay for somebody else his/her bank loan ( your rent ) in stead of paying for your own loan. That's my 2 cents anyway because to make this work, you need to have a good relationship with your parents and everybody should stick to the plan. I'm also used to live in a full house, don't know if I would like to live alone without a wifey or somebody to keep me company ( grew up in a house of 7 people ).",
"Not American but I can give you my take on it as a British person. So at 17 I joined the army then after basic and all my other training I opted to start renting a flat(sure it's not the same as buying) and for the 5 years I was in the army I had my own place, my own rules. It was pretty damn sweet. Then I decided to leave the army and move back home to be closer to the family, it took a little longer than I thought to get a job so I ended up moving back into my parents house I eventually got a job and then had the mindset that I would be back at theirs for a year and then move out to my own bit. After that year I hadn't moved out, was paying dig money which is completely fine by me. I ended up learning that where my family live it's almost impossible to have your own place up here(more so for renting) on your own I've been living in my parents for the past 5 years and that freedom I once enjoyed the memories of it have almost faded. I kinda got a little comfortable in living back at home but I've refocused my mind on goals that are achievable and hopefully I'll be out be his time next year back into my own place. For anyone wondering who's still reading, my refocus? It's all down to meeting a girl, not one that you are just happy hooking up with but one that I can actually see myself being with for a long time.",
"I'm an adult American living at home with Mom For me, I don't think it is right to be constrained by cultural norms. You do what is best for you - I'm under the same expectations as other Americans, but I've so far ignored them and focused on what will work best for me in the long term. I've been planning on moving out for over a year now, but I'm not making the move until it's the right timing. In the meantime, we live in an above average 4-bedroom house, and it is just my mother alone. We don't see each other much. I have my own space and bathroom that I maintain myself. I help with utilities and food. I'm not constrained on going out or coming home or essentially doing what I want. The only differences with me having my own place is on how the common areas are maintained and what's in the fridge. I'm making over $100k so I don't get hassled by my mother to do anything, since I am doing fine, I just haven't chosen to move out yet due to financial reasons. I decided to buy property first and rent it out, so I've already established enough rental income that I could sustain myself indefinitely if I ever lost my job. Now that I've established that, I am looking. I think it's worth the extra few years of staying at home that I did to have that. People talk about Asians vs westerners, but really I have seen plenty of Asian friends move out immediately after HS and never return, and Caucasians who have lived with parents into their 30s, and with children.",
"Mine progressively got more and more about me needing my own space. I have a lot of hobbies and tend to vary greatly on when I come home. I lived with my parents during summers away from school. I started at my Mom's place which is a one level apartment. Did that for one summer and we were about ready to tear each other's heads off. So the next semester I stayed at my Dad's house. It was where I grew up and I had my old bed room in the basement that had it's own bathroom, fridge and microwave, and most importantly an exit. So I basically didn't see him or my step mom the entire summer. I'd leave early in the morning and drive to the city my school was in for work and then come home late. Started to realize I was spending more on travel than an apartment in the city would cost, so I got one up between my school and my friends school further north. He moved in and we lived together till he transferred to another school in another state and I left to study abroad. When I got back, I moved in with another friend from high school and a friend I had met in College. After about 3 years, I decided that I had had enough of living with roommates and my girlfriend and I wanted a place so we got a newer nicer apartment. Now I'm biding my time saving up for a down payment on a house so that I can start my garage and yard requiring hobbies back up! It does just come around to personal space and finances for me. My mom drives me nuts in medium to long term proximity. My dad too but it I saw him infrequently so it wasn't bad living there. Now I go down to visit them every other week or so and we get a long great!",
"Americans? Mate, everyone does it. It's not everything about Murica in this world.",
"I think it's foolish. It's a way to\" prove \" your grown up. It's a selfish thing some parents do... ex. When you're 18 your outta here, so we can live our lives. Like you were a mistake",
"Some people are leaving emotionally and physically abusive households. I moved out when I was 18 and work my ass off at 2 jobs so no one can talk to me like that or put their hands on me again, so I think it's probably a little different for everyone.",
"I've seen a lot of replies that are mostly right. One thing I haven't seen yet is that an integral part of American society is independence. It's why we can't have universal healthcare and/or welfare. \"Why should I pay for someone else to have kids they can't afford?\" It's an argument I can't outright refute. No one likes it when people abuse the system and a lot, but not all (or even most I'd argue), Americans assume the worst. Sure there's people that take advantage of the system, but there are plenty of good people that need it. With that said, part of being independent is getting your own place. This is important because it tells others that you're responsible enough to take of yourself and not rely on others.",
"I moved away when I was 17, a thing I still talk about with pride today. But then I look at my own 17 year old here in the house and I think \"OMG don't leave me\". I don't think he thinks about leaving - his lifestyle is very different from what mine was at his age. And I think the social stigma of living together with parents, at least in my part of the country, is starting to die down - we've got big houses, we're pretty liberal with our policies, most of us aren't home all that much anyway because we're working our asses off to pay mortgages and debt still...so, the kids being at the house, saving money, etc...I think they're getting fine with it (in the general sense).",
"I actually just had a conversation about this yesterday! I think it comes down to the expectations from past generations carrying forward without any regard for how things have changed. The expectation has always been you graduate, you get a job, and then you start a family, but what has changed is the requirements to hit each of those milestones and the true cost of education. It used to be you could graduate high school, get a good paying job, and buy a house. Then you had to graduate college, but you were almost guaranteed a good job, and you could start a family soon after. Now, we're at the point where having a college degree is the minimum requirement for any career but you're paid less than the investment you put into college. So buying a house and starting a family is out of the question from the start, and getting a good job is hardly guaranteed. I think for the next generation, the expectation will be greatly diminished, but I know from my experience, it is still a pressure you face.",
"My brother-in-law is 34 and has never left his parents' house. He is socially awkward. Goes to work (in IT, shock!), comes home, and plays video game. His parents cook for him, wait on him hand and foot. It's weird and has always baffled me, but it's not discussed. His dad, my father-in-law, will sometimes talk about how silly and arbitrary it is that people feel the need to move out of their parents house, and how back in the old days, families all stayed together on the farm. Anyway, to that point, I think that was true for a long time. After the Revolutionary War, veteran Jim Jones got a 2,000 acre land grant. Had 5 kids and each of them got 400 acres of it. Their kids each got 100 acres. Etc... etc... Then, some of the kids wanted more, so they headed west, got a 1,000 acre land grant, and it all started over again, but only lasted for half as many generations. Now, we're mostly growing up on quarter acre lots, so we have to up and move every generation.",
"I'm originally from Venezuela, lived there till age 32 when I moved to the US. I'm 40 now, so I've been here almost a decade. A poor economy has made the last two generations of Venezuelans live with their parents longer and longer, even after marriage, as low wages, high demand and low supply of housing make getting your own place really difficult. Most people I knew back there were desperate to get their own place, but few could afford it, even with a good job. When I got married, we lived with my mom till I was approved to come to the US. I hated it. I love my mother, but being 30, having a good job, and STILL not being able to afford even a small apartment without roommates is no way to live. Once here, I got to experience what most Americans experience by the time they're done with school: Running my own home. It was an amazing experience. So I guess as someone who's had it both ways, I'd answer your question with \"because delaying taking charge of your life in full is a terrible way to live\". It's more expensive and you have more responsibilities, but it's also much more enjoyable.",
"In my case, my parents were charging me $750/month to live at home and deal with all of their restrictions. Couldn't go out without asking and doing the \"You know you can have people come over!\" dance with my mom. Couldn't date because I was expected to introduce everyone to my mom before the first date. I couldn't even go to the bathroom in the middle of the night without having my mom slam the door open and demand to know what I was doing up. Then, when my sister was home from school, I couldn't even get a good night's sleep because she wanted to take a ridiculously long shower and then blow dry her hair every night around midnight, and we shared a bathroom. I was expected to be home for every meal, as well as clean the entire house for my mom on my only day off during the week. I was yelled at for attempting to do my laundry so that I could have clean clothes for work. I was expected to be buying all of my own groceries. I had zero privacy. And I was paying basically the same as living in an apartment. On top of that, I got to deal with my peers and coworkers giving me a hard time for living at home because, in their minds, I was living rent-free. And when I tried to discuss my \"rent\" with my mom, she insisted that she wasn't charging \"that much\". So I left. I ended up getting a great apartment and my base rent is only a bit more than what my parents were making me pay them. I live completely alone, close to where I work and any company I may work for in the future. I have my own routines, and most importantly, the privacy and freedom to do whatever the hell I feel like. I still visit my parents for dinner once a week, but I just could not keep living with them. I felt completely trapped and there was no financial benefit for it.",
"The biggest thing is perhaps the \" my house my rules \" most parents decree , that young adults find constricting.",
"Because you must get out into the machine as soon as possible or you're a nobody with nothing! Enjoying life is at the bottom of priorities.",
"I mean at 27 I'd still live with my mom and just stack cash, but what kind of life is it when your even 21 and still living at home, meet a nice girl, your both adults but can't decide who's moms house to go home to, lol",
"Because of a concept known as the \"nuclear family.\" I.e. everyone \"starts a family,\" every single generation. All our media is geared both subliminally and superliminally to driving families apart to keep this concept going. It makes the plebeians easier to control when they only work together the minimal amount required to procreate.",
"From what I've noticed, its not all about about social status as some comments are suggesting. Yes that is a piece of it. But mainly, in my opinion, its about job location. Most parents live in suburbs and most jobs are in cities. Its just not practical to live with parents when they live in the middle of nowhere.",
"From a parent's pov, we want you to go to college or whatever and start your own life, making your own choices. On the flipside, we also want you to stay because we can protect you. Also, we've put in our effort, get out so we can have naked time. We're going on a vacation next week, can you come home to watch the dogs?",
"For the same reason that people take vacations, even though it could set them back financially. Life is there to be lived. Living with parents = flush with cash, but suffering from an inactive sex life and lacking self esteem. Moving out = cash poor but happy as a clam. A sense of Independence, can host dinner parties with friends... And yes, sex. Did I mention the sex?",
"American parents are prudes that don't acknowledge thier kids have become adults and capable of making thier own choices. They have statements like \"not under my roof\" and other stupidities. One year away at uni and most \"kids\" would never want to go back to the people's republic of mom & dad. Cost wise, well, freedom isn't free? (Serious folks, have a bidirectional relationship with your kids not a commanding one)",
"I live in America but I come from a Indian family from Guyana. Basically, I grew up in a different culture. To me, you stay living with your family until you get married. That's just how it works for us. Except for things like going to college and moving away for work. Now my older brother though, he lives with us still, but he acts like a child. I don't think this is the intention of my culture's ways.",
"Another thing is that American Parents live in suburbs. New College Grads/young adults want to live closer to city centers where there's a more active social life for people under 40. Suburbia is not a fun place to live if you want to have late nights out and meet people. If I did live at home I'd be constantly waking my parents up coming home at night. I'd have a smaller room, not my own bathroom, and it would be very weird to bring any girls home or have people over in general.",
"Because the social/economic system doesn't want cooperation. It wants every individual/atomic family fending for themselves. It does not want an extending family sharing resources like roofs and vehicles and televisions. It does not want efficient, multi portion meals being cooked. It wants to maximize isolation and alienation. Furthermore, due to a lack of ritual initiation, parents are encouraged to view their offspring as life-long children (\"you'll always be my baby\"). This holds true for the person themselves also, leading to an eternal pseudo-infantalization that feeds into a complex about \"making it on my own\".",
"Because most Americans are too worried about what their peers and society think, so they have something to prove. I stayed until I was 27, banking money and traveling the world. Now I have a nice house with a small mortgage, almost zero debt outside of the mortgage, and a ton more life experiences than people my age. All because I didn't give a damn what people thought. And thanks to the decent financial position I find myself in, I get to continue with my traveling, though admittedly not to the same extent as when I had no mortgage.",
"I did it to escape from a shitty environment. I got grounded for having sex when I moved back in for a few months. My stepmother was bred in a lab and set loose to punish Man. She forbade everyone from eating in the living room becvause she was afraid of food ruining the leather furniture even though her dogs would piss it all and drag their dog balls all over them. My curfew was always changing based on mood. Once I when I was 16 my curfew was 6:45 PM on a Friday night and the next day it was 3:00 AM.",
"American parents forbid their children to have sex under their roof. Even their grown children. When I lived in Denmark, my Danish language and culture teacher told us that when her son was 16 she would have to check the shoes by the door to know how many plates to set out for breakfast. She and her husband would look at a pair of girls shoes and discuss things like \"Pink heels, those are Mia, right? What happened to Carolina? Was Mia a coffee or tea drinker?\" This chill attitude about one's offspring's right to have a normal and healthy sex life is completely, absurdly foreign in the U.S.",
"I can answer this. As soon as I landed a job out of college, I started looking for apartments. Sure, I could have lived with my parents. I could have used their hot tub and pool every single day. I could have lived like a king in their million dollar mansion, but I wanted out. I cannot live with my family and keep my sanity at the same time. I also wanted to start dating and get out there and start slammin' pussy. My choices were simple: 1. Stay at home. Save money. Lose my sanity. Lose any potential relationship. 2. Fork out some cash every month and have total independence.",
"Personally speaking my wife and I both lived at home with my parents but it was cramped. 3 bedroom house with my parents, sister, my niece and my GF at the time. We lived there for 2 years and after saving up 15K bought a house. Now we're married and have a daughter of our own. In the states it's viewed that when you get out of school/engaged/married you SHOULD have your own place. My sister is being heavily judged because she's turning 25 and will be married living at home with mom and dad with her husband and 2 kids. Heck even I'm judging the shit out of her for putting her wedding cost before a house.",
"Maybe it's got to do with the US being a land of immigrants, so the virtue of being independent, venturing out, and surviving on one's own is valued more. In our region, which is South East Asia, clannishness is the name of the game. The interesting thing is that the degree of emphasis on sticking with your family no matter how old you get actually varies too. The concept of clannishness, staying with your core family to expand it, is stronger in areas that have been historically agricultural. This is less emphasized in areas where fishing and hunting were the main points for sustenance. While it's easy to say it is how it is, it's also interesting to see how some of our \"assumed as natural\" behaviours have roots in how our society evolved historically speaking.",
"Canadian here. For me, it was about having a place where I could more freely express myself and organize. I love my family but I needed the space and home was feeling cramped. I live in a townhouse that's a little off the beaten path but close enough to the places I love to visit. It's also helped me to feel more confident than I have before and it enabled me to do things I've been wanting to do but couldn't at home. Like play Mario Kart with friends, or listen to music that wouldn't fly at home. So for me moving out meant I didn't feel judged and I'm less inclined to judge myself. It's made me feel more comfortable with being me. It's a pretty cool thing to experience! For others it suggests financial independence, confidence, and reliability.",
"If I missed someone else saying this, my bad, but another aspect of getting your own place ASAP for Americans is that until recently(last 10 years), rent for Americans was very affordable almost everywhere except NYC, LA and SF. So most of the US, you'll see plenty of people move out at age 18 because rent (especially if with roommates) was extraordinarily cheap, and can be had with 25-35% of a person's wage, even if that person was making minimum wage. Now fast forward to today, where minimum wage is definitely not keeping up with the rent in major metropolitan areas, you're already seeing more people (and more acceptance) living with their parents longer. Funny enough, when I first moved to the NYC area, I judged those people in their 20s still living with their folks, because of the same social expectation I had growing up in a cheap-rent area.",
"I see a lot of answers about money and independence but there were some other factors. For a long time women weren't allowed to own property or even make \"large\" purchases without their father or husbands permission and signature. For this reason daughters tended to live at home until they got married. Fathers were giving their daughters away, away from the house, away from the family, and under different head of house to care for. A similar instance happened with men, young men weren't to live alone, they were supposed to have a woman at home to care for him. That would be the mother until he got married. Getting a house separately wasn't always expected, but it was symbolic of moving on to being fullfilled adults and creating their own families. This gave the children stability and learning how to cope being on their own and have their own children, while the parents get a number of years not supporting additional people. For a long time it was expected that your parents would move in with you when they get old, until the rise of retirement homes and ad campaigns focused on making older folks feel guilty about \"burdening\" their children. And once women could start getting more variety in their jobs and education, less time spent at home meant a more equal share of household chores. And independence was built culturally over time as pay evened out and people waited longer to get married.",
"The main drive to leave: Independence. Societal norms are probably the actual biggest driver, but those are frequently wrong and a poor way to gauge one's life so I won't focus on them. Independence is worth striving for. If you're living with your parents and helping them pay the bills, keep up with things, or maybe even taking care of them, there's nothing at all wrong with that. However to make the most of yourself, your life, and those around you, you should be striving to be at minimum able to 100% support yourself financially. Main drive to stay: time with family. Again, the actual main reason is financial and general laziness, but again this isn't a good way to gauge one's life so I won't focus on it. The truth is if you get along and have a mutually beneficial relationship with your family (note the *mutually* beneficial part there), you should spend as much time as you can with them. After you leave, you'll have spent the vast majority of the time you'll have with them in your life ([check this out]( URL_0 ) for more perspective). We have limited time on this Earth, and you should spend as much of it as possible with those you love. So if you look at the balance of those two very important things, central to one's happiness and fulfillment throughout one's life, you'll see that you need both in balance. If you frame everything in societal norms you'll leave as soon as possible and get a baby and buy a house no matter how much debt and misery it brings you. If you frame everything as what's best financially you'll miss out on many of the things that make life worth living (some things will never be the best financial outcome but are still very much worth doing if they bring you true joy). The main thing is that you forge your own path that benefits you and your family the most, and don't let external forces dictate your life for you."
],
"score": [
2625,
1955,
291,
121,
118,
107,
103,
92,
74,
49,
32,
27,
26,
23,
22,
22,
17,
17,
16,
16,
11,
8,
8,
8,
8,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rebgw | Why are live albums and concert videos often recorded/filmed in comparatively exotic locations? | I am speaking mainly of English-speaking artists performing and recording in non-English-speaking countries. The Police "Certifiable," live in Buenos Aires. REM "Perfect Square" live in Wiesbaden, Germany. Billy Joel, "Kontsert," live in Russia David Gilmour, "Live in Gdansk." Genesis, "When in Rome." Peter Gabriel "Secret World Live" in Modena, Italy. Of course the older stuff like Cheap Trick Live at Budokan. I'm sure there are lots more that I'm not thinking of at present. Is it easier to record these shows as opposed to a show in, say, Cleveland? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl4eogh",
"dl4tqpi",
"dl4r1kb"
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of factors, one of them that when artists play these overseas venues, they're often playing for multiple nights. That way they can record multiple shows with a consistent audio quality and crowd noise and use the best performances. Another factor is that many of these venues are specially suited to recorded performances, rather than trying to get clean sounds out of a baseball stadium or a sports arena. The third is the exotic factor. It just sounds cooler to get a live recording from Kuala Lumpur than it is to get one from Topeka, Kansas.",
"Foreigner here. I agree with the points mentioned before and there's another factor to be considered. Foreign crowds tend to be more \"excited\". Many times, an exotic place doesn't get to have these artists perform all the time. Therefore, for many fans it's a once in a lifetime opportunity AND THEY GO WILD.",
"The artists also want the video to appeal to people. So if you came across a video of someone in an exotic/fun/beautiful place, you would be more likely to want to watch it. People want to go places and be taken away to get away from any stress. So when you watch a video of someone singing a song in say Hawaii, it would be more appealing because it takes you away from suburban and city areas like most Americans do. So basically it's just to appeal to what people want, their needs and desires. To make the artist that much more appealing."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6res54 | Why is a golden brown colour so appealing in food? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl4hdh4",
"dl4hh2g",
"dl4hjw7"
],
"text": [
"It's called maillard browning. We associate it with distinctive taste that we enjoy. It is a unique process in which amino acids react with sugars.",
"Maybe because we associate the brown color with tasty food (or rather the food itself, regardless of color). If the golden brown foods that we now find appealing were for example, purple, we would consider purple foods to be appealing instead.",
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The crusts of most breads, such as this brioche, are golden-brown due to the Maillard reaction. The Maillard reaction (/maɪˈjɑːr/ my-YAR; French pronunciation: [majaʁ]) is a chemical reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars that gives browned food its distinctive flavor. Seared steaks, pan-fried dumplings, cookies and other kinds of biscuits, breads, toasted marshmallows, and many other foods, undergo this reaction. It is named after French chemist Louis-Camille Maillard, who first described it in 1912 while attempting to reproduce biological protein synthesis.[1][2] The reaction is a form of non-enzymatic browning which typically proceeds rapidly from around 140 to 165 °C (280 to 330 °F). At higher temperatures, caramelization and subsequently pyrolysis become more pronounced. The reactive carbonyl group of the sugar reacts with the nucleophilic amino group of the amino acid, and forms a complex mixture of poorly characterized molecules responsible for a range of aromas and flavors. This process is accelerated in an alkaline environment (e.g., lye applied to darken pretzels; see Lye roll), as the amino groups (RNH3+) are deprotonated and, hence, have an increased nucleophilicity. The type of the amino acid determines the resulting flavor. This reaction is the basis for many of the flavoring industry's recipes. At high temperatures, a potential carcinogen called acrylamide can be formed.[3] In the process, hundreds of different flavor compounds are created. These compounds, in turn, break down to form yet more new flavor compounds, and so on. Each type of food has a very distinctive set of flavor compounds that are formed during the Maillard reaction. It is these same compounds that flavor scientists have used over the years to make artificial flavors."
],
"score": [
15,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rhm5m | Whys there a rule saying 'you can't go to jail (as a volunteer) for what somebody else did'? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl53nk0",
"dl53e6v",
"dl53os0"
],
"text": [
"Organized crime has a concept known as a \"fall guy\" that illegally does this. He deceives the police to take the rap for a higher ranking member's crimes willingly as a favor to his group. Doing this keeps more powerful members free to partake in more crime while the usually less dangerous fall guys wait it out in jail. This trick was a big problem during the peak of organized crime, and imagine how much worse it could have been if it was legal! Many of history's greatest criminals were highly charismatic individuals, if they were able to keep willing fall guys in reserve and know that it would always work they would essentially be above the law.",
"One side effect of that would be that in the unlikely event that a wealthy person were to convicted and sentenced to jail, they could just pay people to take their place. Many people would 'volunteer' for the right price. Prison would be full of innocent people and criminals would have nothing to fear. I guess you can still pay someone to plead guilty. Oh, and it would undermine the whole idea of the justice system.",
"Well, I mean, you can. It's called being the \"fall guy\". In which usually in a party of criminals, they will have one guy who takes part in the cut of whatever they're doing, but if any of them get caught, the one guy takes the hit for everyone else. But, back to your question, if there is no reformation or punishment for the crime committed and the offender just walks off scott free, then they'll just go commit more crimes, serving the public no good and just costing tax money for no reason really, going through court fees + maintaining the jails. Idk, sorry, feel like I'm ranting now."
],
"score": [
9,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ri6yk | Why is it that the USA is so much more wealthy and economically successful than all of Central and South America even though these regions were all occupied around the same time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl5buj8",
"dl58k3t",
"dl59pcq",
"dl5ec6y",
"dl5espl",
"dl58mf4",
"dl5el82",
"dl5qma1",
"dl5idgq",
"dl5jk7s"
],
"text": [
"There is a theory commonly used in political science called 'Geopolitics'. According to this theory, the geography of nations determines their wealth, power, and foreign policy goals. The United States has a number of geographic advantages not enjoyed by any other country on earth. The eastern seaboard of the United States is composed almost exclusively of good harbors, many of them deep water. The ability to access ocean ports and particularly deepwater ports allow a nation to have a large civilian trading fleet, leveraging trades from around the world and warehousing goods on the move. This in turn leads to a nation being able to produce a strong and powerful navy, which allows that trading fleet to extend out to distant and dangerous harbors safely, acting as go-betweens for other nations, and importing raw goods to export finished ones. The Mississippi Basin is the largest contiguous patch of arable land on earth. It is extremely fertile, with predictable and steady supplies of water, and more importantly, the Mississippi Basin is broadly navigable, allowing bulk cargo to move from trading hubs on major rivers down along the shallows and isolated bays to the Eastern Seaboard, allowing mass quantities of goods produced reliably in relative isolation to quickly find the world market. This land was already cleared and easy to begin cultivating: starting up a ranch was as cheap as a fence and some cattle, whereas densely forested or jungled regions are much more expensive to develop. America enjoys unparalleled isolation, protecting it from the impacts of war. To the north, Canada faces too many geographic challenges to rise to a level where it can pose a legitimate threat to the United States, and for it's own geographic reasons must find friendship with the United States. To the south, great deserts and mountains make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Mexico to ever pose a legitimate threat to the United States, as demonstrated in a series of one-sided wars. This means that when war breaks out, it happens far from America, and American infrastructure easily survives. Collectively, these have formed the basis of America's wealth, ideology, political power, and military strategy in the world. Latin American nations each have at most one of these. Each is adequately militarized to make the threat of war a historical problem, most of the continent is inaccessible by river, much of it is very expensive to cultivate, and those areas that are not lack adequate natural port infrastructure or are placed too far from trading partners who do not. It's also worth noting that under this theory, America's power was predicated on unity after the end of the Civil War. If the Confederacy had survived (as HBO is planning in it's bizzaro logic new show), America would look much more like Argentina and Brazil than how it looks today, with true military rivals on the continent and a disconnect between the perfect engine of agriculture in the Mississippi Basin and the perfect engine of commerce on the eastern seaboard.",
"Of course it's a complicated subject with a lot of variable. But one of the most important is the stability of the government. The US gained independance in 1783, kept the same constitution since 1788 and kept a very stable government ever since. They also fought mostly war overseas, with the exception of the civil war. Now compare that to Colombia. It's independance was recognized in 1819, 36 years after the US. They got their constitution in 1821. By 1830 the republic collapsed into three new country of New Granada, Ecuador and Venezuela. The Republic was very centralized and by 1849 the first of a series of civil will broke out, the rebel lost. Other civil war or conflict will occur in 1860, 1876, 1899 and 1948, not counting the current low-intensity conflict that started 53 years ago. The republic changed name in 1858 (Granadine Confederation), 1863 (United States of Colombia and finally the Republic of Colombia in 1886. Panama seceded in 1903. The political situation was never stable in Colombia and unstability isn't good for economical growth. The picture is pretty similar for most south and central american country. Brazil was an Empire then the Republic of the United States of Brazil, then the Dictatorship of Vargas then the Republic was reformed, then the military took control of the government after a coup d'état, before the current Federative Republic of Brazil was formed. And if you follow the news, political corruption is a big problem right now in Brazil. Basically, the US and Canada were able to build stable government that changed through history peacefully. Something that most other country in the americas were able to do.",
"1) Spain had a habit of colonizing a region at bare minimum levels and extracting resources from said colonies via enslavement or virtual enslavement of native populations and actual implementation of imported slaves from Africa. Portugal behaved similarly. 2) The South and Central American countries gained independence decades if not a full century or more after the US did. 3) The US had a much more stable government after gaining independence.",
"Emphasis on the word 'united'. The USA is the largest country in the Americas in terms of usable land (Canada is big, but the small population being ~10% of the US and large portions of land being tundra don't help) and population. It also shows the difference between Spanish/Portuguese methods vs British and French methods when colonising land. The Spanish for example would send minimal settlers to kill the locals and extract resources, relying very heavily on native slaves for labour. Living in these colonies was absolute shit and Spain didn't give a damn about them. They only existed to Spain's benefit. Britain on the other hand, though often unfair to colonists (and especially native people), tried to turn their colonies into powerful economic nations in their own right. This was done in India, where Britain constructed huge railway networks, civil infrastructure, etc. They were also far more willing to recruit locals and sign treaties. Lots of land in the US was gained by signing deals with Native Americans instead of killing them, not that white people didn't just kill them anyway as no treaties have ever been enforced. The US also abused its size and population early in its existence. It invaded many areas which are now US states and used its larger military to control Central American puppet states. This let them essentially use the same Imperialism that Europe used to colonise the Americas, except on neighboring countries. So not only is the US the biggest and most populous, it's also got dozens of smaller countries now having their resources extracted into the US too.",
"The USA is quite absurdly geographically blessed. If you've ever played civ you know that the key to winning is food, and food comes from grasslands, plains and flood plains. The USA is basically nothing but, all with a predictable temperate continental climate to boot. Contrast with central america which is boiling and south america which has a huge tropical rainforest and giant mountain range cutting it in half.",
"The extremely short answer is exploitation v growth. The wealth from central america, the carribean, and south america was extracted and sent back to the old world. The wealth in the US was used to grow the economy there. After the initial colonial period, private companies continued this extraction of raw materials and wealth with the support of various governments. The climates had a lot to do with it too.",
"This has been a big subject of academic debate. But the most popular theory among economists (but not necessarily other social sciences) is that it had a lot to do with the kinds of governments that colonists set up; which in turn had a lot to do with native geography and, in particular, disease environments. I did some of my postgrad on this. In short - if your initial settlers survived, you set up a colony your people could go live in, and you set up government and institutions based on yours back home. They weren't democracies as we know them know, but they had property rights and rule of law. If your initial settlers didn't, you extracted what you could from the people and the land and stayed as remote from them as you could. The government and institutions you set up were then effectively corrupt and exploitative to begin with. The theory goes that institutions like that don't change quickly (revolutions can change them, but not always for the better), so countries that started at a disadvantage with the colonisation ended up at a disadvantage. The most common example is the British Empire in ie Canada or NZ versus sub Saharan Africa. If you're interested in further reading this was the original seminal research even if it does get a bit technical in parts ( URL_0 ). There's also a related book by he same principal author which is more recent ( URL_1 )",
"This is an excellent question that already has some excellent answers in this thread! Many have already said a few of these points, but I just wanted to put them together in a semi-chronological format. 1. Our origins - This one is quite simple as some have pointed out before. US colonists generally came here in search of personal liberty (religious, political, etc.), desperation, intrigue, a chance at a better life, and so on. In other words, they came here *to stay.* Many of the other nations who were \"colonized\" weren't so much concerned with long term empire building as much as simple exploitation of the people and natural resources in their captured lands. Keep in mind, when the US on the verge of becoming a nation, the Enlightenment had gripped many who would later become our founding fathers. Meanwhile, elsewhere on these two continents, these ideals simply did not reach enough minds to become a cohesive force. Remember, our founders were willing to commit high treason not simply because of a taxation issue as it is commonly taught in primary education, but rather an amalgamation of all of the Enlightenment ideas that pointed away from monarchical rule. When many other nations gained their independence, their view of \"democracy\" was heavily influenced by authoritarian ideals, even to this day. My Venezuelan friend said it best: \"Our people were so used to bowing down to kings, that even when Bolivar liberated us, we naturally bowed to him. Maduro knows this, we know this, and we will continue bowing until all of the kings leave us not only in letter, but in spirit.\" The point here isn't that authoritarian rule is inherently \"worse\" in an economic sense (in many cases it can be shown to be the opposite), but rather how all of the above circumstances freed up many US minds to pursue not only scientific and technological progress, but also social and political ones, whereas authoritarians tend to stagnate in their ability to rapidly adapt to a constantly changing sociopolitical environment. 2. Geography - as many have said, the United States enjoyed and continues to enjoy one of the most strategic locations on the planet. We have a temperate climate, plenty of fertile farmland, two giant coastlines, and teeming with natural resources including wildlife from sea to shining sea. We also have strategic territories and bases located all over the world (our military presence will be another bullet point). Our commerce lanes are second to none, especially with the construction of the Panama Canal. This is perhaps the single most important factor, even though I put our origins first. Many other commenters have elaborated on this one, so I will move on. However, I just wanted to note that geography alone isn't a valid answer to the question. North America has been inhabited for thousands of years. There are a variety of other factors that led to our eventual rise to the top. 3. Isolationalism - Washington famously declined to assist the French during their Revolution with any sort of direct aid, especially not committing American troops to the fight. This seemingly small decision was crucial in maintaining our fledgling nation's strength at a time when the US had just *failed* in establishing a new government and was restarting again. Isolationism persisted as a core ideology, arguably even until the onset of WWII. Washington famously warned us that Europe's problems ought to be their own. Combined with our geography, isolationism was absolutely critical in the sense that we weren't constantly subverted by foreign interests. Combine isolationism with Manifest Destiny and we have the ideological basis of building an \"empire\" without the constraints of our actions being defined against another power. In other terms, these two ideologies pointed us towards taking \"minor\" pieces of land from people who were themselves isolated, and therefore avoided much of what conquerors had to deal with historically, mainly, other conquerors and stiff indigenous resistance. 4. Federalism - The failure of the Articles of Confederation was in a strange way, one of the biggest keys to our success. In its stead, we received a strong, centralized government that called for states to work in a united union, rather than continuing along the path of meager cooperation. This would lead to other things, some highly controversial at the time, such as the creation of the Federal Reserve and eventually a standing federal army. Of course, other nations on both American continents would have eventually created these things, but the key with the US is the order and circumstances under which we completed Federalism, also including the staunch opposition by anti-Federalists. Our modern iteration of federalism, despite what cynics may say, provide an incredible framework for our states, so much so that many of our states far surpass the GDP of entire countries in the world. I do not want to sound like a Hamiltonian, but Federalism absolutely was a much needed force in the early years of the US, or else infighting between states would have stunted growth and development. 5. Representative Democracy - Other nations on both American continents would eventually develop some sort of democracy, but from the very onset, American representative democracy was a huge factor in the stabilization and growth of the US. First and foremost in my mind is the idea of a peaceful transition between **opposing** parties. This is by far been the exception to the rule throughout history. This added an unparalleled (at the time) amount of stability in that ordinary citizens enjoyed despite radical differences in ideology. This is not to say that there wasn't political discord and even violence, but what we experienced here pales in comparison to some of the messier revolutions, especially in South America. Also, while it may seem contradictory, the idea of Tyranny of the Majority was another stabilizing force. Keep in mind communications at this time was severely limited and slow, so political leaders by in large shunned the idea that the common public should be able to directly elect certain offices, such as the office of the POTUS. The combination of showing the masses that they have a choice in their governance (cynics can laugh at this, truthfully) meanwhile ensuring that they do not have direct control, helped stabilize and establish a strong leadership for growth. **Continued in next comment... thanks 10,000 word limit!**",
"Central and South America wern't so much \"colonized\" as \"conquered\". The European powers that landed there simply came in, took everything not nailed down, and sent it back to Europe. What would eventually become the US and Canada were actually invested by their European masters",
"The liberation of South America was much more problematic than in the USA: After the \"conquistadores\" from Spain left the South American countries, the natives had pretty much nobody to govern the new territories, since nobody was educated enough to do so. During colonialism, Latinamerican territory was split up into many so-called \"Virreinatos\", defined areas which were under sovereignty of Spanish nobles. The natives were used as cheap labour and had to work all day, thus not having any type of education. After the Spanish left, a new type of government appeared: the \"caudillismo\". This meant that a young, charismatic new leader took the power and tried to stabilize the fragile economy and government. Those \"caudillos\" often misused their power and were overthrown quickly by the citizens, which often led to decades of quickly shifting governments. This in return led to the inability to plan ahead for the future and make long-lasting decisions, ultimately hindering the whole economic progress in South America. During all those happenings in South America, North America was quickly expanding its economic power, since there was pretty much no competition in its surroundings. They traded with a varriety of products such as tobacco, cotton but also goods like motors, ships etc."
],
"score": [
86,
85,
47,
20,
7,
7,
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://economics.mit.edu/files/4123",
"https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rkjyx | What is the "Deep State"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl5o5qy",
"dl5pdis",
"dl5oect"
],
"text": [
"It's the idea that you have lifelong employees of the Federal government who command significant power and aren't directly controlled by the political branches of the government. This is often used to refer to the diplomatic and intelligence organizations that can have large impacts independent of the president and political appointees.",
"A paranoid fantasy that there are shadowy figures in the federal government controlling everything. It gained popularity shortly after Donald Trump became president. It's nothing more than a rationalization of Trump's failures. It's a way to say \"See, he's not incompetent, he's just stopped by the Deep State.\" Baseless, delusional nonsense.",
"It's the huge crowd of bureaucrats that actually run the government. Most are career experts in whatever the government agency does, and they stay from administration to administration. The idea is that you want food safety being managed by someone who's an expert in food safety, not a political chum of the President who's got an axe to grind regarding food safety in one area because that's where their personal business interests are. Each administration lays a layer of political appointees into the top of these organizations, but the 99% of people who aren't political appointees stay the same. Some of those folks believe in climate change, or balanced book-keeping, or other things that are seen negatively by politicians who just want to \"do what they want to do\". It's like the Australian politician who claimed that the laws of mathematics didn't need to apply down under because the only the legislature could write the law. Some \"deep state bureaucrat\" just kept using math anyway."
],
"score": [
30,
16,
13
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rl0i7 | What gives soap operas that “Low Quality” feeling to them? Is it the lighting? The dialogue? It’s very distinct, but hard to pin down. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl619mw",
"dl5so5s",
"dl5zs1x",
"dl5y0ob",
"dl5s3jg",
"dl62n74",
"dl5zw9x",
"dl5sgyd",
"dl5z21m",
"dl60f8p",
"dl5yxxw",
"dl60blp",
"dl62svq",
"dl64579",
"dl62yya",
"dl6360d",
"dl60wbm",
"dl62iy9",
"dl614ta"
],
"text": [
"Here are a couple that I always notice: 1. ) Audio quality. It makes a big difference to have someone's vocal audio sequestered from any foley that occurs in a scene, such as door closes, foot steps, clothing. Everything is normalized together, in the same input mic, so you hear EVERYTHING on the sound stage, including the echoes of every sound in the scene. It may appear that they're walking around in a tuscan villa, but it SOUNDS like they're walking on particle board with no insulation. 2. ) Framerate. Not sure why they do this, but they run at 30 or 60 fps, yet snap to 24 FPS when they step outside. This inconsistency is jarring. A higher framerate doesn't make it bad, but it sets it apart from traditional cinematic features that run at 24 FPS. 3. ) Everything is formulaic. Everything. You watch a soap opera from today, and put it next to a soap opera from 30 years ago, and you won't find much difference. Probably just the hair and fashion. LOL! The camera angles, the lighting, the music, and the plot lines are all the same. Scene opens. Music intro. Enter Actor A and Actor B. Actor A's body language clearly shows that they like/dislike Actor B. Camera films Actor A talking to Actor B. Camera films Actor B's reaction, and holds for a music stab on dramatic scene conclusion. It's amazing what simple things like establishing shots, higher/lower/closer/skewed/contextual camera shots do to a scene to make it more visually interesting, and how it changes the context of the dialog. 4. ) There is no real story, no overarching character plot or development. You're essentially watching dramatic improv revolving around the personal lives of a collective group of individuals in a single location. The show is about how Actor A wrongs Actor B, and how it gets resolved by Actor B retaliating against Actor A, which somehow affects a third party, Actor C. Now, Actor B has done the wronging, Actor C retaliates, and Actor A is somehow wronged. Rinse and repeat. Add as many actors as you like to keep it varied, and maybe broaden the audience's demographic by letting more people connect with more actors with different identitarian traits (gender, race, culture, creed, age, etc...). It's gossip personified, which some people are absolutely fine with wasting their time on, but most of us aren't.",
"It's a combination of all of the above, but I'd say that lighting is the most important. Normally, when a movie or higher-quality television show is filmed, each shot is individually lit. For example, for a dialog between two people, they would set up one camera pointing at one person and light the scene for that camera's benefit. Then, they'd switch it all around to point at the other person and shoot the scene again. Then they edit the two takes together to get one where the point of view changes. With a soap opera or something else that has to be filmed quickly and/or on a budget, they set up two cameras and do the whole scene in one take. This means that the lighting has to be set up in a more bland way to accommodate two cameras at once.",
"Most of the effect is due to the higher frame rate of 30 or sometime 48 or even 60 fps. As modern humans our brains have been trained to recognize the 24fps (ok fine 23.976 and don't even get me started on NTSC and PAL...) as \"cinematic\" and 30fps as \"live\". To use an example: Saturday night live vs. the SNl digital shorts. SNL proper has the \"live\" look and the shorts have the \"cinema\" quality to them.",
"I've tried to figure it out too, and the best I can come up with is this: 1) Everything is filmed on a soundstage. There are no outside shots, no city streets, not even any greenscreening. It's all very clearly done on a series of indoor sets. Fake cars, fake trees, no indications of what buildings look like from the outside. This above anything else makes a soap opera feel like some kind of community theatre play. 2) No sound effects. Outside the occasional gunshot or screeching tires, the only sounds are the sappy music and the dialogue.",
"It's the frame rate. Most soap operas are shot at 30 frames per second (technically 29.976 but that's irrelevant). Film is shot at 24fps. We have been trained by experience to see higher frame rate video as being lower quality.",
"It's the image, and there are several parts to it; like some people have mentioned, the lighting tends to be very functional; the cameras are also often cheaper, (though even cheap cameras are excellent these days). As far as I know though, frame-rate has very little to do with it - though high frame-rates can give stuff a \"hyper-realistic\" look, that's not what's going on with soaps. I have no idea why people keep saying it's frame-rates, I mean there's a standard of 25 for PAL or 30 in the US, corresponding to 50Hz and 60Hz, and while you can get some cool effects these days by shooting at multiples of these, it's not like soaps looking cheap is a new phenomenon. *EDIT: Looking at some of the other answers, there may be something to this theory when it comes to modern soaps, on modern TVs - \"the Hobbit effect\". However, like I said, it's not a new phenomenon, so it's still just a piece of the puzzle.* More than anything, there's a lack of serious color correction in post; like I said, most cameras today are actually very good, but just look at your own camera phone - a normal still shot can look terrible, and sometimes kind of \"flat\", but add a cool filter, and suddenly it looks almost professional. Same with \"home videos\" - even with a great camera, they often have this... soap-y look - but give me enough time with some good digital tools, and I (actually, my editor) will make your vacation video look like it was shot by Hoyte van Hoytema. For movies and TV, color correctors will spend ages making sure every single frame has *juuuuusst* the right look, and correcting any lighting/color errors (and this is where an expensive camera shines, often having more information in each frame, allowing for more correction) . For soap operas, not so much - you just go by the scene lighting, perhaps sometimes putting a general filter on a whole scene if something is actually offensively horrible. ***However, all these are just symptoms of the real reason*** - soap operas are designed to be aired 4-5 nights a week, almost year-round. They are produced incredibly cheaply, at an incredible rate; some are shot \"as-live\", with almost no retakes (typically 60 minutes shot for 30 minutes on-air), and edited overnight. It's not that the people working with them are incompetent (often quite the opposite), it's just... there's no time. So it's original lighting, barely any color-correction, little to no retakes, and speedspeedspeed. Source: am TV Producer. tl;dr All the \"reasons\" are just symptoms of the fact that soaps are produced at an incredible rate, for almost no money.",
"Apart from lighting/frame rate, if you watch closely, on almost every camera switch in a soap opera they slowly zoom in until the next camera switch. Once you notice it the effect is maddening.",
"It's called [Motion Interpolation]( URL_0 ) or the \"Soap Opera Effect\"",
"It is the lack of time to set up every scene. They are very rushed to get content out. Everything gets slammed together, from writing, to lighting, to number of takes, etc. A lot of crap makes it the screen that might be reshot or killed in editing because of the time pressure.",
"You can actually reproduce the FPS changing how a movie feels on a computer very easily. There's a smooth video project out there that will add frames via interpolation. For action movies it sort of sucks. A lot of weird artifacts, but go watch something like game of thrones at 59.97 fps and 23.xx fps. You know it's game of thrones. But... different",
"The cinematography is also very rigid compared to movies IMO. Camera movement is minimal.",
"What ive noticed is that american soap operas have that \"low quality\" feeling but mexican soap operas (Novelas) are just so well made for the same story every year",
"I think it is because the soap opera seems like a stage performance. The charm (for lack of better word) of soap operas is that they make you feel like you aren't watching a real life scene. It's more like you're sitting in on a theater performance. This same feeling is the feeling I get with all the new shows on 4k televisions. They seem so real that the setting seems staged now. I'm watching House of Cards these days and I feel like I'm watching a stage performance, when before it felt like I was a fly on the wall in the Oval Office. When you can see every single prop (coffee mugs, folded newspapers etc) you realize that this was intentionally placed by someone and it bothers me now. But back to soap operas. Soaps have little time to get settings right so they seem natural since they are recording every day almost.",
"A lot of people here are talking about lighting and sound. As someone who worked in television I can tell you it's probably due to the fact they don't have time to put it through proper post processing. No lighting or color correcting, no Additional Dialog Recording or ADR. If you watch some deleted scenes that were unfinished in movies you can get a real soap opera feel to them. [Here is a link to an example from an old reddit post]( URL_0 )",
"Let's compile a small list. I'm a film student and a radio television major so there's actually a lot of answers but in my opinion the biggest one is the first. 1. Frame rate: Try looking up the hobbit shot at 60fps. It looks like a sitcom! There's also TVs that \"smooth\" between frames which make shows like Lost look like.. a sitcom. We associate the film standard, 24fps, with drama, fiction, etc. We associate 30-60 with documentaries, sitcoms, even low budget stuff! 2. Lighting: it's cheaper, faster, simpler, to just stick some lights that light up everything on the set. These set ups are usually shot on a soundstage, with rows of lights overhead making it even easier. There's nothing dramatic about flat lighting and nothing super exciting. 3. Dialogue: This one might surprise you! Some soap operas are on such a tight schedule the actors might read their lines from strategically placed cards around the set. We were shown an example in one of my classes (can't remember it right now) but someone who had been shot was on the ground very obviously looking at something and then looking back at their eyeline to deliver the lines he just read. 4. Laugh tracks: This ones easy. Would the characters be pausing if there wasn't a laugh track? 5. The rest: it can then boil down to production quality, acting, editing (sometimes done on set, while filming with a switcher) music and whatever. The lower the budget and tighter the schedule can make for some cheesy moments!",
"It took me forever to realize why I got the same feeling from sit-coms. For me, it's the characters' interactions with each other. They seem forced... why are they always standing so close to each other in the kitchen? In better shows, one will always be sitting at the table or looking through the fridge (only to be disappointed there's nothing they want) like normal people.",
"Omiglob - I have been thinking the SAME THING since childhood!!! Thank-you for asking this question!!!!!",
"Budget and time. The biggest reason is probably that they are shot on video instead of film. This is cheaper and allows them to get the project turned around much faster than film. Also, the lighting is much different, due in part to being video, and partly to backlighting being a more exopesinve option.",
"This doesn't answer your question, but there is a setting on newer tv's that make everything look like a soap opera. I noticed when I was at my cousins house and watching The Godfather, and I'm like why does it look like a goddamn soap opera and who would want that? So, umm, what is that setting and how does it work?"
],
"score": [
1174,
938,
251,
239,
139,
133,
74,
36,
21,
19,
16,
12,
11,
8,
8,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5005b47424ac8599045698aa/5006e98be4b0ee36c46746d1/53d5bb40e4b0b557d6aa8697/1419218510823/?format=1000w"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rn2wn | Why are British actors getting more and more roles in the Hollywood film industry. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl69mqf",
"dl69ph4"
],
"text": [
"I'd imagine a big part of it is because most of them can use British *and* American accents, which allows for a lot more flexibility in roles.",
"British actors have long player a large role in film and TV, both in the U.K. and out of it. Nothing too special right now. But what you do see a lot of is that US based film and TV companies are doing more filming in Europe/UK, which often tends to have a U.K. cast as well, though this again though isn't particularly new."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rnwne | Can someone explain to an American how succession works with the British Royal Family? We're raised to think Queens and Kings have children (princes and princesses), the oldest of whom inherit the throne. Yet Queen Elizabeth is married to a prince, and Charlotte is next in line to be queen? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl6guwp",
"dl6g67a",
"dl6l1j1",
"dl6go36"
],
"text": [
"American here but I know how it works. Succession flows from Monarch (male or female) to child, with preference going to the eldest child regardless of gender. Elizabeth II is the Queen because her father is king and she was the eldest of 2 daughters. When her father died, her mother did not become queen, because spouses don't count in the line of succession, just like Elizabeth's husband Prince Philip will not become King. Charlotte is also not next in line. When Queen Elizabeth dies, her eldest child, Prince Charles will become king. Then, Charles' eldest child Prince William, and then William's eldest child, Prince George. Princess Charlotte would only become queen if something happened to George to remove him from the line of succession. I think the titles might be confusing you somewhat. For example, Elizabeth is queen regnant, which means she holds all the power in her own right, as opposed to her mother, who was a queen consort. A queen consort is the wife of a ruling king who is called queen by virtue of that marriage. When there's a queen regnant, her spouse is NOT king, but a lesser title such as a duke. Elizabeth II made a decree to call him a Prince in addition to his title of Duke, but he's not a prince in the sense that he's in the line of succession.",
"Even though the queen is married, the king cannot become king just by marriage. They have to be born in line to become king. Her children, Charles, Prince of Wales is the next in line for succession to the British throne. Next would be his child Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. After that would be his child Prince George of Cambridge. And finally if he couldn't become King, then it would go to his sister, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.",
"Until very recently, the crown would pass to the oldest *male* heir, and only went to a woman if she had no living brothers or nephews. Since most queens were just the wife of a king, a queen consort, it was the king who was the actual monarch. Ellizabeth II is an exception, she is the monarch, a queen regnant. To avoid confusion, a queen regnant's husband is styled a prince consort, to make it clear he is not the monarch, it is the queen who is in charge. Next in line is Prince Charles, who would rule as a king and monarch. His wife, Camilla could be a queen consort, but they would probably choose not to give her that title, in deference to the late Princess Diana. After Charles it is Prince William, his oldest child. His wife, Duchess Catherine, would become the queen consort. Next is Prince George, Prince William's oldest child. The woman he marries would be queen consort. Fourth in line is Princess Charlotte, who would rule as queen and monarch. Her husband would be styled prince consort, just as Phillip is today. Also, the monarchy is on kind of shaky ground, as it is strictly ceremonial and serves no real governing purpose. They only exist because they are popular and if they do something to harm that popularity, it could be abolished. That is part of the reason Camilla will not be queen, and there is speculation the unpopular Charles might be skipped over, and the crown pass directly to ~~Phillip~~ William.",
"Follow-up question: Was Prince Phillip a prince before he married Queen Elizabeth? If not, does that mean you can become a prince by marriage, and not just in a parent-- > child lineage?"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6rocgr | Why is the T Rex so Famous? | So many other Dinos were bigger than the T Rex. Why is it so Famous? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl6k541"
],
"text": [
"Tyrannosaurus is one of the species of dinosaurs first identified (not necesarily as T-rex, it took a while for that name to stick, but just the remains of these giant bipedal extinct creatures) and tyrannosaurs fossils were also among the first fossils collected by palaeontologists in the USA. In addition to that, Tyrannosaurus is one of the best studied dinosaurs due to the quantity of material we've found. Plenty of skeletons, some among the most complete we've ever found, skin impressions and even soft tissue fossils. It means we've been able to study T-rex with a depth that we are simply ~~impossible~~ incapable of doing with many other species of dinosaurs because the fossil record for those dinosaurs is much more incomplete. It helps fuel the imagination to have this amount of information out there. For most of the public, having one bone and maybe a few teeth isn't enough to get them really wild."
],
"score": [
17
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6rpiwy | When France lost control of Canada. The Quebecois stayed culturally and linguistically French. When France sold Louisiana, they became culturally American. Why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dl6thxc",
"dl6svmy",
"dl6tav8"
],
"text": [
"Quebec had a lot more people, around 250,000 while Louisiana purchase had about 77,000 over a much larger area. (Non-native) The influx of new immigrants overwhelmed the existing settlers.",
"Just a short answer, but Louisiana did not become completely American. They have strong roots to French culture. The French country in New Orleans, Creole culture, etc",
"Its not even as complicated as the answers provided. Quebec became ruled by the British, who had much much bigger fish to fry than populating Canada. Louisiana became ruled by the US, who had a massive interest in populating the territory. Add in that Britain is less focused on cultures in a colony and the US was, and still is, far more focused on cultures domestic and abroad. Seems straightforward. I suppose lastly, Louisiana was extremely economically valuable back then certainly encouraging immigration to the region. Sure, just talking outa my ass here but it seems like the kinda topic that can be broken down that easily."
],
"score": [
8,
7,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.