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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9ukbc8 | Why do some cultures believe that animal tusks and horns have medical value? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e94xkje",
"e950r12"
],
"text": [
"Such items are rare, or at least difficult to acquire, and have been so for a very long time. Historically, rare items are often given magical properties; along with the horns of African and Asian beasts, both mercury and powdered human mummies were used as \"medicine\" in Europe for a very long time, for more or less no reason other than their rarity. Evidence-based medicine is a relatively recent invention, and even in first-world industrialized nations is often rejected by many people (see the large numbers of anti-vaxxers or homeopathy users). In countries where a greater percent of the population is rural, or where internet usage or health education is not widespread, traditional medicine which has been used for thousands of years is often trusted as much or more than the fairly-new science of medicine. Thus, use of these materials persists.",
"Alternative medicine exists in basically all cultures. In the US, Steve Jobs tried treating cancer through acupuncture, special fruit juices, and \"spiritualists\" - instead of getting surgery like a real doctor would recommend. This was no isolated incident. Using tusks/horns to treat illness is no different. These are unsubstantiated methods of treatment that some people think can cure disease. Walk into a GNC and you'll find all sorts of things just as bizarre as tusks/horns."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9um3rs | Why do people brush their teeth before and not after breakfast? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e95akqs",
"e95e4ry",
"e95bvic",
"e95aiqi"
],
"text": [
"In short, the acids produced during eating, either from digestive bacteria or the food itself weakens enamel... if you brush straight after then the bristles will damage the weakened enamel. Otherwise wait 30min, let the saliva neutralise the acid then brush away.",
"My dad is a dentist, he says that it doesn't really matter if you do it before or after but the important thing is that you brush them in the morning. The reason is beacuse during the night a lot of bacteria build up on our teeth and that is what we clean when brushing. The only real advantages of brushing after breakfast are that you get rid of potential food stuck in your teeth (which isn't particularly harmful), don't smell like what you had for breakfast and avoid giving your breakfast cereal a fresh taste of mint.",
"People brush their teeth before breakfast? I don't want to go to work with onion and salmon breath.",
"It's a scientific reason. It dates back to who knows how long & the simple way to explain it is: because I'm a neanderthal with no culture"
],
"score": [
11,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9umx2m | Why is it that each decade from the 20th century has its own very distinctive styles and looks but the 2000s and the 2010s look virtually the same? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e95lpe3",
"e95gbj1"
],
"text": [
"The things we tend to remember as '60s fashion', '70s fashion', etc are mostly distinctive extremes. We remember them because they stood out so much as unusual, or because they appear in movies and music videos, which tend to be very stylized. Stuff like Happy Days and Back to the Future exaggerated the periods they were about for the sake of fun and nostalgia, because the viewers were remembering the most distinctive things about the period too. Lastly, notice that most of the stuff that embodies the decade-unique fashion is about or targeted at quite young people (15 - 25 or 30) who tend to be the most excited about new trends and cutting-edge fashions. If you go back and look at family photos from the 60s/70s/80s, you'll probably see a much more diluted form of the iconic/famous looks from those decades. If you made a show about hip teenagers in 2002, it would look very different to a show about hip teenagers now. The hairstyles would be very very different -- frosted tips and spiky gel looks for guys and very straightened flat hair for girls compared to lots of half-shaving going on now. The jeans would be big and baggy compared to slim fits now. Virtually no guys would have full beards. Tramp stamps would be cool and thinner more wiry glasses, compared to bigger rounder glasses today. Crop tops and bellybutton rings everywhere, super low-rise jeans. The idea of cool/fashionable was pretty damn different. But it was only really teens and very young adults who fully embraced it -- most people rocked subtler looks even if they were inspired or shaped by that stuff. The reason Better Call Saul doesn't seem so different is mostly because it's about a middle-aged dude and his lawyer pals. They weren't refreshing their styles every 3 years to keep up with Christina or going for fresh and attention-grabbing hairstyles. A lawyer in his forties is probably going to go for a safe, pretty traditional haircut that maybe leans towards what's fashionable right now but doesn't full-on embody it, and a suit that might be a little more form-fitting and trim today, a little bigger and more flowing tomorrow, things like that. It's subtler and slower to change. Happy Days was largely about teenagers. That's a different story.",
"The \"distinctive styles\" aren't true to history but rather a fashion shorthand developed after the fact. What you think of as the 'style' is an adaptation of what a small group of privileged young people wore at the time - because what people actually wore isn't useful for instantly marking a time period for the purposes of shooting a movie or television show. Certainly, there have been advances in technology and social patterns over the years. But they move a lot slower than the decade-by-decade breakdown you'd expect from popular entertainment."
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9upsab | Why are political parties in America so polarized? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e961hb0",
"e9633dx",
"e961nfu",
"e961fpi",
"e966zok",
"e961nom",
"e964205",
"e962ebx",
"e965djo"
],
"text": [
"Our news media is very polarized, and most people seem to gravitate to media outlets (formal and social) that their friends use. This reinforces that polarization. And our leadership, across the board, has learned to stoke these fires for votes. (People who think only the 'other side' is guilty of this simply don't read a good cross-section of news). The combination has lead both sides to tacitly accept extremism that only a few short years ago would have been completely unacceptable. This helps the partisanship continue its spiral downward. The sad thing is all it would take to stop this would be people being willing to stand up to their friends when common sense tells them they are wrong. But no one will, because we are in an age where social media standing is more important than a functioning society.",
"Other countries often have many parties that have to come together to form a government and select a Prime Minister. The electoral college winner-take-all system works against the emergence of third parties. So you have two sides screaming how the other is the devil with no real incentives to work together.",
"Because they use identity politics, and they spin everything into partisan issues. They frame it so that people think of it as \"their team\", when in reality there are no teams. Because staying loyal to their party is more important to them than what their parties are advocating.",
"> This level of party polarization doesn’t really happen anywhere else in the world. Yes it does? Political polarization is nothing new, and we're not even that polarized *now* in comparison to where we have been (see the Civil War). Furthermore, I'd argue the rest of the world is doing generally worse than we are, particularly Europe. That being said, we are more polarized than we were in the last few decades. Culturally, I'd wager it's due to the rise of Mass Media, and the Internet in particular. Edit: Politics is treated as entertainment; you find the Mass Media channel, website, twitter feed, whatever that caters to your worldview and your sensibilities, and then that media is used as a means to advertise products to you. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are mechanisms to sell prescription drugs. Alex Jones, Breitbart, or conspiracy sites are mechanisms to sell you \"alternative\" medicines, supplements, guns, ammunition, survival kits, and other such things. Politically, there's also less incentive to cooperate. One of the more...troubling things Obama did was kill off earmarks (i.e. pork), but the problem is that in many cases pork was the only way to get controversial or bipartisan bills passed. A given congressman could say \"yes, I voted for this bill that not all of you liked, but in the process of doing so I got funding for this new hospital that everyone in the community agrees was a good thing,\" and they could get reelected off of that. There's no mechanism to incentivize pragmatic solutions, so the only thing left are the philosophical differences between the parties and the groups they cater to. Hence, gridlock because there are two very different philosophical ideas as to what America should be.",
"As with anything else.... follow the money. The media is not in business to inform you. It is in business to make money. How does the media make money? By selling \"clicks\" or advertising. The more clicks you have, the more money you make. Now, how do you get more clicks? You be controversial and on the fringe. (Normal and sensical is boring!) So the media hypes the extreme to get people angry, then people start talking and reading, and the media adds more fuel to the fire by giving extremists some air time to make it look like the entire party thinks that way. And before you know it people are divided and the media is selling advertising like crazy! To prove the point, when was the last time you saw a media report on anything in which the person they were interviewing said something totally rational based on common sense? So stop believing everything your favorite media outlet tells you, and try to look beyond the shaped message and into common sense. There you will find the best answer, but not the one that sells advertising!",
"It definitely happens elsewhere in the world. There's folks in Asia massacring each other right now over basically the same type of stuff we're fighting about on Facebook. But fear is a primal motivator. Hope and goodness is the best for the long term, but if you're looking to get out the vote and win in the short term, fear beats hope and change every time. It's just so much easier to rally an army of supporters against a common enemy than it is to get them to actually support you personally. So you ramp up the rhetoric, say \"Fuck that guy\", and \"If they win you'll lose your health insurance\". This gives a sense of urgency, requiring the plebs to act TODAY. Get out and vote! Donate! If you don't we're all screwed! Go and meet your local politicians. They're all nice people that actually want to help. But About 5 minutes into the conversation you'll be bored as hell because they're nice. Go talk to your senator and you'll find yourself $100 short and going door to door to keep the boogie man at bay. There's great money in creating and picking teams. It gives news outlets a target market to shoot for, and a predictable demographic to sell hair products and car parts to. That fear keeps folks tuning in every night to know what they can be doing to keep the straw man out of their field. Ever listen to NPR? They're pretty good about being non-partisan if you can stay awake through an entire episode.",
"A combination of factors produce the polarization of politics here in America . in no particular order add up the following factors and you will see how we got so polarized ; 1 Demonizing the Opponent and his /her political party for over 100 years , 2 The shift toward more extreme views just to be heard in the flood of information that is the internet 3 The What I call the Team Effect Political parties are like Sports Teams we are betting on our team to win so we trash talk the other team to discourage the other teams supporters from casting their ballot 4 the Us vs Them mentality 5 the idea that there can only be two parties in this country . 6 a media that is not there to inform but to entertain and distract. 7 there may be other factors that I haven't thought of when you add this all up you get the mess that is American politics",
"Because FUCK YOU! THAT'S WHY! In all seriousness, in a two party system with primaries, it's important to win the far reaches of your party, and the middle isn't politically viable.",
"A lot of decent answers here, but the biggest reasons I think are Gerrymandering and low voter turnout. Gerrymandering has been done by both sides when they've been in power in state gov't which means many house seats are automatically R or D and those people can be as fringe-y as they want to be with no fear of losing their seat. Low voter turnout means that only the really motivated get out there and vote, which means the political parties run on hot button, fear related issues and not 'Our candidate is smarter, more trustworthy, and a harder worker'. I used to think it was good that voting was not required by law, but I am done with that... it should be like paying taxes."
],
"score": [
110,
72,
30,
24,
13,
10,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9uq07n | How is it that so many different languages use the same a-z alphabet with different sounds for the letters. How is there not a Spanish alphabet, a French alphabet etc.? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e962f2u",
"e962ylu",
"e964lj6"
],
"text": [
"Those alphabets and languages are all descended from Latin, and each letter usually makes the same sound despite the different language.",
"The A-Z alphabet, which we call the *Latin alphabet*, was developed by the ancient Romans, who in olden days ruled over large parts of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Because of this their alphabet was very widely used, especially in those places that previously didn't have alphabets of their own. The parts of Europe that would later become the nations of England, France, Spain, Germany, and others were so accustomed to using the Latin alphabet that even after they stopped speaking Latin they used the Latin letters to express their own languages.",
"TLDR: Writing is hard to invent, and neighboring languages have similar words/sounds. Human laziness says people are more likely to adopt a writing system than invent one. So I’m going to look at two ways that might answer your question. The first being the invention of writing, and the second being the relationship between languages. Let me start by saying writing is not instinctual, and Id say it’s not very intuitive either. If I asked you to invent a new way to communicate information, you might have a hard time coming up with something. So knowing that writing is something that is hard to invent, we should assume that it was done only a few times through history by well developed cultures/societies. Once writing has been invented, it would make sense that the other people who lived near a culture with a writing system would be more likely to adopt that writing system than come up with their own. And that brings me to the second part: related languages. Languages near each other often have a lot in common. Words can be the same/similar (leche, lait, and latte for “milk” in Spanish, French, and Italian). They also use similar sounds. As and English speaker, I don’t have a hard time pronouncing “leche” because the sounds “le” (leh ) and “che” (cheh) are used in English. But if I try to pronounce something from Chinese I have a harder time, because some sounds aren’t commonly used in English (like “Qin” in Chinese is somewhere between “Chin”, “Tyin”, and “Tsin”). So, from phonetic/syllabic alphabet perspective, a culture nearby that has developed writing would likely have a letter or combination of letters that corresponds to a sound in my language. And from a pictographic writing systems perspective, the cultural references necessary to understand the association between an image and a concept wouldn’t be too distant. That isn’t to say alphabets haven’t been reinvented before. Both Korean and Cyrillic were developed well after their cultures were using some other writing system. But both were heavily inspired by neighboring cultures. One look at Korean and you can tell it’s Asian, and Cyrillic is unmistakably a combination of the Latin and Greek alphabets (Latin also being inspired by the Greek alphabet). On a final note, as some have already said here, the “official” alphabets of Spanish, French and Swedish have a few “letters” not found in English like ñ, ç, å respectively. But clearly these are just variations of standard Latin alphabet letters, and are called “diacritics and ligatures”. They’re not separate sounds per se, they just help you know how to pronounce the word from the page."
],
"score": [
15,
10,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9uub11 | Why isn't election day a national holiday in the USA? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9724e6"
],
"text": [
"Because it is in the better interest of the bankers that own the USA that fewer people vote. Fewer turnouts at the polls mean fewer brains to wash. Fewer brains to wash means it's easier to get the politicians they paid for in office. Also the electoral college. Also gerrymandering. Also our system is corrupt. Help."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9uwvo1 | Why does the U.S. not require voter ID? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e97oyza",
"e97n7lc"
],
"text": [
"Mostly because the US unlike many other countries doesn't have a regular ID card. In countries where everyone has to have a national ID card, making people show the card when voting is a trivial thing. In The US no such Id exists. the people don't want the government to have centralized database of its citizens or a residency registry or anything like that. As a workaround to fill the gap that a proper ID fills in others countries the US has taken to misusing other forms of ID like drivers licenses, which obviously are not a thing everyone has or Social security numbers (which is a terrible idea) or even credit cards issued by private companies in some situation. Without an ID that everyone simply has requiring an ID becomes difficult as even the smallest barriers of entry can be misused and will be protested against.",
"In most places, you have to pay to get an ID. Therefore, you would end up having to pay to vote, i.e. \"a poll tax\". Poll taxes are strictly outlawed."
],
"score": [
12,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9uxdxm | Why can stories that we know for a fact are not real, i.e. movies, books, video games, affect us emotionally? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e97qjen",
"e97qlm3"
],
"text": [
"Because we have imagination and empathy. We can imagine the people in the story are real, and we can imagine what we would feel like in their position.",
"Short answer: empathy. You hear about an experience and you mentally put yourself into that experience. It doesn't have to be real, but if the story is done well it will connect with you. Other examples are wincing at gore or getting vertigo from images."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9uxs8a | How do you know your ballot was counted? How are ballots counted anyway? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e97twig"
],
"text": [
"How to be sure around the world: become a vote counter. It's a seasonal job of sorts, popular with teachers and retirees (and especially retired teachers). You get paid, fed, and get to not only make sure your own vote gets counted, but also all the other votes. As for the procedure, here in Denmark we use paper votes because electronic voting is such an obviously bad idea. When voting has closed, the ballot boxes are opened and the ballots are passed down a row of tables - one table per political party, the biggest one first. When the people at a table gets a ballot for their party, they make a note and place the ballot off to one side of the table. When all votes have been counted at a site, the results in terms of how many votes each political party received is reported to a central location (first at the regional level then national) and the news, and the people that did the first count go home. This usually happens around 4-6 hours after the polls close, for the largest sites, or 4-6 minutes for the tiny ones. Next, all the ballots at each table are counted again, this time taking time to not only note the political party but also individual candidates. By different people. Usually the mistakes in the first somewhat rushed count is measured in dozens or hundreds of votes total across the country."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9uzjhb | why 18 is the age of adulthood in most countries | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9860eu"
],
"text": [
"Depends what you mean, the four main areas that people talk about when they say “age of adulthood” are drinking, driving, taxation, and consent. And those range from 16-21 depending where you are (probably further tbh). There is no magic rule, its just a general consensus among law makers in an area of what age can they consider children to be both responsible in and responsible for their decision making, enough to hold them accountable. Its pretty arbitrary and just a decision the courts in your local area came up with."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v04do | In what christian sect do they sing in the church so happily like they do in those american movies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e989c5c",
"e989f1w"
],
"text": [
"It's generally choirs/masses from the Southern Baptist Church, it's \"Southern **Gospel**\" music. One of the more popular and well-known masses is the Mississippi Mass Choir. Other types of Gospel music include gospel blues, congregational gospel, and progressive southern gospel.",
"I'd say Baptist, especially Southern. Baptists seem to have fun at church. Talking about things outside of the Bible, meeting up for food afterward (fellowship), and happily singing. I was raised Catholic and it's pretty strict, not as much fun."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v388y | Why is Jeff Sessions being asked to resign, and what does it have to do with Muller? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9900zv",
"e99287t"
],
"text": [
"Jeff Sessions was the Attorney General of the United States. Trump asked him to shut down Robert Mueller's investigation into whether Russian interfered with the 2016 US election. Sessions refused to do so. Trump has a history of demanding absolute loyalty from his underlings, and was not happy that Sessions disobeyed him. The investigation has found several people guilty of crimes, including Trump's former campaign manager. It has earned money for the US government rather than wasted it by acquiring money from suspects who have confessed to crimes. Many people suspect that Trump's opposition to the investigation is based on the fact that he may be complicit or otherwise involved with crimes. The person Trump has chosen to replace Sessions has stated publicly that they disapprove of the investigation.",
"Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation so he had no power to shut it down. Trump fired him so he can potentially bring in someone else to stop the Mueller investigation. His goal is to end the investigation and this is Step 1 (in his mind) to doing this. He waited until after mid-terms so that none of the republicans running were affected."
],
"score": [
17,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v3h9q | Why is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans so close to 1:1? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e992c73",
"e992ogh",
"e993e99"
],
"text": [
"One of the inevitability’s of a 2-party, first past the post system (which is how most state and federal election in the US work) is that the two sides will naturally alter their stances to the center portions to achieve more votes from people who may lean the other way. When this hits from both sides, you get something closer to a 50/50 split as each side is pushing for those “middle” votes, because if they do not, they simply lose, as just enough of a majority falls to the other side’s middle push. In reality, the US as a whole is generally something like 5ish points favoring the Democrats, but that’s a big picture perspective and not always a specific vote.",
"As near as I can tell it is due to something called \"first past the post\" voting systems. When voting has a winner take all outcome, it usually devolves into corruption where nobody gets properly represented. This video does a nice job explaining the details. & #x200B; [The Problems with first past the post voting explained]( URL_0 )",
"Because to win 100% in a winner takes all system with two parties you need just more than 50% of the votes. So you have a party starting at the left and a party starting at the right and they'll trying to find the minimum amount they need to move towards the centre to get more votes than the other party. So if the democrats win by 60% they've moved 9-10% further right than they needed to to get the american people to vote them in."
],
"score": [
20,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v4v6e | how is it constitutional for some American states to teach biblical creationism as scientific fact in their public schools without also teaching other religious creation theories as fact? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e99ei4x",
"e99eup4",
"e99ef8v"
],
"text": [
"It is not constitutional for American public schools to teach biblical creationism as scientific fact. Every attempt to do so has been struck down.",
"The US constitution doesn't address anything that would be related to this. The closest thing is the First Amendment which states \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\" That means Congress can't make a law stating that Christian Creationism is the only creationism that can be taught. Or a law stating that Christian Creationism can't be taught. That is how some states have added Creationism to their science classes. They aren't claiming it to be the Christian form of Creationism, or saying that only Christian Creationism can be taught. That is why the phrase \"teach the controversy\" exists, creationism lives in the ambiguity of State laws and in such a way that the Constitution doesn't apply.",
"There hasn't, to my knowledge, been a serious push for any other religious ideas to be included on the curriculum."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v4vz7 | What is 'Meta'? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e99egeh"
],
"text": [
"“meta” means a thing about a thing, ok, that doesn’t make much sense, but maybe think of it as the knowledge version of a fractal? in any case it is used in several overlapping ways in modern times, “metadata” is data or information about a set of data, “meta” in storytelling or fanfic is analysis, or writing about how things are written, and memes about memes can also be meta."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v4xqx | Why, in an age of advanced technology and the internet, is the American voting system so archaic? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e99ep8d"
],
"text": [
"Bottom line is paper trail is harder to defeat than a digital one.. if a hacker finds a 0day exploit they can change the entire election in a couple of keystrokes.. with a paper system changing more then a handful of votes would be a massive undertaking, even if it all gets scanned in digitally, there is still a paper copy that someone can go back and check."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v5ist | Why do news channels such as Fox and CNN have political bias? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e99jkiz"
],
"text": [
"They all have different owners. Owners have their own views and decide which way the coverage leans. So Ted Turner feels one way about politics, and Rupert Murdoch feels the other way. The stations they own slant the views they want to see broadcast."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v5pvf | Why are some shortened versions of names not similar to the original (Dick being short for Richard for example)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e99mboy"
],
"text": [
"Nickname conventions have changed over time. It used to be common to make nicknames by changing the first letter of the first syllable. This wasn't reserved just for nicknames and still happens with other words in some forms of British slang, most famously cockney. Of course, how we pronounce certain sounds and how we spell things have also changed over the centuries. So Richard used to be pronounced more like \"Rickard\" in some parts of England and guys named Rickard were nicknamed Dick. Another example Margaret which in some places even now sounds more like \"Megret\" and so people would call girls named Margaret, \"Peg,\" and later they combined it with the dimmunitive \"-y\" that we still use in nicknames and so Margaret became \"Peggy.\" Even after the way we said the full name changed people still associated those nicknames with the full names. The changes were gradual and took generations so most individuals didn't notice why it was happening, but eventually some things just became convention. It's also funny that you should pick \"Jon\" and Jonathan as your examples of more conventional nicknames because Jon/John came first around the 1100s from French via the Biblical book of John. Jonathan is actually a little more accurate to the Hebrew (Yohanan) and didn't become common until the Puritans started using it in the 1600s."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v69l7 | What is last thursdayism and how does it work? | I know it has something to do with Thursday's repeating but I'm not sure | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e99q6ew",
"e9a3gp4"
],
"text": [
"Some religions say that the Universe was only created 10,000 years ago. Yet science has evidence that the Earth is about 4 billion years old and the Universe is 13 billion years old. So there was a religious theory that when the creator made the Universe 10,000 years ago, they made it with evidence that the Universe is 13 billion years old. Last Thursdayium is a counter argument, that if the creator could make the Universe to appear to be 13 billion years old than there is just as much evidence that it is 10,000 years old as there is it was created last Thursday. I assume your hearing something about repeating Thursdays is some group that beliefs that the Universe was always created last Thursday and each new Thursday they believe the Universe is recreated, again for the first time. Similar to Pastafarianism.",
"It is a sort of thought experiment that makes fun of actual believes some people hold. The idea is that our universe looks old. No matter how we look at it and what aspect of it we investigate it always comes back as old. Some people would like to believe that the earth isn't actually as old as it looks. when confronted with the idea that there is so much evidence pointing towards an old earth and how it couldn't possibly be all wrong and misinterpreted some believers have come up with a fantastic argument. The universe was created quite recently but with the appearance of age. The earth was created with fossils in the ground and light from distant stars already in transit towards us and everything. The illusion of age is so perfect that we can't tell it apart from actual age. The thing about this argument is that while it is of course completely moronic, it is also impossible to disprove. However by the same token that we can't disprove that the earth was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of being older, we also can't disprove that it was created last Thursday. You might remember things from the weeks and moths and years before last Thursday, but those memories and all the physical artifacts were created last Thursday along with the rest of the world. There is no way to show that it is not true. Every honest scientist has to admit that there is no real way to prove things one way or another. We still go on acting as if what we see and find and remember is true and not just some great cosmic coincidence or ineffable divine prank. So by the same token that we can dismiss the idea that the world was created with the appearance of being older last Thursday we can dismiss the idea that it was created at any other point with the appearance of being older. It would be silly to pretend otherwise."
],
"score": [
27,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9v7lct | What happens if You enter a country on the day there is civil unrest? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9a11v6",
"e9aafqk"
],
"text": [
"Yes, a lot of times if there is civil unrest then airlines will stop flying there for the time being. Also, there is always communication with ground control so it would be easy for pilots to be informed of any unsafe activity and there are always plan b’s in place for diversions.",
"ELI5 is not for hypotheticals. Questions like this are better in r/nostupidquestions."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9v9lsg | Why are so many children books/cartoons based around animals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ae0tm",
"e9ahw1m"
],
"text": [
"It’s easier for kids to relate to and morph subjects that are typically tough into more light-hearted content because they are “animal” problems instead of “human” problems. Anthropomorphism goes a long way.",
"You see, once there was a little tiger cub that couldn't go to sleep. Her papa tried telling her a bedtime story about a monster that walked on two legs and carried a magic metal stick in his front paws and could kill tigers from a long distance. This made the little tiger cub very scared and didn't help. So papa tiger tried to tell a similar story, but this time it was a story about a little antelope that was grazing on a plain and a big, strong Tiger came and got it. This story the tiger cub understood as one of life and death, sadness and victory, but she also identified with the Tiger antagonist and knew this was just an anthropomorphic story and chuckled at the lighthearted nature of the story even while serious subject matter was being addressed."
],
"score": [
23,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vam23 | What's the biggest difference between Judaism and Christianity besides the matter of Jesus? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ane7s"
],
"text": [
"I am Jewish and went to Hebrew school 3 days per week to learn about my religion and prepare for my Bar Mitzvah. We learned the biblical stories of Adam, Even, Cain, Abel, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Noah etc. We learned about the holidays - Hanukkah, Passover, Sukkot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Purim. All of this content is from the Old Testament, pre-Jesus. In fact we learned nothing about Jesus or his followers or Christianity. As for the afterlife, we learned nothing of this. As far as I was taught, Jews do not believe in Heaven or Hell. Jews believe the Messiah will arrive at some point. It's not that we are taught that Jesus is not the Messiah, we are simply not taught anything about him. So from my perspective, there are similarities in that both religions share the old Testament, but then move in different directions after those events."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vb5t1 | Why do Republicans associate themselves with Federalists? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9aqjvu",
"e9ar0x3"
],
"text": [
"Yes, its a common thread for Republicans to actually know very little about history, most of them are uneducated and controlled through propaganda and nostalgic fear-mongering. This is evident with their absolute inability to process the fact that the liberals and conservatives switched parties in the 60s/70s as the democrats championed civil rights and Nixon pushed hard into the Southern Strategy.",
"**Different meanings of Federalist.** Federalist means in favour of operating different levels of government within a federal system. In the past this meant creating a strong national government above the original 13 colonies i.e. treat the US as a single country rather than a collection of allied countries. As the US became a large and powerful country the term now means the opposite i.e. strong local government and weaker national government. Conservatives support this idea either from an ideological standpoint or from a demographic one. **This bit is the cynics approach** In popular voting the Democrats and progressives beat the Republicans and conservatives but at the national level. The US is however not a unitary government and so certain limits are placed on the national government and certain powers devolved to the individual states, who can vary significantly from the national mean in their political values. As conservatives are more likely to object to a progressive national government they brand themselves as federalists in order to support individual states objectives which are substantially more right wing than would be palatable at the national level. If the demographics were reversed and the country was broadly more conservative you would see more progressives miraculously become federalists in order to support progressive laws/values in their own states."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vcy3c | How did circumcision become customary in the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9b68k5",
"e9b5lud",
"e9b6ylc"
],
"text": [
"[Kellogg]( URL_0 ) (yes the breakfast cereal guy) really hated masturbation. I mean he really, really hated it. So he devised as many ways as possible to stop people doing it. This included circumcision, sewing boys foreskins shut, the chemical burning of a girls clitoris using phenol, and the promotion of bland foods (hence the invention of corn flakes). He was, to say the least, a complete nutter. His advice never took off outside the US. However in the US his patients included President Taft, Amelia Earhart, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison. This popularised his crackpot theories and they infected american medical culture.",
"Prudes. Way back before 1900, people were way too interested in keeping kids from touching themselves, so John Kellogg proscribed a two-fold solution to the problem. Bland foods, like Graham Crackers and Corn Flakes, and circumcision. After the masturbatory craze died down a bit, it continued because parents, who didn't think it mattered, didn't want their kid's junk to look weird.",
"In the 1800s there was a movement to stop masturbation. This movement produce things like unsweetened Graham Crackers, unsweetened Cornflakes and the like. It also involved the promotion of circumcision. Then during WWI army doctors noticed that in the horrible conditions of the trenches where the soldiers rarely were able to clean properly that those soldiers who were circumcised had fewer hygiene related issues than those that were uncircumcised. This reinforced some of the ideas from that earlier movement and so from that point until the early 90s doctors started to promote circumcision as being healthier and easier to clean, and since most parents trust their doctors with regards to the health of their infants they went with their recommendations."
],
"score": [
25,
15,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vg72n | Why do peaceful protestors end up in jail but the police never arrest hate protests like the Westboro Church? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9bwomm",
"e9bwweg"
],
"text": [
"Being a hateful shitbird is not illegal. Westboro and scum like them know exactly what they can do without actually breaking any laws.",
"Sometimes for a peaceful protest the whole point is to get arrested so that you can bring attention to the cause. Westboro is very smart legally and knows exactly what to do to try to coax people into litigation. That lawsuit money funds a lot of their protests and travel expenses."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vlbkq | Why do people glorify the “struggle” and taking the hardest route possible to success? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9d7i3u",
"e9d7dok"
],
"text": [
"It's kinda like that post about the dude in gta5 online who had unlocked everything, had all the money, every car etc and lost interest in the game because there was nothing to do. A lot of the thrill of the game was grinding to get to the top, and once he was at the top there wasn't a goal so it wasn't fun. It's the same with 'rise and grind' type people. Their journey to success often is more valuable and cherished then the fruits of their labor. \"The struggle\" isn't necessarily the hardest route to success, it's just the unique adversity one faces in order to prosper in their life. I don't want to bring \"privilege\" into this but largely the glorification of ones struggle is to illustrate ones individual strength to overcome unique challenges in their life.",
"This is rather vague question, where the answer depends on the context. There are four reasons that come up. * On an emotional level, as stupid as it sounds, the harder something is, the more deserved the reward feels. * On a spiritual level, some religions and philosophies praise struggle and sacrifice as means to salvation and enlightenment, since willingness to subject oneself to hardship is (supposedly) indication of character strength. * On a practical level, doing things the easy way is hardly ever the best or optimal way. Finding the optimal way to do something is usually hard. At the same time, if something is too good / easy / simple to be true, it probably is, otherwise someone else would already be doing it. * On a business level, if you're not doing whatever you're doing the optimal way, or at least not trying to find the most optimal way over time, sooner or later someone will find that optimal way and take over your job."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vmc6h | ; Why was sex such a taboo in the past? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9dcr84",
"e9di485",
"e9dpwib"
],
"text": [
"In the past? Have you seen the amount of NSFW marked posts simply because a girl is in it?",
"It wasn't and it was. The views on sexuality differ based on society, location, religion, etc... That's true even for today. Modern mass media however changes things a bit. The people who control that and the laws that control what they can show and say propagate the cultural values of the source of that media. News stations and movie studios are generally owned or influenced by and are under the purview of laws created by people who have Christian values. This taboo against sex you're talking about is likely Christian in origin with that being the case.",
"In the past, birth control didn't exist, paternity testing didn't exist, and most sexually transmitted infections were untreatable. Also, before the industrial revolution, almost everyone was incredibly poor. In that context, a person's sexuality doesn't belong to them, it exists for the survival of the family. Pleasure is irrelevant, or dangerous, what matters is to secure an advantageous marriage, have healthy children, and increase the family's standing so that maybe the great- grandchildren can live in something other than poverty. It isn't enough to tell people not to get pregnant or catch a disease, you have to beat a huge amount of guilt into their head to overcome their natural impulses."
],
"score": [
17,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vmr7j | How did we reach to the conclusion about our moral system? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9deu2i"
],
"text": [
"Morality is an incredibly complex field and is still hotly debated, and there is no consensus. If you mean how we reached the conclusion that things that are universally viewed as evil, like theft, murder and such, are bad, a lot of it comes down to maintaining societal cohesion. Most of these are fairly obviously bad for maintaining social structure and order, so they were banned mostly because it was necessary. Practical terms: people don't like being killed, and if you can kill people over minor disagreements, it favors certain types of actions which are not generally conducive to long term survival and development, so we collectively agreed its bad."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vo6kc | What is a "star" that a restaurant or hotel has? | Is there an official group that evaluates the place? I've heard of a Michelin star like Gordon Ramsay has, but is that just for chefs/food places? If so what is the rating for hotels? It is that all self proclaimed | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9drvn6",
"e9dtryy",
"e9drkmb"
],
"text": [
"It all started in Clermont-Ferrand in central France in 1889, when brothers Andre and Edouard Michelin founded their eponymous tyre company, fuelled by a grand vision for the French automobile industry at a time when there were fewer than 3,000 cars in the country. In order to help motorists develop their trips - thereby boosting car sales and in turn, tyre purchases - the Michelin brothers produced a small guide filled with handy information for travellers, such as maps, information on how to change a tyre, where to fill up on petrol, and wonderfully - for the traveller in search of respite from the adventures of the day - a listing of places to eat or take shelter for the night For two decades, all that information came at no cost. Until a fateful encounter that remains a favourite anecdote we repeat today, when Andre Michelin arrived at a tyre shop to see his beloved guides being used to prop up a workbench. Based on the principle that “man only truly respects what he pays for”, a brand new Michelin Guide was launched in 1920 and sold at seven francs. A better way forward For the first time, it included a list of hotels in Paris, lists of restaurants according to specific categories, as well as the abandonment of paid-for advertisements in the guide. Acknowledging the growing influence of the guide’s restaurant section, the Michelin brothers also recruited a team of mystery diners - or restaurant inspectors, as we better know them today - to visit and review restaurants anonymously. In 1926, the guide began to award stars for fine dining establishments, initially marking them only with a single star. Five years later, a hierarchy of zero, one, two, and three stars was introduced, and in 1936, the criteria for the starred rankings were published. During the rest of 20th century, thanks to its serious and unique approach, the Michelin Guides became best-sellers without equals: the guide now rates over 40,000 establishments in over 24 territories across three continents, and more than 30 million Michelin Guides have been sold worldwide since. Today, the remarkable foresight of the founding Michelin brothers has given the company a vocation that is as relevant in 2016 as it was in 1900 – namely, to make driving, tourism and the search for unforgettable experiences available to all.",
"> Is there an official group that evaluates the place? Not just one - dozens! Each with different criteria, reputation and scope. > I've heard of a Michelin star like Gordon Ramsay has, but is that just for chefs/food places? Correct. > If so what is the rating for hotels? It is that all self proclaimed Hotel ratings are mostly given by country-specific organizations, often industry associations. There are some efforts to do international ratings, but most have failed. The closest one is probably the European Hotelstars Union, whose rating is based on a catalogue of criteria - things like room size, whether there is room service, or a 24h staffed reception. There are also regularly checked for the higher ratings.",
"There are a couple of systems that give stars and you've named a big one! Forbes is another big one. There are rules and criteria and a pretty big industry regulating who can report receiving Stars from places. And it's almost never self selected for copyright and trademark reasons. AND those systems are a little pay to play, so they have a lot of money invested in keeping other people from claiming \"Stars\" when they are the ones who give them out"
],
"score": [
47,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9vpx3b | How are additional votes "found" after election night? | On election night, all precincts report in and all votes are supposed to be counted. However, in America it has been 3 days since the election, and there are *still* additional votes being "found" in some states, to the point where it could change the results of certain elections. What gives? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9e6gno"
],
"text": [
"Absentee ballots generally only need to be postmarked by the day of the election (or the day before) and continue to arrive. They're also not always counted immediately even if they had previously arrived, since they're much harder to count, after all the envelope-opening."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9vqmcy | in the english language, why do the vast majority of swear words have something to do with a bodily function or are sexual in nature? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ev0za",
"e9evon4",
"e9ex8kv"
],
"text": [
"Curse and swear words are an oddity in linguistics. Generally, it is accepted that these words first gain their meaning, then become offensive due to their meaning, then become common profanities due to their offensive status. A recent example of this would be \"retarded\". Currently considered quite non-PC, it made its use into the English lexicon as a *polite* way to say someone was mentally disabled. Around a hundred years ago (recent by linguistic standards), \"slow\" was used to define the mentally disabled, and thus became offensive. In an effort to use a new, inoffensive word, medical professionals began to use the word \"retarded\", which literally means \"slowed\". As it became commonly used to describe the mentally disabled, it began to be used as an insult, and then became offensive.",
"As a side note: in Dutch some of the most vulgar terms involve disease where you wish the recipient to \"get cancer\" or \"get tuberculosis\" or a combination there of.",
"Can't explain the whole thing but can give you some input. In Swedish some of the most used swear words are \"fan\", \"satan\", \"jävlar\" and \"helvete\". The first three are names for the Christian devil, the last means hell. Words become swear words because they're taboo. This is really interesting when it comes to Swedish because at least about 85% of the population don't identify as Christians. So there is an effect of them being taboo at some point and then just being propagated as taboo, even with the underlying reason removed."
],
"score": [
13,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vvnon | Why is gambling popular in Chinese culture? | Or at least, why is it perceived as popular in Chinese culture in the Western world? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9fdsnq",
"e9fob47"
],
"text": [
"Mostly because gambling is largely illegal in China so people on vacation from china often are way way way into going to casinos or something that they can't get at home. So it seems like they love gambling nonstop all the time rather than it just being way more novel.",
"Gambling is popular in all cultures, and gambling addiction is as much a problem in North America and Europe as it is in Asia. While nominally illegal in China gambling is socially acceptable and people play games like Mahjong for money in a similar way that North Americans play Poker. The Chinese will also travel to places where gambling is legal like Hong Kong (Sports betting) or Macau for vacations the same way we would travel to Vegas or Atlantic City. Culturally Asians are more prone to gambling as being lucky is considered a blessing, or being shined on by the gods. They are much more likely to rely on 'lucky numbers' and other superstitions. Where-as in North America gambling is considered culturally taboo in a lot of ways because games of chance are banned by the bible and therefore it is considered by many to be morally wrong to do so. Gambling for Asian's is also much more of a social event. Asian's are much more likely to visit a casino as a large group rather than a handful of people. Gambling also transcends language barriers and Asian's, particularly immigrants, will frequent Gambling establishments as hangouts. Take this next part with a grain of salt because I heard this second hand from a Filipino friend of mine. In asian cultures the man is expected to be able to support the family and is under a great deal of social pressure to do so. If they don't make enough money to pay the bills the shame will often drive the man to go to the casino to gamble in an attempt to get more money... which of course usually leads to a downward spiral of probably losing all the money they have left. That in and of itself though isn't purely an Asian problem. North American's are just as likely to use this as an excuse to gamble."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9vx1lx | Why do hiring managers tag job postings as “Entry Level” when they require years of closely related experience? Why not just be straightforward? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9fws0i",
"e9fqra1",
"e9fqoss",
"e9fsrlp",
"e9fsjrh",
"e9ftygr",
"e9fwsdd",
"e9fwfpt",
"e9fy68y",
"e9fydk7",
"e9fx19e",
"e9fyxgt",
"e9fxu1h",
"e9fqx3e",
"e9fy91s",
"e9g5cqa",
"e9g7gvj",
"e9g58jz",
"e9fxp0u",
"e9g26vr"
],
"text": [
"The job is going to pay an entry level wage, but managers selfishly want someone who is way overqualified and will be able to overperform for that low wage. They think those overqualified people won't need as much supervision. I hate this practice, but I had a manager that purposely put a wishlist of requirements in job descriptions. She put \"Adobe Suite\" in every job listing, even when it had absolutely nothing to do with the position, because she just wanted someone in the department to have that skillset. When I was promoted, she posted my old job, and I called her thinking there had been a mistake. I told her I've had this job and I don't qualify to apply! She had years of budgetary experience, managerial experience, and Adobe Suite listed. None were needed for the position. I personally HATE this practice, because it completely distorts who you get applying. Perfectly qualified people don't apply, because they don't have those unrelated skills. No one that overqualified is going to be happy at that pay, at least not for long. And, in my experience, a lot of the people who apply when they don't have those bogus qualifications, also don't have some of the actually necessary ones - they have a bigger tendency to overestimate their qualifications in general.",
"If they post the position as “entry level” they do not have an expectation of premium level pay/compensation. By adding the experience requirements, they are able to identify with an employee currently in the industry that is looking to make a lateral change, instead of an upward gain.",
"Disclaimer: Personal experience, not actual data 1.) Cynical reason, my husband is being laid off in a few months, he has 13+ years in his field. People are requesting him for \"entry level\" jobs because of these experience requirements. They tend to use that term to negotiate salary. Which is shady and back handed, but if you ask for (made up numbers) $145k/y for an \"entry level\" job, even if your work experience means you are far from entry level, they can say, \"oh, well entry level salaries are capped at $97k/y,\" and negotiate down severely. 2.) Possible practical reason, many companies assume internships and/or work study. Entry level may also be in reference to the type of work and not the actual experience. For example, you may be a member of a group and not a senior lead or developer.",
"HR has one primary job in this regard. Get the highest quality person at the lowest possible price point with minimal effort to themselves. This means that they are lowering an applicants starting salary negotiating position before they even have someone in for an interview. If they do not get any qualified applicants they may re-advertise at a higher salary. They can always re-advertise again until they get a qualified person. You don't start an auction with a high bid. This may also be HR being extremely incompetent and just sticking \"entry level\" because they cannot be bothered doing some research about what the industry pay point for that position is so grossly low ball it and then just negotiate up. They do the same when the write \"Pay: competitive\". Its code for \"we would pay you in hay and straw if we could\". Some HR departments just write in what they want in an applicant and then expect people just below those requirements to either apply, if they are motivated enough, or not bother trying to apply if they lack that motivation. It winnows out the chaff. & #x200B;",
"It may well be that the entry to the company (i.e. the lowest rung in *their* career ladder, the literal entry level *to that company*) requires some previous experience. If they're not expecting to ever hire fresh, inexperienced people and train them, and if they are able to successfully fill all their entry-level vacancies with people who learned that stuff somewhere else, then there's no contradiction - you can have 3 years of relevant experience and still be \"as fresh as it gets\" if everyone (and especially everyone in more senior positions) has much more.",
"I was told that it was more of a wishlist. My job wasn’t entry level and required an education and 5 years experience and I had no experience. I did really well on the preliminary tests and I got the job! Apply anyway!",
"The role might not be entry level, but the amount they want to pay a person to do it is. Easier to convince a cheaper, less-experienced person to work harder and at a higher level than they're compensated for than to convince a highly experienced person to work for less. Once you know your market value and you get good job offers, you are perfectly happy saying fuck off to a piss-taking offer. When you're younger or less in demand, you tend to take any job and take any shit they throw at you to keep it.",
"\"Experience beyond what we list here is unlikely to improve your chances (or you salary offer), but less experience is unlikely to get your resume a close review.\" Or \"We don't have anyone who can train you if you have less experience than we list, and don't have the money to pay you more if you have more than we list (but we hope to someday).\"",
"Wages haven’t really gone up in 35 yrs, so employers just hire experienced and desperate people at entry level pay.",
"The lower they can lowball it on paper the more they can screw you. Really though. That's why bachelor degrees are spending years In \"internship positions\". You'll show up with experience to work below your education and below just pay compensation because jobs are scarce and you should be \"great full for the opertunity\". Corporate America is **now** built off of taking advantage of the individual to continuously inflate \"growth\" and \"revenue\" with little concern for supply and demand. It's not about putting money in the consumers pocket that they will in turn put back into the economy, it's how many corners can we legally cut and get away with",
"I’m applying to a job since I graduate undergrad in December. This makes it SO HARD to find a goddamn job.",
"There are almost no \"Entry Level\" jobs nowadays because Employers don't have the resources to train recent grads. The designation of \"entry level\" means they will pay you entry level wages, which is generally around $40,000 per year in the major cities.",
"In some instances it boils down to HR not knowing any better or just not reviewing the positing. Most of the time they copy and paste info from the hiring manager into a preset template and forget to review all the tags and pre-reqs to make sure they’re still appropriate. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve caught mistakes in the job postings I requested. For example a recurring issue I’ve encountered is HR slapping “MBA/CPA preferred” for every position regardless whether or not an MBA or CPA is actually necessary. I wish I could say it was unique to one company but I’ve seen similar issues at every company I’ve worked for.",
"It comes from back in the day when people interned and already at LEAST been around the trade prior. College does count as experience believe it or not, also doing the job as a \"hobby\" counts as well. So technically it does not mean literally \"you must of been full time employed for it to count.\" If you always read history books (for a cheap example) and applied to be a history teacher, you could, in theory, count all of your personal education as experience. If a company does not list the amount of required experience, that is implying that none is needed and they will train from ground up. So a roofer could apply for an accounts payable position and be eligible. Some argue that it's a companies way of getting a more experienced worker for cheaper (entry level pay). That's how it was designed when it was created and implemented ( were talking about 50 years ago) and now it seems that it falls under the category of \"well, that's the way it's always been done.\" It is outdated and unnecessary these days.",
"Two reasons: By far the most common reason is lack of HR knowledge among hiring managers. Hiring managers are widely tasked with functions like writing position descriptions, job specifications, and job announcements, but often have no education, training, or experience in these. So, they do non sequitur things, like saying an entry level job requires 3 years of experience. At the same time, hiring managers tend to want to hire for the journeyman level or wish to hire someone with clear promotion potential. This can be complicated by changing unemployment levels. When unemployment is high, you get wacky hail Mary applications, and so managers write more stringent job specs. When unemployment falls, they don't want to rewrite their materials, so they just reuse something that no longer makes sense. The second reason is that some fields, at their lowest level, require some industry knowledge or skills. For example, in many industries an \"entry level\" position in quality management may legitimately require prior experience in the industry. Within the quality profession, that job is entry-level, but to learn that entry level job, one must necessarily have done something else.",
"It’s not an entry level job. The employer does not want to pay for the experience they need. They probably have interns they will convert to employees to fill the actual entry level roles.",
"Sometimes companies post listings with unreasonable requirements so they can show that there aren't enough qualified or interested domestic workers and they can get a visa for a non-domestic worker that they can pay less",
"I applied for an admin job at the company I was working at. They employed a girl instead from outside the company because she had admin experience. The job said ‘no admin experience required’ she was in the job for 1 year and has just recently left and they’ve employed me to do the job. I’m having to fix an entire years worth of issues, she hadn’t been doing her job and there’s all kinds of paperwork missing and not done. A lot of legal stuff. The filing is a complete mess, money missing from the cash office etc.",
"Used to work in recruitment. Now, what one needs to bear in mind is that recruiters will state what they *want*, but that's not necessarily what they'll *get*. Even they know this. But they pitch high, hoping that someone that fits that description applies for the job. They will get a bunch of people without experience applying too, and they may very well interview them and hire then. This is often the case, but not always. A more cynical interpretation is that the company is looking for an experienced recruit but paying them on an entry-level salary, at least in their own scales. As far as that company is concerned, all entry-level positions require experience.",
"In my experience (in Tech) it’s often because the hiring managers turned out to be completely unfit to oversee any projects, so instead of firing them they give them an “easier” job finding and hiring new talent. Obviously these are the last people you’d want in this position since they essentially washed out, but as an added bonus they also tend to have very large (and wounded) egos so they have extreme bias during the hiring process. Some larger companies will let someone from Human Resources handle all of the hiring even though they have no idea what the development team needs, nor do they have any clue what all of those things on the resume mean. The last company I worked for was a defense contractor and my team was seriously deficient of the entry level devs I needed to maintain projects. I came to find out it was because HR was asking new hires (entry level, Bachelors or 2 years experience) to have “expert or above mastery” of a system they would only have access to if they were in the military."
],
"score": [
401,
104,
103,
46,
19,
14,
13,
10,
9,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vy7gd | Why are the helmet-straps that the British military use in formal dress placed under the lip instead of under the chin? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9g2iwv",
"e9gqxjc",
"e9g143k"
],
"text": [
"The dress bearskin hats have a chain strap so when not firmly affixed will hang naturally around the lip area, however the chain will allow the chain to go under the chin when needed to keep the hat firmly on.",
"Because it's not a chin strap. It's a chin *guard* meant to protect from glancing sword blows from passing cavalry. A bearskin is actually fairly light, and is unlikely to need a chin strap except if the person wearing it starts sprinting or something like that. Thwacking a small target like a man's head or neck with a sword, while riding on a galloping platform like a horse, in the middle of a battle, is actually *really hard* to do, so this seemingly pathetic bit of armor isn't actually quite as pathetic as it seems. If the cavalryman is very good or just very lucky, you're still going to have a very bad day, but these chinguards could reduce a potentially lethal or at least permanently-disfiguring wound to a really nasty cut, and a glancing blow to a shaving cut.",
"I wondered also if the expression \"stiff upper lip\" came from this too, but didn't find any evidence for that."
],
"score": [
15,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9vzmsq | How can a home owners association have any power over you? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9gdxgf",
"e9gdxy2",
"e9ge1a7",
"e9ge3m8"
],
"text": [
"You sign a contract agreeing to all of the rules and the fines if you break them when you buy the house.",
"When you buy the house, the person selling you the house makes you sign a contract whereby you give the HOA their power. You bought the hoise and the HOA with it.",
"> You own the goddamn house, the property and most of the things on or in it. Except when you purchased them, as a condition of that purchase, you agreed to the terms of the homeowners association. Yes you own them but you are also in a contract. They don't \"own the neighborhood\" but they do have a contract with every owner in the neighborhood, which includes the clause that they can only sell to someone else if they also agree to enter the contract.",
"Typically in an HOA situation, the land and/or home was purchased from a housing developer. Part of the purchase was signing a contract binding you to all the rules of the HOA. Also consider the name \"Home *Owner* Association\". If you are one of the home owners, then you usually get a vote when it comes to what the rules are and who enforces them. It can be the most frustrating for renters who don't own the home and thus have no say in the making or enforcement of the rules despite having to agree to them and often not getting a clear listing of what those rules are before they sign a lease. & #x200B; But if you own a home inside an HOA controlled area, then you agreed to be part of the HOA and bound by its rules."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9w2t1z | Whats the meaning and history behind the famous Egyptian "Z" pose? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9h3luq",
"e9hcqh9",
"e9hh3zh"
],
"text": [
"First off, keep in mind that the time between now and ancient Egypt is shorter than the time between ancient Egypt and more ancient Egypt. Traditions and the reasons for those traditions probably changed more within that time than Christianity and Islam combined over their entire histories. That said, at some point during that time my understanding is that ancient Egyptians believed that any body part not pictured wouldn't be eligible for the afterlife, and the Z pose is simply the most iconic of the many poses designed to show off all joints and fingers in a single drawing.",
"From an artistic point, realism wasn’t valued. The art they liked showed what we knew of the body, showing the parts in their most recognizable forms. Same thing with the backgrounds of the works shown, people were drawn from a different perspective than their backgrounds. Importance was communicated by size as well, so pharaohs were huge and their servants were depicted much smaller.",
"This \"Z pose\" is a modern parody of ancient Egyptian stylistic art, feet turned to the side, shoulders turned towards the viewer (combining front and side perspectives in a slightly unnatural stance). Keep in mind their art work spanned thousands of years and consisted of several epochs"
],
"score": [
137,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9w5ff6 | Why Japan suffers from "Galapagos syndrome" ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9hpgaw"
],
"text": [
"It's a high tech society with a nonwestern history, it leads to inventing a bunch of technologies homebrewed instead of just using other country's since they have both the means to do so and the different needs. Like india has to just use american cell phones and deal with the fact they do hindi input bad, japan could just make their own cellphones."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9w83xx | Why do you say “hanged himself” and not “hung himself”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ij9g8",
"e9iluay"
],
"text": [
"It’s just one of those things in English. Hanged is reserved for hanging people and hung is really anything else.",
"To be hanged is the act. If you were dangling from rope climbing gear that slipped you could say you were hung up there for a while. But, when people decided you should be hanged as a punishment, we say you were hanged. It's like how you get fired, are fired, were fired, could be fired. Hanged is the action that happened regardless, not the state you were in. You were hung up in your hanging, while you were being hanged."
],
"score": [
15,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9w8jww | How were the first translations done? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ir1cz"
],
"text": [
"Lots of trial and error. I pick up a red apple, point to it and say \"bagu\". What did I mean? Apple? Round? Red? Food? Fruit? Sweet? Juicy? You really don't know. Until I pick up another thing..let's say a red ballon \"bagu!\". Hm probably not apple, not food, not fruit not sweet, not juicy. But could still be red or round. Those are physical attributes we can think of. But what if I meant \"my favorite\" or something else non physical? You would guess and be wrong and then use it wrong, I would correct you and go thru this cycle of trial and error. Until even sometimes now, translations are still wrong or not nuanced enough."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9w91f8 | How did people from different countries communicate in the past e.g. a Persian trader in China along the Silk Road or an admiral finding foreign civilisations on a voyage? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ivpu0"
],
"text": [
"They learned the local traders language. Just like today. In ancient times most western traders spoke latin or greek all ober europe. When trading with the middle east people spoke Farsi. Farsi was the common language amongst traders for a long time."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wagjx | Why is well-done steak looked down upon? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ja8q8",
"e9j7nqw",
"e9j7i7z",
"e9j7qzx"
],
"text": [
"Think of it like this. How does steak differ from other cuts of meat? The answer is that it is soft, supple, juicy, and has good fat balance. So what happens when we cook steak? Well it toughens, the juice evaporates, and the fat renders out. What this means is that the textures you are paying for that separate it from other cuts of beef decrease. It's also why Filet mignon which is expensive because it exemplifies these textures becomes increasingly like less good cuts of beef. I think why people get upset is that there are many other types of beef that do well being cooked longer and through...and are cheep. So eating a well done steak wastes the exceptional qualities of steak. But hey if you like it that's fine. It's your money you should get what you want.",
"Because you take all the flavor out. I asked my chef boyfriend this question right now, granted he's watching the eagles and super into the game, but his first response was \"ya ever eat a belt?\" The more rare it is, the more it just melts in your mouth and you get the real flavors.",
"The hotter it gets, the more water/fat fat steam/dissolve. This isn't good.",
"The flavor, juiciness, texture all change once it's well done. Medium well is a step in the right direction. If you need ketchup with it, you're doing it wrong. Slap some butter on it and keep it juicy. So yummy."
],
"score": [
13,
9,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9waolb | Why should I donate to the people in Malibu? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9j9go0",
"e9j9ld6",
"e9j9khu",
"e9j9mvy",
"e9j9gsm",
"e9jbxtd",
"e9jboi6",
"e9jbasm"
],
"text": [
"That's a pretty interesting moral question. They're victims of a natural disaster, they didn't deserve it, and the fact that most of them have other money somewhere doesn't mean that they just hop back on their feet. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're are or are not it need of help. But I think one element of your question implies \"if I'm gonna donate why donate to *them*?\" Then you can get into \"maybe the most deserving cause hasn't happened yet\" and you can reason yourself into hoarding your charity forever waiting on a moving enough disaster. You don't have to donate to anyone, but I don't think there's any scenario where it's fair to say that you *shouldn't* donate to helping people in need.",
"10.6% of the residents of Malibu live below the poverty line. I'm sure many others are not quite impoverished, but just average lower or middle class folks for whom the fire wiped out their finances. Average income in Malibu is $90k, but that's just because it's skewed way upwards by people with 6- or 7-figure (or more...) incomes.",
"You are not obligated to donate anyone and I understand where you are coming from but maybe you should ask this in r/changemyview.",
"It isn't just rich people who've been affected - there are plenty of regular people with limited resources to fall back on. Those are the ones who need your help.",
"Because you care. Personally I'm a cold heartless bastard and I don't care. I did donate to Katrina though. Can't explain why.",
"Because not everyone who lives in Malibu/Thousand Oaks/Calabasas is Kim Kardashian West or Jeffree Star or Clay Matthews. There are plenty of people who have a posh zip code and live at or below the poverty line. They did not start the fire. They’re not out there fanning flames and hoping they won’t have an apartment, or a place of work, or a grocery store to shop in. Not to mention, there are thousands of animals who need help. Dogs, cats, horses, and so on. People are in shelters with bare minimums. Some with just the clothes on their backs, still smelling like smoke. And in Northern California, it’s worse. Paradise, California is gone. Burned to the ground. That’s the reality of wildfires in California. Just because it’s a swanky address doesn’t mean shit. It just means there’s poorer neighborhoods on the other side of the freeway, because someone works for the swanky addresses as staff.",
"What about the mom and pop restaurants and stores that happen to be in Malibu? It’s not just homes it’s businesses as well. When you give money, you don’t always know where it ends up. You just hope that you’re helping someone. At least that’s how I look at it.",
"It is unlikely that aid will go towards celebrities. On the contrary, I suspect wealthy residents of Malibu are also donating. You're probably right that on average, victims are richer than those of other disasters. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't poorer people who need a lot of help. That said rather than judging people in Malibu for their choice to live in a drought area, or for being rich, take this opportunity to think of what you do care about and people you want to help, and help them. There is more than enough need to go around."
],
"score": [
17,
13,
8,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wc2sg | How were companies a few generations ago (1950’s and 60’s) able to hire entry level workers and train them to work there for life? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9jjeuj",
"e9jjs34",
"e9jj9qk",
"e9jolrm"
],
"text": [
"Unions Seriously, with unions in place, there were stricter firing procedures, training, career tracks, decent retirement plans, predictable pay increases, better healthcare. Now we have to hop companies to get sizable pay increases and better benefits",
"After WWII, all the industrialized countries around the world were decimated. There was no competition for American companies or workers, and there was an enormous need for American companies to help rebuild. So there was both limited supply of workers and a huge demand for them. Therefore, most American workers had very steady, high paying jobs despite having high school educations at best. Today, there is competition in the labor market from several directions. There are highly skilled workers in Europe, there are equally skilled but far cheaper workers in Asia, and there is significant automation due to computers, machines, and robots. Now, there are certain industries where there are more highly skilled workers in China than in the US so they win on both cost and quality. The nature of capitalism is that benefits the extremely rich who can afford to invest in companies, and it benefits the extremely poor, who are the most cost effective workers available. That's why the standard of living in China and India is skyrocketing and billions of people are being lifted out of poverty. It's also why the rich are becoming far richer in the US. The group that is left out are the people who are rich enough not to take the lower paying jobs, but not rich enough to invest in companies. That mostly means the average person in Europe and the US is not seeing huge leaps in wealth the way the very poor and very rich are. Because companies are less dependant on one source of workers, they are much more able to fire people (or avoid hiring them in the first place.) Furthermore, in the highly skilled tech jobs that are growing in the US, there is so much innovation that the necessary jobs keep changing. The problem with the greatest need tends to pay the most, and as soon as that one is addressed, people move on to the next one. Cost of living is important to the workers, but it's not really related to the demand. For example, if I'm buying a car for $30,000, I don't care if it costs the carmaker $25,000 to make it or $29,000. But I do care if the carmaker charges me $30,000 or 34,000. In the same way, companies, who are buying services from workers, don't care what the costs are for the worker. They only care about finding the most cost-effective employees regardless of where they are in the world.",
"Companies started putting profit above customer care and employee support. Back then reliability and customer service were the most important thing. You provided a good service or product, took care of your customers and employees, and retained the loyalty of both. Then profits started becoming the top priority, wage growth stagnated, and customer service took a back seat to profit margins.",
"For one thing, they expected entry-level workers to be entry-level, instead of requiring a master's degree and 5 years of experience (in something that's only existed for 2 years) as entry-level qualifications. And they trained the workers to do the job they needed, with the industry-specific and company-specific knowledge to do it well, instead of just expecting people to already know all that or figure it out in their spare time."
],
"score": [
40,
22,
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wcqcv | Why was the Iceland christmas advert about the orangutan banned for being too political? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9jnbxm"
],
"text": [
"In the UK, TV broadcasting first started with the BBC, which is funded by a television licence. As such the BBC required no advertising to pay its way. Commercial broadcasting came along later, and with it came worries about the power and persuasive influence of TV advertising. Because of this laws, regulations and codes of conduct were drawn up to restrict what could be shown. One of the very first things to be banned was any form of political advertising. Instead TV channels are required to give space during elections for parties to air their own Party Political Broadcasts. It is this restriction that the Iceland advert has fallen foul of. Because the advert is not selling a service, but promoting a cause - it been judged to have contravened the above rules."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wcssx | Why is polygamy illegal in most countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9jott7",
"e9jn773",
"e9ju6im"
],
"text": [
"Polygamy leads to a problem known as 'surplus males'. Essentially, high status males sweep up all the available women and lower status men are left with none. This generally causes the lower status men to turn violent and disruptive. Polygamous nations tend to either have a high crime rates, internal dissent or require external wars to control this problem. It's just not a very stable setup. Polygamy also disrupts the use of marriage as a bond between two families. If your daughter is a man's only wife, then he has a connection to your family he's loathe to sever. If she's merely one his 40 wives, he really doesn't have any meaningful connection to your family. Note that you can see many of the same pathologies of polygamy when you reduce marriage rates or increase divorce rates since you create a situation where high status males monopolize women over time (rather than simultaneously).",
"It tends to be 'one man with many women', which is exploitative. None of them are 'one woman many men'. Its a basic power imbalance. Not that the latter would be much better.",
"Aside from what was already mentioned it also makes divorce law super complicated. It only works (legally) if women don’t have the right to property, because in a divorce situation its almost impossible to determine how much one spouse should get in a 3 party system."
],
"score": [
11,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wd6cn | The American Education System; Explain it like I‘m European. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9jphm3",
"e9jp7d4",
"e9jqhgw",
"e9jq9ar",
"e9jqi3b"
],
"text": [
"Americans use the term \"going to college\" for \"going to university\". Your school career starts officially with kindergarten and generally speaking you are 5 years old when you start. Grades 1-5 are elementary school. Grades 6-8 are middle school. However, some school districts have grades 1-6 as elementary school then grades 7-8 are junior high school. Grades 9-12 are highschool. During high school you have greater flexibility in selecting your curriculum. For instance, you have the choice to take a foreign language or not, you have a choice of which sciences to take (if any), and you can pick what math classes you want. Students planning on going to college will often take a foreign language and geometry and trig and biology, chemistry, and physics. Additionally, students may have the option to take Advanced Placement classes for math and science classes and these classes give you college/university credits. Many states allow students to drop out of school at grade 10. I left out a bit but that's the gist of it.",
"Typically you finish high school at 18. College is the same as University here. Most people will go right to college/University after high school and get done with their bachelor's around 23 years old. It's basically just a title of what the facility wants to call itself.",
"Thanks, I am also so confused about this. Also why do you guys have words like fresh man and sopho more? What’s that? And why do Americans always go live at university and have those sororities and fraternities?",
"I see you understand German, so \"major\" = Hauptfach, \"minor\" = Nebenfach. It is a pretty coarse approximation, since general studies play a bigger role in the American higher ed system than in the German one, where all classes are relevant to your particular course of study.",
"A lot of good responses but possibly some of the confusion of college/university (these words are mostly interchangeable) is due to the degrees. Most students leave high school at 17-18 years old depending on their birthday. Depending on income they may not be able to complete a 4 year degree in one go. So they may attend a community college after high school, it offers associate degrees (2 year) and certifications (blue collar/manual labor and skilled work like welding, EMT, food service)...and sometimes there is apprenticeship. The certificates may still need a state license to practice. Once you have a 2 year degree you may be able to go to work at the bottom of your preferred industry doing entry level work. Now you have income and might be able to afford to transfer to a 4 year college where you only have to work another 2 years for a bachelor degree. This decreases your overall cost. The average cost of a year of education at community college is $4-8k. The lower price is offered to long term residents, the higher price is typically for those coming from out of state. The average cost for a 4 year college or university is $23-32k per year. The lower number is for public colleges and the higher number is for private. Public colleges receive some of their money through the state or federal government while private does not. Both rely on student tuition in addition to any other money they receive. For the early education...kindergarten is voluntary in many states, and then your child must be enrolled by age 6 (first grade) under the law. They attend elementary school until age 10/11. Middle school starts for most kids about age 11 and goes until kids are 13/14. High school starts for most at 14 and most kids are 17-18 when they graduate. Most states allow kids 16 and older to officially drop out without parent intervention. The age differences have to do with birthdays and what part of the year your child was born."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wdacf | how did they first decide that Pyrite (fools gold) was not as valuable as gold? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9jx4ye",
"e9jqhq0"
],
"text": [
"Pyrite isn't similar to gold once you get close It's Iron sulfide so when you try to melt it to form jewelry you'll discover it has the wrong melting point and ends up wayyy harder than gold and also just looks like iron because that's what it is once you've melted it down Fools gold is just crappy iron not gold",
"You can not form pyrite into jewelry like you can gold. This is the reason why there is no pure diamond or gem rings as it would be very hard to make. However gold and silver is much easier to melt and mold. The other reason is that pyrite can easily change in contact with chemicals. Even just heating it up will cause it to undergo chemical reactions. So if you were to make some jewelry out of pyrite it will not last for long. The reason pyrite is called fools gold is because in a pan small flakes of pyrite looks like small flakes of gold. But the properties are very different. So if you have been collecting everything that looks like small flakes of gold and then try to do something with it like melting it down to a gold bar or cleaning it with acid the fools gold will change into other minerals."
],
"score": [
19,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wesbf | Why is this painting worth $80 million? | Not really an art person, but I still don’t understand why “Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures)” by David Hockney is worth $80 million at auction. Why is it considered good? What’s so special about it? Article here:[Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures)]( URL_0 ) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9k1n9d",
"e9kazgm",
"e9k33gd"
],
"text": [
"David Hockney was one of the main people that started the \"paint everything in acrylic\" style that dominated like, everything through the 60s, 70s and 80s. Lots of his paintings included swimming pools as an element. & #x200B; This is a giant painting of a swimming pool by david hockney drawn in acrylic. It's like the single distillation of everything into one painting. Like there is no real one thing that started that art style but if you want the thing that covers it all you absolutely can't get more straightforward than this.",
"It's not worth $80mil yet. First someone has to actually pay that much for it. I have a $100mil pencil in my pocket, but haven't found a buyer for it yet. What is it's value? The $1 I paid for the dozen, or the $100mil I want for it? Sotheby's will be selling it and their experienced experts guess the painting will go for $80mil, and probably aren't off by more than $10mil. As for why it is considered \"good\" is entirely subjective. Good art evokes emotion. When I say \"emotion\", please understand I don't just mean crying. I'm talking about the whole spectrum of emotion from joy, disgust, anger, sadness, hope, courage, wonder, nostalgia, or just \"Damn that's cool\". What triggers that emotional response is different in everyone. Personally, I know there are pieces that have triggered real reactions in me that I would pay obscene amounts for. I usually cannot expect anyone else to share that reaction because sometimes it's roots are so specific to me and my life. \"Great Art\" seems to trigger an emotional reaction in almost everyone that sees it. Apparently David Hockney has the magic touch that most of his works trigger something with everyone that sees it, especially those with really deep pockets. Back to the objective world, Art can also be viewed as an investment. Let's assume this painting sells for $80mil. David Hockney is 81 years old. When he dies in 5-10 years, his \"masterpiece\" will sell for WAY more than $80mil, because he definitely isn't going to be producing another one. So long as Hockney's work is relevant, it's only going to go up in value, and if you play the game just right it will beat out any stock.",
"Paintings aren't valuable because they are good art alone. They get so expensive because rich people use them as investment properties. They want to have items that are super valuable so they can store their money in a small form that is easier to keep secure than a mountain of cash or heavy precious metals."
],
"score": [
23,
15,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9wl5x6 | What is Cuban coffee, and can I get it in "instant coffee" form? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9lhe2o"
],
"text": [
"Cuban coffee is espresso mixed with brown sugar. That’s the common way of making it. However, when I was a barista, there was a drink we called a Cubano which was espresso, simple syrup and half and half. Tastes incredible. Or I’ve seen other forms of a Cubano which is just espresso and raw sugar. In order replicate a Cuban coffee you’re referring to, Cuban-style is typically darker so get a darker roast. Put the sugar in the mug then add the espresso and the spro will melt the sugar creating a delicious sweetener. I’d imagine you can’t find an instant coffee form, but if you have access to espresso, just mix it with brown sugar."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wsyib | Is Libertatianism not just anarchism-lite? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9n1pp6",
"e9n3kuk",
"e9n1gtr"
],
"text": [
"Kind of, but not really. Anarchism is (per [ URL_1 ]( URL_0 )) \"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint\". Libertarians, at least in the United States, generally don't want to completely abolish government, but think government should be very, very small and it's role severely limited. So, it's the difference between no government at all, and a small and restricted government. It's worth noting the Libertarianism isn't really a philosophy like anarchism. It's more a collection of philosophies on the proper role of government in society. For example, most Libertarians (I think) would say that government should protect the populace from theft, assault, and fraud, which means there should be police and courts. Anarchists on principle oppose all forms of government.",
"Well... In some ways, yeah. But only if you absolutely detest nuance and also believe that socialism is communism-lite, conservatism is fascism-lite, liberalism is anarcho-communism-lite, etc.",
"It is. In fact, when Europeans refer to anarchists (See: Start of WWI) that's the ideology they're referring to. Those anarchists weren't the Mad Max, Thunderdome, utter chaos anarchists we tend to think of in the US. It was more of a less-government, more personal responsibility, non-fiat based currency based ideology."
],
"score": [
12,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://dictionary.com",
"dictionary.com"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9wwciq | How was the Civil War considered a civil war? | The Confederacy broke off from the United States, making it a different country, so how was this war considered a Civil War? Wouldn't it just be a normal war? Come to think of it, why was the war even fought? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9nsflw",
"e9nswd1",
"e9nturf",
"e9ntygt"
],
"text": [
"The Confederacy declared they were their own country but the Union said no you're not. So it's considered a civil war because the South lost. Had they won it would be called a revolutionary war.",
"The southern part of the the US said \"screw you guys\" and made a lot of noise about being a new country. The government of the US, which still thought that all those parts that wanted to leave \\*shouldn't\\*, and was also angry about getting attacked by the south, attacked back with the goal of preventing those southern territories from actually leaving. & #x200B; \"I Declare Independence\" is a lot like \"I Declare Bankruptcy,\" just saying it isn't enough. You've got to make the appropriate people actually care as well. & #x200B; The goals and motives of southern leadership is sometimes a bit scattershot, being made up in part of a bunch of assholes who's guiding star was \"you're not the boss of me!\" And we shouldn't ignore the clear and iniquitous presence of slavery that permeated the south, and that they wanted to force upon the rest of the union as well.",
"That's literally the definition of a civil war. Just because the confederacy said it was another country does not make it true. Neither the United States nor any other country recognized the CSA, and the Union victory affirmed that the CSA was in fact never a country and just a rebellious portion of the US, as the US had maintained. As for why, the southern states, shortly after election of Lincoln to the presidency, believed that slavery was going to be abolished soon, and decided to secede from the United States in order to preserve slavery. The Confederate army then attacked a US fort in South Carolina, sparking the war, and the Union victory affirmed that states cannot unilaterally secede.",
"The Confederacy lost and the original government won thus keeping the country together and making it a civil war. The US revolution is only considered a revolution because we won. Had the British Won it would have been a civil war."
],
"score": [
36,
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9wx3r8 | What does it mean when a show/movie/book deconstructs a trope? | I've heard people who critique film/shows/games, really any medium, talk about how a certain show deconstructed a trope. What does that exactly mean? My understanding is taking a trope that we all know and viewing it in a different way. For example, I've heard one person say how the recent season of Legends of Tomorrow, particular the fairy godmother episode, deconstructed the Disney princess/fairy godmother trope. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9nysll"
],
"text": [
"\"Deconstruction\" is a fancy philosophy/theory term introduced by Jacques Derrida. It's a certain way of making, or looking at, art of any kind. It's a vague but important concept, and many thesis papers have been written on the subject of \"What is Deconstruction?\" What it boils down to, in lay usage at least, is pretty much as you understand it. Deconstruction i popular usage means taking the elements of a trope and either analyzing those elements individually, rearranging them or excluding some to make something new, or putting it in a new setting or theme. The film *The Big Lebowski* can be seen as a deconstruction of the noir genre. All the elements are there - a kidnapped damsel in distress, an underemployed male hero, organized crime, suitcases full of money. However, all these elements are changed; the damsel kidnapped herself, the hero's a stoned slacker, the crime's a bunch of nihilists, the suitcase is full of Walter's whites. The film *Primer* can be seen as a deconstruction of the time travel trope. It focuses in on the technical & grounded parts of time travel, eschewing the wild adventures the genre usually covers. Instead, the realistic impact of time travel on a friendship is examined."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9wxxj4 | Why do a lot of mobile games do so well in China? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9o3k4q",
"e9o3xgn",
"e9o3l4a"
],
"text": [
"I think they do pretty well everywhere. But also 1) there are more than 1 billion people in China so it makes sense they have the most mobile game users. 2) Chinese are obsessed with technology.",
"China has a really extensive network of services based on mobile phones and instant messaging platforms. All the typical Internet-enabled services you can think of, are done in a convenient way on mobile phones there. A lot of regular people kinda blew past the concept of a desktop/laptop computer and made their phone their primary device for everything. So mobile games do well in China because all mobile services do well in China.",
"likely because mobile games are a wide net cast to get the most fish and china...has the most fish of any country. countries with a higher population will do better on mobile by default. triple A game titles cater more to hardcore and casual try hard gamers in a certain age and sex demographic. mobile games try to cater to the masses with little exception. there are also stricter laws in china to censor adult games which are generally the best triple a titles, so the market likely has less variety to choose from on consoles and pc."
],
"score": [
10,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9x5ux6 | foreign english speakers tend to have trouble with plural and tense, are these concepts unique to the english language? some other reason? | I tried to think back to the tiny bit of high school spanish, and I think I recall that there were tense in that? as well as plural. What about in mandarin and japanese? Or is this just a random way that general unfamiliarity with a foreign language happens to present itself? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9pskmt",
"e9puqkz",
"e9q6u6h",
"e9q3tym",
"e9pxnzx",
"e9ptizb",
"e9q0dw8",
"e9qhqar",
"e9q6qc4"
],
"text": [
"It's not quite fair to generalize in that way. There are many, many languages out there, and fluency in some lends more easily to a transition to others. But, when you see common difficulties from certain groups, it's because their native language just treats certain word forms and constructions differently. The best example I can think of off the cuff here is very common error amongst native Spanish speakers and making English past tense constructions with the word \"did.\" For example, \"yesterday, Jim did not go to school.\" That construction in English is using a conjugation of the word \"do\" and an infinitive form of the word \"go\" to make the past tense. In Spanish, the \"do\" part of verbs is just included in the verb. For example, \"Ayer Jim no fue a la escuela.\" That's equivalent to \"yesterday Jim did not go to school,\" but there is no word for \"did\" in there. It's just a past-tense conjugation of \"go.\" Directly translated, it's \"yesterday, Jim no went to school.\" So, you hear a lot of native Spanish speakers make the error of \"yesterday Jim did not went to school.\" They'll add the \"did\" because they know English calls for it, but they'll still conjugate the verb, because in their native Spanish you will always conjugate that verb. Like anything else, it's tough to break habits when you switch between languages.",
"Many languages have them, but many of those languages also handle them in unique ways. English is no exception. For example, many languages - particularly romance languages - match the adjective to the noun. If the noun is plural, the adjective is, too. I'm (re)learning Russian at the moment, and Russian does this, too. So, for instance, if you said, \"My favorite cat\" in Russian, it would be \"моя любимая кошка\" [moya lyubimaya kozhka]. If you said, \"My favorite cat**s**\" it would be \"мои любимые кошки\" [moi lyubimie kozhki]. кошка becomes кошки, but notice that both \"my\" and \"favorite\" in Russian change their endings to match the ending of the noun they're modifying. English doesn't do this. You don't say \"my favorites cats\" or \"those oranges cats\" or even \"I have twos cats.\" In many other languages, they do something like that. So one way non-native English speakers mix up plurals is by trying to modify their adjectives, which comes out wonky to us but makes perfect sense to them. To say nothing of how English uses -s for both plural *and* possessive, which is somewhat unique. In Spanish, you wouldn't say [transliterated] \"RhynoD's cat,\" it would be \"cat of RhynoD\". In English, we denote possessive *in writing* by using an apostrophe, but there's no apostrophe when you speak it. And of course, many native English speaker struggle with remembering to write it! As far as tense - many languages use tense *very* differently than English. Some have more tenses, some have less. The ones that we do use we use...weirdly. So for instance, back to Russian: English has [tenses, aspects, and moods]( URL_0 ) which we encode with both endings and helper words (or *modals*). So there is a grammatical difference between \"I study\" and \"I am studying\" and \"I have been studying.\" Even though all of them are in the present *tense* they are different *aspects*. Russian does not have aspects as part of the conjugation of a verb. Instead, they just use a different verb. Spanish, on the other hand, grammatically encodes mood in ways that English does not. English, for the most part, does not have *subjunctive* mood, which denotes that something is hypothetical - it may or may not happen (or have happened). The only place we use subjunctive in English isn't even used all that much: you use \"were\" in place of \"was\". So, if you are preparing for an exam and your roommate interrupts you, you would say, \"I *was* studying.\" You definitely *were* studying. On the other hand, if your roommate drags you out to go drinking, you would say, \"I wish I *were* studying.\" You *want* to be, you hypothetically *could* be, but you aren't. That's it, in English. Otherwise, to denote that something is hypothetical you just use context. In Spanish, there are separate endings for all verbs for subjunctive. English also makes use of modals *a lot*. Like, most languages use a different ending for future tense - if they have a future tense, some don't. In English, there's no future ending the way past tense has -ed and present progressive has -ing. Instead, in English we use the modal *will*. \"I *will* study tomorrow.\" Although, even progressive gets weird because you don't say, \"I studying now,\" you say, \"I *am* studying now.\" Most other languages don't use extra words like that. As a result, when non-native speakers try to use English, they may default into using what makes sense to them in their native language, but which doesn't work in English. English speakers do this, too, of course, when we're speaking languages other than our native English. The other big trip-up for speaking foreign languages is prepositions. There are so many different ways that languages say that you are *near* or *on* or *from* or *of* etc. For example, in Russian you would not say you are \"in the street\". You would say you are \"*at* the street.\" You can only be *in* something that has definite walls or boarders, and a street does not. So while *literally* the Russian в (v) means \"in\" and на (na) means \"at,\" there are many instances where English would use \"in\" while Russian would use \"на,\" and vice versa.",
"For Chinese. There is no plural at all so it actually makes a lot of sense for native Chinese speaker to not pluralize verbs. EG. I am = 我是 . He is = 他是 . You are = 你是. Notice the only character that's different is the first character which is the subject. In English you need to have the appropriate verb that match the subject, in Chinese it's just the same character. Also One Dog = 一隻狗 , Two Dogs = 兩隻狗 . The first character are just one and two, 隻 is a character we use to count animals. And 狗 just mean dog. We don't add anything else afterward. The only thing different is 1 vs 2. & #x200B; Now in Chinese the notion of tense \"kind of\" exist. I am eating = 我在吃飯 . I ate = 我吃了 . I will eat = 我會吃 I am running = 我在跑. I ran = 我跑了 . I will run = 我會跑 The difference is using the word 在/會 to emphasize presence and future. And the word 了 loosely translate to \"before\". So in English the correct sentence would be \"I ate before\", but in Chinese the structure is just \"I eat before\" & #x200B; There are A LOT of exception to the rules when it comes to plural/tense in English (Person vs People, Child vs Children, See vs Saw, Read vs Read, and Fish is always in plural) Chinese just doesn't have any exception like that. & #x200B;",
"There is no conjugation in Mandarin, if you want to indicate when something happened you need to attach a time to it. What is most common is to state if the action is completed or not. That’s what the 了 is for. There is a linguistics term for languages that emphasizes if an action is completed but I can’t find it.",
"Aside from not really having a plural (aside from counting and a special case or two,) Japanese doesn't have a trailing \"s\" sound, so native speakers find it very difficult to pronounce and often end up dropping it from their speech",
"Spanish handles plurality the same way English does. Spanish verbs have a ridiculous number of conjugation rules that correspond to different tenses. You can take a look at all them [here]( URL_0 ). Chinese and Japanese both handle plurality through counting words like 一个 or 一つ. Chinese verbs aren't conjugated but they are combined with words that carry the tense in their meaning such as already 已经 or tomorrow 明天 or in the future 将来. Japanese verbs are conjugated to change their tense in a similar way to English and Spanish. For example the verb to eat 食べる can be conjugated to ate 食べました or eating 食べています.",
"All human languages have a way to talk about multiple things, and ways to talk about past and future. The grammar for how those are expressed can be very different, though, so people often mess up when they are learning a foreign language. Also, some languages make tense/number more explicit than others. In certain languages, you can rely on context to provide the missing information. For example, if I said, “I have three dog.” You can tell I have more than one dog. The “s” in “dogs” is actually redundant information, but English grammar requires it. However, some other languages don’t require you to change the noun. Saying “three dog” is sufficient in those languages. Same thing with “I go to the store yesterday.” It’s not grammatical in English, but all the necessary information is there. So in some languages, making the verb past tense may not be required.",
"In Hebrew we only have past, present and future; but in English classes they taught us that English ha the same tenses but some also have perfect and/or progressive forms. About the plural form, we have pretty much the same (Hebrew also have a \"double\" form for quantity of 2, but it is rarely used in day to day, and we mostly use plural form). On the other hand, when we see native English speaker talk Hebrew, they tend to have a problem with the sex of verbs. While you say \"he 'locked' the door\" and \"she 'locked' the door\", we say \"he 'naal' the door\" but \"she 'naala' the door\". Moreover, if you're male, we say you 'naalta' the door but if you're female we say you 'naalt' the door. Another interesting point we have is that in some (many?) languages, object also have a gender. The same way that a 'strong' male is 'hazak' and a 'strong' female is 'hazaka', we refer to a lock as a male and a lock will be 'hazak', but the door is referred to as female and the door is 'hazaka'. I heard in a TED talk that there was a study about the gender of objects in different languages, and they found that for example Germans (who refer to a lock as male) tend to associate it with male characteristics (big, strong etc.), but French (who refer to it as female tend to associate it with female characteristics (beautiful, delicate etc.). This probably affects the design of these objects, and a German-designed lock will probably be harder to break, and a French-designed lock will look nicer. If you want, I can try and find this talk again.",
"I asked my German friends what they thought was hardest about English. I thought they would say the spelling, but I was quite surprised when they said, \"The past tense.\" German certainly has past tense, but we have a couple more more versions of it in English that aren't in other languages. I did it. I have done it. I had done it. I was doing it. I have been doing it. I had been doing it. Try explaining to someone when to use each of those tenses. What's the difference between \"I was doing it\" and \"I had been doing it\"? I know when they feel right, but I couldn't tell you what the rules are for each one. Part of this stems from the fact that English has a present progressive tense (the -ing verbs) that's not always in other languages. German has past-tense equivalents to the first three English examples I gave, but I don't think they have anything exactly like the last three. My German is good enough to impress an American, but I still sound like a fool to Germans."
],
"score": [
160,
53,
13,
7,
6,
6,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tense%E2%80%93aspect%E2%80%93mood"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rae.es/diccionario-panhispanico-de-dudas/apendices/modelos-de-conjugacion-verbal"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9xajsz | Why is it that we laugh more easily when in a group than when alone ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9qpq3z",
"e9qqgu5",
"e9qr0pf",
"e9qthg6",
"e9qx1hx",
"e9qukd1"
],
"text": [
"We laugh to communicate to others that the situation/something said is funny. If you are alone there is no reason to laugh if you think something is funny because no one will be around to hear it.",
"I laugh a lot when I’m alone. Wait, is that weird??",
"I laugh just as much when alone than I do in a group. It also depends on what you mean by “group.” A group of close friends and a group of acquaintances are two totally different scenarios.",
"It’s contagious like a yawn. Not objectively, of course. Plus people naturally laugh with others with a subconscious fear of rejection. If you the only one not laughing in a group of 10, somebody gonna say what’s up with that and it would get socially awkward real quick there, bub.",
"Most of y’all aren’t introverts, are you? I have to constantly stifle laughter while sitting alone at my desk, viewing meme dumps on imgur",
"Bo Burnham had a line referring to this in the song [Are You Happy?]( URL_0 ), from his most recent stand up, \"Make Happy\". > And if you watch this thing alone You probably didn’t laugh, but maybe a few times you exhaled out of your nose & #x200B; It basically refers to the fact that when you're alone you're less likely to laugh out loud expressly, even if you found something hilarious that would normally keel you over in a group stage. & #x200B; Laughter exists in a sense as part of \"conformity\" - the need to fit in. It's part of your body's way of saying \"I enjoyed that\" without actually doing so, while being a more obvious and quick reaction, but is often used even if you don't actually believe that, again, as a way to \"fit in\" without ostracizing yourself. Of course all of this being said, people still laugh on their own, and a lot of them don't feel 'ostracized' by not understanding why others are laughing, so it's a bit of a grey area. & #x200B; Tl;dr you're more likely to laugh in a group because everyone else is laughing, and you'd rather (subconsciously) be part of the \"group\", even if you don't actually believe in the actions you're performing."
],
"score": [
123,
36,
12,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCp3n95qSZg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9xe301 | Why are therapists suddenly rejecting straightforward diagnoses? | I've seen a few therapists and read a few books and a general conclusion seems to be that "real" diagnoses are falling by the wayside ("You have ADD." "You have anxiety disorders.") Doesn't that make finding definitive treatment more difficult? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9rk9wh",
"e9rke89"
],
"text": [
"There's a problem with being \"definitive\", in that it doesn't work. I'll use myself as an example. A couple therapist, who aren't my therapists, are quick to diagnose me with Aspergers. I mean, wow. Ok, so I ask them are there genetic components to Aspergers? No. What is the difference between someone with Aspergers vs. mere personality traits. They said there is no line. What it actually comes down to is an evaluation and a judgement call... Meanwhile my actual therapist tells me every patient she's ever had come out of one particular clinic were all diagnosed with Borderline, yet she attests they were all missing several key traits of that disorder - the misdiagnosis to her was obvious. But here's the problem, if you have a definitive diagnosis, what does that change? How does giving it a name make it better? What it does do is dismiss your actual problems. People will write you off because you have Something Disorder, they will always treat you and think of you in terms of Something Disorder. You may even do it to yourself if you believe in diagnosis. And how, then, do you hold yourself accountable for the deficiencies in your behavior if you write it off with, \"Well, I have Something Disorder, so of course all this is fucked...\" The reward of a definitive diagnosis is minimal, but the risk of consequence is gigantic. Seek therapy, get medicine, but going around thinking or telling people you have a thing doesn't work to your advantage. You can get all the same therapy and treatment for whatever psychological disorder without naming it. You're supposed to treat the behavior, not the disease.",
"Not giving a word for people to latch onto makes them more willing to adapt and accept individual traits and needs. I've seen parents limit their children when they don't think their child can learn with their diagnosis and they end up lacking basic life skills because it's difficult to see your child struggle and easier to protect them. It's also becoming more accepted that some diagnoses often occur along with another one. It may be difficult to get help or acceptance with something that doesn't fit into a long established diagnosis."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9xk8z3 | How come that we as humans don’t run out of melodies collectively? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9t3gv3",
"e9syjxn",
"e9sz9tt",
"e9t3y4k",
"e9t6cxz",
"e9t4aku",
"e9t5ym0",
"e9t4faq",
"e9t3c93",
"e9t6hgt"
],
"text": [
"Melody isn’t just about notes— it’s equally about rhythm, which REALLY explodes out the permutations.",
"There is just so many different possible melodies that we couldn't possibly run out. I can't calculate it exactly, but for comparison, there are more valid unique games of chess than there are atoms in the universe, and a chess board is much more restrictive than music.",
"It‘s like language. We also don’t have a limited amount of sentences. Some are the same, some are very similar, and there’s always the possibility to have one that has never been done before.",
"Because there's so many possible combinations of notes that we could literally never run out. For instance, using the typical western scale, theres 12 available notes before you reach an octave. In a single measure of four quarter notes, there are 12^4 = 20,736 possible combinations of notes. For every measure you add, that's another power, so 10 measures would have 20,736^10 = 1.46×10^43 possible melodies. For perspective, if a composer somehow could write a new 10 measure melody every second, it would take 3.4×10^25 × *the age of the universe* for him to run out possibilies. Now, of course not every combination will be a good one, in fact most would be bad and not even worth considering. However, this isn't even taking into account variations in rhythm, tonality, octave, or length, let alone the use of harmonies and chords. All of those things will make this number dramatically larger. I think it's safe to say we're a long ways off from running out of music.",
"I dont know if anyone has posted this before, but [Axis of Awesome - Four Chords]( URL_0 )",
"in western music, we have 12 notes, which means there are 8.9161004e+12 possible combinations, and that's not even taking rhythm into account. now that's a LOT of possible melodies, however the number of melodies that sound \"good\" (whatever that means to you), is much lower. melodies or parts of melodies get re-used all the time. you could take 4 well known melodies, split them into quarters and mash them up and you'd probably end up with something that sounds alright without being recognizable. another thing that makes a lot of difference is the chords behind melodies. a melody can sound *totally* different depending on the chord you're playing it over. still, replicating a melody, whether intentional or not, is something that happens all the time. listen to enough music and you'll hear it everywhere. i'm a musician and most of the shit i write could sound like a total ripoff of like 20 different songs, depending on who's listening to it. half the stuff i write ends up sounding like another song even to me, so i just kind of tweak it til it's less obvious. all of us do the same shit. \"Good artists borrow, great artists steal\"",
"Despite all the maths ITT, maybe we have run out of melodies. Maybe we did 1000 years ago, but no one knows, because the history of recorded music is so short. Likewise, one person can only be exposed to and remember a small sliver of all the recorded music, so it is quite possible (and I think is well-documented, there are sources here) that most music isn't really original or new at the melodic level. It certainly ISN'T at the chord structure level. \"3 chords and the truth.\" Folk music (especially the blues) wasn't really concerned with originality in this way. It wasn't important to the creator and it wasn't important to the consumers. It wasn't really even important to the people selling the records or booking shows. In a way, \"new\" or \"original\" were antithetical to the aesthetic of Folk. Bob Dylan and his ilk pretty much collapsed that into a shell of what it was. But I think if we look at what made Folk Music endure can help us to see that \"originality\" isn't necessarily what people WANT out of music, anyway. It isn't necessarily what makes a song GREAT. Copyright law and its application after the wild explosion of the music business is one reason this idea of a \"unique melody\" has come into being. I think the lawsuit against George Harrison over \"My Sweet Lord\" is watershed incident. But I wouldn't say any of that to a 5 year old, so let me try this. What if music is like fruit? When you eat an orange, how do you know if you are eating the best orange EVER? You don't. Are all oranges exactly the same? No. But are they all entirely different? Also, no. An orange is orange-y enough to distinguish it from an apple or a pear or, certainly, a cucumber.",
"While we're here, should we share unrelated songs we've found that have the same melody? Here is the strongest example I have found: [Never Shout Never - On the Brightside]( URL_0 ) [Brand New - I Will Play My Game Beneath the Spin Light]( URL_1 )",
"We already have. The thing is *everything else* changes, and that makes a big difference. The tempo. The instrumentation. The vocal style. The production style. So and so forth, a near infinite number of possibilities - and the same melody from one piece of music to another can be unrecognisable.",
"Listen to BBC Radio 1 there are two melodies. 1 - house melody with a girl singing about failed or new relationships in a hungry for dick voice. 2 - \"R n B\" 808 style repetitive sample with some guy mumbling shit about some money or how hard he is."
],
"score": [
211,
114,
75,
17,
10,
9,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/oOlDewpCfZQ"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/-zm6i-C0p1Y",
"https://youtu.be/rL06c_mCG0I"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9xl6qv | If a girl has the name Kimberly, her nickname is Kim or Kimmy. If a Boy is named Michael, his nickname is Mike or Mikey. But if a Guy is named Robert, why can his nickname be Bobby? If his name is James, how can his nickname be Jimmy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9t54hp",
"e9t4nmt"
],
"text": [
"Names like Robert and James were really common and so people had to come up with nicknames that could be used to differentiate one Robert from the 6 others they knew. Some Roberts became Robs and then some became Bob because it rhymed. Same with Richard - > Rick - > Dick and William - > Will - > Bill. This Mental Floss article has some good explanations of nicknames. URL_0",
"Really it's just what we're culturally used to. There are reasons for each example. Here is another: A girl called Elizabeth might be Liz, Lizzy, Beth or Betty (or others)"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://mentalfloss.com/article/24761/origins-10-nicknames"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9xni8q | Why can't we vote for politicians online? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9tnfwa",
"e9tl86q",
"e9tlasi"
],
"text": [
"1) Online voting isn't secure. *Nothing* you do online is secure, it's just that for the most part it flies under the radar. No one cares. 2) You could easily stop voting with a DDoS attack against whatever website was responsible for collecting the votes. Alternatively, hack the accounts, and then the day of the vote reset the passwords so no one can get in without going through the service desk. 3) There's no paper trail, at least not one you could inherently trust, whereas at a polling place everyone involved can validate the existence and legitimacy of each individual ballot. 4) Even without affecting the vote, all of the data could (and likely would) be tallied, and that data can be easily leaked online, which is a massive breach of privacy. 5) People could much easily sell their votes en masse by simply selling their ID, password, and IP address to a private party, who would then vote *for* them, spoofing their IP address in order to make the vote appear legitimate.",
"It is not secure. Voting online would be extremely vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. Far more vulnerable to manipulation and error than our current methods. Yes \"John Doe at the local library\" really is more reliable than online infrastructure.",
"For security reasons. It is much less safe then voting the way we do it now. A simple Ddos attack could easily shut the voting website down."
],
"score": [
12,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9xou8u | Is there a reason why there are no Indian fast food chains? | It seems like every well-loved cuisine has a fast food chain variant (Italian: sbarro/pizza hut, mexican: taco bell/chipotle, chinese: Panda Express, british: Long John Silvers, etc) but I've never seen an indian food chain. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9twlst",
"e9txh3i"
],
"text": [
"In the US it's not popular enough to support fast food, especially amongst the demographic that eats fast food.",
"Not in the USA, in England there’s plenty of fast food Indian shops. England has a long history with India (massive subject in of itself) where as the USA doesn’t. The culture didn’t intermingle as much and so there isn’t a large representation of it. An opposite one would be that there aren’t any(many) Mexican restaurants in the UK while the USA has tons as it shares a border with the country and has a log history with Mexico."
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9xvyf7 | How did languages form? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9vmqvo",
"e9w3c27",
"e9vm0dk"
],
"text": [
"Using specific variations of \"ugg\"s and \"grunt\"s in different situations. Each family/tribe would apply their own sounds to these situations, eventually meeting with others and mixing together the different combinations of noises. Eventually becoming sophisticated and widespread enough to be called a language",
"Well, we don't know what the first true \"language\" was or when it formed. & #x200B; But, we do know that a good chunk of the world's languages all stem from one language: Indo-European, probably spoken by primitive people in the Caucasus mountains. & #x200B; Up until modern times really, groups of people were usually pretty isolated from one another. Sure, traders and soldiers would see foreign lands, but your everyday farmhand? No. Whenever one group of people talks amongst itself more than it talks with outsiders, its language slowly mutates and becomes more distinct from the languages of nearby people. Take, for instance, the people of North Sentinel Island. Its tribe is famous for its hostility, but even in ye olden times, the tribe must have been very isolationist, because even natives of nearby islands, whom can understand one relatively easily cannot understand the people of North Sentinel Island's language. & #x200B; Thus, languages formed.",
"Isolation from other people, basically. Now that the world is more connected, some languages have begun to fade away, or are completely forgotten now."
],
"score": [
25,
14,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9xw484 | Why is it necessary to refer to a condescending person as a mansplainer rather than a condescending person? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9vm1v5"
],
"text": [
"Because, in the specific case of a man condescendingly talking down to a woman, it's *because* he's a man that he does it. You can't just call anything \"mansplaining\". Like if I (a woman) were condescendingly explaining shit to my brother (a, er, man) that wouldn't be mansplaining. That would just be me being a bitch. The reason it has a separate name is because *it happens all the goddamn time* (the condescension of a man to a woman). Seriously, try being a woman in a corporate setting. Happens every day."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9y4yyf | The differences between the various honours British people get, and their history. | Recently Tom Hardy got a CBE, and Hugh Laurie has a CBE. David Attenborough has a CBE and knighthood along with a bunch of other honours. Adele and Ed Sheeran have MBEs, while Ian McKellen has a CBE and a CH. Do these have hierarchy and on what basis are they given? Do they come with additional benefits? When did this begin and why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9yobv9"
],
"text": [
"They are different ranks in the Order of the British Empire. The highest ranking is a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), followed by OBE (Officer) and then the MBE (Member). These were started after the 1st world war and were originally for civilians who helped in some way but are now given for lots of different things from sports men and women to celebs to people for charity work. Knighthoods / damehoods are slightly different and have a longer history but are only awarded to British people ( not commonwealth) and are seen as higher. There is also the structures of lords and lady's but that's a different cup of tea."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9y5hue | How did Kingdoms in medieval times and so on benifited from raiding other kingdoms | For example if the kingdom of France went on to raid burgundy or something and got a ton of gold of it, what would they do with the money ? Would they use it as currency in their own country ? Wouldn't that basically be the same as the king minting more coins and causing inflation. Sure if they stole goods they could be useful in some ways, specially because medieval times trading good for other good was very proeminent but what did they do with the money ? Did they just cause mass inflation ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9ye9ek"
],
"text": [
"Some would go to the soldiers raiding as a way of payment and the rest to the king. The soldiers would use it to pay for food and what ever amd the king would either sit on it or use it to pay for improvements of the castle. There wasnt really inflation in those days i dont think"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9y92b0 | Why is the fascist dictator Franco still so loved in Spain? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e9zmeuy",
"e9zmgfc",
"e9zvw8u"
],
"text": [
"Fascism is the Authoritarian Right and is built primarily upon nationalism and populism. This means that when they are established (at least at first) there is a lot of national pride, and a lot of public support for what they do. Franco in particular also did not keep his regime fully fascist. As his reign went on he slowly gave up power, first by allowing pluralism in the parties, then delegating power to different elected officials, before eventually reinstalling the Monarchy before his death. He basically adapted over times to the needs of the country giving up control as it was needed and beneficial. Because of this many admire his time as leader despite the totalitarian practices of his early reign.",
"Under Franco, Spain experienced an economic boom that made them into a true, first-world, industrialized country. He gave the Catholic Church a prominent place in Spanish society, which many devout Catholics approved of He promoted a strong Spanish identity, brutally suppressing the languages and customs of Spain’s minority groups. He was a devoted anti-Communist Also, during the last 20 or so years of his rule, he wasn’t a totalitarian dictator anymore, more of a strongman like Vladimir Putin in Russia or Ergdoan in Turkey",
"A Spaniard who was a devoted admirer of Franco once told me that the main reason so many other Spaniards admired him was because he kept them out of WW2."
],
"score": [
14,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ycsca | Is there a reason why "French kissing" is called that way? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea0m0qi"
],
"text": [
"The French were stereotyped to be sexually adventurous back in the early 1900s when the term was coined, and it apparently stuck. A more specific theory is that British and American soldiers who had encounters with French women during WWI reported that they were more inclined to kiss like that."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ygh9u | Why do British cities have fewer enclaves and exclaves in them compared to American or Canadian cities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea168zq",
"ea169jw"
],
"text": [
"In England, the main administrative territory used to be the county. It was a piece of land with a stronghold, a town, some woods and fields, and a bunch of \"manors\" which were itself pieces of lands with a manor, a hamlet, and some woods and fields. During the 19th century, two things happened. First, the population of the towns grew a lot because of the industrial revolution. Second, there was the Counties act of 1844, which removed most of the Exclaves and enclaves. Thus, during that times the towns ended up covering large portions of the counties that had been specifically re-aranged to avoid exclaves and enclaves. There were some more divisions happening around that time like the carving up of boroughs inside the counties, but they were careful not to create any mess. In the US and Canada, towns are territories which became incorporated when the people living in them decided it would be a good time to have a town. Afterwards some towns clumped together in a metropolitan area decided to form one big city (with the old towns becomeing wards or boroughs or whatever) but it was usually a voluntary decision, which was often fought for and sometimes reversed (for instance, the town of [Mont-Royal]( URL_0 ) on the island of Montréal was forced to join the City, but later won its independence back in courts (it is a very well-off area and they didnt want to share a budget with the poorer parts of the city, which are literally across the street). In short, you can say that the the american cities are more scaterred because the system and the courts give more power to the people of these towns, and they often want to remain independant for a variety of reasons (usually monies).",
"Cities in the US were founded after a legal definition of the city was developed. So when multiple cities grew together and started to overlap they didn't change anything because they were already legally defined. Meanwhile in old world cities like those in England a lot of cities were fully formed before there were strict legal definitions about how to divide each city and when a town was enveloped it just became part of the original big city. Interesting examples of the opposite happening on both sides of the Atlantic: in Pittsburgh, Pa, USA the area of the city called the Northshore today, used to be called Allegheny City, but was legally absorbed by Pittsburgh so successfully that most residents today don't even know there used to be two cities. In the UK the \"City of London\" is a seperate legal entity from \"London\" due to medieval laws that are still on the books from a time when they were two more obviously distinct entities."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Royal,+QC,+Canada/@45.5071101,-73.6708606,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4cc919cbc35e18d9:0x45d8c3191a6c0fa0!8m2!3d45.5125819!4d-73.6468307"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ygqq2 | Why the oldest things (like music, movies...) seems to be better than the new ones? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea15bdv",
"ea162nq",
"ea161xx"
],
"text": [
"Because only the best of the oldest things are still remembered, and you are comparing that with *all* of the new things.",
"1) Survivor bias. We remember the good from the past and forget about the bad. While when we look at those today we go see and listen to content that are both bad and good and it seem unbalanced. 2) The past have a huge advantage, the number of years. If you look the last 10 years as the ''new ones'' and compare that to the oldest things (centuries when it come to music and more than one century for movie) that's a bit imbalance. You compare a decade to more than a century of content created, statistically you have a good chance that more great content was created in the past than in the small period of time we consider the present. 3) Nostalgia. When we look at an old movie or listen to an old music, it remind us of memories from the past, which increase their value in our eyes.",
"I associate music with memories. Some of my favorite songs aren't my favorite because they are the best songs ever written. It's because they bring me back to good memories. Driving around in my Rabbit convertible in high school, listening to Radiohead and talking with my best friend. One of my first dates with my now husband to see a new band, Linkin Park, at a dive bar. Laying out at the lake, drinking beer, smoking a joint, listening to Sublime, without problem in the world. Dancing with my two year old son to The Rolling Stones when he was up all night with the flu. Coming home to find that same son, now 16, learning to play Pink Floyd on his new guitar. There is certain music that will always be \"better\" to me because I love the memories it brings me."
],
"score": [
25,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9yj53s | Who were the "Sea Peoples?" | I keep reading about how these "Sea Peoples" were responsible for the bronze age collapse, but who were they? Do we even know? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea1p4sc",
"ea1qi4z",
"ea2fbwz"
],
"text": [
"We don't know exactly. That is why they are called the \"Sea Peoples\". But the best guess that historians have is that they were Phoenicians or their predecessors.",
"We do have some clues However I would say the \"sea peoples\" probably a side affect the collapse and not the cause itself. A common explanation is probably some combination of drought , famine , plagues let to some political instabilities and \"Migrations\" as people fled. Also Ramses III names them and the names can probably point to where they come from Some came from Shardana = Sardinia ? Shekelesh = Sicicly Tjekker = Sikels or Troad? Denyen = Danaas (proto greeks) Weshesh = Wilusa (troy) very good video URL_0",
"Extra Credits you tube channel has some pretty good videos on the subject. [ URL_1 ]( URL_0 ) & #x200B; They are short, very informative, and dumbed downed for people like me."
],
"score": [
24,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5ABU4r0U2Mcj_Gj32UN80zX",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q&list=PLhyKYa0YJ\\_5ABU4r0U2Mcj\\_Gj32UN80zX"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9yjqnt | Where does the word "clappers" originate as in the phrase to "run like the clappers"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea1vu45"
],
"text": [
"A clapper is the part, in the middle of a bell, that strikes the body of the bell and creates the sound. If you ring a handbell really fast, the clapper whips back and forth like crazy. That’s the origin. It sounds old-timey as hell, and I have no idea who came up with some of he phrases from that era."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9yln70 | How did red-blooded as meaning hardworking/vigorous and blue-blooded as meaning rich/established originate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea2aoyb",
"ea2o2h7",
"ea29k7m"
],
"text": [
"Victorian era especially (and before to an extent) having tanned skin was a sign of low class working in the fields. only the rich could avoid the sun that much and had deathly pale complexions. through pale skin blood vessels appear to be blue... red blooded comes more directly from a red complexion after exertion",
"The term is actually blue blood rather than blue blooded, and it comes from Spain. We don't actually know for certain what its origin is, but it seems likely that it relates to the fact that more aristocratic individuals would have lighter skin due to not being in the sun as much, as a result of which their veins stood out more clearly. It is absolutely not the implication that aristocrats didn't know what blood looked like. The color of blood was common knowledge and would have been well known from literature, art, songs, and really just daily life. The color of blood has important symbolic functions in the Christian church, menstrual blood is, you know, a thing for half the population of the world, and there are plenty of opportunities for aristocrats to bleed even if they aren't engaging in hard labor such as practice with weaponry, needles at clothes fittings, etc. The first known written appearance of the term blue blood in English was in 1811: \"The nobility of Valencia..are, by themselves, divided into three classes, blue blood, red blood, and yellow blood. Blue blood is confined to families who have been made grandees.\" Note that we haven't really borrowed the other terms, though you can still see them in Spanish (just search for sangre amarilla). As for red-blooded, it's a bit more opaque. The first known appearance in writing is in 1794, but it's purely a zoological description. The first written appearance with the sense you intend is in 1836: ‘A perilous adventure, if report speak true!’ ‘Not for our red-blooded friend,’ said Beauchamp; ‘for a Scot is like your cat-o'-the-woods, who can creep as well as spring.’ It can be hard to track why something takes on a particular metaphorical cast. It may be that others here are correct that it comes from the way skin flushes after exertion, but it can be hard to say. Having the first written instance of it doesn't actually help that much as it is probable that it was used for a while in spoken English before it happened to be written down, and there wasn't really a good 19th century equivalent of Urban Dictionary (although there were some amusing dictionaries of thieves' slang). Sometimes with the study of language all we can do is determine to the best of our ability what happened and leave the question of why to speculation.",
"Blood looks blue through skin (when it hasn't been shed), which implies that wealthy people have never seen the color of blood since they've never been wounded or had to work hard enough to become flushed. “Red-blooded” implies that such people have seen their own blood (through combat or exertion)."
],
"score": [
26,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ylp2k | How was Ra born/created | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea2aibv"
],
"text": [
"Ra created himself from the primordial chaos according to this. URL_0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/egyptian-god-ra.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ym66n | Why is The Beatles’ Sergeant Peppers considered such a turning point in the history of rock and roll, especially when Revolver sounds more experimental and came earlier? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea2qtdo",
"ea2ljx6",
"ea2pehw",
"ea2dxno",
"ea2ltv5",
"ea2pabq",
"ea2jvw4",
"ea2ji0n",
"ea2qy3i",
"ea2ln67",
"ea3125w",
"ea2pxkq",
"ea2o2lb",
"ea2sjzl",
"ea2t6e9",
"ea2r3h2",
"ea300c8",
"ea2sjvp",
"ea349ef",
"ea39bmz",
"ea2jvf7",
"ea3793q",
"ea353j8",
"ea36tc3",
"ea2saua",
"ea36q20",
"ea33kom",
"ea37vzs",
"ea37c1h",
"ea2vo54",
"ea2wwxj",
"ea31kva",
"ea379at",
"ea34lmu",
"ea3m3m3",
"ea2tpw8",
"ea30056",
"ea2zh4b"
],
"text": [
"I feel like no-one has really answered your question so far, especially in regards to the Revolver part of the question. I'll try my best as a former Beatles fanatic. As you alluded to, Revolver was quite an experimental pop record, and it was the first album where the Beatles REALLY decided to use the studio as an instrument. The wild guitar solo in Taxman played the band's bassist, the backwards guitar in I'm Only Sleeping, the raga banger that is Love You To, and not to mention the psychedelic tape-looped masterpiece that is Tomorrow Never Knows. The Beatles threw brass and string instrumentation all on this thing as well, like in Eleanor Rigby and Got to Get You. Critics and Music Pundits understand the impact and importance Revolver brings forth, and many diehards will say Revolver is their favorite Beatles record. It certainly was mine for the longest time. Sgt. Pepper, however, was a different beast. In my opinion, it wasn't as musically ambitious as Revolver. However, conceptually, it changed how the artform of the album was seen. Instead of a collection of songs, it was better taken as a whole. All the songs are thematically and musically connected (The Beatles didn't exactly /intend/ this, but intention isn't important), the album art was wildly unique and fed into the album's themes. It was the first REAL album, Pet Sounds be damned (I like Pet Sounds more than any Beatles' album, so hush). This album also came out after the Beatles retired from touring, and after the double masterpiece whammy that was Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane. The hype was through the roof and the Beatles trumped even that. They also won AOTY at the Grammys, which was surreal. It's a landmark of an album. Revolver is fantastic, and I like it way more than Sgt. Peppers, but it isn't a landmark. Not like Peppers. EDIT: Umm, wow I was not expecting this sort of response! I wrote this up in about 5 minutes before I ran out to hang with friends, so I know it’s quick and dirty, lacking a ton of history of what lead up to Revolver/Sgt. Pepper’s. I just wanted shine light of that period, so it would easier to do future research! I did want to answer three questions I saw: > What do you mean “former Beatlemaniac”? I was OBSESSED with the Beatles years ago. They were all I listened to for years straight, and I pretty much read every single thing possible about them. Now, I’m way more chill, ha. Still love them to pieces. > You like Pet Sounds more than any Beatles album? Really? Yep. The compositions and arrangements of Pet Sounds are transcendent, and the performances of each song are perfect. It’s a flawless album that hasn’t been touched since IMO > Zappa did it first/did it better/The Beatles suck Zappa was a prolific avant-garde/experimental musician, and unlike the Beatles, he did not make music for popular consumption per se. He did not have the production/engineering chops of the Abbey Road team, and he did not prioritize making layered pop tunes. He made weird bops. He’s a great musician and composer, but he and The Beatles couldn’t be any more different. They affected very different circles. You can believe the Beatles suck if you want tho.",
"This was an album that brought a very different and original sonic landscape to people who were NOT used to it. Imagine waiting for months for the next Beatles album and listening to THIS. Just imagine waiting and lusting for the follow-up to Revolver with its black and white artwork and getting this colorful sleeve work that features the Beatles as you had never seen them before: long hair, moustaches, in those weird military band uniforms. And that's even *before* you put the stylus over the record... Flanger, echo, stereo imaging, distorted guitars, orchestra-driven tracks, tambouras and tablas, the whole this-is-not-the-Beatles concept, even the colorful gatefold sleeve with its who's-that trivia. Try to get a hold of a list of the singles and albums that Sgt Pepper was competing against in the famous Summer of Love and you'll understand what kind of departure it was. Jimi Hendrix and Beach Boys were giving the Beatles a run for their money, but this album was a huge step forward. Now, check the kind and size of influence this album had in the world by checking the kind of songs, artwork, fashion, words (slang even...\"turn you on...\") that came AFTER Pepper. One of the things that will stick in my mind FOREVER is the use of the word \"clutching\", in She's Leaving Home. Have you heard such an usual word in a song ever again? For me, personaly, the very first bars of A Day in the Life are hauntingly beautiful. Lennon's voice is just... different. He has such a eerie delivery never again heard or matched (by himself, I mean). If you play guitar, for instance (although bass, drums, piano, or singing certainly apply) and try to learn and play these songs, you will even find yet another layer of complexity and appreciation. Sometimes you need to tune your strings higher just to be able to match some solos, not to mention you will have a blast (and a hard time) trying to match the sounds you hear with the help of ready-to-go effects pedals, apps, etc, and it's then when you stop taking this music for granted and you start to understand the vital role that people like George Martin, Geoff Emerick (try to read about his recording techniques and his microphone positioning, [Send tape echo echo delay]( URL_0 )) and the engineers at EMI played in the Beatles' sonic development. Listen to the guitar sounds of the previous albums and compare them to these. The harmony work bestowed upon She's Leaving Home is beautiful, but of course you cannot appreciate it with just one listen. Find the main vocal, then try to follow John's harmonies and then George's. The cinematic lyrics of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds leave nothing to chance. You are there, watching the newspaper taxies, no matter which taxis you're familiar with. The boldness of including a track comprised of indian instruments right in the middle of this so-called pop album. As you can see, I could go on and on. Hopefully, I have already transmitted you a fraction of what this record means to me.",
"[Here]( URL_0 ) is a list of the top 100 songs of 1967, the year that Sgt. Pepper came out. Look at it. Look. At. It. The Turtles. The Young Rascals. The fucking Monkees. Frankie Valli. Now listen to Sgt. Pepper. Completely, totally, sometimes bizarrely revolutionary. We were like, \"What the hell is this? Well, it's the Beatles so we better check it out.\" They were consistently, year after year, doing things we had never heard or thought of before. And it was good, some of it great, stuff.",
"Sgt Peppers was a departure from previous recordings of pop songs into much more involved music. In some sense it was in response to the Beach Boys Pet Shop Sounds record. Also the Beatles had tried an American concert tour which for them was a bad experience and wanted to focus entirely on studio recording. They had also matured as musicians out of quick three minute songs for AM radio into higher fidelity, multi-track recording technology where everyone was cutting their teeth with stereo and how to use it. Revolver was a good album by itself but Sgt. Peppers was an enormous work of varying complex compositions and experimentation.",
"I believe it was also the first album which included lyrics on the back. Supposedly, this was Lennon's response to Dylan for suggesting that the Beatles didn't sing about anything.",
"Before this, people bought rock and roll records to dance to. This marks the moment that rock music became something that you listen to.",
"It was a combination of a variety of technical and artistic innovations. It’s considered to be one of the first concept albums, they tried to do a variety of new techniques only capable within a studio, it had a creative album cover, and it had a handful of great songs. It also came along at a time when Beatlemania appeared to be winding down. John had made his Jesus comment and the band was tired of touring. People started to write them off and then they came out with a brand new great album. I also think it had a very clean sound and kind of set the stage for future pop music. If you listen to music before 1966 and music made after you can usually hear a distinct difference. I’m not engineer but I think it has to do multi-layered tracking which was improving throughout the 60s. Beatles may not have been the first to do this, but they get given a lot of credit. It’s not my favourite Beatles album either, but it’s just kind of been given the title as best, and that’s how history remembers it.",
"I took a history of rock music class last semester and am also a huge Beatles fan. One thing my professor said about Sgt. Pepper that I found really interesting was that it merged art and music. Apparently up until this time music wasnt often considered a form of art. The cover of Sgt. Pepper has the Beatles standing with the likes of famous artists like Edgar Allen Poe and Fred Astaire. This kind of formed a link between art and music and insinuated that musicians were actually artists which was a big statement to make. tl;dr: Sgt. Pepper (specifically the album art) basically called musicians artists which hadn't happened before and was a big deal at the time.",
"I don't know that everyone would agree that Revolver was more experimental. One factor for Sgt. Pepper, is that the mind-bending \"A Day in the Life\" is (almost) the last music you're left with. I say \"almost\" because LP listeners back in the day were also treated to [a chaotic repeating outro track]( URL_2 ). That leaves an impression. Add to that the \"concept\" album factor. While the final album isn't *as* thematically cohesive as originally intended — the way some of the songs blended into one another demanded that the listener not think of the album as a collection of songs, but as a piece of work in and of itself. Add to that the presentation. Not only was the cover an explosion of color featuring a gamelike \"who's who\" of guest stars on the cover, but they really went all out. It opened into a [gatefold]( URL_0 ) (even though it wasn't a double album), and included [cutout badges and extras]( URL_1 ) that made the experience feel more than *just* a record. --- TLDR: While Revolver was definitely sonically adventurous, so to was Sgt. Pepper. But in addition to that, it incorporated a conceptual dimension to it and executed it beautifully.",
"An important point is the time when the album appeared, just when the 'hippie' mentality was taking off, and whimsical escapism was a fashionable attitude to block out the reality of Vietnam.",
"Lots of great comments. May I add some personal context? I was a precocious 11 in 1967, which also happened to be Canada's centennial year. Montreal hosted Expo 67, a World's Fair that hoped to attract 5 million visitors; in the event, it hosted over 50 million. I was lucky enough to attend it over 50 times myself. For a smart boy of 11, Expo was a revelation. I found myself studying and learning much more intently than I did in school. The use of media such as multi-screen video, 360 degree movies, and even interactive movies was completely new then, unexpected and marvelous in a way we would find unthinkable today. I still remember the \"Man in the Arctic\" pavilion, where the screen was wide and low and near, and when the shot from a bush plane skimming over the ice came, everyone in the theatre leaned with the plane into the turns. It was for many of us our first brush with virtual reality. In short, Expo was an explosion of creativity, and a sharp break from the past. Many of the new media and effects I saw there are now commonplace. And I suggest that Sgt. Peppers fits that same model in the pop music world. As others have noted, the cover's four figures of the 'old' Beatles represent their monochrome past, preserved in wax, perhaps a *double entendre* only to us old folk. The new Fab Four, decked out in their multi-garb, would no longer be constrained to one style or one method. Many comments have talked about the studio prowess of Sgt Peppers. This was the same application of the new technology to music that Expo used for learning. And, like Expo, Sgt Peppers was ground breaking for that reason. Finally, 1967 was the Summer of Love, when everything seemed possible. Sgt. Pepper made a statement that you could change anything about yourself, it seemed - that you could adopt a completely new persona at will. Whether that *geist* has been taken too far at this particular *zeit* remains to be seen. I don't know if Sgt Peppers was a statement for, to, or of its time, but it was component of the wave of change engulfing us. When you combine all the attitudes and changes above, you can see how it was a unique expression in the musical world of that wave.",
"Lots of great responses here. it's worth mentioning that Revolver *was* considered super experimental and groundbreaking. but it was really a Side 2 to Rubber Soul, so people were familiar with the boys' \"new\" sound. Big strides in the maturity of the Beatles' songwriting, and the beginning of their experimentation with studio effects. Sgt. Pepper brought it alll home though, as is detailed in other comments",
"I feel it was a turning point for The Beatles because it felt like a concept album production, which they hadn't done before, and they were rock's poster children, so a lot of people heard a new type of rock album they might not have before The Beatles, so that's pretty big. Another good example of this type of thing is how crazy people went over Green Day's American Idiot album when it first came out. Green Day had been playing the same songs for so many albums that it kind of mind fucked people in a good way that they could turn around and make something like that concept album.",
"Along with what everyone else said - prior to recording it, the Beatles traveled the world and discovered musical styles and instruments that the Western Ear has not heard before. Where else could you have been exposed to the Sitar in 66/67? Or the bass harmonica (extra large harmonicas) or the harpsichord? This was not only Pre-Internet, it was pre satellite for the most part with certain exceptions. As a matter of fact - All You Need Is Love was performed live as one of the first world-wide satellite broadcasts. While that song was not on the album, it was recorded as part of the Sgt. Pepper sessions as was most of Magical Mystery Tour.",
"It's worth remembering as well that in America we didn't get the same Revolver that they got in the UK. Sgt. Pepper's was the first Beatles album that the US got without interference and resequencing. So the experimental nature of Revolver as a ehole was less obvious to American audiences.",
"Besides all of the other great things said, Sgt. Peppers was the first concept album, and the first album to play like, well, an “album” Before Sgt. Peppers (and some may argue the Velvet Underground) albums were a compilation of singles, so to speak, with no real overarching story or direction. Then the Beatles came along with this album about another band entirely called Sgt Peppers and every song blended into the next and they sounded like they were all made with the same purpose. Without Sgt. Peppers we wouldn’t have the album format as we know it today.",
"Odd that I’ve seen literally no one yet mention the most influential three-album stretch maybe in history that was wrapping up in 1966 with one of the greatest albums ever made: *Blonde on Blonde* *Bringing It All Back Home* and especially *Highway 61 Revisited* were basically redefining genre - there was no “folk rock” before this - and then in 1966 Dylan’s greatest album (to some; I prefer *Blood on the Tracks*) sucked all the air out of the room, in the states anyway Yes, *Pet Sounds* came out within a month, but Dylan’s work on the Beatles had been working on them for years, and was I’d say the greater influence",
"I think \"Revolver\" is a much better record, but I'd argue that \"Sgt. Peppers\" is the more experimental of the two. The production is incredibly dense and bold on some of those tunes.",
"What I've always heard is that, in a time when the state of the art in recording was a four-track recorder, the Beatles took ONE four-track recorder and attached ANOTHER four-track recorder to each track, producing the first sixteen-track album--an album that utilized this new soundscape, changed what albums did, and justified the band's decision to stop touring because music on albums could now be different than it could ever be live. I could be dead wrong about this, of course, but if it's true, it would certainly explain the album's importance in an efficient, ELI5 manner.",
"The history of rock and roll is like any history of anything: it's less about 'What Happened' and more about 'What Happened Back Then That People Still Care About Today?' Revolver is amazing but it's rougher and more experimental, and was more about the Beatles head-tripping (see the cover). Sgt. Pepper's was more of a show or a spectacle that accessed popular culture and related to a greater audience. Have you ever noticed that records that the most people can relate to sell quite well?",
"Adding onto what dswpro said shy pepper was also the first concept album so all the songs are interconnected in some way and are part of a story. Along with that the albums artwork was all themed also, as I’m sure you’ve seen there costumes, this was really revolutionary along with including the lyrics to the songs. I believe most versions of the album also came with this cutout thing that had like a fake mustache and stuff that was just adding onto the artwork. One other thing that wasn’t really explained well is that revolver is usually considered physchedelic and besides Eleanor rigby and tomorrow never knows most of their songs could have been preformed live for that album allowing for a tour, although this would still be very hard and I don’t think they toured for that album but sgt peppers was their first serious album where they used so many advanced techniques that it would have been basically unperformable at the time period.",
"Q: Who’s your favorite Beatle? A: George Martin",
"I don't have much to contribute here except my anecdote of finding my mom's Sgt peppers tape in my parent's collection when i I was 9, and lying on their bed listening to it over and over for hours, reading all the lyrics and looking at the bright pictures and wondering what the heck this was? Immediately shared it with my best friend and we formed a Beatles fan club. In the early 90s in rural Canada. So however they did it, this album transcends generations and got at least two little girls hooked on their music, decades later and thousands of miles away.",
"Hi, I'm a flair in pop music history on /r/AskHistorians, and have [previously written answers like this]( URL_1 ) to similar questions. The answer to your question, basically, is in having a think about what it means to be a 'turning point'. For an album to be a turning point in the history of a genre, it basically has to change a lot of people's minds about what that genre should be in some way - which usually also means it has to be very popular; there's plenty of early experimental records that were not turning points, because nobody heard them. And *Sergeant Peppers* was simply a level above *Revolver* in popularity. I mean, Revolver *was* very popular - it was an album by the Beatles in the 1960s - it spent [six weeks at #1 in the US]( URL_2 ). But that was a standard Beatles album by that point. Sgt Peppers, in contrast, spent [15 weeks at #1 in the US]( URL_2 ), and *became the biggest selling album of the 1960s* - it's [one of two albums from the 1960s that has sold more than 20 million copies \\(the other being *Abbey Road*\\) according to this Wiki list]( URL_0 ). And, well, something about the culture of 1966 and 1967, and people's understandings of the Beatles meant that *Sgt Peppers* felt right in 1967 in a way that *Revolver* didn't quite achieve in 1966. Remember that the Beatles were still touring as they released *Revolver*, and that 1966 was the year when the 'bigger than Jesus' controversy happened, with Beatles records being burned on big bonfires; the narrative about the Beatles in the press was that they weren't the force they used to be, two years after Beatlemania's first flush. But in 1967, it'd been announced that the Beatles had quit touring, and were focused on the studio, and so people were aware that *Sgt Peppers* was meant to be a special album in a way they weren't aware of that with *Revolver*. And 1966 might have been the Summer of Love in Haight-Ashbury and all that, but by 1967, the hippies and their values were much more well-known in the mainstream, and so *Sgt Peppers* made much more sense to the mainstream than *Revolver* had. Additionally, 1967 is about when you start to see the rock press - *Rolling Stone* etc forming, and when major magazines and newspapers start to take rock music seriously as an artform to be criticised. As a result, the merits of *Sgt Peppers* were much more widely discussed in more upmarket venues for music criticism than *Revolver* had been the previous year. Finally, there are plenty of rock & roll albums before *Sgt Peppers*, including *Revolver* obviously (or *Please Please Me*), but the mid-1960s saw a transformation in the way the album was conceived. Whereas previously, the album was a collection of recordings of performances of songs, in the mid-1960s, with albums like *Revolver* or *Pet Sounds* or *Highway 61 Revisited* or *Freak Out!* or *The Velvet Underground & Nico*, the album became a thing in itself, the kind of thing that was carefully sequenced, with perhaps linkages between the songs, the kind of thing that might have a concept - and the kind of thing that existed *as an artifact in of itself* rather than an artifact containing a representation of a previous performance. *Sgt Peppers* heightened this by having some quite lavish packaging, including lyrics, artwork, and including little curios (like the music in the run out groove) that exploited the medium as a thing in of itself. Compared to *Revolver*, all of this made the general public *understand* this new concept of the album. As a result of the critical acclaim surrounding *Sgt Peppers* (which was so acclaimed that a negative review in the *New York Times* got a deluge of hate mail and became a story in itself), and its enormous success, the music industry's focus with rock & roll pivoted from mostly focusing on singles to mostly focusing on albums. Before *Sgt Peppers* Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons released cheapie cash-in albums with names like *Big Girls Don't Cry & 16 Other Big Hits*. After *Sgt Peppers*, they released albums with names like *The Genuine Imitation Life Gazette*, with lavish packaging that was as impressive as the album itself. And so *Sgt Peppers* - and its success - thus set the scene for the rock album as an every day normal thing that people listened to, discussed, reviewed, etc. That's primarily why it's a turning point in rock & roll, more so than *Revolver*: *Sgt Peppers* marks the point where you start to get albums that sell 20 million copies worldwide. Nine of the top ten best selling albums of all time worldwide according to that wiki list above come in the fifteen years after *Sgt Peppers*.",
"Plus, the lyrics were right there on the back cover for anyone to read! Revolutionary! Seriously.",
"I'll just say this. I'm not the biggest Beatles fan. I'm not by any means an expert in their contemporaries, either. But I remember exactly where I was when I first heard Seargent Peppers: in the back of my friends car, on my first ever trip to a big city, hung over with only 2 hours of sleep. I had no idea what he put on and I was planning of falling asleep in the back seat. Instead, I was enthralled. And I had no idea what I was listening to. Halfway through the record, I sheepishly asked \"WHAT IS THIS???\" thinking it was something much more modern than it was. This was around 2007. I loved it. I later listened to Revolver and it didn't do it for me. None of their other albums, really.",
"Sergeant Peppers begins with the Beatles singing and playing *as if* it's a live recording of an imaginary band named \"Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band.\" They even sing an introduction into the next song where Ringo sings as \"Billy Shears.\" In the next to last song of the album that same imaginary band plays similar music and wishes the audience well, telling them that they \"hope they have enjoyed the show.\" This implies to the listener that the *entire album* was songs played by the imaginary band introduced in the first track. It's a simple concept, but one that affects how the listener hears the entire album. In other words it is one of the earliest examples of a rock *concept album*. Rock bands that came after the Beatles certainly liked and knew Revolver. But most bands were even more influenced by the idea of a concept album as laid out in Sgt. Peppers: * In the Who's *Tommy* the first track continues into the second track like Sgt Peppers, and the songs taken together tell a story * Jethro Tull's *Thick as a Brick* features detailed cover art (even more detailed than Sgt. Peppers) and the whole album is one *continuous* song with bookends much like Sgt. Peppers * Genesis' early albums are concept albums * ELP, Yes, King Crimson, and many other bands expanded greatly on the idea of the concept album The list goes on and on. Finally, many bands after the Beatles also wrote \"concept songs\" that featured orchestral sounds and had more than a simple verse/chorus form. And a great number of those songs-- like Procol Harum's \"Simple Sister\"-- were clearly influenced by the final song of Sgt. Peppers \"A Day in the Life.\" Whole genres of music like symphonic rock and prog rock were immensely influenced just by that song alone. In other words, it's hard to understate the influence. Even the startup sound on a Mac is the final orchestral chord from the album! Any time after 1967 that an artist told a producer they had \"an idea\" for an album, that album would inevitably be compared to Sgt. Peppers when released. While Revolver is a wonderful album, it just isn't the cultural phenomenon that Sgt. Pepper's is for that reason.",
"Hi, you might want to check out a couple of posts in /r/AskHistorians by /u/hillsonghoods URL_1 URL_0",
"It was an album meant to be played as a whole piece of art. As opposed to a bunch of great songs on a record. I like the white album better",
"adding to the top reply, Sgt Pepper doesn't sound crazy af because all music since has been informed by it. revolver may sound more transgressive to your ear, but that's with decades of perspective.",
"\"In this film, Howard Goodall shows that it is the sheer ambition of Sgt Pepper - in its conception, composition, arrangements and innovative recording techniques - that sets it apart\" [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 )",
"Just wanted to say that Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever were recorded in the Sgt Pepper sessions and released as singles and I don't care what any;body says I say they are part of SPLHCB!!!lol",
"Revolver sounds experimental because its sounds didn’t go mainstream. Sgt. Peppers doesn’t sound revolutionary anymore because the stuff it pioneered became really popular. In general it’s hard to know what past works revolutionized the industry precisely because they did so. A cliche is a cliche because it was once legitimately fresh and clever.",
"[51 and 1/2 years ago today, Sgt Peppers was released]( URL_0 ) Pretty good article from June 2017 on the recording techniques the Beatles had to create to get the sound they wanted. All whilst fending off the record label and fans who expected a new album much sooner. 40 minute album took 700 hours of studio time, TIL.",
"If you have the odd hour free then it is worth watching Howard Goodall's [Sgt. Pepper's Musical Revolution]( URL_0 ). He is very good in explaining music in layman's terms. He looks at production technology at the time and tries to deconstruct the layers of the songs until he gets to their musical roots. He does it in a very nice illustrative way.",
"Better songs...with the exception of Good Morning Good Morning and Within You Without You I could listen to them all day long. The only songs on Revolver I might leave on repeat are And Your Bird Can Sing, Doctor Robert, and I'm Only Sleeping. The rest of the songs are not bad. It's just that beneath all of the studio innovations the melodies are a bit more like other bands and therefore I don't want to hear them quite as often. From a purely technical engineering perspective Revolver is more impressive. If just one person were to sing the songs at home with a guitar or piano Sgt. Pepper would be more fun. I also think Paul's bass playing got much more skillful between Revolver and Sgt. Pepper (though you need a 1960's vinyl pressing through decent headphones to hear the bass properly.)",
"I’d just like to say this thread warms my heart. There’s a lot of “the Beatles are overrated” crap tossed around on the Internet today and it sort of infuriates me. I think a lot of people can’t distinguish between something being overrated and something they simply don’t care for. I’m not sure the Beatles can really even be overrated. They influenced culture, revolutionized popular music, and sold literally a billion records. At one point in time they occupied the top 5 spots on the Billboard 100. They evolved their sound and redefined what music can be with every record they released and every British record they released was a classic. Every major UK release of theirs was a number one album, eleven in total. All of this in about 7 years. To the point of the original post, I love how OP wonders why Revolver is less appreciated as a revolutionary album. I wonder the same thing myself. The dark orchestral driven Eleanor Rigby, the backward guitars in I’m Only Sleeping, the Indian sound of Love You To, the druggy implications of Doctor Robert, the utterly insane originality of Tomorrow Never Knows. It’s a mind-boggling record especially when considered in the context of 1966. I suppose the thing about Sgt. Pepper’s is that it was even more out there and yet more sonically uniform and the concept idea behind it sort of elevates it from a collection of great songs into a complete work of art. Still, Revolver is my favorite.",
"There's a lot of really good answers on the mechanics of the music, but a lot of them miss the cultural implications. Take the cover for instance- the figures that the Beatles chose reflected many sides of society. There are intellectual theorists like Karl Marx, visionary writers like Oscar Wilde, a Hindu Guru etc. Sgt Peppers was a persona the Beatles took on that appealed to everyone. The intricate and detailed instrumentation blew critics away & the incredibly tight songwriting and lyricism connected with the casual listener. Timing is important as well. Sgt Peppers came out in June 1967- the Summer of Love baby!! I was born 31 years later, so I can't speak from personal experience but the Beatles were everything that summer. -Joe Cocker did an absolutely ASTOUNDING cover of With a Little Help From My Friends at Woodstock, [performance ]( URL_3 ) -Just days after, Jimi Hendrix turned the intro track into a distorted and gritty masterpiece in front of the most influential musicians in the world (including the Beatles) [performance ]( URL_1 ) - In July, The Beatles debuted \"All You Need is Love.\" in a live performance broadcasted to million representing Britain to the world. [full video is copyrighted :(]( URL_2 ) The story of the Beatles is riddled with luck, right from the days of The Quarrymen. I think that Revolver just didn't hit the right themes at the right time. P.S. If anyone's interested in learning more about the album cover, check this out: [How the Beatles Changed Album Covers]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
6304,
4604,
371,
266,
129,
116,
99,
64,
40,
29,
19,
17,
16,
16,
14,
9,
9,
8,
8,
7,
7,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_tape_echo_echo_delay"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1967"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/gettyimages-592262012-13bd204b-6f80-41c9-ae3b-c4909338ad1b.jpg",
"https://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/10599742/img/10599742.jpg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXnqw-Zv0Y"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9aerj6/how_big_is_the_importance_of_album_the_beatles/e4uykyy/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_200_number-one_albums_of_1966"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qwyf2/in_a_short_time_period_and_in_the_height_of_their/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9aerj6/how_big_is_the_importance_of_album_the_beatles/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5p0cmc"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2017/06/03/sgt-peppers-was-a-perfect-storm-of-musical-and-recording-creativity/#2c1050658a06"
],
[
"https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6cbnv6"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/_st4diqjpis",
"https://youtu.be/HLEboBA-Xzk",
"https://youtu.be/t5ze_e4R9QY",
"https://youtu.be/3s-dSoDptVc"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ynun7 | Is there any evidence that street protests, in a stable and wealthy republic like the US, achieve their stated aims? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea2tw31",
"ea2skee"
],
"text": [
"Like, only only only street protests? Maybe not. Social change is a complicated thing. But, street protests make politicians sweat. If people will leave their house to protest, they will leave their house to vote. They will change their spending habits, they will annoy politicians, they will commit civil disobedience, and they join organizations to oppose those politicians. Peoplet just rolling their eyes and bitching, but still doing their everyday routine, they are easier to deal with. Vietnam, women's lib, civil rights, gay rights, Boston tea party, protests are very powerful in their own way.",
"Not directly. Measuring the effect of protests on legislature is something that is pretty much impossible to do with objective data, as we don't have control groups to compare data to. That being said, the idea of seeing a large group of politically active people making their views known on a controversial subject, is meant to get lawmakers proof that their decisions on a topic will have consequences, that a lot of people's votes will be influenced by their stance on that issue."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9yoffg | Singing in a tonal language | Wouldn't singing in a tonal language, where changing the sound/tone/pitch of the word is what changes its meaning, make it really difficult or even impossible to maintain the meaning of the words? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea2zp2z"
],
"text": [
"Sung words have meaning identified by neighboring words and sentence structure. The words are sung without tone. This can be specifically used for lyrics with double meanings, just like lyrics in English songs can be with select word phrase same pronouciations. You've seen these on YouTube labeled misheard lyrics."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9yq7eb | Why do most languages have eleven (11), twelve(12) etc. but then twenty one(20+1), thirty seven (30+7)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea3c22s",
"ea39wht",
"ea3a3mg"
],
"text": [
"Among other reasons, because one of the earliest counting systems was base-12, not base-10. In the Mesopotamia region, they counted on the knuckles of their fingers. 4 fingers (not the thumb), 3 knuckles on each, 12 total. Also, as 12 is divisible by 2, 3 and 4, it's a convenient unit to count sets of things. So basically, it's always been useful to count both to 10 and to 12 quickly.",
"Note that \"most languages\" here refers to Latin languages maybe. In both Hebrew and Arabic, 15 follows the same structure as 11 or 12.",
"reason I've heard is that because \"eleven\" and \"twelve\" derive from \"one more\" and \"two more\" it's just an artifact of dealing with ten so frequently (far far more than twenty +1 or +2)"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9yqiu9 | what does meta mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea3bgvg",
"ea3bfvm",
"ea3bm3k",
"ea3dimp",
"ea3eehr"
],
"text": [
"You could write a story about a person searching for an object that will fix everything. Or you could write a story where people talk about that kind of story and how silly it is. Meta, essentially, is talking ABOUT an idea rather than expressing that idea genuinely. A better example might be this: Iron Man 1 is a story about a man becoming a superhero. Deadpool is, too, but it's also a movie that talks ABOUT superhero movies.",
"It is an ancient Greek word meaning something similar to \"self\". It is often used when describing the topic of a text when the topic is the text itself or the forum it is published in.",
"It’s self reflective. So metafiction is writing that breaks the 4th wall and addresses the reader directly.",
"In addition to the other replies: Meta-studies are basically studies about studies. These don't to experiments and such by themselves, but use existing studies to come to their own conclusion.",
"'Meta' is essentially information about information. E.g., if I have the information of, say, all the students of a school, it is called data. But things like how big this data is, how it is organized, how to extract specific piece of information from it, etc. constitute 'metadata'."
],
"score": [
14,
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9yqqr1 | Why was Jell-O so popular in vintage American foods from the 1900s? | I've noticed that old American recipes from the 1920s to 1950s contained lots of gelatin or jello in them, notably a dish called the perfection salad. Why were people so fascinated with putting gelatin in their foods and when did they go out of fashion? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea3daa9",
"ea3fhb3",
"ea3d7fl"
],
"text": [
"Gelatin dishes such as jellied eels, head cheese, scrapple, etc were common dishes in Europe for centuries. Most of them were savory dishes using scrap meats, innards, and the like to make something edible out of them. Jell-o as a fruit flavored dessert was invented in 1897 but really became popular during the depression as a cheap dessert, and then had another boom in popularity after WWII when access to tropical fruits became more common. The 1950s in particular had the social trend of common working class and middle class people having house parties and dinner parties and so having a dessert that can be molded into various decorative shapes was a part of the showmanship of hosting.",
"I think there was an askhistorians thread some time ago talking about this. I won't bother sourcing but the gist of it is this: Jello / gelatin was a very perishable, expensive commodity/ingredient when it was first discovered/developed, and required expensive, tedious processes to extract from animal (beef iirc). even then, it was difficult to store for long periods of time. All this effort made it a thing reserved only for the rich. Some science later, artificial jello (what we all know today) was invented and the production cost plummeted, and was no longer perishable, and everyone suddenly had access to this previously very expensive and perishable stuff, and started stuffing it in all the recipes they could find. This period would be the 20s to 50s.",
"In home refrigerators were introduced in the 1910s, then boomed around the mid 1920s-1930s. That probably has quite a bit to do with it."
],
"score": [
18,
9,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9ysyiu | Why people that teach at highschools have to have a teaching degree while people who teach at universities don't | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea3rvel",
"ea3s6m4",
"ea3sa7n",
"ea3s7vu"
],
"text": [
"You don’t have to have a teaching degree to teach K-12 public school. You do, however, have to be certified to teach in whatever state you are in. This can happen with an education degree or not.",
"It is expected that when people get to the university level of education they are capable of taking responsibility for their own education. In high school it is the teacher who educates the student but in the university it is the student who educates themselves with help from the professors. So in high school if a student have a difficult time learning a subject the teacher is expected to use his education within pedagogics to find a way that will help the student understand the subject. However in the university the student is expected to already know how he will best comprehend the subject. The professor is only supposed to give lectures and answer questions on the subject.",
"At that level of one’s education, the idea is that students are going to get more from interacting with subject experts—people literally publishing new research on a given topic—rather than from interacting with expert teachers. This is obviously an oversimplification that ignores extreme cases. In practice, some college students don’t have the self-discipline that this educational model presupposes. And if a subject expert is a bad enough teacher, their expertise won’t be helpful even to the best students. However, the idea is that *for the most part*, it’s better for college students to learn (e.g.) physics from a PhD in physics than from someone with an advanced degree in education.",
"This is situational — many high school teachers don’t necessarily have a degree in teaching specifically. Most all are certified to teach, but your original premise is flawed."
],
"score": [
28,
28,
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ytsaq | What is the proposed process for the redistribution of land in South Africa without compensation to current landowners? | I realize that there is a long, brutal history of oppression of the majority black population of South Africa, but I don't understand what the current proposals are regarding the potential redistribution of land. Can anyone shed some light on this topic for me? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea43apb"
],
"text": [
"This is quite a complex question and different groups of people have different desires or fears in regards to this. One aspect is that currently there are vast tracts of land being used as Game Farms. There's nothing being farmed on them apart from wild animals and they generate revenue for a rather small group of people from either game hunting or game viewing (which is pretty much driving people around mostly empty bush on the off chance of being able to see the occasional giraffe or rhino or lion or elephant). The ANC government in an attempt to seem like it is doing something about land reform is trying to force the owners of these game farms to sell the land cheaply (at tenth of the price that the owners are wanting) so that they can then divide up the game farm into smaller plots to be allocated to \"previously disadvantaged people\". One of the game farms, Akkerland Boerdery, in the crosshairs at the moment is 32 km² (so that's a single farm that's more than half the size of Manhattan). So wanting to force the hands of these Game farmers is one thing but the common \"previously disadvantaged people\" are being riled up and blatantly promised by political figures such as Julius Malema that they'll be able to take whatever land they like from \"the White Man\" in land grabs similar to what occurred in Zimbabwe. Added to this is that the government is really wanting to be able to claim back mining rights from disused mines or mines with heavy foreign ownership or claim lands for future mining. There has also been talk of the government claiming ownership of all property and instead the previous owner's would now have leaseholds on the land. This comes from the Communist leanings of the both the ANC government and the rival EFF party. That being said land lease systems are used in the neighboring Botswana as well as countries such as Angola, Dubai, China and even the UK. All of this is leading to a lot of fear and distrust in a country that has a very recent and well drafted constitution. The ANC controlled government has agreed to have the constitution changed to facilitate being able to expropriate land without compensation - there's been public hearings on the matter but the wording to change the constitution hasn't been released yet. TLDR The black population is being promised land (lies by politicians to grab votes). But the politicians and their financial allies are really after mining rights. And they're willing to rubbish a good constitution to achieve their aims."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9yvfg6 | Why did North America never “settle” like Europe? | Peoples lived in North America for tens of thousand of years, but North America - specifically southern Canada, coastal and Great Plains United States - never had cities like Europe did. Why did Europe “settle” by c. 1000BCE while North America, didn’t “settle” until c. 1500CE when Europeans arrived? (I am excluding Mexico from geographic North America for this question; I know/am under the assumption and educated guess that the Mayans, etc. didn’t move north largely because of the vast expanse of desert from Central Mexico, north.) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea4crcj",
"ea4d06a",
"ea4ex2d"
],
"text": [
"They did. 1. A native American city Cahokia existed in what is now Illinios, estimates place the population as high as 40,000 people. 2. Pueblo(s), not one but multiple cities scattered throughout the southwest. This has been posted before also. And the answers are better here. URL_0",
"There is a huge amount of debate about this subject particularly surrounding the works of Jared Diamond (there is even a cautionary bot that pops up when you mention his book). One opinion is that as natural resources (food specifically) were so abundant in north america (buffalo and before that the now extinct megafauna) for example that there wasnt as great a need or motivation to transition out of a hunter gatherer way of life into an agricultural one. Cities and so called \"advanced\" culture are a spinoff of agriculture that you get when a portion of the populations time and effort is freed up from food production. Thats the basic idea I'm going with but I'm more of an amateur anthropologist so there are probably some holes in this theory",
"There were cities and localized civilizations of a rather Western sort in certain parts of the Americas (Incan and Aztec societies, as well as some in what is now southwestern u.s.). There are a couple reasons for civilizations of this sort being less than ubiquitous. Mentioned above are things like high death rates from disease or warfare. But a couple other items played a huge role. 1) there was very little need to develop agriculture. The land was bountiful and the population sparse by comparison. The main reason Europe and the near East developed the way they did was domestication of plants and animals to develop large agricultural societies. This was necessary in that part of the world due to increasingly large groupings of hunter-gatherer societies. 2) very few native animals lend themselves to domestication in the Americas. The alpaca, and dogs are basically all of them I believe (there may be a couple I'm forgetting). Without domestication of animals, agricultural development is highly stunted. Compare this to the aurochs of the Mediterranean (eventually evolved through artificial selection into the cow), the water buffalo of Southeast Asia, horses, goats, sheep, chickens, etc."
],
"score": [
59,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rrm1y/why_are_there_no_ancient_native_american_cities/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9yx76r | Why most people that teach in public schools have to have a teaching certificate while people who teach at universities don't | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea4r4qb"
],
"text": [
"I assume you're referring to public elementary/high schools vs. universities. This mostly comes down to the expectations of how the teacher should be interacting with students. Teachers in elementary and high school are not only transferring knowledge, they're also teaching children how to learn and think critically. This requires a lot of specialized training beyond just subject matter expertise. At the university level, expertise is more important. That's why you tend to see either people who have a history in industry who are now teaching and sharing that experience, or people who have dedicated their lives to academic research and have really deep knowledge of the subject matter they teach."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9yxqxh | Why are jumpscares so universally panned? How can a jumpscare be “good”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea4v41z",
"ea4xwmx",
"ea4v6t6",
"ea4z8mg",
"ea55yaz",
"ea5frtq"
],
"text": [
"Ok not a real explanation but personally I see jumpscares as a lazy way to shock the audience",
"Most jumpscare are just a quick movement, either on screen or by editing, with a loud noice. It's just easy to do, which isn't necessarily a bad things. But the other side is that they often only have one role, to scare you. That's what make them bad and why they are universally panned. They are a cheap method, for a cheap scare. There is no arc to that scare, there is no suspense before and there is no payoff after. But that's not always the case, some jumpscare are well made and here some of them. Conjuring, the clap scene. That scene last 2:20 min. The woman is at home, alone, in her pyjamas and she have a feeling that someone is in her home, with sould of door opening that increase the suspense. She's at the top of the staircase to the basement and you can see the fear of going down, what if there is someone down here. She want to lock the door to keep the intruder trap in the basement, but the door close behind her in a minijump scare that push her downstair. Now she is trap, where is the intruder, he is upstair right? Oh but a ball bounce near her, oh no the intruder is downstair with her, suspense increase. She freak out, try to go upstair, but the light go out. Everything is black, the women scream, and then the sound of a kid laughing. The woman is at the top of the staircase and use a match to see what is happening downstair, where the danger is. The match run out, so she light another one. The camera zoom in on the woman, the suspense is at the maximum, the audience attention is on the woman, asking what will happen. Will the intruder will go up the stair and kill the woman? The voice of the kid again ask if she want to play and clap and then a pair of hand emerge from the darkness behind the woman and clap, which extinguish the flame. See the story arc there. The long suspense as the scene progress, the audience ask the same question as the woman. Is there really someone in the house? Is he really downstair? Is he trap downstair with the woman? Will he attack from downstair? And boom the jumspcare at the end. Compare that to a cat jumping next to the character with a loud sound. A jumpscare yes, but that really on surprise, more than fear. A scare that you will forget 2 seconds after it happening.",
"It’s the suspense. Things like cheesy music, lighting, and performances make it hard to enjoy any jumpscare. If I’m going to be startled I want it to mean something to the story, not just be there to “scare” me into purchasing the film. True suspense is much better than “WAAAAAH GOTCHA” every 10 minutes",
"A good jumpscare needs to have some buildup before it. Or, you can build up a jumpscare but never actually scare the auidence, just leave them waiting.",
"Mostly because they are overused. My kid literally tried to jumpscare me a couple hours ago - it's the first scary thing we learn, everyone is familiar with it, and they are in many TV shows and movies, sometimes multiple times in the same movie, and sometimes not even in horror/suspense, but in completely different genres. It just gets old.",
"A good jumpscare advances the story, a shitty jumpscare is a hack writer trying to pad out the script. & #x200B; There are three ways to do horror: * A guy in a creepy mask jumps out of a closet and screams \"Abloogy woogy woo!\" at you. * A guy in a creepy mask walks toward you in a parking lot as a sustained tension hook plays and then he kicks you in the shins. * **You're in a dark room and can see shadows on the walls and in the windows, for all you know your shins will be the only thing the cops will find when they get to you.** The first one is overdone, it was a big deal in the first generation of horror films and it works *once* \\- when the audience is keyed up. The second one is when the movie just falls apart and the tensions melts away because you can't stand the film. Both are signs of a bad writer or director trying to pad out the runtime. & #x200B; THe last one is when there is just enough tension that your mind starts running wild - the writer and director have turned your on imagination against you. & #x200B; So when the cat jumps on the piano during that one scene you nearly piss your pants. & #x200B; & #x200B; & #x200B; & #x200B; & #x200B;"
],
"score": [
15,
11,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z0niw | What is a prefecture? | I know Japan, China, South Korea, etc. all have their countries divided up into "Prefectures". What's the difference between that and say, a state in the United States of America or a province in Canada? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea5i8b8",
"ea5m5nm"
],
"text": [
"Essentially the same with some minor differences ie states technically have independent governments while prefectures are subdivisions of the country",
"The exact details of how they work depends on the country. Apparently in Japan prefectures have significant powers to make their own laws, although presumably much less so than a US state or Canadian province. One big difference between those countries is that the US and Canada are federations, but those Asian countries are not. In a federation the power of the central government is not absolute, the constitution only gives it power over certain things and everything else is left to the states. But in a unitary state (i.e. not a federation) the central government is in control, and any subdivisions like prefectures or counties only have the powers the central government has given them."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9z0yt6 | The Indian caste system and why is it still practiced until today? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea5k8uk"
],
"text": [
"I’m sure someone can provide a more historical basis but I have to say that the caste system is quite misunderstood. It is not “practiced” so much as it is a cultural phenomenon. We organize people by their standard/ancestral social roles, and this is applied to whichever ethnic background the individual has. I’ve also heard that the caste system was not so virulent until the British came in and solidified it. Wouldn’t surprise me."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z17qt | the meaning of sahency. | What do sahent and sahency mean? I can’t find any exact definition of this word, and few examples. It seems like it might be similar to salient? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea5n5cs",
"ea5nb06"
],
"text": [
"i'd imagine it is saliency and someone saw < li > as < h > and doesnt know they need glasses (and a dictionary)",
"Where have you seen the words used? There's no reference for either in the OED, and I can't see any use of them in english on google (\"sahent\" seems to be a past tense version of \"see\" in german though). Are you sure it's not just a typo or misprint?"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9z2ele | Why is abortion very taboo in certain countries despite the economic and health benefits? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea5vl3m",
"ea5sgep",
"ea5s2s8",
"ea6gbkf"
],
"text": [
"Because the whole point of the abortion debate is at which point the embryo/fetus becomes a being whose rights are to be defended and has nothing to do with whatever economic benefits that may come from its practice.",
"Simply, because people differ on their answer to the question: At what point (if ever) in human development is a parent responsible for keeping their child alive and at what point (if ever) should society enforce that responsibility?",
"I would say it's mostly because of religion. More religious countries tend to have more strict abortion rules. Which is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Religion shouldn't affect science or politics in any way.",
"Simply put: people disagree on when a conceived child becomes a 'life' and therefore, at which point having an abortion can be considered immoral because it kills somebody. It does tend to follow religious lines, but that doesn't make it solely a religious issue. If you believe - regardless of religion - that as soon as a sperm fertilizes and egg, that has made a new life, the issue of abortion will be a very uncomfortable one for you. Many atheists hate abortion and will campaign to make it illegal (or keep it illegal, depending on jurisdiction)."
],
"score": [
22,
13,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z3rvz | Why do people in the USA see 'Hispanics' as nonwhites? Over in Europe, Spanish and Portuguese people are mostly considered white. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea62ipf"
],
"text": [
"This boils down to the use of the word Hispanic. Most people will use the word to describe someone traditionally who came from Latin America. Not necessarily speaking to wether or not they speak Spanish. It make sense to me that European people wouldn’t find themselves referencing Latin American based populations as much as Spanish or Portuguese populations. Edit: poor grammar because I have the americans"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z6y8r | Why is the US so socially conservative compares to most other Western democracies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea6sgv7"
],
"text": [
"A lot of America's wealth comes from primary industries: mining, drilling, farming. Those jobs don't require much in the way of education. People with less education tend to be socially conservative. The way the American senate is designed means voters in low-population states have more power. Low population states tend to be rural and therefore socially conservative. So there are a lot of social conservatives, and they have a disproportionate amount of power."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z7ley | How did contraceptives, birth control and family planning empower women to succeed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea6x9ws",
"ea7sxlp",
"ea7oe8m"
],
"text": [
"By choosing when and under which circumstances they become pregnant allows a woman to explore alternative life choices that do not require them to have children now or ever. Anytime birth control becomes widely available, women have more choices to succeed in ways that do not include having children when they don't want to.",
"What they said and also kids are expensive and mentally/physically/emotionally draining. If all your money and energy are going into raising kids a plethora of children, you can't really do much else. Especially outside the home.",
"Not that long ago, people thought that a pregnant woman should stop working, drop out of school, hide her belly in public or not go out much at all - basically give up every activity except housekeeping and child-raising. Even today, you don't have to give up everything because you're pregnant, but it does make it harder to keep up with work and school because you're tired and don't feel good a lot of the time, plus you still have to stop going to work and school for a little while to go have the baby and heal afterwards, and then you have a baby to take care of so you have less time to study / need to take more days off work, etc. So birth control means that a woman can decide when is the best time for her to get pregnant so that it won't stop her doing other things she wants to do, things that can help her succeed. She can decide to finish her high school or college degree first before having a baby, for example, or make sure she has a stable job and enough money before she has a baby. That all means that over the course of her lifetime, a woman who can choose when to get pregnant will be able to make more money and accomplish more things that are NOT baby-related, if that's what she wants. And it empowers her because it gives her control over the way her life will go in the future (and control over an important part of her health and safety - pregnancy is very hard on women's bodies and can even be dangerous for them). Without birth control, the only good way not to get pregnant is not to have sex. This is a problem though, because for a lot of people, sex is an important part of a good relationship and a fulfilling life, so having sex sometimes is important. Without birth control, a woman would have to choose between the possible bad effects of not having sex or the possible bad effects of getting pregnant. If she didn't want to get pregnant, she would have to hope that her partner was okay with not having sex for a long time, and hope that she wouldn't be forced into sex against her will. With birth control, she can have the kind of relationship she (and her partner) wants and still not get pregnant until she's ready. (And if she were forced into sex, at least she wouldn't also become pregnant against her will)."
],
"score": [
30,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z8xj5 | Users of the imperial system use colloquial phrases such as "it's a game of INCHES", "I wouldn't touch that with a 10 FOOT pole", "a POUND of flesh", and "the MILE high club". What are some colloquial phrases referencing the metric system and what do they mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea784lf"
],
"text": [
"There are very, very few, if any, in English or most other European languages. A lot of these idioms come from before the metric system was widely used so they've stuck around (because no one wants to be *that guy* who wants to sound clever and say \"a kilogram of flesh\" instead of just using the well established and briefer \"pound of flesh\")."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9z9fmr | How did the term "space cowboy" become popular, where did it come from, and what does it actually mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea7cgt2",
"ea7e01q"
],
"text": [
"The term Space Cowboy was first used in popular culture by [The Steve Miller Band]( URL_0 ) in their song \"Space Cowboy\" It was used by a number of other bands, both in cover songs and tributes over the years, but really gained popularity with Cowboy Bebop, an anime that used the line \"See you Space Cowboy\" in the show, likely as a reference to this older song, as they like to reference older music throughout the show. Outside of music, it's used to reference astronauts who act in a reckless manner, like the film Space Cowboys, featuring geriatric astronauts.",
"There is a 60’s drug reference, which I would say that Steve Miller refers “Space Cowboy “ as he’s a “midnight toker “ URL_0 A \"space cowboy\" is 1960s slang for a pothead, an habitual marijuana smoker. There's some similarity to the phrases \"space case\" and \"space cadet\" which generally refer to a drug user who is detached from everyday life and may find it difficult to communicate with people in the \"straight\" (i.e. non-drug-using) world."
],
"score": [
20,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World_(Steve_Miller_Band_album\\)"
],
[
"https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-space-cowboy"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9zbswr | why do stupid people like 6ix9ine and Blac Chyna become so rich and famous? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea7vg9q",
"ea7w9y3"
],
"text": [
"Basically, other stupid people make them famous... and theres a whole lotta stupid out there... :)",
"They make music that a lot of people like, and consequently sell a lot of songs and concert tickets"
],
"score": [
18,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9zg0ba | How do weather companies calculate "Feels like" temperatures? | Shouldn't it be subjective? Would a Canadian in booty shorts have a feels like temp above the actual? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea8z21p"
],
"text": [
"You know how water that's the same temperature as air doesn't feel like the same temperature? Like when the ocean is 60F it'd be really really cold but if the air were that it'd just be brisk. Like maybe need a jacket or something. Well air has different amounts of humidity. Water in the air basically. In addition if there is wind you get something called windchill. There is also direct sunlight. All of these can be added together to figure out how the temperature actually feels. Example: 75F on an overcast day will feel different then 75F on a sunnyday because the air might only be 75F but the sun hitting your body might make it feel a bit warmer. Why do these things have this effect? 1. Sunlight: Direct radiation. Basically light is coming down and hitting you and heating up the surface of your skin. 2. Windchill: As wind rushes by it is basically carrying your heat away. Everytime you heat up some air it's replaced with more cold air. In addition if you are wet at all the air will take that water away that also contains some body heat. 3. Humidity: Air that is thick with water can often act like an insulator. This is why in very tropical climates the temperature doesn't have to get that high before it feels really really warm. Weather companies took some time and figured out generally how each of these effect feeling of some people. It is in know ways completely applicable to everyone but is a good bit of info to give you an idea of what outside is going to be like. & #x200B;"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9zg1va | Why do American school curriculums not teach more practical skills, like taxes or what to do if someone is choking? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ea904d0",
"ea8veyg",
"ea8zcc6",
"ea8w0qm",
"ea92rki",
"ea93mqb",
"ea8v8h1",
"ea9454c"
],
"text": [
"They do, they teach math and reading. Here is the thing there are arguably 100s of subjects everyone thinks should be taught and there is just not enough time to teach all those things. Cooking, nutrition, personal finance, invest, car repair, home repairs, ect.. However all those things are really just reading comprehension + math. So instead of teaching all those we teach you the basics. Math, reading, writing, research. If you know that you can figure out anything else with a little research on Google.",
"Because teaching things costs money. The American school system is based largely on standardized test scores as a way to see how well the school is performing... the standardized tests don't include those things, and there would be resistance to getting them to do so.",
"I thought learning the heimlich and CPR was mandatory. In MN public schools we get Red Cross certified in first aid.",
"To do taxes \"properly\" requires a Bachelors level college degree or higher. It is the professional career of being an accountant. Now they do teach the very basics of taxes in the senior year \"Government and Economics\" class. But that is not really so much how to file them, but what they are. As for basic First Aid, I learned that in Health Class in Middle School as well as in Boyscouts.",
"They do. High schoolers pretend its a blow off class and don't retain it. We learned cpr in gym and 1040s in planning your future. There were even corporate tax lessons in accounting class. I went to school in a small town school that didnt even teach calc bc. People made the \"why didn't they teach us how to do taxes\" complaints when it was a graduation requirement.",
"- Heath classes in junior high teach what to do if someone is choking. They also teach first aid and CPR. \"Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was taught by 64% of teachers, free airway and recovery position by 69% and stopping severe bleeding by 51%. Recognising heart attack and stroke was taught by 25% and 23%, respectively.\" URL_0 - \"All 50 states require some form of instruction in civics and/or government, and nearly **90 percent of students take at least one civics class.**\" URL_1",
"We teach all of our middle school kids CPR and the heimlich in physed class. As for the taxes, not so much",
"I learned sewing, cooking, taxes,how to handle check books, etc. certification in adult/infant cpr/Defib was required to graduate. Also had the option of going to votec half days to learn a lot of other skills from computers to cars and everything in between."
],
"score": [
159,
27,
21,
10,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659131/",
"http://neatoday.org/2017/03/16/civics-education-public-schools/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9zmdev | why is Canadian and American thanksgiving celebrated on Separate days? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eaaa91z",
"eaakc53",
"eaab2xu"
],
"text": [
"Because they're two separate holidays, which only share some history. Neither had a set date until the 19th century, which was long after they started being celebrated.",
"Canadian Thanksgiving is basically a harvest festival. Colder climate=shorter growing season= earlier harvest.",
"What's the origin of Canada's Thanksgiving? Was it a different event than the one in Massachusetts?"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9zszk7 | Why do people say “He died for our sins”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eabsc8k",
"eabsfi1"
],
"text": [
"if you don't sin he died for no reason, so sin whenever you are able to, make his death worth a thousend sins",
"Because people need a loophole that can be treated as a ticket to heaven regardless of whether they sinned or not. Assigning the responsibility to a character attributed to a very remote past time effectively creates a free pass, since your sins are already paid for by someone long ago. A convenient way to excuse oneself from responsibility for one's actions. (Especially handy considering the paradigm that all people are born of sin anyway and are sinful at conception, thus making sure there is no way to actually live without sin)"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9zx0uz | Why have BTS become popular in the West whereas it seems to me similar Kpop acts have not had similar success outside of Asia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eacph5k"
],
"text": [
"BTS has a lot of elements/traits that, combined, made them the successful super-band that they are now, dominating international charts and rising to huge fame. A couple of them are: 1) They have a literal social media empire. Their presence on Twitter alone is huge, with their frequent tweets getting near 1million or even more likes without issue on a regular basis. They absolutely dominate social media, with a huge, loyal, and energetic fanbase (ARMY) that actively tries to spread awareness and promote their music. 2) They are, or were, underdogs. They were signed with Big Hit Entertainment, which, at the time of BTS's debut, was a pretty small and not well-known entertainment company especially compared to the other companies and K-pop groups at that time. They had considerably less funding and recognition and thus had to face incredible difficulty in rising to become popular in Korea. People tend to like and root for underdogs, and the incredible effort put in from both BTS and Big Hit paid off to launch them to super stardom first in Korea, and then outside of Asia. 3) Their live performances are no joke. They work constantly, writing new songs, practicing new choreography, traveling around the world on their tours. Go watch any of their live performances; they put 100% effort and go all-out on the stage, dancing and singing/rapping simultaneously with sometimes incredibly complex and difficult dance routines. They also have such a commanding presence while on the stage, it's easy to see how all of the individual members really put their hearts and souls into the performance. This type of charismatic energy while performing really captivates a lot of people. 4) Deep and intricate/complex meanings behind their songs. Although a lot of their songs are super catchy and at first glance may seem like simple bops, many of them often have a very deep and layered meaning behind them. For example, Anpanman is a catchy and seemingly silly, light-hearted song about being a superhero. But the more in-depth meaning behind the song lyrics relates to BTS's hard work and efforts; they face incredible adversity and hardship but endure it all for the sake of their fans: \"Honestly I’m afraid of falling Of disappointing you But still, even if I have to use all my strength I will stay by your side\" It gives this layered depth to their songs that people can really appreciate once they put in the effort to learn what the lyrics are saying; and often, this happens because the song is so catchy that people are inclined to want to know what is being sung. 5) They're very open to incorporating English, adding English lyrics to their songs, and generally collaborating with people outside of Korea. They have a Nicki Minaj feature on their song IDOL, and have worked with Steve Aoki on both MIC Drop and, more recently, Waste It On Me. In addition to this, they often attend interviews and appear on live shows including but not limited to The Ellen Show and The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. Pretty popular mainstream American artists like Khalid have praised their work, and recently they just did a live collaboration with Charlie Puth. All of this work with more established names familiar to the West only further contributes to their recognition and spreads their name. There's much more than that, but that should give you a pretty good general idea of some of the factors that, when all combined together, have launched BTS to this level of incredible international fame."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
a03cak | what’s the difference between racism and colorism | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eae7v6l"
],
"text": [
"Colorism is within one specific race. For example in the black community, colorism would be favouring somebody who is light skinned, but still black. Let's take Beyonce as a popular example. Some would argue that she's only popular because she's light skinned. Preferring Beyonce over a darker skinned black girl is not racism, because they are both black, and you're not discriminating against black people as a whole, so it's colorism."
],
"score": [
21
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
a07paq | Why are Indian children's animated shows so violent? | I've been watching papa-o-meter on Netflix and it's rated as a Y-7 show, yet characters are constantly beating the shit out of each other. There's an incredible amount of violence. Obviously no blood or anything, but I've never seen so much violence in a kid's show. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eaf980n"
],
"text": [
"Welcome to India. :) This whole animation scene is new in India. Been here for about a few years, maybe 10-15. Before that animation was scarce and if they existed at all, they were 4-5 mins skit. Then animation suddenly came in and the Central Board of Film Censors hasn't picked up pace yet. Oh, and one more thing, TV series aren't controlled by CBFC either and assumes that the producers would be same enough to censor it themselves. Then there is another side to it. Violence of this kind is (and I'm embarrassed to admit it) perfectly acceptable. There are plenty of families that beat their children, school staff can beat too. While recent events have led to stronger laws, it's implementation isn't visible yet. Edit: Added a new sentence."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.