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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7yfcvl | What is the history behind common calisthenic exercises such as push ups? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dug742g",
"dugai3h",
"dugl008",
"dugrtwm",
"dugrb0u"
],
"text": [
"I'd try asking this question at r/AskHistorians. Very professional where I'm sure you'll find a credible answer. Edit - much has to do with the [physical culture]( URL_0 ) movement of the late 1800's. Long story short, large-scale industrialization took much of the workforce out of the labor intensive work of agriculture, into jobs where factory workers would continuously perform the same action over and over again. This led to a drop in overall fitness for the population, especially seen in the [Victorian Armies]( URL_2 ) of the time who noticed that many of their soldiers were ineffective due to poor fitness. Slowly, exercising and eating well were blasted into the minds of the public from media giants like [Bernarr McFadden]( URL_1 ) and gyms and exercise routines were built up around it.",
"Armies have been using calisthenics [forever] ( URL_0 )",
"Here's a decent article URL_0 Basically, they date back to ancient greece. I'm sure it was all burpees before that.",
"Ancient Civilizations such as Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians and others used Calisthenics to train their soldiers and later, athletes. They based their workouts on the basic movements that every human goes through, lifting, pushing, pulling, walking, etc. The Greeks and Romans placed importance on physical prowess. The Greek philosophy was: sound body, sound mind.",
"One day a man fell faced down. Had to use his arms to push himself back up. Realized it was a good workout. The end."
],
"score": [
565,
174,
65,
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_culture",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernarr_Macfadden",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=N-m_CwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA5&ots=brfXUQyTu-&dq=Victorian%20army%20physical%20culture&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Victorian%20army%20physical%20culture&f=false"
],
[
"http://www.manilatimes.net/the-long-and-honorable-history-of-bodyweight-calisthenics/16443/"
],
[
"www.manilatimes.net/the-long-and-honorable-history-of-bodyweight-calisthenics/16443/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7yh50c | Why does London have so few skyscrapers or tall buildings in general compared to comparable cities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dugid3u",
"dugikih"
],
"text": [
"Relevant bits from [Wikipedia:]( URL_0 ) > Few skyscrapers were built in London before the late 20th century, owing to restrictions on building heights originally imposed by the London Building Act of 1894, which followed the construction of the 14-storey Queen Anne's Mansions. Though restrictions have long since been eased, strict regulations remain to preserve protected views, especially those of St Paul's, the Tower of London and Palace of Westminster, as well as to comply with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority. > The Greater London metropolitan area contains the most skyscrapers in the European Union. As of 2018, there are 21 skyscrapers in London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[4] with 18 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 15 in Frankfurt, eleven in Warsaw and five each in Madrid and Milan.",
"There are so many historic buildings in London that if a proliferation of skyscrapers were allowed it would dwarf them. As a result, there are strict controls preventing high rise buildings in certain areas so as not to overshadow the others. For example, [the area around St Paul's cathedral]( URL_1 ) is controlled so that the full sight of the dome rising above the surrounding buildings is not spoilt. In some areas of London [e.g. Canary Wharf]( URL_0 ), there are no historic buildings and so development there is much like you would see in any other major city."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London"
],
[
"https://group.canarywharf.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/11/ESTATE11.jpg",
"https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8299330.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/LOND-2016-052-HMQ-St-Pauls-Thanks-Giving-704JPG.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7yk98m | Why did the most advanced cultures of the classical period form in the Mediterranean? | Is there any particular reason like abundance of resources, extra population or was it just an accident or is there a really important thing I'm missing... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duh7b5g"
],
"text": [
"Well, leaving out Persia, India, and China, so this compares Italy, Egypt, and Greece to Germany, Britain, and central Africa? There were advantages in climate, but mostly, it was the fact that the sea facilitated long-distance communication and trade, and prompted the development of urban civilizations in a way that wouldn't be easily achieved inland."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7ylisu | Why is there hierarchy in our society? | Why is there hierarchy in our society? Do history or historical events play a role? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duhhdsx",
"duhxt5g"
],
"text": [
"Humans cannot exist alone. An alone primate is a dead primate. So, in pre-history, we lived in groups, whom we were mostly related to genetically, and went about obtaining resources required for caloric intake (eating food). Young men usually serves as the warriors and hunters (to prove their worth to the tribe), and in most tribal societies, children and women did the rest. The old and sick were sometimes left to die. Eventually, we get better and better with doing this (think changing from picking berries to basic agriculture) so that more and more people are involved into the group, making it so that some of the people inside of the group don't just hunt or gather or farm, instead they can make decisions, provide religious roles, arbitrate disputes, and provide leadership. A lot of times these leaders **edit- not necessarily _leaders_ per se** were older members that were useful. Old men who could arbitrate disputes and lead. Old women who knew certain skills. This also goes into decision-making. The group needs a decisive voice to make decisions. Thoughts of \"this outsider is bad, we should kill him,\" or \"this outsider will be helpful, let's take him in.\" Are important decisions that still come up today. Think liberals and conservatives on the matter of refugees. The above bits bring up some interesting points - Maybe our willingness to follow the authority of a police officer has something to do with our instinct to listen to the grandfathers in our group from pre-history? Maybe young men are still willing to fight in war because they still want to prove something to the \"tribe?\" And maybe our loyalty to our nations have something to do with loyalty to the group of people who were related to us? Anyway, tl;dr people generally need leaders and orders to function well, so that's why we need leaders and a hierarchy.",
"Your question is a little bit of a minefield, because it taps into some deeper questions about the nature of humanity and society that are in hot debate right now. In other words, you're going to get a lot of disagreeing answers to this question and probably some downvotes. I'm an academic, so I'm going to answer from that perspective, and I'll try to shed light on why this question is so controversial. The nature of human hierarchy is a contested question in scholarship. There was a very influential book written in the 1970s called *Homo Hierarchicus* that argued that humans are hierarchical beings *in essence,* meaning that each individual human contains the ideological wiring for their society's hierarchy. The implication of this argument is that hierarchy is not simply a social construct enforced by an elite class, it is something that all members of the hierarchy reproduce and participate in. *Homo Hierarchicus* was effectively criticized some years later on the grounds that it took human hierarchies as too static and too \"real.\" *Homo Hierarchicus* used the caste system in India to make its case, so the critic argued basically, \"Look, there is no real caste system, it's just a name we give to a shifting socio-political hierarchy.\" That means that humans aren't really \"Homo Hierarchicus\" in the sense that the first book was arguing because the kind of hierarchy in question there was a \"social construct.\" A number of recent events have made the question of human hierarchy especially fraught. I'm referring to Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and the Trump Presidency. Although all of these have much deeper roots, they're happening at a time when society––and popular culture in particular––seems especially predisposed to postmodernism. In ELI5 fashion, postmodernism is the assumption that there *is no universal, absolute truth.* Truth, in other words, is relative to the individual or the society. By extension, good and evil also become relative. Because the movements mentioned above are happening now, and so forcefully, the very idea of human hierarchies is becoming anathema. How can there be a hierarchy if good is up for grabs? If truth is up for grabs? No one has a monopoly on those things in the postmodern world, so no one deserves to be on top. Moreover, those on top are only there because they have used their power (financial, physical, whatever) to get there. The rising popularity of Jordan Peterson has something to do with your question of human hierarchy, I think. Peterson believe the modern, western world is attempting to undo the human propensity for hierarchy. He believes that we have been evolutionarily hard-wired for hierarchy, and that attempting to enforce equality of outcomes (men, women, and different races all have the exact same representation in different jobs, in higher ed, the same incomes, etc) will damage society because it will damage individuals who naturally exist in hierarchies. Modern society, Peterson believes, is telling people not to be active in the world because they will only perpetuate the hierarchy––and young men are getting the worst of it because, for so long, they've been on top of the hierarchy. Peterson himself has drawn a *ton* of criticism. Most of that criticism comes in the form of popular press hit pieces, but those aren't worth talking about because they straight up get their facts wrong. What's more important is that these pieces are being written and read. I think it's significant because it shows that there is a real struggle going on between people who believe that humans are naturally hierarchical and those who think that it's all social construction and we can break out of it and have equality. So to answer your question about why there is hierarchy in our society, the short answer is \"fuck if I know.\" The slightly longer answer **seems** to be––based on the evolutionary evidence (which Peterson accurately cites, by the way) and sociological evidence––**we have hierarchies because we want them, and we want them because we need them.** We animals, and animals need biological imperatives there to keep them from killing each other all the time. Hierarchies help keep animal societies organized. But we are also *rational* animals. We get so much sensory input every minute of every day and our brain has to process it. And then we have to process that accumulation of that input. And then we have to process our processing. It's too much data *not* to categorize. We need to know who the more powerful people are in society so we can be careful of them, and the moment we know that there is a category for more powerful, we want either to fit into that category of suck up to it. Social hierarchies build off this evolutionary need to categorize and then those social hierarchies themselves become ingrained into the human brain, changing the way we see the world. I'll end on an interesting story from the set of the original Planet of the Apes. Because it took so long to put on makeup everyday, the ape actors and extras would leave their makeup on during lunch. Both the human actors and the directors noticed something strange happen every day: the apes would eat lunch with the apes, the chimps with the chimps, and the orangoutangs with the orangoutangs. No one told them to do this, they just spontaneously did it. ([source if you want]( URL_0 )). The question is, how long until those separated groups of apes organize themselves into hierarchies, both internally amongst themselves and then society-wide?"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.neatorama.com/2013/12/15/When-the-Actors-in-Planet-of-the-Apes-Donned-Their-Makeup-They-Spontaneously--Segregated-Themselves/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7yna5t | Why do so many languages share the same basic alphabet? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duhrffw",
"duhryc3"
],
"text": [
"I cannot speak for all of the languages but the Latin alphabet, (the one used by most European and Western Countries) spread across Europe as the Romans expanded their empire. Even after the fall of the Roman state, the alphabet survived in intellectual and religious works. It eventually became used for the descendant languages of Latin (the Romance languages) and then for most of the other languages of Europe. The alphabet spread to the other languages of Europe mainly due to the Catholic Church (and orthodox church in Russia). Remember during this time period, only the clergy and some upper class were literate and they were the ones creating and copying books, mostly the Holy Bible which was almost always written in Latin. (A very similar thing happened in the middle east with the Quran and the Arabic language and alphabet). When they went to write their own languages it was only logical that they would use the same alphabet as the Latin bible.",
"I want to add colinialization means the spread of the Alphabet as well. This is how Indonesia and Vietnam uses Latin ish Alphabet."
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7yrwmi | How come the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and most of Canada have a high majority of English speakers while other countries once colonized by the British do not? | This also applies to areas of the world colonized by other European powers (like Spain colonized Latin America and there's still a significant Spanishphone presence while in other countries like Morocco, it's not as prominent). | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duiphzk",
"duiq32q"
],
"text": [
"Because the European immigrants and their descendants *vastly outnumber* the aboriginal people in these places.",
"Genocide, and forcing natives off their land will tend to do that. India was more established than North America, and was therefore less suspecible to the kinds of devestation that wiped out the local populations of the Americas and Australia"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7yslmj | Why do late night hosts always sit right and guests left? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duivnvl"
],
"text": [
"That's how Johnny Carson did it. Everything you see on late-night TV is basically people copying him."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7yzgze | Why are there so many "Chinatown" neighborhoods in different North American cities? Was there a large exodus from China some time last century or so? | I was recently thinking about how common this is, and not nearly as common (in my limited experience) with other countries, in terms of setting up an actual neighborhood. Just wondering how that all happened | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duk92rz",
"duk98c9",
"duk98zw",
"dukj77s"
],
"text": [
"The railroad. At the time those big cities like San Francisco were really \"booming\" was during the time of the railroad. Chinese immigrants were largely responsible for building the railroad but were also considered one of the lowest class of citizens. Being society's outcasts forced them to create 'cities' for themselves.",
"Yes. There were several waves of immigration from China over the last century (and a bit). One was in the mid to late 1800s and large numbers of immigrants came to the US with most concentrating on the West Coast. They were looking for work opportunity with the California Gold mines, and with the US building railroads. The next major wave came in the 1920s and 1930s as they fled civil war, famine, and the communist revolution.",
"There was heavy Chinese immigration in the 1800’s, mainly to the west coast. Due to racist beliefs, they were shunned by white society and mainly stayed within their own communities. These were the 1st Chinatowns. However, in 1882, a law was passed specifically prohibiting Chinese immigration. It was not fully repealed until the major reform of the American immigration system in the 60’s. There was very little Chinese immigration during this time. After the reform, immigration from China increased again. A high number of Chinese-Americans are recent arrivals. Recent immigrants tend to stick together in “ethnic towns).",
"Chinese were often discriminated against and banned from living in many places or forced to only live in specific areas, which became Chinatown’s.similar to why blacks and whites are still often so segregated,and even more so 100 years ago. But because there were fewer Chinese, more cultural and language differences, the neighborhoods remained more insular and kept more of their tight knit character. But most today — other than Chicago and a couple others — are more akin to country visits at EPCOT than actual ethnic communities due to rising real estate prices in those neighborhoods and surrounding areas, assimilation of Asians."
],
"score": [
16,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7z3abz | Why did that 1971 Coke ad become so legendary? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dul2tyn"
],
"text": [
"Actually, the real McCann ad agency did write it. It was so popular due to the fact that 1971 was the high of the most brutal US actions during the Vietnam War. The radio ad with the jingle and after Apollo 14's return to the moon in February, the week before the radio ad's release. The 'Hilltop' video commercial was released in July 1971 as a message of peace that was intended to resonate with the times, but was initially seen as anti-American, and was a huge flop initially. In fact, it was the most expensive commercial ever created at the time. It gained popularity after it was reworked in the mid 1970s as a Christmas commercial, since the peace message resonated with the holiday season. We look at the Coca Cola 'Hilltop' commercial as an piece of American iconography, but the fact is that the original 1971 commercial, the one that was the climax of the Mad Men finale, was initially a failure."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7z3gdj | How are things like "Senior Citizen" discounts and 55+ communities not considered age discrimination? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dul39eq",
"dul54he",
"dul48j1",
"dul69rf",
"dul5zrv"
],
"text": [
"In some circumstances it is considered age discrimination. However depending on the local rules, this may be allowed. For example, certain US states do not allow \"ladies nights\" at bars (where women get a discount on something), because that is sex discrimination. However other states have decided to allow it. Discrimination is only illegal if its actually illegal. To further add on, many things that involve older folks--who are people who tend to vote-- get some preferential legal and governmental treatment. Don't piss off your voters, you may just lose your job.",
"The law doesn't say that \"discrimination\" is illegal, it says that discrimination against *protected classes* is illegal. If you look at the laws, age-restricted housing is allowed. Age discrimination in employment is only illegal when it *hurts* older people. Young people aren't given similar protections.",
"It is discrimination, but it is generally not illegal. So businesses use the marketing opportunity to bring more business in. If they make more revenue from the additional customers they bring in than what they lose from the discount, then they keep it up. It has very little to do with how long people have been paying taxes, or whether they deserve a break because they've been working for so long or whatever.",
"Age discrimination in and of itself is not illegal. Minimum drinking ages are age discrimination, and legal. What is illegal is discrimination *that harms protected groups*. The only illegal age discrimination I'm aware of is in the workplace, and the protected group is people over 40. It's perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone because they're too young. It's not legal to refuse to hire someone because they're over 40.",
"Discrimination in general is not illegal. Discrimination is only illegal if it is due to you being a part of a protected class. The elderly are a protected class, but the young are not."
],
"score": [
58,
25,
11,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7z7gue | What is gentrification, and why does everybody that talks about it seem so opposed to it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dulv83d",
"dulxhbc",
"dulvm3q"
],
"text": [
"Poor people live in area with low property values, taxes, and similar. Richer people move in and open businesses. This makes it more expensive to live there. People who were previously living there can no longer afford to do so, which is very bad for them.",
"I'd like to add something that is quite important in gentrification, which is its complex relationship with race. Because it isn't just that these are poor areas, its that they are largely poor areas where non-white people live (often black). And specifically regarding the US, though I'm sure its true everywhere, the places where black people live isn't a coincidence, it was propelled by systemic racism and white flight. So, take a city like Baltimore, for example. When the GI Bill came through, black soldiers were not allowed the same benefits that white soldiers were. This fave white soldiers an economic advantage when it came to purchasing real estate, especially regarding the highway system and the creation of the suburbs. Black buyers were relegated to certain neighborhoods (known as reclining), which were usually low income and therefore lacked a lot of infrastructure. When families would, say, manage to break through into a white neighborhood (block busting), the white families would leave and move elsewhere, citing a lowering of property values. This led to Baltimore being not only very black, but also notably poor, as there was a lack of generational wealth and the cycle of poverty continued with poor schools, food deserts, declining streets increase in crime, etc. This made property values very low, so the city started selling houses at very low prices. White people started buying up that space, and carving out space for themselves, prompting the government to invest more into infrastructure, raising property values. This prices a lot of people out, and flippers come in and renovate these old houses and make a bunch of money. This changes the neighborhood from a black one with no support to a majority white one with loads of government money. Its also marked by \"frivolous\" businesses taking away neighborhood staples, which isolates the original owners. For example, what was once a corner store where most of the neighborhood did some shopping is turned into a high end cupcake shop. Sure, cupcakes are great, but its a specialty shop that alienates a lot of neighborhood people, and takes away from their ability to get cheap food without traveling too far. Or the laundromat becomes a hat shop, and now everyone in the neighborhood that doesn't have a laundry machine can't do their laundry, and so on and so forth. Its very racial, it's very economic, so its just a nightmare that people are rightly against.",
"It is a 'normal' process that is sometimes encouraged by local government. So there are cheap places to live in cities. Usually people don't want to live there because of run down buildings, lack of infrastructure or a dangerous environment, so poor people live there. Some people who got less money are just poor at the moment - for example they are students or artists, or nowadays self-employed IT-project freelancers, designers etc. These people move into the run-down buildings because they have no money, slowly changing the neighbourhood since they bring in a different lifestyle. Artsy cafes, showrooms and whatnot might open because now there are clients etc. Ultimatively, the neighbourhood turns into a cultural hotspot that is attractive to live in for the well-educated, young and compareably rich folks that want to enjoy life in the city. So landlords start to sell out the buildings or they renovate and turn shabby apartments into luxury lofts - the people that lived there originally have to move out as they can't pay the rent anymore. Poor students, artists and freelancers can't afford it anymore too. Artsy cafes turn into hipster bars and Starbucks. The new rich tenants want it nice and quiet, so clubs close. In the end, the neighbourhood and all it's buildings got prestige and increased in value, driving away the poorer tenants that used to live there for generations. People with less money will now go living in different areas, and the process starts anew."
],
"score": [
16,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7z7k7s | What makes the Mona Lisa painting special? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dum3v65",
"dum3uih",
"dum472h",
"dum3to4",
"dum4jra",
"dum4mxt",
"dum4k6y"
],
"text": [
"My totally original response for the question: Leonardo Da Vinci painted it. He is the foremost Renaissance artist. Artist's credibility adds to the paintings popularity. Napoleon Bonaparte hung the painting in his master bedroom in 1800. This - I think - was the first tipping point of making the painting one of the most popular paintings in the world. 1804, Mona Lisa is hung in the Louvre - and others can now glimpse at the painting that Napoleon slept with. But the real tipping point for the paintings popularity only hit in August of 1911 - when Mona Lisa is stolen. Stolen from heavily secured Louvre which experts said was impossible. No one knows who stole it or how. Conspiracy theories abound. The painting is talked about in every newspaper. After 2 weeks of much fan fare, Police arrest Guillaume Apollinaire on suspicion of theft. He is the only person they have arrested. Apollinaire implicates Pablo Picasso. The rumor of Picasso stealing the Mona Lisa adds in a lot more fuel in making Mona Lisa very very popular. Picasso is questioned and released. Guillaume Apollinaire himself is released after 5 days. Everyone is still clueless as to who stole the painting. But conspiracy theories abound. Two years after the theft, the Mona Lisa is finally found when an employee working at Louvre tries to sell it to an art gallery in Florence for $100,000. When the Mona Lisa is returned to the Louvre, it draws massive crowds. People visit the Louvre only to see this one painting. And then it hit the Paris Hilton effect. Its popularity added to its popularity. So much so that most people don't know why it is popular in the first place.",
"It was stolen. That is about it. Before the theft, it was often thought of as one of his lesser works. However, once it was stolen there was a big todo over the theft. When it was recovered, everyone wanted to see the \"stolen masterpiece\". That fame has remained.",
"What is my perfect crime? I break into The Louvre at midnight. Do I go for the vault? No, I go for the Mona Lisa. It's priceless. As I'm taking it down, a woman catches me. She tells me to stop. It's her father's business. She's Tiffany. I say no. We make love all night. In the morning, the cops come and I escape in one of their uniforms. I tell her to meet me in Mexico, but I go to Canada. I don't trust her. Besides, I like the cold. Thirty years later, I get a postcard. I have a son and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. I tell Tiffany to meet me in Paris by the Trocadero. She's been waiting for me all these years. She's never taken another lover. I don't care. I don't show up. I go to Berlin. That's where I stashed the Mona Lisa.",
"Memory from art history class 10 years ago - sfumato or something like that, a technique used to effectively show depth...... I think.",
"• Da Vinci painted it • Technique called \"Sfumato\" used • Was hung in Napoleon's bedroom • Stolen: Many conspiracies and fame",
"There is something unsettling about the minimalist smile, like there’s real emotion there instead of just paint on canvas. Also, there is a mystery as to who the model is. But, ultimately, it is just a very well known piece by a very well known artist. “Special” is relative, but this piece just hits as a generic avatar for all art because it’s ubiquitous.",
"> Memory from art history class 10 years ago - sfumato or something like that, a technique used to effectively show depth...... I think. [Correct.]( URL_0 ) Also, people looking at it today are seeing a five-hundred year old painting; perhaps in their mind they're used to paintings that were referenced from photographs. With a photograph for reference, the artist can more easily reference and duplicate the individual colors and gradients they see.... Without a photograph for reference, the artist has to interpret the source directly, breaking the whole into parts, and in Leonardo's case, innovating some of the techniques from scratch... *and doing all of this with a sitting model for hours and hours in changing light conditions.* Additionally, techniques that have been studied and developed for five hundred years are traceable to that painting. The works of artists since can all be traced back to that painting. **Consider this:** The other artist whose works come to mind as being of similar significance is Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh appeared almost 400 years after Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. In between, Magellan circumnavigated the globe, the United States was founded, the French Revolution occurred, the Spanish American and Civil Wars were fought, the Cotton Gin was invented, manned flight was achieved and the first automobile invented. Mozart and Beethoven were less than a generation apart. Leonardo and Vincent were almost half a millennium apart."
],
"score": [
106,
81,
48,
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/mona_lisa/mlevel_1/m3technique.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7z8295 | Where does cremation come from and why did it get so embedded with the Slovenian customs while being so rare in other countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dum11f5",
"dum0t7o",
"dum004y"
],
"text": [
"[Cremation is Pretty common in both Europe and the US.]( URL_0 ) Not sure what you are talking about. For example the rate is 75% in the UK.",
"Cremation has been common in many different cultures, including much of Europe. But it fell out of practice as Christianity spread because the Catholics and Orthodox variants of the faith believed that the body needed to be buried as intact as possible so that it could be resurrected at the second coming. Christianity also chose burial to differentiate it from the cremations commonly used by the pagan faiths it replaced. This is why execution by burning on a pyre was seen as rendering you incapable of going to heaven, and why they would often arrange the body/bones in abstract ways including putting the head between the feet to render someone incapable of going to heaven. They basically took aspects of older pagan burial rituals and used them to tarnish the soul of the decease marking them as not Christian.",
"Actually cremation is common in many countries, notably India. It likely originated from hygiene issues (plagues caused by decomposing corpses) and/or from lack of space to bury bodies. I don't know specifically regarding Slovenia, but that's not a \"concept\" so not as suitable for this subreddit."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cremation_rate#Europe"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7z8qrg | Why are the words "Yeah" and "Oh" always in pop songs and said for so long? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dum5dg5",
"duma1xh"
],
"text": [
"They are used as *filler* where the tune requires a note, but the singer doesn't have anything more to say. An excellent lyricist will try to adjust the wording so that not too many of these are needed.",
"Good filler that can make even the most unintelligible lyrics sound intelligible. [Example]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/-VsmF9m_Nt8"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7z9liz | When fleeing Germany after WW2, why did Nazis choose to settle in Argentina of all places? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dumd0hx",
"dumfszl",
"dumevoo"
],
"text": [
"There was already a sizable, established German expat population. Argentina, which did side with the Allies (in the final month or so) , had strong ties to the Axis powers. The Argentine president, Domingo, had in fact served as part of Mussolini's armed forces. The Nazis also fostered strong economic ties. Before and during the war, Germany had operatives (both clandestine and public) embedded in many levels of Argentine politics, business and society. Essentially, the Nazis worked hard to establish Latin America (Brazil, and Argentina in particular) as friendly outposts, a sort of escape route. Here's some more: URL_0",
"Among other reasons it was a rather nice place at the time. A first world country with GDP rivaling Western Europe.",
"Not only did they settle, they operated freely. Being able to conduct operation with impunity is far better than being on the run. In order to do so on a large scale, you need government support, at minimum government cooperation."
],
"score": [
11,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.thoughtco.com/why-did-argentina-accept-nazi-criminals-2136579"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zadkg | what's a method actor? | I'm currently obsessed with Daniel Day-Lewis and his marvellous work in Phantom Thread. He's said to be a method actor, and I wanna know what concretely that means. Also, I can't get the joke from this URL_0 Which makes me even more upset. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dumjmvv",
"dumt47d",
"dumk1ly",
"dumjqjv"
],
"text": [
"A method actor stays in character throughout the duration of a production (e.g. filming schedule for a movie, or the full run for a theater performance), even when they're not being filmed or seen on stage. The term comes from what at the time was the \"new\" method of immersing yourself so thoroughly in a role that the boundary between you and the character maybe gets a little blurry. Robert Downey, Jr's character in Tropical Thunder is a method actor (it's a movie within a movie) who gets so immersed in his part he actually changes his skin color. In fact, his part is primarily a satire of method acting. Day-Lewis is known for similar immersion, so, e.g. he might keep talking in his lilted high pitched Lincoln voice even when the cameras weren't recording.",
"The joke is playing off the fact that some method actors lose themselves in a role and become the character even off camera. While many method actors do this, it’s not actually part of method acting. Method acting is much simpler. 1) You connect moments from your real life to moments of the character’s life. For example, when the character needs to experience disappointment, you bring back emotions from when you were disappointed in real life. 2) You develop an entire backstory for the character (beyond what’s in the script and on the screen) to help you connect those emotions and feeling from the character life to your real life.",
"It's a style of acting where the actor purposely loses themselves deep into the role. If the role requires an accent, they might talk in that accent 24/7 during the period of filming. If they're playing a taxi driver, they might actually get a job driving a taxi for a while and just live the role. Basically they try to ***become*** their character for a period of time, as opposed to just turning it on when the director says action. Daniel Day Lewis was famous for stuff like never leaving his wheelchair during the filming of My Left Foot, where he played a paralyzed guy. The joke in the link you referred to is that the guy is playing Jesus, but he's not acting at all like Jesus in his off time.",
"[Method Acting]( URL_0 ) is an intense way for an actor to inhabit a character, even when they aren't on camera. Like, they only want to be called by their character name, they ARE the character at all times and the camera just happens to be filming it at some point. Christian Bale is another actor who goes full method. In the video you linked, if the person portraying Jesus was a method actor, he wouldn't be violent. He would want peace and love, so \"not a method actor\" is like \"well duh.\""
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_acting"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7zb231 | Why do people in Hawaii walk around barefoot? Not at the beach, but even at Starbucks. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dumogla",
"dump8mk",
"dumold6",
"dun3cby"
],
"text": [
"Well this made me chuckle, I'm Australian and I walk around barefoot all the time. My girlfriend is English and thinks I'm insane. Would I be correct in thinking you're from somewhere that is cold a lot of the year and/or doesn't have much of a beach culture. Let me have a crack at it. For myself and my friends, it was just how we grew up, especially if was a short trip somewhere, maybe we'd put on thongs (flip-flops) if we were going somewhere more than a 10 minute walk or 5 minute drive away, but if it was just a trip up to the corner shops, barefoot was always fine. As soon as it got warm, we'd all be down at the beach for large parts of the day whenever we got the chance, so stopping off at a cafe, burger joint, wherever, on the way home in singlet and boardshorts while barefoot was also pretty common. If I had to explain like I did when I actually was 5 to my mum trying to force me to wear shoes. \"SHOES SUCK MUM! THEY JUST TRAP MY FEET!\"",
"Because you can. And also because you never ever wear your shoes into someone's house there (Asian influence). So the combination of those two things just means sometimes you just walk around barefoot.",
"Never been to Hawaii but one of my parents was a hippie. I've grown accustomed to shoes now and wear them more often than not (now that I don't live in a hot, arid land anymore) but I still go barefoot as much as possible. So answering it from that perspective: 1. It's more comfortable when you've been raised barefoot. Shoes feel constrictive, it's hard to find a pair that doesn't hurt after awhile in them. 2. Living by the beach means you'll be in sand, dirt, and water a lot. Shoes get dirty with sand and then you have to buy new ones. Comfy shoes are expensive, best to save them for occasions when you *have* to wear shoes. 3. Shoe/sock lines look weird at the beach. 4. Even sandals can be annoying, sometimes more so. Dirt and pebbles can get in, making them uncomfortable. But basically, it's down to comfort. People in my current area look at me like I'm crazy because I'll go outside without shoes. They worry about pee, etc. on the ground. I've worked in retail, though, and can say with absolute certainty that the things you touch at a store are dirtier (and will get you dirtier) than bare feet on the ground. My hands got visibly dirty faster than my feet when working in retail. And everything on the ground is on *something* in your typical low-end retail store. Blood gets wiped off of items. Kids and the elderly have accidents and there is no janitor so it comes down to who is on shift and whether they'll clean it correctly. Money is filthy. People cough, vomit, and sneeze in retail shops. A lot of it isn't ever cleaned up. I love being barefoot but force myself into shoes because though some in my area go barefoot in stores and the like, they're generally causing raised eyebrows. However, if I'm at home, I'm barefoot. It's comfy.",
"We don't. This is not a normal thing. Maybe slightly less uncommon than the mainland but the vast majority of people wear slippers when out kf the house. Where did you get this notion?"
],
"score": [
29,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ze5ra | Why are common Western musical instruments transposing instruments, eg. tenor saxophone is in Bb, alto saxophone is in Eb, etc., instead of every instrument being categorised as in the same key (concert C I guess)? | As a practical example to make what I'm asking clearer: why is the note/fingering for D on a tenor sax called a D and not a C instead? Hopefully made my question(s) as clear as possible but I kinda find it weird that some instruments transpose from concert C when, if the fingerings for the notes were renamed to match and taught as their relative concert C pitch, wouldn't that logically make it a non-transposing C instrument? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dunere5",
"dunnql1",
"duns8wa"
],
"text": [
"I think it's to allow easier transition for players between instruments. For example an alto and tenor sax have the same fingering but produce different note. This means a player who plays tenor sax can more easily transition to alto sax as they won't have to relearn all the fingering. A b flat on alto is the same fingering as a b flat on tenor, it's just the music that is transposed. This is the same for brass instruments too. I.e. trumpet to euphonium.",
"Something not said yet is that it makes Sheet music much easier to manage and read. If, as a composer or player, I'm looking at a sheet for Horn in F that's written in concert pitch, a LOT of my notes are going to be below my treble staff or in the top end of a bass staff after a clef change. If I'm looking at Double Bass, literally everything is going to be down an octave. By transposing the pitches so they actually are on the staff (and changing the written key of the instrument), things become much easier to parse.",
"Yes, you could learn to play tenor sax by writing a C on the page and using a fingering to play the pitch C. That's fine - except what happens when you have to play alto sax? To get that same pitch as C you'd have to use a different fingering. That means you have to learn the entire instrument from scratch. That's ridiculous. So instead, we transpose the music. So now when you see a C on the page, it's played with the same fingering on all the saxes. The note you hear won't be a C, but a person can play what's on the page very readily and can switch instruments with no reacclimation period."
],
"score": [
10,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7zg9q3 | How does the franchise tag work in the NFL? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dunrhl0"
],
"text": [
"The team gets a franchise tag each year, that can be one of several types. The tagged player gets a one-year fully guaranteed salary based on the average of top paid players in the same position (with fewer players for the more exclusive tag) or 120% of the prior year's salary whichever is higher. Depending on which tag is used, the player may attempt to get a contract with other teams (with the tagging team getting a right to match the contract or receive draft picks in compensation depending on the tag used). The tag allows teams to lock up a player who would otherwise become a free agent (able to negotiate a contract with any team) for an additional year. Most of the time this means an extension the exclusive negotiating period (with a new contract replacing the tag before the season starts) but some players have played a full season under the tag. The language in the [collective bargaining agreement]( URL_0 ) never explicitly states that there is a 3 year limit on tagging, but it only describes procedures to tag a player for 3 years, so it's interpreted as though there were a 3 tag limit. In any case, after that many multipliers of salary, the one year salary would almost certainly be too much of most teams salary cap to devote to a single player."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zgyzr | The Price is Right did NOT give away 215,000 possible dollars today, so who gets to keep it? | So basically, how do game shows manage the prize money that they give away? Sorry, spoilers for the West Coast. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dunw4zf",
"duo8erw",
"duo5kbs"
],
"text": [
"There are a few possibilities here: 1) The production company is fronting the cash, and just keeps it when nobody wins. Shows with wealthy backers and relatively small proze pools do this. 2) The production company is using some form of sweepstakes insurance, paying a regular premium and the small prizes themselves and treating the occasional major prize giveaways as unexpected insurance losses. Car dealers and businesses running goofy promos do this a lot. 3) The production company doesn't have the cash on hand, and the prize is actually an annuity they're paying over many years or a greatly reduced lump sum. Many lotteries do this. I don't know specifically what *The Price is Right* does, but it will be some mix of the above options.",
"I know Wheel of Fortune uses insurance on the million dollar prize. They pay a company some premium for each show to keep the budget stable. For simplicity, say it really is a $1,000,000 cash prize (it isn't really, it's an annuity) and that it's won every 1,000 shows. In that case, they'd budget and pay $1,000 a show to a company and make a claim when that $1,000,000 prize is won. I imagine the same is being done by TPIR.",
"Nobody gets to keep it... they have a budget for prizes and try to hit that over the course of the year. Some days they award more than anticipated,other days less. At the end of the year, it’s just a production cost like Dew Carey’s salary, crew, set costs and so on that go against revenue taken in from sponsors and ad revenue. Cash prizes aren’t kept in a briefcase and handed over on your way out the door. You have to fill out all sorts of paperwork, have eligibility determined, tax paper work filled out, and then they cut you a check weeks after you win."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7zid34 | Why was slavery a common practice that occurred in every civilization at some point? | It is considered inhumane by today's standards, but why was it considered to be ok in virtually every civilization at some point, regardless of the ethnic groups/people that happened to be enslaved. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duo8znw",
"duo7g20",
"duopxbj",
"duo9rzg"
],
"text": [
"Slavery is viewed as immoral today because we are forming a world view where all people have equal value. For most of history, this was not a widely held view, so civilizations believed it perfectly fine to enslave \"lesser\" people.",
"I think before industrialization and automation became a thing it was simply the basic desire not to have to toil from dawn to dusk for your basic needs to be fulfilled. Plus there was the question of what to do with people of other conquered tribes.",
"I think everything changed when philosophers started to come up with the idea of humanism in the late 18th century of Europe. Humanism basically started on how we as humans perceive the childhood and basically ends (and still argues) as we humans can achieve a better existence in order to not being stuck to religion. For example, the child has always been perceived as an unfinished adult which just takes some time to be finish. The flaws of a child were then just necessary as the sole purpose of a flaw is to learn from it and never make the mistake again. We know today that children need time, effort, affection and love to actually learn from their mistakes. The United States never really adopted these approaches of humanism, because slavery at this time would perfectly suit their economic growth. The same applies to nazi Germany. By the time Hitler wasn't actually even considering to run for a presidency, Germany had one of the most up to date's democracies. This democracy was called the Weimarer Republik and was considered as one of the best forms of ruling a country by the time. Even the old king of the German Kaiserreich actually ended his regency voluntarily by himself in order to let Germany progress into this bright future. Everything was happy and great until Germany basically suffered from the though economic times of the mid-late 1920s. Hitler then actually took advantage of the flaws of this existing German democratic system and promised work for the suffering Germans. He actually kept his promises and built a whole new Germany based on the suffering of Jews and other European minorities. Basically Germany moved away from a very humanistic democracy in order to create work and wealth under a tyranny led by a maniac. The moment we humans trade humanism for the advantage of gaining wealth in a short amount of time, meaning that we actually exploit something and someone, we perceive slaves just as tool and not as the humans as they are. Or why else don't you feel a bit of a bad conscience while you buy clothes from H & M and co., knowing that probably a child or another kind of forced labour was involved in making it?",
"Agriculture pros: you can grow more food than you need, creating a surplus of food, which you can use to build a civilization. Agriculture cons: without modern machines, crop breeds, domesticated animals, growing crops is labor intensive hard work. Agriculture with slavery pros: you can build a food surplus and only need to pay your workers with a minimal amount of calories to keep them able to work."
],
"score": [
26,
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7zuh91 | Why is revenge not the same as justice? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duquv7z",
"duqw0o4"
],
"text": [
"The most basic boiled down difference is that revenge is decided at the individual level, and justice is decided at the society level. Now as with most human behaviors and concepts it rapidly gets more complicated as you study it, but that is the most base difference.",
"Everyone in this post seems to have pretty lofty ideas for justice. In theory, justice is meant to prevent future occurrences of the same incident, whereas revenge is with the purpose of enjoying someone's suffering. In practice, people tend to use the words however most benefits them."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zv966 | Why is Denmark (1 silver medal in Winter Olympics history) so terrible at the Winter Olympics, while its Nordic neighbor Norway, has 367 medals all time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dur0rw2",
"dur0ski",
"dur4a80",
"dur53n0",
"dur40cr",
"dur4hzj",
"dur5u3n",
"dur5y0a",
"dur15s9",
"dur4wyo",
"dur5o49",
"durcks5",
"dur4rqr",
"durcd5s",
"dur5cot",
"dur4vgn",
"dur6sk3",
"dur6ds1",
"dur7860",
"durcj0n",
"dur6x2t",
"duri10m",
"dur7i6e",
"dur74tt",
"duraey1",
"duraeph",
"durjhs7",
"durbphl"
],
"text": [
"There is simply not a single mountain in all of Denmark. Not one. And so har we’ve had 1 day with more than 1 cm of snow this winter. Very different conditions than our northern neighbours who are practically borne on skis :)",
"Norway has quite a significant amount of its land within the Arctic circle - they have abundant snow and ice for much of the year in many parts of the country. Norwegians are more likely to get into winter sports because they've got the weather for it. Denmark is further south, has a similar latitude to the UK and the climate is pretty similar too. When snow falls in Denmark, it doesn't tend to lie around for very long. It doesn't tend to get *really* cold there.",
"In Norway, we ski to work or school during the winter season. In Denmark, they use a bicycle. This is because Norway is both cold and mountainous, whilst Denmark is flat and Sandi Toksvig. As a Norwegian, I've had heatstrokes in Denmark, and gotten lost because there are no mountains in the horizon to orient by. In Norway, if you want to get to the \"Pizza place by the harbor\", you just go downhill. This encourages skiing as a convenient mode of transportation, much as biking is convenient on the flats of Denmark. Once Norway started having success in the winter Olympics due to the natural inclination towards skiing, a culture grew out of it. It was now a Norwegian *thing* to encourage, cheer, and take pride in our performance in the winter Olympics. We started giving television coverage to athletes practicing, we started advertising the lifestyle. It became lucrative to be the next Dæhlie or Bjørgen. And with the country pushing forward the athletes who had already been skiing since childhood, beating airsick lowlanders like our otherwise-rivals Sweden and Denmark became an easily reached point of pride. EDIT: There's also the fact that there are many winter disciplines you literally cannot train for in Denmark. You cannot do ski jumping or slalom without leaving the country. While you could do Telemarking (Telemark being a Norwegian county) you'd be limited in the Olympics even if you did develop a Danish ski culture. EDIT2: Since there are memes flowing, URL_0 is somewhat exaggerated, but it's based on local memes which were again based on old traditions.",
"Dane here. We're a small, totally flat country (one of highest points is 150m and we call that \"Sky Mountain\") whose countryside is almost exclusively used for agriculture. And we rarely get the kinds of snowfalls that are needed for skiing. In short, we neither have elevation, the physical space or the weather. Our Olympic athletes train in Sweden and Norway. We also only have 25 regulation sized hockey rinks in the entire country, which makes it a small miracle that we're even moderately okay at Hockey. I believe Canada has 8000. EDIT: Previously said 5 rinks, instead of 25. Typo.",
"I think a lot of it comes down to tradition. Norway has a huge tradition for Winter Olympics, while Denmark really doesn't. Of course it matters, that Denmark has no mountains, snowy seasons nor facilities to actually develop these sports, but in my opinion, tradition plays a big role in this. As a country, we're actually pretty decent at sports. To name a few: football, handball, badminton, swimming and tennis. These sports are much more common in Denmark, and we've won medals in all of them. (Though I don't think we have any OLYMPIC medals in tennis.) So it's not really down to population at all, as some have argued. It's the collected effort of the country and government to develop these more traditional sports, and since there are so few people, who actually excercise the 'wintery' sports in Denmark, they are not developed here. That's my opinion at least.",
"In Norway we not only have an abundance of snow inland during the winter, we also have a topography that is very much suited for a broad spectrum of winter sports. We have pretty much the opportunity to do whatever snow related that we want. Skiing, downhill, snowboards, ski jumping, and so forth. Naturally, this stimulates a thriving winter culture. We indeed talk a lot about skiing and winter activities. I personally don't care all that much for skiing anymore, but when I was younger I was out during the winter a lot either playing, skiing, on snowboard, grilling on campfires, staying at mountain cabins, and such. Many of us grow up accustomed to the snow and the culture surrounding it. Denmark on the other hand is small, without mountains, and don't have the same amount of snow in the winter. The just have a completely different base for snow. Maybe if they moved half their population over to Greenland they could reap their golds ;)",
"Keep in mind that Norway is the most successful country in Winter Olympics, period. They have more all time medals than their nordic neighbours, Sweden and Finland, combined. They're in a class of their own.",
"The highest point in Denmark is directly translated called \"The Sky Mountain.\" It's a hill that is 147 meters above sea and height relative to surroundings is 121 meters. To our Scandinavian brothers and sisters this is nothing more than a road bump. We named it The Sky Mountain - imagine how the rest of the country looks like. Denmark is FLAT! Our population density is 134 people per square km. in comparison Norway has 14 people per square km. in a country with several mountains in the range 2000 to 2500 meters high. When we have 10 cm of snow in Denmark it's a freaking snowstorm and all traffic is jammed. In Norway they would call 10 cm of snow a light sprinkle of powder while they go skiing on their 150 to 200 cm of snow on the mountain side. To sum it up you are comparing two countries with close to same population but one country is a little flat area with little to no snow while the other country is ten times larger, has many mountains and the people are born with ski on their feet.",
"Completely different kind of vegetation. Denmark isn't geographically a part of Scandinavia proper, but has a more Central European-type climate, including less mountains etc.",
"Because snow and culture. We (Norwegian) are born with skiis on our feet. Our first found skii is 5200 years old! We learn to skii before we learn to walk.",
"Skiing is just really, really popular here. If international cross country competitions had no limit on the amount of entrants from each country, most competitions would be dominated by Norwegians simply because the talent pool is so big because so many people do it. Cross country skiing is like basketball in the US or football (soccer) in the UK or something. We all know that one guy in our social circle who is really good at it. He plays for an amateur team and he's one of the worse players even though to us he's amazing. That team again is not even ranked because it's so bad, and even if it was it's miles away from a professional team. And professional teams are in a different league entirely compared to the actual world-class teams. That's the size of the talent pool in cross-country in Norway. So many people ski seriously and so many people have perfected it that the difference between the top competitors and the average hobbyist is as great as that between a guy shooting hoops in his backyard and an NBA All Star.",
"Norway = those mountains in Skyrim Denmark = that lowland where all the thieves live in Skyrim",
"The allocation of funding in Danish elite sports is based on a model initially developed by Australia prior to the games in Sidney. As are many funding models in larger countries. Adding to that, the elite sports organisation in Denmark, Team Danmark, have very limited funding and as per the model largely funds sports were Denmark are competitive. However, some sports where Denmark might be competitive do not receive funding because of this model and historical allocation. Many winter sports do not receive the same funding attention because of geography, lack of performance infrastructure, historical results and so on. Starting to fund winter sports would be a huge investment to develop the infrastructure. As per the funding model, they are not getting funded. Take the UK. 32 million pounds have gone into Englands 5 medals. With a total of 15 million pounds of yearly budget, Denmark simply does not have the money to fund both already succesful summer sports with strong infrastructure and winter sports.",
"They have mountains and snow. We have one of the flattest countries in the world and no snow :-(",
"A lot of success in the Olympics (summer and winter) stems from the investment in youth sports activities, both in Schools and extra curricular. The most successful countries have the best sporting programs for young aspiring athletes.",
"Aside from the big reason, which is the natural terrain needed to train on, which I don’t think is that good for outdoor winter stuff, California might have better winter conditions. It also comes down to, in relation to the first problem, how much time effort money and energy they want to put into training with what they have or traveling to places that have the right natural/artificial training spaces, for all the years in between winter games. They probably don’t really care about since they know it’d basically be too much trouble to try and do it right. So they probably just feel like “cool, we get to do the Olympics, this should be fun....or whatever. “",
"Denmark is a completely different country. It is tiny and has no terrain to speak of as well as little snow. Denmark is full of flat land and farm fields. People for that reason cluster in villages and towns. Much denser population. Norway is large with lots of forrest and mountains. The population is spread out. People live isolated in the midst of wild nature. Norwegians are for that reason very used to outdoor life. They are used to hiking through mountains and forests. For many Norwegians skiing has been a necessary mode of transportation for hundreds of years, not a sport. It has never been like that in Denmark. With milder climate and a much more \"urban\" landscape there has been no need or opportunity for skiing. Danes are urban people. Norwegians are outdoorsy people. Norwegians love sailing, fishing, hiking, hunting, exploration etc. The danes are more likely to sit at a street cafe eating danishes ;-P Sorry my fellow danes, I couldn't help but needle you guys a little. I know it is not entirely true. In some regards Danes are healthier than Norwegians because they bike everywhere. Norwegians are more extremists. They either drive everywhere or totally overdo it with sports. Norwegians are sports obsessed and spend 3x as much on sporting equipment compared to other Europeans. I am not sports obsesses so this is one of the issues I have with being a Norwegian and living in Norway. I am much more Danish at heart I think. Or perhaps Dutch.",
"Even though Denmark is a northern country, it doesn't really snow that much there. On top of that they don't have any mountains.",
"Denmark is very flat, even tho the Netherlands is flat they invest in the speed skating so dominate it, maybe Denmark should do this",
"Because Denmark is basically a flat country attached to Germany with a European climate and Norway is a mountain range with fjords with an Arctic climate.",
"For the most part Denmark consists of flat lands with very little elevation, except for the hilly central area on the Jutland Peninsula. Its average height above sea level is only 31 meters (101 feet) and the highest natural point is Mollehoj, at 170.86 meters (560.6 ft).",
"Denmark is very geographically different from the rest of Scandinavia. They are the Kansas of the region. They have no mountains or the like + their climate in general is more mild than you probably think because of their country being basically all coastline. They hardly ever get below freezing limiting the amount of snow.",
"In the 1984 winter olympics Norway did very bad and the goverment didn't like this. They started \"Project 88\" as a long term plan to dominate the olympics. It ended up as Olympiatoppen and is now the leading knowledge organisation for training elite athletes in Norway. Norwegian oil-money got invested to train and finance the elite to take over the world during two weeks every other year. URL_0",
"Simple. As explained by other; Denmark is flat as a Sunday morning pancake. The climate is not at all as Norway (and Sweden). The climate in Denmark is just like Westeros and especially Winterfell (before the arrival of winter) from the hit show Game of Thrones ... just minus all the mountains and larger hills. No snow but cold as shit. It’s the damp and musty cellar of Scandinavia.",
"Because Norway pretty much invented every event at the Winter Olympics. And has participated longer than some countries have existed. Also they’re bringing by far the largest amount of doctors for their athletes and have a huge amount of “asthmatics” requiring asthma medicine (which coincidentally can be performance enhancing) in their team. Not calling them cheats, just stating facts. Also having big mountain ranges rather than humps kinda helps.",
"Hi, im danish, though i dont know much about the winter Olympics, I think I can give a good answer too this, you see. Even though we are neighbors to beautiful norway, we dont get much snow, and actually dont have that many winter sports like skiing, snowboarding etc. We simply dont have the nature, hills, and facilities too it. Also our country focus more on handball and soccer. Maybe thats why, but honestly I dont know.",
"One factor I haven't seen anyone mention, which is likely the main reason for this: a part of Norway's nation building during the 1700s and 1800s were to establish a norwegian identity. This identity includes things such as skiing (a traditional mode of transport since at least the 1100s). When we were building the country we made it a part of our culture to focus on this. When Norway went through our second wave of modern era nationalism (aka the 30s-WW2) there was renewed focus on our traditions such as skiing. When we went through our third wave of nation building (rebuilding after WW2) there was a concious, active effort by the government through, among others, expensive advertising campaigns, to promote using nature as the primary grounds for our free time. This included hiking, camping and of course skiing. The reason Norway is doing great at skiing is because skiing is a major factor in norwegian nationalism. Most people from Norway won't really be aware of this since nationalism is perceived as a bit shameful here, but I teach social studies and history and am more than qualified to look beyond this. At least nationalism made us awesome at the Olympics.",
"Historically Norway has been the runt of the Nordic countries. Norwegians have an inferiority complex, and a strong need to prove themselves better than others. This is because Norway up until WWII was a third world country. The Germans built a lot of infrastructure while occupying Norway, and after the war Norway was given lots of foreign aid from America. Then they discovered oil, which is the main reason why Norway has its current position. And that is when Norway started to do well in the Olympics. Another contributing factor, probably the biggest, was the fall of the Soviet Union. When the cold war ended, the winter Olympics lost its status, and other countries had a chance to win. Danes on the other hand have been beaten silly by their neighbors, the English stole or sank their navy, Sweden took Norway and Skåne, Germany took Holstein. Iceland declared independence. Danes avoid conflict at almost any cost, and strive to be as plain and average as possible, so as to avoid attention. It's a collective trauma, which makes Danes hate people who excel, or are inferior. The only good result is an average result. Then there are the climate of course. But Norway wouldn't have won any medals at all if the Soviet Union didn't fall."
],
"score": [
20804,
6428,
1984,
779,
102,
63,
51,
28,
26,
25,
8,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acNnq8pwbC4&t=5m50s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympiatoppen"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zw2fy | Why Danes and Swedes don't get along that well. As a lithuanian,I always see danes,kinda distant from all nordic countries,but especially sweden during my competitions. Every other nordic country seem to get along well with each other(especially sweden and norway) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dur6jiu",
"dur5684"
],
"text": [
"Historically, we (Sweden) were ruled by them (Denmark) and then we ruled the others (Norway) for a bit. And we were constantly at semi-war with each other and treating each other poorly. Despite that this was a few centuries ago, some people still remember. But, mostly it’s about language. Our languages are pretty similar. Somewhat because of how we ruled each other back and forth for a long time. Written Danish and Norwegian is kind of similar. Spoken Norwegian is closer to spoken Swedish. Going to Norway I can make myself clearly understood if I speak slowly and articulate well. If I try the same in Denmark, they’ll immediately switch to English because we have better understanding of each other using a third language than using either of our own. It’s kind of the same with Icelandic. It sounds similar. You have a constant sense of understanding that is...frequently undermined. But in reality it’s easier to switch to a language we have in common instead of pretending until it gets absurd. I like to think that is part of why we socialise easier with Norwegians. Because we learn early how to communicate with each other.",
"We get along very well, it's just friendly banter between our countries because of our... unfortunate history. Sort of like how two brothers might be snarky with each other but you know they still don't hate them."
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zwatp | When a person joins the military, does their geographic location decide which "group" they join? If different groups then go to different warzones does this ever cause issues, people trying to avoid certain groups, etc? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dur6rgs",
"durcanh",
"dur7vyx",
"durltud",
"dursrl0",
"durnqt5",
"durbror"
],
"text": [
"Once they are active duty, no. You go where you are needed. But, for boot camp to a point yes. The Corps if you are east of the Mississippi River, you to MCRD Parris Island. If you are west, you go to MCRD San Diego. Women all go to MCRD PI as they are the only ones set of for WM (Woman Marines) basic training. Air Force only go to San Antonio, Navy is Great Lakes, and Army goes to the base respective to their MOS.",
"> US Army Corps/Division/Regiment/Brigade/Battalion/Company/Platoon.. no idea what any of this means, or why it's all necessary. You need to organise your people: * Fireteam: some 4 or so people doing the smallest kind of work. \"Go there, guard that, shoot at that enemy\". * Squad: some 10 people. * Platoon: Some 20ish or 30 or so people. * Company: 100ish or so. * Battalion: some 300 or 800 so. * Brigade: some low thousands. * Division: some 10000 to 30000. * Corps: 30k or 50k soldiers. * Army: 100k to 300k or so. * Army group: Several Armies. So how do you wage a war? You have (high) generals who want to an entire country. So they'd call up their army group commanders and tell them \"Ok, I want the 1st army here, the 2nd there and the 3rd takes that city and the 4th runs forward and make sure we can cross that river there, 100 km north again, and then 20 km again north of that. Do your jobs!\" Say we follow that army that has to take the river. They commander is going to his divisions and say. \"Ok, 1st division go to the first crossing point, second division go to the northern one and again 3rd division go there to the most north point. My last division is going to attack that enemy there to bind his forces so the others can do their jobs!\" Now, one of the division commanders tasked with taking a part of the river and two bridges goes to his brigade commanders and say \"Ok, first brigade has tanks, second brigade has lots of foot soldiers. Team up, take that bridge and clear the enemies out of th area. 3rd brigade helps out and binds the enemy forces here with fake attacks. Oh, and make sure you get a lot of help from the airforce!\" This repeats for the Battallions and again there for the companies. So one company chief might be tasked with securing an area of river because the enemy might use the low shore to cross it for an attack. So he'd send his four plattons to that hill, that hill and then the area in between, and the last one to dig in right at the shore. Where some squad commander gives specific order to fireteams (mortar, machine gunners etc), to dig in there, there and there. At the end the army group general is happy all worked fine, without him needing to place every soldier on the shore, command every tank, exactly place every company, battallion or even division. --- As for the naming: first, numbers in military units are mostly random. 1st corps, 223rd bridgade, 45th flight wing... you do that because if you do 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ... the enemy can infer what troops you have or even where they should be (\"Is 2nd between 1st and 3rd?\"). Giving the enemy information is bad. If you have locations or area-names in groups (the UK has a lot of those), then it is often historic. So in a \"scots unit\" it means that the soldiers from that unit once came from a certain region. Today, units and people in the units are sent where they are needed. You might get a choice where you join (near where you live and you could tell them what you'd like to do), but ultimately the military decides where you and your unit are needed.",
"It depends on the country and the branch of service you join. In the USA there are six uniformed branches of service. Most people are aware of the Marines, the US army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard. There is also the US public health service. There are the active duty components and the reserve components. There is also the National Guard. Recruiters are supposed to tell you what to expect. Recruiters are also supposed to recruit so they will paint a rosy picture. In the past in the USA and other countries as well there was a draft. Young men would have to join a service. The Marines tried to avoid this, but during Vietnam they did have to take draftees. They still got to pick among the draftees. Facing the draft many young men chose to enlist in some branch of service. There is a world of information out there including autobiographical novels. There are stories of young men who joined the Navy. They chose to train as a corpsman. Then they discovered that corpsmen are assigned to be Marine Medics.",
"In the British Military (since you've used them in your question). You choose which role and regiment that you would like to be in and then based on your suitability (test, interview scores etc) you are then offered a list of regiments and roles that you can join into depending on vacancies etc. So if you wanted to be a Queen's Guard, and your test scores met the requirements and they had vacancies, you will then join the Queen's Guards after basic training. Same for Paras, Rifles, Fusiliers etc. If you don't meet the requirements for a role or there are no vacancies then you are offered a list of alternatives. Depending on the size or type of regiment, then you could be based in one place, or you could end up all over. So the Mercian Reg. will have their permanent home near Manchester, but if you joined the Signals Regiment you would find yourself attached to another regiment which could be literally anywhere. British military are pretty good at being fair and even chanced with their deployment rotations, but in certain situations you might find that you get some regiments deployed more often or to more of a certain type of geography due to their previous experiences or specialisations. In the 80s my Dad was in the Signals Regiment and some of them guys got attached to SAS platoons during the Gulf War. But this has changed now thanks to a total restructure of how special operations are handled, UKSF are now a separate wing of the military that has its own full auxiliary support arms and structures and operates independently; in the same way that the RAF operate independently from the Navy etc.",
"No, this has been avoided sonce WW1. British units which were from the same county resulted in all the young men in some villages being killed in one day.",
"In the Soviet Union, draftees were generally assigned far away from their home areas. For example, Estonians might end up in the Far East of Russia, Uzbeks might be assigned to East Germany. This was done for two reasons. Firstly, to make it harder to desert. These people would almost certainly look completely different from the locals and not be able to speak the local language, making them stand out like a sore thumb. Secondly, if they were needed to put down a revolt, they would have no connection to the locals and not be able to understand their pleas. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, they initially used Central Asians as it would felt that they would go down better with the locals, but they were too sympathetic, so they switched to other Soviet nationalities, who were a lot more brutal. In East Germany, the border guards assigned to the Berlin Wall were generally from Saxony (Dresden and other cities in the south-east of the GDR); people believed it was because the GDR regime did not trust Berliners to do the job properly, especially if they had to shoot escapees.",
"In the past, geographic location did decide what groups a recruit or draftee joined. During and before the American Civil War, many regiments were recruited by local go-getters. For example, one of my great great grandfathers was in the 90th Ohio. That regiment had men from a three-county area of Ohio. More than one regiment could come from the same area if that area had the population to support more. Even during WWI U.S. regiments were often location-based, though not as tightly. But a regiment could consist of men from the same general area. The same is true for the UK. Those specialized regimental names originally represented men who came from the same community, or even the same family group. Here's a bit I wrote for my family's history: *\"In 1793 Cameron men organize the 79th Regiment of Foot (Cameronian Volunteers). The kilts they wear show the Cameron of Erracht tartan. In 1804 the regiment joins the British army, where it's known as the 79th Regiment of Foot (Cameron Highlanders). After much distinguished service, in 1873 Queen Victoria directs that the regiment be known as the 79th Regiment, The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders. Battalions from the Cameron Highlanders fight in the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, and in both world wars.\"* As far as the Division/Regiment/Battalion/etc groups go... You need to collect small groups into large groups (or break large groups into small groups) to fit whatever military operation you're planning. I don't know about modern armies, but during the Civil War these groups were very fluid... army commanders would combine or split them as needed. The size and organization (and which contains which) of regiments, battalions, brigades, etc has changed over the years, and is different in different countries."
],
"score": [
27,
9,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zwjqc | Why do different cultures differ in direction of reading and writing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duraqxb"
],
"text": [
"Not an expert, but from what I understand, we're not entirely sure. But we do have some pretty logical theories: One theory is that the use of stone tablets was most common in the Semitic region and the languages there [Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, Aramaic]. For proof, we take the examples of the Ten Commandments, or even the Assyrian Flood Tablet. Now we know that being right-handed is much more common than being left-handed, and we believe that this applied to all humans in all civilizations around the world. A right-handed person taking a chisel and hammer to a stone would tend to hold *the chisel with his left hand and hammer with his right*. So it makes sense to move from right-to-left [assuming you want to inscribe horizontally, which they did]. When paper and ink became the norm, countries that hadn't cemented their writing systems began reading and writing from left-to-right, because when a right-handed person writes from right-to-left, his hand is likely to smudge what he just wrote. An explanation for East Asian languages [like Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Philippines] being traditionally written from top to bottom [zongpai, kanji, hanja, kulitan] is the fact that the root civilization of these scripts, the early Neolithic Jiahu civilization, had symbols that were written vertically on large tortoise shells. Because we don't have written historical records of how writing systems evolved [because that would be pretty ironic], this is all pretty much guesswork. So don't take my word for it. Edit: Yiddish and Persian [see below]."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zzebd | What is the point of groomsmen and bridesmaids at a wedding? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"durvdf1",
"durtwrs",
"durw8ob"
],
"text": [
"Practically, it's for moral support. On the big day the bridesmaids all get ready with the bride, get dressed and get made up together, calm jitters and have a good time. The groomsmen hang around with a brandy and a cigar and talk shit. Protip: assign one of your singleton groomsmen as the designated 'Bridal Butler' on the day. His job is to obey the bride's commands, bring up breakfast and fetch anything they need. Mid-morning, he surprises them with champagne and strawberries. The bride won't have time to do anything so having a guy on hand to help fetch and carry is essential. The guy looks like an absolute hero and any single bridesmaids hanging around will see him in a good light in the evening ;-)",
"Historically, the groomsmen were a bodyguard who defended the bride and groom and provided an escort for them. Or so I have heard.",
"Nowadays, not much in the way of official duties. I was in the bridal party for my friends wedding (I'm male; according to the wedding planner, \"bridesmen\" and \"groomswomen\" are becoming much more common. The groom had a woman in his party.) We were picked because we were close friends of either the bride or the groom. We got to go to the rehearsal dinner the night before (a more personal, smaller celebration featuring just the people who are close to the people being wed). Our clothes were picked out for us so that when we'd stand up at the altar with the bride, we'd match. We went down the aisle as part of the procession and were introduced at the reception. Pick as many or as few as you want. At my friend's wedding, it was myself and another guy and three women. It's a really stressful, busy day and one of the things it seemed we were there for, for sure, was emotional support for the bride. She seemed to appreciate having her friends around."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zzfsa | Why did the hippie movement end? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duruqak",
"durtvsw",
"duruckj",
"durw21m"
],
"text": [
"The war ended. Pot didnt get legalized. MLK got shot. The weather underground was blowing stuff up and making all hippies look like possible terrorists. The hippies figured out they didn't really want to be communists. And the babies they had from all that free love needed parents with houses and jobs.",
"We grew out of it. Once the 70's started marching on, most of us grew up, got married, settled down, found a job...nothing earth shattering. By the time the 80's arrived, other than for a few hold outs and burn outs, the hippies had all become part of the establishment.",
"Not the most comprehensive answer, but the events at [Altamont]( URL_0 ) and the Manson murders shocked the Hippy out of some of the Hippies, and made their culture less appealing and identifiable to some on the outside looking in. It didn't fully end it, but it helped the scene reduce in popularity, and it went downhill from there. Hippies became more of an object of ridicule in the mid 70s than they had been before. There are still hippies though, it hasn't died, it's just a lot less popular",
"I remember watching a documentary about this. They were interviewing former commune members and the guy said \"one day we looked up and there were 6 of us\" I think the movement just sort of fizzled out once people started having kids"
],
"score": [
28,
18,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7zzhwg | When and why did musical composers start giving their compositions 'poetic' names instead of descriptive names? | For example, Beethoven's symphonies are called "Symphony No. 1," or "Symphony No. 3," but Aaron Copeland can write something called "Fanfare for the Common Man." | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duruyzy"
],
"text": [
"Compositions numbered and named like Beethoven's were not named by the composer. They were named by musicologists and other people studying the music as their collections were categorized. Sometimes the composer named their pieces such as Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 17 being named \"Tempest\", but often Composers of that era did not name works."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8006n3 | Where did the tradition of having bedrooms on the second floor come from? | I know that any small room can be a bedroom but i want to know why their always upstairs in a house with more then 1 floor. Did it come from the idea of "Staterooms" in old mansions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dus0ruv",
"dus0h8k",
"durzhee",
"dusb8ze",
"dusc37v"
],
"text": [
"Bedrooms have been upstairs since houses had two stories, because it puts them away from the public spaces, away from the livestock, and away from some of the creatures that crawl around on the ground. Also it's warmer in the winter, and catches more breezes in the summer.",
"Heat rises. Be it cattle, fires or central heating. Also, in the days of cattle in the same building, it was quite hard to get the cattle to go upstairs. * ~~their (belongs to them)~~ they're (they are)",
"When you have guests it's more comfortable to have them in just the ground floor. The guests will possibly need to use your living room, bathroom and maybe kitchen. So you put the bedroom out of sight, it's not a room you'd use regulary or expect others to use. So you kinda hide it away.",
"I think it comes from various sources and traditions. In big castles, mansions, and similar buildings the more public areas are on the main floor close to the entrance. Living quarters were up. In pioneer days log cabins would often be built with a loft...a partial upper level that was mainly used for sleeping. Again the more public and mainly used parts of the home (cooking,eating,working, living) was the main floor. The 'beds' were out of the way up in the loft. Same thing with your classic middle class 2 story home, bedrooms upstairs and out of the way.",
"In addition to the comments about heat rising, there are other practical issues of bedrooms being private spaces rather than public where you might entertain guests, ones where you’d want to keep out dirty, wet, etc. outerwear that can be left on the lower level."
],
"score": [
38,
32,
9,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8063pq | How do people decide which stories and books go into the Bible? | Some stories and authors don't make the cut, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Who has the authority to say which is "the word of God" and which is not? It seems like a high pressure job that needs structure. Also, what are the texts that didn't make it considered? Just nonsensical scribblings? Or is there supposed to be some truth to them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dut8hjh",
"dutibt9",
"dut8m8f"
],
"text": [
"There were a number of councils called in the 300s going till nearly the 800s involving church leaders where they decided what was going into the bible and what was not. The books rejected are known as the apocrypha. Some are seen as useful books for historical/cultural study, some are seen as useful for fleshing out issues of faith without being authoritative, and some are seen as heretical and it is a sin to even read them.",
"> Who has the authority to say which is \"the word of God\" and which is not? The two parts of the Bible are the Old Testament and the New Testament; and they came together in different ways. The Old Testament is a collection of writings -- religious texts, songs, census records, battle statistics, stories, sermons and even one erotic poem (the Song of Songs, a.k.a. the Song of Solomon, but don't get your hopes up too high: it's quite tame by our standards) -- that were written by many different people at very different times with quite different audiences in mind. These were separate documents, and over time some of them were merged together, edited, recombined, and reworked. For example, in the Second Book of Kings, there's a story about how a \"book of the law\" was found during renovation work in the temple, and which prompted a revival of the Jewish cult. Theologians think that this was in fact an early draft of the book we now know as Deuteronomy. The books weren't always written in order either. It's thought that the oldest part of the Bible is the Song of Deborah, which you can read in the fifth chapter of the Book of Judges, which is the seventh book of the modern Old Testament. Various documents were collected and became used as part of the religious scriptures, and eventually the definitive canon sort of crystallized. Changes still took place, though. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, some bits were added to existing books (for example, the Book of Esther was extended quite considerably, apparently because in its original version it didn't mention God anywhere), and some new books were added as well (such as the Books of the Maccabees, which recount the events of the Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BC). Today's Catholic Bibles traditionally have those extra passages and books; but Protestant Bibles either keep them separated out in a special section called the Apocrypha, or don't have them at all. The Jewish religion didn't reject other writings as \"not being the word of God\": indeed, any truth uttered or written by anyone can be the word of God. And Jewish teaching often took the form of a kind of intellectual discourse: \"Regarding this matter, Rabbi X has this to say... but Rabbi Y says...\" The New Testament was decided upon by a much shorter but very complicated sequence of events. Basically: 1. The Church considered certain writings to be especially helpful. 2. A man called Marcion of Sinope decided that only a handful of books should be used, and even censored the Gospel of Luke. 3. This started some heated arguments in the early Church. For example, some said that the letters of Paul should be allowed, some said that they could be used but weren't to be completely trusted, and some rejected them completely. 4. In about 300 AD, Eusebius of Caesarea listed the books he thought were definitive, but there were still some disagreements. 5. In 367, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, drew up the list we know today and pronounced those books to be \"canonized\". 6. But by this time the Christian Church had become quite big, so this list then had to be ratified by various councils. Basically, the eventual list was that which the Church as a whole could be persuaded to accept after a lot of arguments. It wasn't anything like as simple as somebody from on high saying, \"Here is the canon.\" Still, the attitude of the Church at the time was that the Bible wasn't the whole word of God, and that other writings could be as well, and also science and basic common sense. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church used that as excuse to invent all sorts of ways of exploiting the poor and vulnerable and using their money to, basically, build the Vatican. This horrified Martin Luther, who then declared that if it isn't in the Bible, it's not the word of God. And that's why to this day the Catholic Church is rather more tolerant of scientific theories like evolution than Protestant denominations are. The Catholic Church will at least on principle accept that if a scientific discovery contradicts the Bible, then the biblical version must be allegorical. Protestants, especially fundamentalist Evangelicals, are more likely to reject the scientific discovery.",
"Assuming you're referring to the new testament of the Christian bible, they were mostly decided in the first few centuries after its founding through councils among the major churches at the time. After the fifth century, the books considered canon didn't change much until the protestant reformation, at which the splintering denominations removed some books from the canon. For those writings not included as canon, scholars often believe while their may still be truth to be found in them, they are not inspired by God and thus have been left out from the bible."
],
"score": [
11,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
808mvc | How does religion create social control? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dutu55h",
"dutu2jz"
],
"text": [
"Any ideology, widely accepted enough, creates control either through actual laws or, more recently, social pressure. Humans are social animals and *want* to fit in. Even people that relish in \"not fitting in\" find acceptance and community through others that are doing the same (a famous example is the goth subculture, that eschews the conforming nature of \"normal\" society but end up all dressing similarly to each other anyway). When something is as widespread as, say, Southern Baptism in the American South or Sunni Islam in Egypt, it becomes much, much easier to go along with it rather than fight it. In that way, a measure of control is enacted. Think of it like this: consider a subreddit that you've visited that seems to lean a certain way, politically or otherwise. There's no governmental law that dictates you'll post in a way that goes along with- or at least does not go against- the way they lean. There's no even a website rule. There might not even be a subreddit rule. But if you don't want to be downvoted, you at least avoid that subject if you disagree with it. You might get banned for \"trolling\" if you bring it up, knowing that they disagree with your position. In that way, there's a very subtle measure of control there, and that's just a subreddit on a website on the internet, nothing like the actual society in which in exist.",
"This is not universal, but many successful religions have the following tenets which make them highly subject to spread: 1. Followers are not permitted to believe in alternative religions. 2. Followers are encouraged to evangelize, thus recruiting more followers. 3. Questioning the tenets of the faith amounts to blasphemy. 4. Morality is objective, and the church authority has a monopoly on defining that morality (either through direct contact with God, privileged interpretation of the text, or by direct divine command). 5. Service is crucial, either because it is valued in and of itself or because it is necessary to achieve a reward. --- Now the church can dictate behavior simply by defining what is good or evil, and can exert social pressure in communities in which it becomes prevalent."
],
"score": [
23,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
808zvy | Why are Asian languages so much different than European and American languages both in pronunciation and in writing styles? Eg. Chinese, Korean, Thai vs English, Spanish, etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duuf9iv",
"dutz2qu"
],
"text": [
"Hindi is related to English while Finnish and Basque are not. Korean, Japanese and Chinese are unrelated. Swedish and Norwegian are tonal languages like Chinese and Thai (and Cherokee since you ask about American languages) while English and Japanese are atonal. Your question is based on an incorrect premise. There are no ”European” and ”Asian” language families.",
"For languages like English and Japanese, for example, there were literal physical barriers when these languages were developing. Lots of land full of mountains that nobody was willing to cross kept English speakers and Japanese speakers apart, so there is virtually no overlap in their languages. No words are similar by anything other than coincidence - until of course the barriers of land travel fell with modern transportation and eastern countries like Japan became receptable to trade and communication with European countries. Then, languages like English and Spanish are similar for the inverse reasons. Their countries are geographically close, and in history were willing and able to interact with each other, and both languages can trace their roots to Latin, so these languages had a closely intertwined development process."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
80d397 | Why does a womens haircut cost more then a man's? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duummtg",
"duunjnt",
"duunbg3"
],
"text": [
"Typically, they say it is because there is more hair. Realistically, it is because most females are willing to pay higher prices for a haircut.",
"Women don’t cut their hair as often as men do, so to keep a business open they need to charge more money. Also women have much more hair styles to choose from and they can be tedious to execute. Hair has to be prepared and sectioned off and cut by layers usually to create the shape/style you want. The skills and knowledge to create a style by description or just by looking at a picture should be valued. And generally speaking, men aren’t hard to maintain, some just go in a shop and ask the barber to “do whatever”.",
"Women don’t really have barber shops who cut your hair in 15 mins and charge a fraction of what hairdressers do. If a man instead chooses to go to a hairdressers then the price between the genders is more comparable. Question is why don’t women have these 15 min quick and cheap places (aka barber shops)?"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
80d64f | Was there a practical reasons that ancient Pyramids were built in the shape they were built in? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duunhp1",
"duunkws",
"duuq3yw"
],
"text": [
"not sure what you're asking, but if you wanted to build tall, you need a wide base (for most building materials) meaning the mass needs to be near the bottom for a large structure to remain standing under its own weight. so having a pyramid is more structurally sounds than say, a rectangular structure the same height as the pyramids with a base width matching the pyramids.",
"If you want to build something really big and you don't have certain architectural technology, like the arch to carry loads together with the dome and butress, you're naturally going to end up with something that's rather like a large pile. May cultures in both the old and new worlds independently developed the stepped pyramid to make large monuments. It's a short leap from there to \"fill in\" the steps and make a smooth sided structure.",
"Yes, the Great pyramids were not the first pyramids. They build stepped pyramids and pyramids with curved sides before they determined empirically the straight slope that could be maintained over a pyramid of the desired (huge) size. If you make it steeper, you need something stronger than the stone they had. If you make it flatter, it's not as impressive to the King."
],
"score": [
64,
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
80e420 | How did old LPs go from mixed/negative reviews upon release to critical acclaim nowadays? | I've just finished reading a book about the Beatles. It was stated that The White Album, Abbey Road and especially Let It Be initially received mixed to negative opinions among critics upon their first release. Today, these LPs are regarded as absolute masterpieces in literally every aspect possible. Even big magazines like Rolling Stone rank them at top positions in "greates-of-all-time" rankings. I get that at the time of release, nobody knew how much an LP would influence the industry or culture itself and that may be an argument for changing one's mind later on; But the music stays the same... Looking at the LP only, nothing has changed in 50 years, yet now it's exponentially more praised than back in the day. Edit: Same thing seemed to happen to Pink Floyd's 70s work, although I can see why the influence on producing music weighs in more with LPs like Dark Side | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duuvsy0"
],
"text": [
"Well, the LP hasn’t changed, but the entire music scene and all of society has changed continuously since that LP was put out. When someone creates new music, a new sound, no one is used to it yet. A lot of people will hear it as harsh and nerve jangling just because it’s unfamiliar. The more people hear a ‘sound’ the more they will start to hear what is actually there in the way of instrumentation, vocals, composition, meaning etc. something that first sounds harsh can start to sound exciting. Something else that sounds boring can sound subtle, nuanced, entrancing. Even harsh sounds can become nuanced and full of subtleties once you are accustomed to them. There’s two main ways new ‘bad’ music can become ‘good’ old music. One way, entire genres spring up around the new sound. Many other artists create similar music and people become acclimated and appreciative of something they used to dislike, or at least found strange. The second way of course is when one particular example never goes away and becomes a classic. The Beatles albums are what, 50 or 60 years old now? But although they aren’t played everywhere, they have always been played somewhere. People still like them, and young people who are exposed generally like them too. They have staying power simply because many people respond very positively to that music. It wasn’t liked much by ma y people at first, simply because nothing before had sounded like that. It was a new sound."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
80gm2a | Why is racism such a difficult obstacle for humanity to get over? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duveprd",
"duveui3"
],
"text": [
"Because as a species we are inherently tribal. We think in terms of \"our group\" and \"not our group\". It was really helpful for our survival, but now is biting us in the ass.",
"People riot at sports games because of people who wear a different uniform (I phrase it that way because if someone gets traded around, they're treated according to their uniform). It's just built into people at a visceral level. It just becomes a question of where people draw their own personal lines."
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
80imxj | Why is hot food described as "piping hot"? | Temperature, not spice. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duvv37q"
],
"text": [
"From the [Online Etymology Dictionary:]( URL_0 ) > Piping hot is in Chaucer, a reference to hissing of food in a frying pan; to pipe up (early 15c.)"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.etymonline.com/word/pipe"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
80k1qs | Is it more difficult to be witty in sign language? | It's pretty obvious that some jokes would translate well into sign language, such as observational humour or anything direct, crass, etc. However, I would expect that humour relying on subtle linguistic characteristics like homonyms and synonyms wouldn't translate so well. Does this make it more difficult to be witty when signing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duw7v0k",
"duw80px",
"duwad80",
"duwfrk8"
],
"text": [
"> humour relying on subtle linguistic characteristics like homonyms and synonyms wouldn't translate so well. Does this make it more difficult to be witty when signing? It can be a real handful.",
"Problems translating humor exist when translating into any other language. Sign language is no different, it has full grammar and syntax. Instead of homonyms, you would have signs that look like each other. Jokes in sign language may not make any sense in a spoken language.",
"Not harder, just different. Think about sign language as any old foreign language, and you can more easily grasp the concepts. Homonyms/synonyms in English most likely won't be homonyms/synonyms in Chinese, so one specific joke using them might not translate correctly... but there are plenty of Chinese homonyms/synonyms that don't translate that way into English. The same applies to the various sign languages. One amusing pun I learned pretty early in my studying ASL was for milk. If you sign milk in front of your face, from left to right, it comes across as \"past-your-eyes milk\" instead of \"pasteurized milk\". Always gets a giggle out of the kids.",
"It's important to understand that sign languages are not representations of spoken languages, but independent languages in their own right, with their own grammars and vocabulary. As such, the difficulties of translating jokes into sign language are similar to the difficulties of translating jokes from one spoken language to another. A lot of jokes aren't, of course, puns. For example: \"125 kilos on Earth is 47 kilos on Mercury. I'm not fat, I'm just on the wrong planet,\" is a joke that will translate into any language. (Whether or not it's funny is debateable, of course.) Puns, though, are nearly always impossible to translate, and a translator usually has to find a different pun that will work. But if we stop thinking about a spoken language being translated into a sign language and instead think about two people conversing in a sign language, then there are things that can be called \"puns\". For example, I've found an example in American Sign Language of somebody who signed \"Alexander Graham Bell\" as \"A-G-B\", but instead of doing the signs in the usual place, he made them against his forehead. Apparently, this translates to something like \"stupid pea-brained bastard\" -- although, to be honest, I'd appreciate it if somebody fluent in ASL could either confirm or debunk that one. Apparently, company names get this kind of treatment a lot, such as people saying their sign for \"Walmart\" is the sign for \"cheap\" with a W handshape."
],
"score": [
33,
10,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
80p7b3 | How was 'Namaste' interpreted to be 'the light in me honors the light in you'? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duxa4p4"
],
"text": [
"> Etymology, meaning and origins > > **Namaste** (Namas + te, Devanagari: नमस् + ते = नमस्ते) is derived from Sanskrit and is a combination of the word *nama* and the second person dative pronoun in its enclitic form, *te.* The word *namaḥ* takes the Sandhi form *namas* before the sound *t.* > > *Namaḥ* means 'bow', 'obeisance', 'reverential salutation' or 'adoration'[10] and *te* means 'to you' (singular dative case of 'tvam'). Therefore, Namaste literally means \"bowing to you\". > > In Hinduism, it also has a spiritual import reflecting the belief that \"the divine and self (atman, soul) is same in you and me\", and connotes \"I bow to the divine in you\". -Wikipedia"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
80srbd | How are Mormons able to learn a language so quickly before their missions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duy31fc",
"duy3exb",
"duy2ja8",
"duxxsrh"
],
"text": [
"Most missionaries spend a few weeks to a few months at one of several training centers, and for those learning a language, that's a big part of their time. I think it comes down to a few principles: Motivation: they know that they'll be thrown into the deep end soon enough, so they're giving it everything they've got. Also, most of them are deeply committed to their mission assignments and a trying to do their best regardless. Focus: They learn how to communicate within a pretty narrow band of topics. They're good at them, but far from fluent if the topic leaves religion. Most continue getting better as time goes on, but the focus on one set of topics and related \"communication objectives\" both helps them learn faster, and lets them seem a bit more fluent than they actually are. Dedication: in the training center, they're in class, either being instructed or studying nearly 12 hours a day most days. It's very intense, and there are ZERO distractions. No visitors, regimented schedules, etc. It's a very intense experience. Source: was a missionary, and taught at a training center.",
"A question I can finally explain. Most of us aren't actually very good at a language before we start our missions unless we actually paid attention in high school/college or the language was spoken at home. However before we go to the places we're assigned we'll spend anywhere from 6-12 weeks in one of the church's many missionary training centers around the world, the largest being in Provo Utah. Those who do not learn a foreign language are only there for 3 weeks. During this 6-12 week period we spend probably close to anywhere between 9-10 hours a day learning about how to teach the Doctrine and Gospel of the church in a foreign language. When I was in there 2 1/2 years ago we would have usually 2 3 1/2-hour class periods of instruction and then an hour of strictly language study and an extra hour of any additional study on whatever we felt we needed most that day whether that be scriptures or language. Many will also spend extra time at night to study. During these class periods we try our hardest to not speak English and a vast majority of teachers won't respond to you in English. I didn't hear my teacher speak English until week 4 of 9. It doesn't matter what your background was, day 1 they still spoke your assigned language to you. If you didn't understand and someone else did, that person would have to translate or the teacher would use a less complex sentence. They also encouraged us to SYL (speak your language) meaning use the language you're learning at all opportunities especially in personal conversation and when it's not completely necessary. Once we leave the MTC we usually think we have a good idea of what that language sounds like but we quickly realize that's not the case once we get there. Then once we're in our assigned areas we spend about 10 hours a day talking to people so you start to pick it up quickly. Source: I served an LDS mission in Taiwan and learned chinese. 希望大家有一個幸福的新年!",
"Most missionaries go to a place called an MTC (missionary training center) for up to a month where they are taught the sales tactics (I've read the missionary training manual and it reads exactly like a summer sales training) needed to convert people. If you are not serving in a new language you then head out. If you are they sometimes keep you longer. They do a lot of exposure teaching where the teacher and whole class are only allowed to speak the new language. It's pretty hard at first when you don't know anything but after a few weeks of only speaking the new language 8 hours a day 7 days a week you'd be surprised how conversational they become. Then they're shipped out to their respective areas barely speaking the language. They're partnered up with a missionary who has gained proficiency and lean on them to help finish learning the language. Most missionaries I've spoken to feel pretty confident in their languages after the first 6 months and by 2 years some can pass for fluent. If you believe in the sort of thing you could also say God inspires them to learn the language quickly but I don't think you'll find any studies showing a link between prayer and learning languages.",
"Many actually learn the language at the start of the mission. For example, one on a mission in France would go to the LDS chapter in Paris or wherever it is and crunch on learning french for a few months before going door to door."
],
"score": [
33,
11,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
80xt2l | Why are East Asian authoritarian governments so resilient? | East Asia’s authoritarian regimes have remarkable staying power and durability, whether they are in crisis or have sustained growth. Why are these authoritarian governments so resilient? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"duz5b64",
"duyx47u",
"duz2msu",
"duyx5yd"
],
"text": [
"I suspect you're talking about China. First of all, you should understand that China's 'authoritarian regime' *didn't* have staying power and durability. While technically China's modern government descends from Maoist China, it's in name only. Mao's attempts to seize and centralize China came crashing down in the 70s - his government 'fell', for lack of a better word, and was replaced by a more traditional Chinese-style bureaucracy. The reason *why* it fell is because China is 'too big' to run that way. Once a state reaches a certain level of economic complexity, no one can possibly even *understand* the nuances necessary to run it - much less control it or set policy. Authoritarian regimes are predicated on simple economies, normally ones based around easily controlled resource exploitation - plantation agriculture or mineral resources. In such an economy, you can use a pseudo-military structure of a single ruler or small group of faction leaders to force the rest of the state to comply because you control the only thing that matters - that major resource. In China, there is no such major resource to control. While China has various natural resources, they're all dwarfed by its massive population. As a result, there isn't really a way to establish a stable 'authoritarian' government in the sense we most often mean. China isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean it isn't subject to the will of the people - if the Chinese leadership isn't delivering the goods, they'll face enormous inertia from the bureaucracy that undermines the policies they want to implement. Note that the Chinese Empire has been this way for most of recorded history. The bureaucrats run China, not the nominal leaders. This is very different than, say, North Korea - which is a traditionally authoritarian regime. There are very few resources in North Korea, they're all controlled by the central authority and that central authority takes great effort to ensure the people are impoverished enough that no other resources are developed. Long-term, this will almost certainly lead to political instability. Remember, North Korea has only been going for about 60 years and it's been supported by (much more powerful) outside forces for the entirety of its existence. It's actually quite likely that if China walked away from North Korea, you'd find Kim Jong Un floating in a river the next morning - a large portion of his power stems from the fact that he's the guy the Chinese think leads the nation. In reality, a large part of the reason we view China as 'authoritarian' is simply because they have different traditional values than we do. The West was built in a cauldron of war, with enormous emphasis on social and technological progress simply because it was necessary. The ultimate winner of this vicious competition would inevitably be the society that took the most risks and managed to get lucky on those risks. In contrast, China has been largely stable for millennia. While there were political overthrows every now and then, they didn't really impact the lives of the average Chinese person very much (until World War II and the Japanese invasion) - it was just replacing one set of nominal leaders with another while the bureaucracy and the peasantry remained intact. The upside for risk was minimal while the downside - destabilization of a basically functional system - was massive. This made Chinese culture extremely risk-averse and tradition-bound. They had no need for such things as 'free speech' because they thought that anyone with anything worth saying already had a platform from which to say it. They don't view personal liberty as a particularly compelling notion compared to personal security. They don't view compliance with social mores as significant compared to the burden of tolerating violations of social mores. To someone raised with the values derived from Europe's warrior cultures, this can seem oppressive. To most Chinese, it just seems sensible and natural. Similarly, there is nothing magic about democracy. All civilizations tend to have unifying mythologies. Once upon a time, we thought our kings and emperors were supernatural beings. In the old Soviet Union, they viewed themselves as champions of the ideology of International Socialism. In modern Western nations, the mythology is 'mass democracy'. But while you may be better treated that a medieval peasant, you don't actually have any more say over the policies of your nation than they did. Whatever tiny fragment of power is accrued from your vote is cancelled out by some other person's vote - and the same sort of people who run every society just need better mathematical models to stay in power than they would with a more direct system. The centralizing mythology of democracy was never part of the Chinese tradition, so they don't use it. Instead, they use a notion of China as the 'central nation'. Ultimately, what you view as 'authoritarian' is more cultural differences than anything else. Your average Chinese person doesn't view themselves as being oppressed and - given a choice - is perfectly happy living under the Chinese regime. Certainly, they may have specific issues - but that's no different than an American having issues with their own government.",
"As far as I can tell this is no more true in East Asia than elsewhere. In general authoritarian governments are resilient because they use arbitrary force to suppress competitors and rebels.",
"authoritarian regimes are quite similar to democracy, in the sense that, it borrows power from the people, and have to keep the population entertained through valid means or otherwise. Most people (US being exception) don't really care if the government is a democracy or authoritarian. What they care most is that the government works and life is relatively good. This is true for modern China, Singapore, Brunei, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. So this is part of the answer. They are resilient because they worked. Why fix what's not broken? If the government fails, in a democracy, they won't get re-elected, and if they have a parliament, they could even get impeached. In an authoritarian regime, the threat of revolt is always looming on the corner, keeping the dictator in check. However, it is possible to manipulate the people, through media, or coercion, to maintain / gain power, both in democracy and dictatorship. This becomes the other half of the answer.",
"They have the ability to hide themselves as authoritarian from the west. The incredibly poor and destitute areas of China for instance are never seen by most Westerners. All they show us is the gilded lights of Beijing and other large cities. This leads to little exposure and therefore little international pressure."
],
"score": [
13,
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
818isw | What do sovereign citizens argue? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv19slz",
"dv1a3n1",
"dv1ath7"
],
"text": [
"Here is a short description of what they basically believe from Wikipedia: > The benefits of U.S. citizenship are received by consent in exchange for freedom. State citizens consequently take steps to revoke and rescind their U.S. citizenship and reassert their de jure common-law state citizen status. This involves removing one's self from federal jurisdiction and relinquishing any evidence of consent to U.S. citizenship, such as a Social Security number, driver's license, car registration, use of ZIP codes, marriage license, voter registration, and birth certificate. Also included is refusal to pay state and federal income taxes because citizens not under U.S. jurisdiction are not required to pay them. Only residents (resident aliens) of the states, not its citizens, are income-taxable, state citizens argue. And as a state citizen land owner, one can bring forward the original land patent and file it with the county for absolute or allodial property rights. Such allodial ownership is held \"without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof\" (Black's Law Dictionary). Superiors include those who levy property taxes or who hold mortgages or liens against the property. Basically, they say that they are citizens of the states, not the US, so they can give up their US citizenship at any time and not be subject to its laws (reverting instead back to their primary state citizenship). As you can imagine, the courts have said that this is not a thing.",
"It depends on the particular strain, but the general theme is that if you invoke the right magic legal incantations or secret code words, you can make it so the government has no power over you. That includes everything from not having to pay taxes to not being subject to arrest to, in some of the more fringe cases, the right to the contents of a secret account being held in your name by the country's central bank.",
"There are various degrees of what they believe. The hardcore SC's believe the US government takes a loan on you when you're born based on how much tax revenue you'll likely produce during your lifetime. There is a separate corporate you and an individual you. The corporate you has your name in all capitals (\"JOHN DOE\") and has the debt, while the individual doesn't (\"John Doe\"). You later agree to become one (creating \"joinder\") and the terms of the debt when you do such things as get a license, pay vehicle registrations, pay taxes, etc. By not agreeing to it, they believe they can live their lives without paying taxes and be sovereign from laws. The lowest of SC believers keep it simple by spinning the right to travel as being a right to drive, without having a license or vehicle registration. Form your own opinion on these whacko beliefs, but a common trend is that SC's believers have a history of arrests or not paying taxes before becoming SC's."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
81k6oe | Why are the majority late night shows left leaning? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv3jyvi",
"dv3l2r7",
"dv3k0kx",
"dv3jz0n"
],
"text": [
"I don't know for sure, but I am guessing that it is because, like most entertainment, late night shows are based in large coastal cities which tend to be left leaning. Another thing is that it is easier to make a joke by mocking or being negative towards something. For that reason it is easier to make comedy against the party in power.",
"Because that's how humor works. Political satire is about poking fun at the people at the top, about questioning the status quo. And that is inherently a left-wing thing to do. Humor is, and has always been, a way to question authority and ridicule the rich and powerful. And those are the *last* things you want to do if you're right wing. Right-wing ideology is about reinforcing the status quo, about how the people at the top deserve everything they've got, and the people at the bottom deserve their misery, and that is simply not good joke material. Left-wing ideology is about saying that the people at the top don't deserve to be there. It is subversive. And you can easily build jokes on that premise, because jokes are about subversions, about screwing with people's expectations and questioning assumptions. On the other hand, it is very easy to make right-leaning TV shows relying on anger and outrage. Right-wing ideology is at its core about comfort and stability. \"I like how the world is now, and so I despise anyone who would upset the status quo\". And so, all those pesky people who go around saying the world isn't great the way it is, you can talk for *hours* about how they're a danger to society and how someone should just run them down in a SUV and how they're lazy and jealous and looking for handouts. It's not funny, but it's *great* for channeling anger and outrage.",
"Most likely because they're filmed in blue states from citizens of those states. California and New York are both mostly Democratic so the probability of late shows filmed in those areas also leaning towards Democratic politics is is high.",
"Making national broadcasting stations take a lot of people (cast, crew, tech, etc) and so national TV stations tend to be in big population centers like New York and LA in America. Cities, by and large, are much more liberal-leaning, and so in the entertainment industry liberals are represented more often."
],
"score": [
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
81p4j1 | Why do so many people obsessively take selfies/videos/random pics when drunk? Is there an actual psychological reason? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv464r5"
],
"text": [
"Yes. It's called \"relaxed inhibitions\". Alcohol is a depressant - a drug that works to reduce functional or nervous activity. One of its targets is the rational thought process that governs your emotions and helps you think through stuff like \"If I do X, then circumstance Y will happen, and Y is bad so I should not do X\". So some people \"lose control\" to various levels as they get drunk, and their emotions get stronger and they become less inhibited. Some get angry (avoid avoid). Some get really sad about that ex-relationship (also avoid avoid). And some really get invested in wanting to remember the occasion or share it with their friends - so they take lots of selfies or video themselves doing something really dumb, and then because they didn't care at the time that X might lead to Y, sometimes really regret later it when it trends on social media and that person's boss sees what they REALLY think about their job."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
81pxvx | Why is the exact place of the Kaaba so important? | The question for the mostly Muslim community: Why is the exact place of the Kaaba so important? I believe it is the holiest site on earth for the Muslims, but why exactly this is the place? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv4cel5",
"dv4a2a1"
],
"text": [
"It ties into the direction of prayer, or [Qibla]( URL_2 ), originally it was said that Muslims faced towards the Temple Mount of Jerusalem for prayer until one day Muhammad received a revelation from God to face towards Mecca and the sacred mosque in the city for the prayer, the Kaaba. The origin of the [Kaaba]( URL_1 ) its-self is the subject of some debate among Islamic and non-Islamic scholars. The Islamic interpretation is that tha Kaaba was origionally a temple dedicated to God by his angles so they could worship him. When Adam and Eve were on the Earth, a [ White Stone]( URL_0 ) fell from the sky and showed where he was to build an alter to god. The alter/temple was then later rebuilt by Abraham and Ismael and once again dedicated to god. Over time the tradition holds, the people of the area strayed from the true faith and fell into polytheism and idolatry (the Kaaba would famously become home to more than 300 idols), so when Muhammad became the prophet, he sought to cleanse the temple and rededicated it to the faith of the true god. One interesting thing is that the Qibla change I mentioned came when Muhammad and his early followers were still in exile in Medina. It would be another four or five years before they would be allowed to return to Mecca and it would be some time before Muhammad settled. TL:DR : Islamic tradition holds that the Kaaba was the first temple to God and later Muhammad received a revelation to pray in that direction.",
"While some mythology surrounds the physical location having significance, most of the importance is traced to the pure tradition of it. At the time Muhammad founded Islam, it was already a major temple & the Muslims just sort of took it over for themselves."
],
"score": [
19,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
81slhf | How do authors like Danielle Steele, Nora Roberts publish so many novels while other great authors have only written a few? | Is it because the authors have more time and imagination or are other authors more selective about publishing? They probably wrote a lot too in their private life but don't publish most things | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv4ubgp",
"dv4tvvl",
"dv4tq0t",
"dv591d0",
"dv5c43j"
],
"text": [
"Because they don’t publish great works, but rather housewife porn novels. Good guy, bad guy, damsel in distress, good wins, steamy written sex. Repeat for each novel with a different setting.",
"Some are just prolific writers, others one they reach a certain level of success are able to hire assistants and co-authors or ghost writers. For example, many of Tom Clancy's books are actually written by others. URL_0 Tom Clancy may have co-created the overall storyline with the assistance of someone, and then two other authors wrote the actual book.",
"Because those lustful old ladies are full of stories they'd love to have play out in real life while many other authors have to build worlds, universes and characters from scratch as well as tell a story and when it comes to nonfiction many authors spend years doing research before they ever start writing. Basically, it all depends on the depth of the stories. Nothing against Steele or Roberts, they kick ass at what they do.",
"people have already displayed their statement that books written by Nora Roberts are not \"good literature\". this makes them quicker to produce compared to an \"epic\" story of Game of Thrones. also many of those kind of books (romance novels) and stuff from James patterson, Stephen King, or tom clancy, are very formulaic. The writers have a specific formula that they follow, and they can quickly plug new characters and bad guys into this formula and get a book out quickly.",
"> while other ~~great~~ authors have only written a few? FTFY. Some authors are very good at producing polished, structurally correct, yet formulaic and uninspired, work very quickly. \"Hack\" is often the term used to describe them. And once you make a name with an audience expecting little more than brain candy, you become the safe, predictable Olive Garden of literature, where people go because they can't be bothered to find a decent restaurant. There are probably hundreds of better books of that genre out there, but if you are at an airport bookstore looking something to read on your cross-country flight, you are going to take safe mediocrity over accidentally getting something you won't like at all. There is also some speculation that once some of these authors reach the best selling franchise stage, they employ ghost writers."
],
"score": [
25,
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Clancys-Op-Center-Out-Ashes-ebook/dp/B00GVSABHC/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1520107887&sr=1-1&keywords=tom+clancy+ops+center"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
81t9xp | What is private equity and why do so many Ivy Leaguers from the Northeast go into this field? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv52591",
"dv5zveu"
],
"text": [
"Firms use wealthy investors’ money, along with their own, to buy, fix, and sell companies. They may identify a company that’s losing money and take it private by buying all the stock. They fix the company by changing management, selling off divisions, closing portion of locations, etc. and get it on more stable grounding before taking it public again, selling it to another company or operating it as a portfolio business.",
"As someone who works in PE(Private Equity), I'll tell you exactly what it is, hopefully give you an insider perspective. The official definition is investments funds that are not publicly traded, meaning that you can't find them on the stock market. Our biggest clients are what are called \"institutional investors\", large groups, usually pools of money from different individuals or organizations, that make substantial investments. No PE firm operates identically to another, and we don't release our information on what we invest in, for obvious reasons. Generally though, the investments of PE firms vary, from highly risky venture capital(basically giving a start up or similar business money, in exchange for partial ownership of the business), to buying debt or even purchasing whole companies(something Warren Buffet is known for). PE Firms court Ivy League students because they tend to be some of the best and brightest. These jobs pay generously, with ample opportunity for promotion to jobs that pay even more. So for a little info on me, so you know who you're getting this from. I work at Blackstone Group. My firm manages roughly 400 billion in assets, or about the GDP of Norway. Not all of that in PE, but a good deal is. I didn't go to an Ivy, but the University of Chicago(GO MAROONS), a school in a similar tier to the Ivies(in fact, U of C is often ranked about most of the Ivies, barring Harvard and Princeton). The University of Chicago is known for its incredible econ program, and its connections to financial firms. As a result, I was able to obtain multiple internships with firms like GoldmanSachs, Blackrock, and other major players while still an undergraduate. I graduated with a double major in Economics and History in 2008. If you have questions about the financial world, I can try to answer them."
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
81tgvg | How did humans get the idea to start smoking things? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv50t3v"
],
"text": [
"Putting branches in a fire and realizing you’re suddenly high as fuck after the smoke blows over you. So now you just figure out ways to make small, localized fires."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
81vnic | What exactly do people mean by being "progressive"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv5kiv9"
],
"text": [
"I’m simplest terms: Progressives want to change the system that exists and often fight for more equality, inclusivity, and (as you’d expect) progress. Conservatives want to either conserve the system that currently exists or restore a past system and often fight against progressive social changes which threaten tradition In reality: Everyone is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Most people don’t want to reinstate Jim Crow or slavery, most people believe in women voting, and most people believe in upholding the constitution and government restrictions. People can take a progressive stance on one thing and a conservative stance on another (e.g. someone can want to conserve the tradition of saying “Merry Christmas” but want to uproot the traditional notion that there are 2 genders) In American Politics today: Progressiveness is associated with voting Democrat, with Conservativeness is associated with Voting Republican. So a lot of people unfortunately use the words interchangeably. In my opinion the Democratic Party is not very progressive in many of their policies any more. Republicans also are not very conservative. I can elaborate on this opinion if you’d like. Hope this helps."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
822bjl | Why do people have the same last name but aren’t necessarily related? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv6xv6p"
],
"text": [
"Many last names were derived from common traits... many are derived from a location they were from or a profession and since there were lots of people with those, there are people with names like London or Smith or Cooper. Some are based on parents name, so Johnson or McMichael mean son of John or son of Michael."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
823w5y | If the big 3 religions and their denominations all worship the same God, how can there be so much violence and disagreement between them (and even within them between denominations)? Considering that they have the biggest part in common (the deity), can't they agree to disagree on other stuff? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv7a4yk"
],
"text": [
"The Abrahamic religions only worship the same god insofar as they all believe in the Old Testament, but they have drastically different views on what was divinely revealed after that. The Christians believe Jesus came down and was the son of God and thus that God is a trinity and that you need to worship Jesus, while the Muslims believe that Jesus was just a prophet and actually Muhammad was the final prophet and you need to follow him, and that God is not a trinity, which is to say that they don't really have the same idea of God. And the Jews don't believe any of that is legitimate. Aside from this they all have substantially different religious practices, hierarchies, and attitudes toward evangelism. Because each religion takes its own doctrines so seriously, they all view each other as false religions, and also have internal fighting over specific doctrines. To top it off, they have a long history of fighting over the same lands, especially in the Middle East and Europe, and thus tend to see each other as enemy factions."
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8274jx | why are Academy Award winning movies typically movies the majority of folks don’t see? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv7vr3m",
"dv7v5kq",
"dv7uv6e",
"dv7x8iz",
"dv7yniq"
],
"text": [
"The people who award the Oscars are active participants in the industry. They are experts. The nominations are made exclusively by experts (cinematographers nominate people for the Best Cinematographer prize), but the winners are still picked by insiders. How do most people decide to go to a movie? Do they ask a cinematographer? No, most people don't even know a cinematographer. Perhaps they respond to an ad from an ad agency. Note how there are no ad agency prizes at the Oscars. Perhaps they have an opinion from seeing a previous movie in the series. Note how few series win (other than John Williams' scores). The Oscar voters know a lot more about movies, because their business is movies 40+ hours per week. Ticket sales are decided be a very different sort of person. Fortunately, there are a lot more moviegoers than movie makers because movie making is a very expensive kind of art.",
"I liken it to the difference between an art gallery and Bed Bath & Beyond: The pictures in the store are going to have more mass appeal, but are probably far lower in terms of quality and difficulty of producing. The Oscars are the Academy giving awards to the quality and difficulty in movies. It's annoying for most of us, which is why I don't understand why so many people watch it, but celebrity worship is another issue entirely. Either way, their criteria are completely understandable when seen through the lens of: best movie doesn't mean most popular, but highest \"quality,\" as judged by people involved in the industry.",
"They like to give awards to more artsy, though-provoking films that are more creatively driven. Not whichever bang bang pew pew whooooosh remake is making a billion dollars.",
"Because movies have many layers and you need a conscious effort to see through all the layers. Movies can be exceptional in several ways, some of which are more subtle than others. Most movie-goers either perceive movies as a wholly cinematic experience or they reduce them to one of the layers -the plot, the tone, the genre, the characters, etc.-, which may be an okay component within several other great components that may be missed or not realized by the average spectator. Here’s something you can try next time you watch a highly praised movie: pay attention to how the camera behaves. Ask yourself why may be that the director chose to shoot a scene with several cuts instead of using one long shot. How does he frame the characters? What objects surround the characters? What colors and lighting are associated with each character? How all these things change according to the tone the movie is trying to convey? Then go watch a popular average movie and ask yourself the same questions. I bet you can come up with more interesting answers with the former. Like all art, true appreciation of filmmaking takes a lot of studying and introspection. You gotta learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there's an awful lot of chaff. But you can learn a lot just by paying attention. Hope this helped.",
"People are gonna bitch about why Marvel movies don’t win any Oscars while this year was an absolutely incredible year for movies. People complain about lack of originality and then refuse to go see Oscar movies because they’re too artsy and not in a franchise of some sort. People are stupid."
],
"score": [
56,
19,
15,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
828a9b | Why is chess often shown in films, background footage, and stock footage set in New York; is chess really so deeply ingrained in New York culture? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv842vi",
"dv846dx"
],
"text": [
"There are a very few places in New York City where people regularly play chess in the park or on the street. Although it's not that common, it's so interesting to see that filmmakers like to include it.",
"New York City has a lot of green spaces and a lot of these green spaces have chess tables set up in them. A lot of older people go out to the park to socialize and chess is a great game they can play with a board already set up for them. I don’t see many younger people playing tbh. Idk if it’s a huge part of our culture but the thought might pop into your mind if you liked to spend your days sitting in the park and there were chess boards everywhere. Dominoes are also popular in the outer boroughs especially among minority’s. I’m from the Bronx so I have seen plenty of both."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
82d1jx | What makes paintings/art valuable? | Looking at an image of the Mona Lisa just now I can't help but wonder what exactly it is that makes the portrait so special? I get that its old, and the history and even myths behind it that it may be this and that... but let's take away all that, and say the painting was done today, no one knows anything about the artist, would it still become what it's become, or is this type of work not considered art anymore? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv984x1",
"dv987uk"
],
"text": [
"There's an Adam Ruins Everything about this: URL_0 TL;DW: art galleries get together, decide which artist will be 'famous' and make up numbers for what their paintings will be worth. It's all arbitrary.",
"In the past, paintings used to be valued for their aesthetic beauty and innovativeness. The Mona Lisa is [unique]( URL_0 ) in many ways. That was because wealthy patrons liked to support the arts, and they would be more willing to pay for a beautiful landscape rather than, say, two stick figures. Some painters have a unique style or are so rare that people would want to buy them, just for bragging rights. Picasso, Dali, and many other painters would fall into this category. Other paintings are valuable because of the name that's attached to them. Rembrandt, Monet, and others would probably fall into this one -- you would probably pay big bucks to own a Rembrandt, but not so much to by one from an obscure Dutch painter that died in 1715. Still others are valuable simply because society puts value on them. Modern art shown in museums, for example, are there not because there's anything particularly valuable or amazing about them, but simply because we attach a value onto them. I can draw various squiggly lines on Paint and call it \"art,\" but there's almost no chance of it being worth money or being put in a museum. I would have to compare modern art today to a Reddit comment: some of them make it big and get thousands of karma, some of them get downvoted, but the vast majority of them get brushed aside. For every one $15,000,000 piece you see sold at an auction, there are thousands more that are discarded and put off to the wayside. **Disclaimer: I am not an art historian or collector.** Please tell me if anything here is wrong, and I will try to fix it."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://youtu.be/NSdbASDdwU4"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa#Aesthetics"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
82d7p2 | Why do the Oscars have separate categories for men and women? | Also what are the differences between male and female acting? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv98pbc"
],
"text": [
"The Oscars have separate categories in order to allow for both a male winner and a female winner - this avoids any risk of sexism within the voting pool."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
82daf6 | How did Native Americans of the early 1700s cope with tornados? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv9a12j",
"dv99lw8",
"dv9uvb1",
"dv9q82j"
],
"text": [
"Well there's tons of different Native American/Pre Colonization tribes. They all kinda viewed them different. In some parts they thought of it as evil, but a lot of tribes actually thought they could reason with the tornados, seeing them as spirits and healing. Lot's of tribes people also built communities that could easily be destroyed and rebuilt, so it probably wasn't as devastating for them when disasters hit. There is a lot of missing history though.",
"They thought of them as living beings; gods, if you will. One account that I remember reading about, the elders took out their pipes and \"let the tornado smoke\" which appeased the tornado and \"made it go away\". The younger men ran away.",
"You may be interested in the /r/AskHistorians FAQ section [Natural Disasters]( URL_0 )",
"The collapsed their tents and waited the tornado out. They didn't have big, thin structures like we build today. Then lived in a grassland surrounded for hundreds of miles by nothing but grass. Even today, tornadoes are a very localized thing. A mile wide and a dozen miles long. Sure, with truly bad luck you could choose to wait in the wrong place, and get killed. Most of the time, nothing bad happens to you."
],
"score": [
11,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/dailylife#wiki_natural_disasters"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
82g9k2 | What's the point of blurring licence plates in videos? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv9svg7"
],
"text": [
"at least here in germany it's law. you're not allowed to film someone and publish it without their consent (there are exceptions, e.g. for famous people). so you're allowed to film traffic as a whole, but not single individuals in traffic. the license plate makes an individual identifiable and thus has to be blurred."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
82giy2 | why are so many Canadian contests and other events excluded from Quebec? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv9uvk0",
"dv9wag0"
],
"text": [
"Canadian here As far as I understand, Quebec is basically its own country in terms of its obscure laws that don't match the rest of the country. Before a contest can run in Qc, you need to present a mountain of paperwork to the government. They then charge a fee, up to 13.5% of the total prize value, basically for allowing the contest to be run in Quebec. From a financial and administrative standpoint, it makes more sense to just ignore Quebec.",
"The rest of Canada civil law is based on British Common Law, Quebec is unique that it's is based on the Napoleonic Code. Common Law : you have rights and unspoken rights of tradition that predate the law and if something comes up that not governed or prohibited you can argue that the government must allow it. Napoleonic code : Everything falls under the code and the government can prohibit it, you must go to court and argue that it does not belong in the parts of the code that prohibits certain conduct but allows it. Contests in Canada -- Common law -- you are not winning the prize / car / $10,000 . You are winning the chance to answer a skill testing question. Rolling up the rim is gambling. Answering 11 - 9 + 14 is a skill which you can be rewarded for. Quebec Civil Code -- That's gambling with extra steps. So Contests are void in Quebec."
],
"score": [
17,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
82hd9r | Why do most restaurants/fast food places use foamy soap? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dva1u8b",
"dva20yp"
],
"text": [
"The soap is the same as normal hand soap. It is the dispenser that makes the soap foam. These dispensers help to reduce waste by making it seem like you have more soap than you really do. It doesn't take a lot of soap to effectively wash your hands either.",
"It's to stop wasting soap. People will often pump themselves a full handful of pure liquid soap when there's no need, the foamy stuff goes further. As /u/AtomicPancake216 says it's a mechanism in the spout of the dispenser that makes it foam up, the stuff inside is ordinary liquid soap. Same reason you can get those paper ~~tower~~ towel* dispensers that make you crank off a piece of paper at a time with a handle, rather than just spin off ten yards of paper to dry your hands."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
82m8vj | Why is Napoleon generally considered a master of battle tactics/strategies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvb6wi3",
"dvb688u",
"dvbjalr"
],
"text": [
"The use of independent army corps to move flexibly and quickly; the use of massed artillery; the ability to foresee what the enemy would do as at his masterpiece, Austerlitz. The lack of empathy when it came to casualties. However he got it wrong spectacularly too:,the Russian campaign.",
"Because he was one of the best tacticians of his age if not all time and united an extremely large portion of continental Europe via conquest.",
"Napoleon was extremely good at using his soldiers to the best of their abilities. His main infantry attacks were built around advancing as a column of men moving steadily at the enemy covered by artillery. This worked against most armies arguably because when marching in column all the enemy's firepower was concentrated on the front ranks which meant that every time a volley was fired, those men were killed.This solid advance with drums beating and the men shouting 'Vive L'empereur!' (Long live the emperor) meant that the column was so intimidating that it appeared completely unstoppable particularly with all the men killed at the front, they just kept marching onwards. One of the key reasons (not the only) the British were so successful in Spain and later France against Napoleon, was their superior musketry. They fired 3 rounds per minute from an extended line formation which meant they could bring far more firepower to bear on the French. Ultimately Napoleon never found an answer to the redcoats."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
82n3zo | Why is wine the default drink for a fermented fruit drink? | Why is wine the default fruit/sweet thing-based drink, instead of say cider, or mead | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvbcfc9"
],
"text": [
"Apple cider doesn't have a high alcohol content, so it spoils quickly unless you pasteurize (heat) it and store it in a sealed bottle. So until maybe 200 years ago, it would have been very difficult to transport and store cider. Wine meanwhile lasts for a long time in barrels, so it can easily be stored and transported to locations where wine can't be made. I don't know about mead though. It might simply have to do with the high costs of making it."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
82v64k | Why is a tattoo artist's stencil always purple? | Also, how does it not interfere with the tattooing process? How can you tell what has been tattooed vs. what still needs to be done, especially with complex and intricate pieces? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvd4lj0",
"dvd4a1i"
],
"text": [
"Not from tattooing knowledge, but medical skin marker is purple, so it might be simply because they're using approved body-safe pigments.",
"Not an artist but probably because most outlining is done in black ink, so you can see exactly what you've done and where you need to still fill in."
],
"score": [
16,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
82yc1k | What is the reason that it is common to eat 3 meals in a day? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvdowy2"
],
"text": [
"'Mealtimes' are constructed to accommodate social, geographic and economic norms and lifestyles. Doctors will often ask you if you're getting three square meals, but that's just because its an easy way of gauging whether you eat enough. Its not the natural, or even optimal, way of doing things. Naturally, the time we eat should be determined by our stomachs, not the position of the sun in the sky. That's why more recently doctors recommend you have healthy snacks throughout the day. In modern Western culture, we eat three square meals because it coincided with industrial work patterns. The industrial revolution brought a very strictly regimented workday. Suddenly people were very concerned with hours and minutes. You couldn't simply allow workers on a factory line to pop off whenever they liked because they were hungry. Over time, our eating patterns developed around that industrial workday, to the point where they became a social and cultural fixture. You had breakfast before work, you had lunch with your peers when the line shut down at midday, and then you would usually have dinner with your family after the workday. We developed social patterns and rituals around those ideas, until they became so entrenched that many of us thought that's just how people have always eaten. In the modern world, with ready-to-eat meals available at all hours, those strict lines are also diminishing. You don't go home and have a big family dinner as much anymore. Lunchtime is also not necessarily a shared meal for all workers in a given workplace, because the nature of the workplace has changed. In short, its the way we organize our society that really determines our mealtimes. When we work, how we work, and even things like gender roles or technology can determine the cultural norms for mealtimes."
],
"score": [
28
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
835gpi | What does an ex president of the United states like Obama so for a living? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvf9kz5"
],
"text": [
"He's got a salary for life. On top of all the book deals, speeches, private consulting and so on. There's no lack of job for a popular ex-president of his caliber."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
836evk | How did guitar become THE instrument? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvfg3e4",
"dvfh4s5"
],
"text": [
"Guitars are extremely versatile for one; there are electric and acoustic guitars, and nowadays there are thousands of effects you can put on them (when played through an amp) that makes them even more versatile. You can play a huge range of genres with a guitar. On top of that, it's an easy instrument to learn with a teacher or by yourself and is more widely available (and therefore affordable).",
"In [art music]( URL_0 ) the piano is THE instrument. I would argue that only in popular music is the guitar THE instrument, and even then that's only in popular western music. This is coming from a guy who's been playing the guitar for over a decade. Love the instrument, but certainly in art music it's the piano"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
837d94 | What exactly is the Occam's razor? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvfmbqv",
"dvfob2a",
"dvfn5j4",
"dvfmd3g"
],
"text": [
"It's a principle, it's basically an idea that if you've got several possible explanations for a particular thing being the case, the simplest; the one with the fewest assumptions, is most likely to be correct. Simple as that, really.",
"A \"Razor\" in philosophy is what other disciplines might call a \"heuristic.\" While a lot of philosophy deals with trying to prove things are definitely true, definitely false, possible, or impossible, a \"razor\" is used to say that a proposition is technically possible but a rational person should still judge it to be false (compared to alternatives). Razors tend to be based on probability rather than certainty. Occam's Razor is a heuristic that simple explanations are more likely than complex explanations. For example: Why is my car parked in a different spot than usual? One possibility is that I parked in a different spot and then forgot. Another possibility is that a group of polite hooligans broke into my car and took it for a joyride. But, in order for this to be true, they must also have taken it for a joyride backwards to undo the odometer, and also somehow didn't steal my backpack from the back seat, adjust the seat or mirrors, and also didn't scratch it when breaking into it, and locked it back up when they were done. The second option is *technically possible*. There's no law of physics that says it couldn't happen. But in order to match the various observations, one must pile on an increasingly absurd number of exceptional behaviors. Any rational person would be skeptical of such an explanation. Occam's Razor is the name we give to the principle that says *why* we are skeptical. The fact that it has a name and a definition makes it easier to apply to arguments.",
"It's not a thing, it's an idea. That idea is \"The simplest answer is most often the right one.\" Example: while it's not impossible that there's a massive worldwide conspiracy that's somehow been lying to the masses for literally thousands of years, with a super tight control over companies that run airlines and cargo ships and every other kind of worldwide transporatation, and controls every image in every corner of the internet, trying to fool everyone into thinking the world is round when it's actually flat.... that's really complicated and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to justify even a little bit. So, occam's razor, the simpler answer is probably the right one: \"The world *is* actually round and flat-earthers are nutbars.\"",
"It is a statement that between two theories with equal explanatory power, you should choose the one that requires the least amount of assumptions. Colloquially this is usually stated that a simpler theory is more likely to be correct than a complicated one."
],
"score": [
71,
64,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
838y0x | Why don’t countries start merging together? As globalization increases and borders shrink, why don’t countries like Canada, USA, and Mexico form a super country? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvfzvrj",
"dvfze5l",
"dvfzcmy",
"dvg0wm0"
],
"text": [
"1. Power. Who would volunteer to give up their current power to be subject to someone else’s? 2. Economy inequality. The same government services can’t be provided to everyone if one group of people aren’t producing at the same rate. The math doesn’t work. 3. Culture. Even living right next to each other, the US, Canadian, and Mexican cultures are all very different. The culture shock of moving those cultures into a rule set of another would be high friction at best.",
"Well, technically one could argue that the European Union is very much that, as effectively most of Europe is unified in a similar fashion, just that the individual countries still have more sway and autonomy, (sort of like the states in the US.) As for Canada, the US and Mexico, currently the cultural differences between those countries makes agreeing on any sort of policy difficult. It may seem logical to team-up, but actually merging would be difficult as the people of those countries don't agree on enough to make that happen smoothly.",
"Typically the country that's more prosperous doesn't *want* to allow the less prosperous country to merge. Imagine if the US merged with Mexico, how many lower-income Mexicans would suddenly be eligible for US welfare programs.",
"Well, the EU is kind of what you are after. But there can be big problems when a currency union is done seperatly from a financial union, so it's likely a pretty bad idea to do it via something like the EU. So countyies actually merging. OK, fine, there's no real problems there it COULD happen. Lets for a moment look at only Canada and the US. First of all, the Canadian Prime Minister is extremely unlikely to become the leader of the new country. So he'd be giving up nearly all of his personal political power. Next is the issue of political systems. Let's say you translated Canadian members of parliament directly to US house members, there's the problem of the population since Canadian districts have significantly fewer people than the US does. So there would need to be some kind of rebalancing. Because a legislative body can't have too many people or it gets funky, many of the Canadian MPs will be losing their jobs. But these are exactly the people who's votes you'd need to make this happen. The Canadian PM has a very large amount of power in terms of lawmaking (much more than a president) and he'd be basically working himself out of a job. He'd need to get the votes of MPs who he's also working out of a job. So that vote is unlikely to pass. Next up is the US. Assuming the new country used the US political system there would be similar to the American one (but it might not be) there would be somewhere between 20 and 26 new senators. Canadia is significant more left wing than most of America so Democrats are likely to win the vast majority of those seats. So the current Senate is basically 50/50. The new one would be 70/50. Giving Democrats 58% of the Senate assuming everything stays exactly like it is. A supermajority would be trivially easy for Democrats but basically impossible for Republicans. So Republicans are EXTREAMLY unlikely to vote for this kind of merger. I could go on and on but these kinds of problems crop up at every turn. Canadian provinces don't have their own criminal laws, all criminal laws are national in Canada. The US is basically the opposite, State is the default criminal law and the federal law only gets involved in special occasions. In fact, that federalist issue will crop up constantly in any kind of merger discussions. In theory, in the US power flows from the states to the federal government. Basically, the states grant the federal government certain powers so that the states can form a union. But in Canada, it's the opposite. The power is granted from the crown to the federal government then onto the provinces. So there will be massive problems with who's running what services, who's going to be responsible for what and so on. That's not even touching on things like health care. As problematic as it is in Canada, there are few Canadians who would actually trade for the American system. Canadian gun control exists and is very unlike the US, since we have no second amendment. In fact, the Canadian construction even protects people that the US does not cover. In Canada it's forbidden to discriminate based on sexual orientation, in the US it's not. Canada has no right to free speech, so we have hate speech laws that the US lacks. Political donations are very restricted here because there is no such thing as corporate free speech. Next up, Mexico. how excited do you think the US will be to apply their \"generous\" social safety net to Mexicans. A Mexican earning a middle-class income would likely qualify for all kinds of benefits that a middle-class American would not."
],
"score": [
19,
14,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83eu34 | Why isn't there any human civilization that doesn't have any religion ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvhbytr"
],
"text": [
"Evolution. The brain has evolved for the need for answers or reasons. We have sex, she gets pregnant. Easy. But where did we come from is unimaginably difficult. And higher powers are the perfect answer. That is, until you get into the information age. We're getting real close to the peak. Another decade or two to go is all."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83kv0w | why do so many different ancient myths base their understanding of Gods on the planets and stars? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvikyq9",
"dvil68m"
],
"text": [
"The things in the sky were among the greatest mysteries to ancient people, because they could be constantly be seen yet never touched, and because they had the power of light which was mysterious, and because the movement of the stars clearly went along with the seasons which controlled a lot of life.",
"It is not so much that they base their understanding of the Gods on the planets and stars, it is that they place those things as their homes or as tools used by them to communicate to humans. So they used their Gods to understand the planets and stars is a much more appropriate way of phrasing things."
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83mkfz | Why do people talk about the relevancy of generations when there’s people of every age in society? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvixyua"
],
"text": [
"A generation as a whole has been brought up in a certain world/time period that can be noticeably different from younger or older. You could look at the “lost generation” where millions of men where wiped out in a senseless World War. My Grandparents lived through the Depression and married later in life and were always frugal and not wasteful for the rest of their lives. There wasn’t really a name for this generation In the US the generation that fought in World War 2 has been known as the “Greatest Generation” as the whole country for the most part came together to fight the second World War, where there was an actual bad guy to be fought and defeated. When they came home from the war they had kids like crazy launching the Baby Boomers who grew up with television and pop culture aimed at the youth which made them narcissistic and they ruined everything. Generation X grew up in their shadow and was over educated, sarcastic and cynical. They were labeled slackers but mostly it was because the Baby Boomers ruined everything Millennials grew up with computers and the internet, were somewhat sheltered but also were raised to be much more accepting of people all different spectrums of life"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83mm9x | Why does North America have an obsession with grass/lawn's? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvixrgq"
],
"text": [
"I don’t think it’s just a North American thing. It’s often about “keeping up appearances “ - like ironed shirts, polished shoes, etc. Tells everyone “we’ve got our shit together”."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83r2xt | Why do countries have flags? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvjxyg6",
"dvjwwfu"
],
"text": [
"Flags are a means of identification. They started as battle standards for armies; since communication was an issue in the early battlefields which were more often than not a tangle of men and weapons, the standards were soon found to be a good way of organizing units: all men of a unit would follow their flag and rally to it, as well as defend it to the last man. Since they worked well on the battleground to identify units, it's no wonder someone figured they could fulfill the same purpose off the battlefield too.",
"Flags are a symbol of the grouping of people and territory which makes up a country. A way is needed to signal to others what group controls an area and the flag does that without requiring one understand the language. Putting a flag on a fort, a ship, or flying it over an army conveys the idea; how else would you do that?"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83y4b4 | Why didn't Prince Harry lose his place in line after announcing his engagement to Meghan Markle, a divorced woman? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvlctw6",
"dvldpov",
"dvldtc9"
],
"text": [
"Because there's no rule that prohibits someone who marries a divorced person from being monarch. The main things that disqualify someone from the line of succession are being dead or being Catholic (or any other non-Protestant religion).",
"Prince Charles is the next in line to the throne. He is himself divorced and is married to a divorced woman.",
"The rule was unofficially changed in the 1990s when Prince Charles Divorced Princess Diana. It was officially codified in the Anglican Church in 2002 with some of their synod changes. It was then reinforced in the changes to succession made in 2013 that removed the male priority from succession (leaving it to age only), reduced the direct approval of the queen for a marriage to only apply to the top 6 slots in the line of succession (all the royal family needed approval prior), and removed the ban on marrying a Catholic as well as other things. The entire ban never made since to me as the Anglican Church was founded by Henry VIII specifically because the Catholic Church denied him a divorce."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
83z49n | Why do older generations seemingly look older than newer generations during the same age range? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvloxbj",
"dvlktcc",
"dvlp4sw",
"dvlou3g",
"dvllp5i",
"dvlva2l",
"dvlqsu4",
"dvlz9h5",
"dvlx2fl",
"dvlrvrd",
"dvlz849",
"dvlszq4",
"dvlswcj",
"dvlwnmd",
"dvltei3",
"dvlta21",
"dvlzwg9",
"dvlvtn4",
"dvlzetp",
"dvlxugv",
"dvlt7ec",
"dvlzxdd",
"dvm282w"
],
"text": [
"Culturally, we've become less and less formal. There used to be adult modes of dressing, which are employed by fewer and fewer people as time goes by.",
"Seems to me better health practices less labor intensive jobs. Machines let us work smarter. Also I don't know anyone that actively pick axes a coal mine. Im sure people still mine with machines and unions for better working conditions. Less black lung I suppose. (Minecraft jokes aside)",
"It wasn't until relatively late that we have learned the health issues associated with too much exposure to the sun. One of the many detriments is premature aging of your skin.",
"Are you controlling for all variables, including camera quality? Just different lighting can drastically impact the apparent age of a person in a photo, especially when you add in stuff like b & w photos vs color. Older houses had lights in different color balance, and cameras picked up different color balances too. For younger people, more baby fat in the face makes them look younger. A soldier, especially in wartime, won't have that baby fat. Even comparing modern soldiers to their peers in college you'll see a difference. Next is poses. A smiling face looks younger, and granddad taking a picture in a bombed out french town 1944 is probably not going to be smiling as much as your brother sitting in the frat house patio. Last is clothing. You associate certain styles of clothes with old people, so a picture of Grandma at 25 will be in old lady clothes. Sister at 25 will be in younger lady clothes, often with a more flattering cut too. To really compare, put sister in grandma's old clothes. Or compare nudes. :(",
"1. Nutrition was worse. 2. They had been through a lot of stress, like the Depression and wars. 3. More people had been through serious diseases.",
"Because people assumed adult responsibilities much earlier. The high school dropout rate in 1950, IIRC, was around 50%. These dropouts weren't living in Mom's basement playing the equivalent of video games - they were working, full time, to help support their family.",
"Because by the age of twenty we were already putting up with your crap. And now days, most of you haven't picked up any thing heavier than a soda. Why in my day we played football without helmets or pads. And our cars didn't have power steering and brakes, or those sissy automatic transmissions. All the girls were corn fed and fat. To pick up one at a bar, we would tie a cob of corn to a winch cable on a wrecker. Throw it in and when it pulled tight, winch one out. All our books were printed on stone, try carrying them to school 5 miles each way, both of them up hill.The only thing we had going for us, there was not as much history to remember, and numbers only went to 99. You don't know how easy you have it. /S",
"I was watching “All I The Family” the other day and Archie Bunker said something about him being laid off from work and he’s 45 years old and too old to find another job or something like that. My jaw dropped. I’m 47! I could have sworn they played characters that were in their 60’s at least! 45? Wth?",
"Aside from all that's been pointed out in this thread so far is the fact that most younger people I know seem to be able to take information about health and take it seriously and then use it to their advantage. I know so many people from my parents and grandparents generations that were told over and over throughout life that they needed to lose weight, they needed to quit drinking, they needed to quit smoking and blah blah blah.... The doctors might as well have been taking to the wall because most were just incredibly set in their ways and would take their horrible habits to the grave. People around 40 right now and younger just seem to be much more capable of getting their act together health-wise. I've always wondered why. What is it about baby boomers and people older than them just seem so immune to advice regarding their health? They all just seem to get to a certain age where they say screw it, I'm riding this shitty habit train into the ground.",
"It's mostly fashion. You associate older fashions with older people, and so even when they're young they look older to you.",
"Yeah I remember in high school. Every year the freshman looked younger and younger. We always talked amongst each other like, \"did *we* look that young when we were freshman too?\"",
"Combat fucks you up. There are a couple of photo projects you should see on modern service members, before, during and after combat. It’s interesting to see the transition.",
"Their clothes. We associate sportcoats with old men. In reality those old men were wearing sport coats in their 20s.",
"When we associate appearance with old age, we use things like type of face, fashion, wrinkles, hair styles etc when in reality the only thing that actually is a marker for age is wrinkles and muscle structure. There are people in their 40s with baby faces and people in their 20s with lean, stern faces in every generation. I’m 33 and have a baby face. I’ve only recently started to not be id’d. The reason older generations look older to us is just things like clothes and grooming that we associate with our parents or grandparents. When I was a kid Jenco jeans and Exco hoodies were in style. I now associate that with middle aged people more than anything. It’s really just based on perception and prejudice.",
"I think it just depends on the person. I am 29 and people think I'm 21 because I have a baby face. I have friends that are balding, and smoke and stuff and look like a bad 40.",
"People had kids to work the farm back then. The labor intensity and we are only using sunscreen the last 20 years?..",
"Sunlight, if you spend more time out in the open, in the sun, you will visibly age faster. This is a [picture of a truck driver]( URL_0 ) who has had one side of his face out towards the sun for decades while the other side of his face was in the shade. One side of the face got all the sun damage, other side remained much younger.",
"I don’t have an answer but I’ve also always noticed this! I remember in my high school they had all the pictures of all the graduating classes and going back 10 or 15 or 20 years everyone looked so much older. So I see some people saying here more stress I mean we were all teenagers. But yes I noticed that as well. Classes from 15 years before looked a bunch of 24 year olds!",
"Testosterone has declined in men dramatically in the past 50 years as well. This goes along with skin aging, earlier onset of gray hair in times past, face and other body fat accumulation changes happening later in modern times, hair growth patterns, and secondary sex characteristics like reduced penis and testicular size. Early Tanner stages commenced later in years past, but progressed faster and puberty ended sooner overall. Medical studies of these items in teenage boys note obvious reductions. URL_0 URL_1",
"Because they worked out doors and their skin has seen a lot more sun. The older looking generation did live longer.",
"Living through the dust bowl and great depression probably was not good for the complexion.",
"Smoking. Before the 1990's people smoked all the time, everywhere; restaurants, buses, taxis, airplanes, hospitals, offices... Even if you didn't smoke yourself, you probably got a pretty good daily dose of tar and nicotine just being in public. On the plus side, it probably helped keep obesity rates lower.",
"I have wondered the same exact thing. Look up Angela Lansbury, she looked like an 80 year old woman when she was like 50. Even when I looked at my older brother's yearbook pictures (he is 8 years older than me, graduated high school 99) I remember thinking wow, everyone in his class looked so old!"
],
"score": [
1635,
543,
400,
216,
126,
65,
55,
43,
37,
36,
23,
11,
10,
9,
8,
7,
7,
6,
6,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/capture56.png"
],
[],
[
"https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/print/endocrine-today/%7Bac23497d-f1ed-4278-bbd2-92bb1e552e3a%7D/generational-decline-in-testosterone-levels-observed",
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/amp/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8414fw | How do bills become law in a bicamerical senate? | I hear about times when the house and senate introduce different bills, how do they become a law when they haven't voted on the same thing? What happens if only one side votes on (and passes) a law that wasn't introduced in the other? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvm1sl7",
"dvm2293"
],
"text": [
"Both houses have to pass identical bills. If the house passes something and the Senate does not as well then it is not law. This happened early this year with the health care bill. The house passed their version but the Senate was unable to so nothing happened.",
"Either house can start a bill. They then vote on it and if it is approved they send it to the other house. That house then reviews it and either approves it, disapproves and gives recommendations on changes, or rejects it entirely. If they want changes then they form a special committee comprised of members of both houses that work together to make a the changes then both houses vote again. If it passes then it goes to the President (or Governor depending on which bicameral legislature is doing the voting). Sometimes both will work on similar bills at the same time due to various factors. In this case they will sometimes jump straight to the joint work, sometimes they will vote on them independently. There is a lot of variation."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
845tbo | Why do people walk/run on the street when there is a sidewalk available? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvmzeet",
"dvmz6ww"
],
"text": [
"The asphalt of the road is a lot less dense than the concrete of the sidewalk, making it less painful to run on!",
"The roads are typically flatter and in better condition that sidewalks. Plus there aren't constant slanted driveway entrances to worry about. I understand what you're saying though!"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
847pv8 | Why does every scandal have the word “gate” at the end of it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvngzj8",
"dvnerfn",
"dvnetov",
"dvnexlq"
],
"text": [
"Rather than just talk about Watergate, I think words are cool so let's talk about words. This is a form of [morphological derivation]( URL_1 ). You can make words through a few different methods, but rarely do we just [make up a new word]( URL_0 ) from scratch (an exception being \"googol\" or \"quark\"). We follow rules when we make up new words, usually, and sometimes we apply those rules to situations where they wouldn't normally apply - like splitting apart a word that doesn't come apart. In this case, we English speakers know that words can be formed by attaching pieces (called *affixes*) to core words that hold meaning independently (called *lexemes*). Both are *morphemes*, which are units of meaning in language. So for example, we take the word \"run\" which means something by itself, without doing anything else to it. And then we take the suffix \"-ing\" which means \"present tense\", but it only means that if it's stuck to a verb - otherwise, it's just nonsense. That's what a *bound morpheme* is - it makes sense, but only when stuck to another morpheme. You can't \"ing\" or hold an \"ing\" or whatever, but \"running\" and \"jumping\" are different from \"run\" and \"jump\". So we stick \"-ing\" to \"run\" and we get \"running\", which means you \"move very quickly\" and \"are doing it right now.\" You can \"undo\" that word and separate it back into the two morphemes that created it. (It actually is more complicated, having to do with gerunds and modals and helper words and that doesn't matter right now.) English, as a Germanic language, and devoid of cases (in general), is *really good* at just haphazardly sticking morphemes together to make new words. For instance, the word \"desk\" is not a verb, but I can still stick \"-ing\" to it and say \"I am desking\" and it doesn't make *semantic* sense, because you've never heard of this verb \"*to desk*\" before, but it does still make *grammatical* sense because, regardless of what the word means, it's following the rules. So we take the word \"Watergate\" and it sort of feels like it's got a nice recognizable word in there (water) and this other thing stuck to it. Indeed, it *is* two morphemes stuck together: a gate that leads to water. Kind of. It's really just a proper name for a hotel that's meant to sound pleasant, but hey, seems easy enough. So we can split them back apart into their two morphemes. But then we had this big huge scandal involving the Watergate Hotel, and we transformed the meaning of the word \"Watergate\" from \"a hotel\" to \"a scandal involving a hotel\". This mostly happened because of headlines being shortened to save space and stay punchy, and overtime \"Watergate Hotel\" became \"The Watergate Scandal\" which became \"Watergate\". But the word still kinda looks like two morphemes stuck together. So what happens when we split them apart? The word \"water\" still means...water. That's too deeply ingrained in our language and in our DNA to change. So you have to put \"water\" and \"gate\" together to make a word that means \"that scandal that happened to Nixon\". Sticking \"water\" onto things is already something we do: waterwheel, icewater, watersports, breakwater... But *gate*, that's not something we do that with very often. And it just sounds *punchy* because it's short, got that long vowel sound, and it ends with a hard consonant. So we separated \"that scandal that happened to Nixon\" into \"that scandal\" and \"that happened to Nixon\", and separated the morphemes into \"gate\" and \"water\" respectively. Which leaves us with a *really* convenient bound morpheme that we can stick onto any word and turn it into a recognizable \"Scandal about [blank]. So we have Water*gate* and Korea*gate* and Pizza*gate*. And reporters *love* it, because there are immediate associations with Nixon, with corruption, with covering up corruption, with government ineptitude or conspiracies. It's all of that packaged into a single syllable that so easily sticks onto almost any conceivable word. You see the same thing with -oholic. The word isn't alc_oholic. It's alcohol_ic. As in, frant*ic* and arachnophob*ic*. But we ripped it apart and put it back together to form workoholic and chocoholic. It's not water and gate, it's the Watergate hotel, but it's English so we do what we want.",
"It’s an allusion to “Watergate,” which was a huge scandal when President Nixon was in office.",
"If i'm correct it's because president nixon had his scandal at 'watergate' hotel. If no,sorry Im not an american!",
"Headline writers and pundits look for shorthand to convey info. The closest thing we had before Watergate was \"a Teapot Dome\"-like scandal. That was very long and obscure and didn't involve the actual removal of a president. \"Gate\" does it all, very efficiently. Of course it's tired, over-used and wrongly-used, but the impetus is what I described."
],
"score": [
54,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_derivation"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
84df7t | Why is America the only country in the world where there are gaps in stall doors in public restrooms? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvomgls"
],
"text": [
"Money. Creating restroom door/stall panels with round edges to prevent light transmission costs more than rectangular panels."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
84gmiq | Is a true Utopian Society actually possible? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvpdiy0"
],
"text": [
"Yes. No. There are several things that need to occur: 1. The removal of all needs (this means we need to somehow get rid of all food, water, and resource scarcity). 2. The removal of tension and history (hey I remember when the US bombed my village at one point. but he remembers when your village exported AKs to terrorists in my village, and so on and so forth) 3. The removal of a sense of self and other (no individuals, no borders, and no concepts for enemies). 4. Probably more complicated stuff."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
84jjiu | Why do people play sad music when they are sad? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvq2c2f",
"dvq53yv"
],
"text": [
"I think because music can be so therapeutic. Sometimes it’s just nice to have a “friend” there who gets what you’re going through.",
"I listen to sad music when I'm sad because I need to truly feel the emotion before it can pass. Music shows me that I'm not alone and gives me words to express what I am feeling."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
84onc6 | - Why is Pachelbel's "canon" used so much in popular songs in this day and age? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvr3va0"
],
"text": [
"It was itself derivative, and is an audibly pleasing, easily anticipated chord progression and arpeggiation sequence. So it's great at connecting two phrases in a piece of music, is known to be in the public domain, and has specific cultural attachments. The Canon was also the second-most popular go-to music for weddings following the Wedding March, so this cultural heritage also comes along for the ride."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
84r6fb | What do companies that are closing down do with all their stock (Like Toys R Us)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvroy7t",
"dvron4l",
"dvrw6b8",
"dvrpokd"
],
"text": [
"First they'll have a week or two of Going Out Of Business Sales. Then whatever is left over they often look for places to donate. Like toys to charity, food items to food banks. There are also liquidators who specialize in getting rid of stock through all sorts of channels. There's a lot of independent retailers who buy overstock from these guys. Like haven't you ever wondered why at that one convenience store in town they have seven still in box Xbox Ones and four Microwave ovens on the back wall? Who goes to a convenience store to buy an Xbox? Means they got them for cheap, usually through someone else closing up shop.",
"Sell it at insane discounts or scrap it at their own expense. Unless someone buys the company including its stock.",
"Well, the first four posts in here are talking about inventory and here I am thinking this was going to be talking about their stock as in what people buy on the stock market.",
"A few things. \"Discount\" it to sell a most of it. I put that in quotes because sometimes stores put clearance tags and prices on items but the price actually doesn't go down. Sometimes they will truly discount it to sell it for whatever they can get. Other wholesale companies often buy the remaining stock at greatly reduced prices and resell it either to other retailers or by doing their own retail sales. Another thing that can happen is creditors, distributors, or manufacturers can get the stock to recoup their losses from the retailer's bankruptcy. I don't see this as a preferred method for a toy store but you never know."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
852418 | Why is Hollywood what it is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvu83bm",
"dvua2qk"
],
"text": [
"It still was \"the\" place until fairly recently when Vancouver boomed and now Georgia (mostly Atlanta area) officially produces the most films.",
"Originally the area just worked out as being good for making movies in - the location and typical weather makes for more nice sunny days, which means you have good lighting for filming outside, more consistent days (so you are not filming with blue skies one day, clouds the next and trying to splice the scenes together), and less days rained off. Compare that to somewhere like New York where the weather is colder and far more variable, and gilming outside becomes harder. It also comes with access to a good range of different locations within a reasonable distance, so you can shoot multiple different types of set without the large amount of travelling you would need if you wanted to shoot a desert scene and worked in NY... The biggest thing nowadays however is really just the momentum and history of the area - once a few big features were made and the location was known, it meant people wanting to get into the industry naturally started heading there as that is where the best chance if work was. This means more actors and supporting workers, so it makes sense for a new company to start there with an established pool of workers available, which then means it becomes even better known for the movie industry, and more people move there looking for their big break and so on... Once somewhere is established as the location of a certain industry, it becomes easier to make use of that reputation rather than trying to create competition elsewhere."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
85bs9w | Absurdism and Nihilism | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvw7sjq",
"dvw85ro"
],
"text": [
"Idk about absurdism but I know some about at least Optimistic Nihilism. Basically, Nihilism is \"the universe is too big and complicated, and the whole planet's gonna eventually be swallowed by the sun, so nothing a tiny insignificant speck like me could ever do would make a difference in existence at large.\" Optimistic Nihilism says all of that and then tacks on \"So I don't have to stress about anything! Any mistakes I could possibly make won't ever really matter in the long run and the universe doesn't give a shit if I fuck up!\" And if you're an optimistic nihilist that happen to be on the altruistic side, you can also add \"So I should be as nice and helpful as possible because the universe doesn't care about any of us, which means we just have to take care of each other if we want good things to happen.\"",
"Absurdism - Life is a giant farce. Finding meaning in it is pointless because there is no meaning - So we might as well embrace it as meaningless and live like rock stars. Nihilism- Life is a giant farce. It’s pointless to create meaning in it. Existing doesn’t make any sense, and we have no cosmic significance. Don’t even try to create your own meaning."
],
"score": [
13,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
85c6ru | what's the difference between "free cash flows" and "earnings" ? | In investing terms, what are the meaning of these two and how they differ when it comes to dividends? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvwbg14",
"dvwe9jf"
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of definitions of earnings, but it is usuutalked about before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization. This means free cash flow is lower- capital expenses, taxes don't reduce earnings but do reduce free cash. This is a very simplified answer but hope it helps.",
"Earnings is when you **earn** your return. Cash flow is when you **receive** your return. Let's a friend just started a business and asks you to pick up a few shifts. They promise to pay you $20/hour, but as a favor, because they are just starting out, you won't get a paycheck for the first few months. You trust your friend will eventually pay what you are owed, so you agree. After a month, you have worked 80 hours, and have **earned** $1600. That's earnings. But you haven't been paid, so you have zero cash flow. At that point, your friend is fully staffed up and thanks you for the help. Two months go by, and you get a check for the $1600. Your earnings are zero, because you haven't put in any new hours. But your cash flow is $1600."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
85cium | How do movies get away with filming in the middle of London or busy cities? Are they shut down for a set time, and if so, how long for? How does it affect the everyday running of the city? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvwg00c",
"dvwdess"
],
"text": [
"I work in the film industry. Big budget movies and Tv shows ($20m+ budgets) will pay police and cities to close down whatever we want. With enough money we can shut down anything for any length of time. All the people you see on camera are extras at the average rate of $100/each per day. 200 extras is a good number to make a city block look full but 50 could do it if you are smart about it. Lower budget movies will just gorilla it and go shooting. Sometimes with general permits to shoot in the area but not close streets and sometimes with nothing but a friendly producer to get us out of trouble. The opening scenes of 28 days later were shot gorilla style.",
"I lived in Pittsburgh when they were shooting one of the Batman movies. They blocked off whatever section of streets they needed for the day, sometimes days. Buses would be rerouted. Foot traffic would not be allowed through. You'd have to fight with a production assistant if you needed to get in the area to go to your job. Huge pia, but the city loves the extra revenue having all those people in town brings and the publicity attached to such a big feature film."
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
85cjbk | Why are greek/ roman gods not worshipped anymore? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvwdohg"
],
"text": [
"very very aggressive religious subjugation by the Catholic church over a millenia. They had crusades over it, they actively killed pagans, it was messy. its 2.5 thousand years of government and people changing over a given plot of land. The big one that set it up though was the roman empire adopting christianity. they owned all of europe and what they say goes. r/askhistorians may get you a more exact answer"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
85mhok | Why is the word “no” so similar across languages while “yes” varies? | In french, no is “non,” in Croatian “ne,” German “nine”, URL_0 a few examples, but yes varies, as in french: “oui,” Croatian: “Da,” Spanish: “Si,” etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvz5815",
"dvyx0en",
"dvzwrzb"
],
"text": [
"All of the languages you've mentioned are Indo-European languages, so they're all (distantly) related. The different words for \"no\" you mentioned are all derived from the same proto-Indo-European root *ne-*, meaning \"not\". On the other hand, the different words for \"yes\" are taken from different Indo-European root words. The English \"yes\" is from Old English *gise*, which can be roughly parsed as *gea* \"so\" + *si* \"be it\". In turn *si* comes from Proto-Germanic *sijai*, which is from Proto-Indo-European *si*. On the other hand, \"oui\" is from Old French *oïl*, possibly a contraction of Vulgar Latin *hoc ille* \"thus he\". The Latin *hoc* is the adverb form of *hic* \"this\"/\"here\", which is descended from Proto-Indo-European *gʰi-ḱe*. The Croatian \"da\" is taken directly from Proto-Slavic, and descends from the Proto-Indo-European *deh₃-* \"to give\".",
"It is because of the sample your are using. The word for mother on the other hand is similar through very different language groups. Which makes linguist winder if their ever was a proto pseudo language all humans spoke.",
"Not an answer but a small remark. The word for no in German is actually written \"nein\". It is pronounced similarly to the english \"nine\" though, so I understand the confusion."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
85sfgg | ; how did they discover tobacco? Like, did they just go around smoking plants until they found one they liked? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvzqmjr",
"dvzro06"
],
"text": [
"Oral traditions of smoking tobacco date back ~7,000 years (in Mesoamerica and South America), which is much earlier than any written history, so it's very unlikely this question can ever be answered accurately.",
"They were just out collecting stuff that looked like it might burn and found out the smoke smelled good when you toss certain plants on the pyre. After some trial and error (I pity the dude who smoked poison ivy), pipe smoking was invented as a way to smoke EXCLUSIVELY the stuff that had \"good\" smoke."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
85t89k | Why do so many Islamic countries have the moon and a star in their flag? | For ex. Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Libya etc | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvzusde",
"dvzwd1q"
],
"text": [
"The crescent moon and star have a long history in the Middle East that actually predates Islam by a few centuries. The iconography was used by the Byzantines, for instance. It was used as a symbol by the Ottoman Empire, and it lives on in the flags of a number of former Ottoman Empire countries, like the ones you listed.",
"Before calendars, the moon was an important tool to measure time. One lunar cycle is about a month, and each phase (full- > half- > new > half) is about a week. When you hear the stereotypical \"many moons ago\", it is quite literal, people would reckon time by the number of moons that had passed. Of the moon's phases, all are visible except the new moon, you had to wait a few days until you can see the first crescent moon, and that was used by many cultures to mark the start of the month. That made the crescent moon pretty significant, and it became associated with renewal and rebirth."
],
"score": [
35,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
85upy0 | How/Why did the world decide on a universal mathematics language but made hundreds of communicative languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw06w2x",
"dw07tu9"
],
"text": [
"It didn't, remember when XVIII was a number? All of these \"communication languages\" have representation of the numbers, and they are all different. Some math concepts, like the idea of a matrix, have been translated, but there are many representations. Each math book defines it's own conventions, even when they are written in English.",
"There were numerous mathematical systems in use before Europeans started initiating global trading networks that required a single accounting system in every port. Since the Europeans had the most wealth and military might, other nations adopted their system and it displaced their old numeral system. Chinese numerals are still in use in East Asia for some display and artistic purposes, and of course the Roman system still gets some usage as an artistic element too. A proper language is vastly more complex, and much harder to displace."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8629ch | what privileges and advantages has a person when is entitled as "Sir" by the England's queen? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw1sy52",
"dw1xpf8",
"dw1rogw",
"dw2chtg",
"dw22h37",
"dw2m7zs",
"dw232hn",
"dw20eq8",
"dw28owl",
"dw22gbk",
"dw23q29",
"dw2k5go",
"dw223ft",
"dw28xmj",
"dw24b1c",
"dw2lfqw",
"dw2lk6n",
"dw2pwth",
"dw2ky60"
],
"text": [
"For the practical part, the honour of recognition, mostly. You may find yourself being asked to be a director on the board of some companies for their status, etc. You won't get the KBE without already being known and respected though.",
"In the spirit of ELI5 you should also know that Queen Elizabeth is not the Queen of England. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the 1700's the kingdoms of England and Scotland combined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain (which was later renamed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801,) and so there hasn't been a Queen of England since Queen Anne in the early 1700's.",
"You don't get to joust or wear armor, but you do pick up a few unusual garments. Knights and Dames Grand Cross get to wear special gear to formal events like coronations. This getup includes a pink-with-gray-edges satin mantle and a collar of six gold medallions. All members of the Order are allowed to wear the group's badge. The badge is basically a cross hanging from a pink ribbon with gray edges, although various ranks wear their badges in unique ways. Members and Officers simply wear their badges like military medals pinned to their chests, while higher-ups wear theirs on sashes or around their necks. Other benefits include getting a spot in the British order of precedence, the arcane system that develops the hierarchy of ceremonial importance for things like state dinners. Furthermore, knights win their wives the right to be called \"Lady,\" and Knights and Dames Grand Cross can modify their coats of arms to reflect the honor. Source: URL_0 EDIT: Holy cow guys, I've never had this many upvotes on a comment! I didn't even put my heart into it! You guys are awesome and I'd kiss all of you right on the mouth if I could... (Except you, Hudge)",
"Not mentioned here but you get the right to get married in St Paul's Cathedral. Or at least in the Order's Chapel, which is part of St Paul's.",
"Terry Pratchett, on receiving his knighthood, had a sword made using meteorite ore and has it hidden somewhere prior to his death. He said \"It annoys me that knights aren't allowed to carry their swords,\". It should be noted that this is unusual even for knights.",
"I had a colleague who received a knighthood “for services to disabled children.” The privileges and advantages were huge and wonderful - and directed entirely to the organisations that he worked and volunteered for. First, the occasion itself was in the national news, and this brought attention to so many good causes and charities. Then, afterwards, local news came and visited these organisations to take his photograph and report on his story. Then local donors and benefactors started to come forward and offer gifts; volunteers asked for opportunities to help; other organisations invited our client children to visit, enjoy experiences and opportunities they previously never had. That knighthood opened doors, created goodwill and opportunities, and gave us resources we never had before. I’ve never experienced any other single event that has created so many positive results.",
"one is, British Airways grants all Knights and Dames free upgrades to First Class. But they have to be wearing the lapel pin to qualify. (know 'cuz an ex girlfriend has been Damed)",
"John Lennon speculated that it gave him immunity from the police for most illegal activity that wasn't specifically harmful, i:e, drug use. He returned his MBE in protest, got busted a few months later for drug possession, the police planted drugs in his home and everything. Probably just his paranoia, but it's an interesting thought.",
"I wanted to thank the people who have answered, even those who have pointed out that the title is not clear enough. I am not a native speaker, and I am not using a translator, you have my word. Thank you for your help. Edit: I'm becoming famous, you can find my post at r/titlegore lol",
"Depends on the [type]( URL_0 ) of knighthood received. Ringo's knighthood is \"Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire\", or \"MBE\". Is the lowest of the orders, so has few privileges. Mostly, being called \"Sir Richard\" in Ringo's case. If you remember the film, \"The King's Speech\", Australian Lionel Logue helped King George VI overcome his stammer, and Logue and the King became lifelong friends. Logue was made a \"Commander of the Royal Victorian Order\", CVO, for his service.",
"So hypothetically speaking, what's to stop a random British person from just going around and insisting he's a knight when he isn't? I live in America, where we are perpetually ensorcelled by all things even remotely English. I, for one, would be easily duped by a would-be Sir. Is there a penalty for impersonating a knight? Does the Queen show up at your doorstep and have her goons strap you to a chair while she thrashes her Royal Digit at thee?",
"* 20% discount in McDonalds restaurants throughout the UK * Free upgrades at Avis and Europcar rental * Access to VIP areas at a range of nightclubs in London's West End * Priority booking for pop concerts at the O2 arena and associated venues",
"The awkwardness of everyone having to say \"Sir\" and then your name, when they are interviewing you or something. Sir Jeff. Sir Alan. Sir Michael. It sounds cringeworthy.",
"Most of these titles are honorary, as in they have been granted due to achievement or contribution to the British Empire. It becomes news when a celebrity gets an honour, not because their contribution is more worthy than someone who has fought for Queen and country but because it promotes the brand. Both of the British Empire and of the celebrity. Consider the effect of having a MBE use your service or product. That is some fine ass promotion. Hence the benefits of having such an honour is for companies will want your custom and make their service attractive to you.",
"It used to be a big thing to be of Noble descent back in the day and you were not one of the peasants, you were a man or woman of Honor and were treated like royalty because you were an extension of the Kingdom's hand in power. Of course, the king of Zimbabwe was considered less a noble than the King of England because of territory or riches, but nevertheless, a noble. In Freemasonry, \" Speculative \" knighthood is awarded to you at the 32nd degree of the Scottish Rite or the Knights Templar degree of York Rite. But real Knighthood that can be traced back through a legitimate lineage that has been maintained through centuries and is considered of higher importance than any other Knighthood. It's called, the Royal Order of Scotland, an invitation only body and the benefits are that you get to take the redpill and see how deep the rabbit hole gets ;)",
"As this is the place for neet little details I would just like to point out that there is no Queen of England. There is however a Queen of Great Britain, a title created in [1707]( URL_0 ) when the Queen of Scots (also Queen of England) merged her possesions together to restructure a ton of debt, upon the 'advice' of her ministers.",
"Sir Ian McKellen actually did a Reddit AMA video explaining it: URL_0",
"Realistically? None compared to the achievements that got you there - usually people who get the title have done something to deserve it, and anything that comes of it is more to do with whatever they did to deserve the title in the first place. It's an honor, nothing more. A relative of mine received a knighthood and all it changed was the name on his (and his wife's) mail. He received it late in life and my had been a professor for years, so he became Prof. Sir., which is a bit of a mouthful.",
"I hear it's illegal to eat swan unless you're a member of the royal court, so there's that."
],
"score": [
6178,
4180,
2152,
1964,
1554,
1122,
790,
248,
216,
195,
180,
67,
29,
21,
16,
7,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://mentalfloss.com/article/21056/how-does-one-become-knight"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzLszWYHW4"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
868o61 | If English is a Germanic language, why is it so difficult to read texts/understand speech in other Germanic languages? | I also speak Spanish, and I find it a lot easier to read text/partially understand spoken Portuguese and French (both of which are Romance languages), whereas the other Germanic languages (Dutch, German, Danish, etc.) are almost completely indecipherable for me as a native English speaker. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw37fhd",
"dw38v4l",
"dw39h42",
"dw3eck0",
"dw3j6b9",
"dw4p87e",
"dw3hc9n",
"dw3g2kd",
"dw6p2lp"
],
"text": [
"English is the dirty bastard of Germanic languages. It is not German, it is rooted in the same early language group that gave us modern German/Dutch/Icelandic and the rest. English was heavily influenced by the Romance language group, particularly through old French, when the invading Normans brought it along. Toss in some Gaelic influence, more Latin for the 'scholarly' types, and you end up with a language that bears only a passing resemblance to its Germanic cousins.",
"Our grammar is similar to German, but a lot of our words come from Latin. German also has a couple extra elements that make it hard for English speakers to scan the words, including agglutination (stringing multiple words together to make word for a complex idea) and noun declension (changing nouns to reflect whether they are subject, object, etc. as well as to show gender and other information). Once you know how German words work, they're a little easier to parse as an English speaker, but German and English aren't as closely related as French and Spanish or as German and Dutch.",
"If you knew old english, you'd understand german better. Old English and modern english are structured differently. A good example of a different English structure is the way YODA talks in star wars.",
"English is a historical mess. It came to Britain around the 5th Century when Germanic tribes settled in the island, mixing with the Gaelic family languages and Latin that as spoken there. Then exposure to Vikings reinjected different Germanic languages from the Nordic branch, followed by Normans who brought their dialect of French. All the while, Gaelic influences kept bubbling from their Gaelic neighbors in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Latin, on the other hand, split into the Romance languages a bit later, and had fewer external influence. French being influenced by Spanish and Italian isn't nearly as disruptive as English being influenced by more distant language branches.",
"If you understand the consonant shifts between English and German it gets easier, at least for simple sentence. Example: wasser=water, besser=better; apfel=apple, reif=ripe; Bad=bath; beide=both",
"Ahhh, my old favourite bugbear. Let me just tag a few people: /u/malwayslooking /u/existentialpenguin /u/EvoEpitaph /u/RandomPerson73 /u/ta1901 /u/TheThirdJoe /u/kouhoutek /u/bradles0 /u/chockychockster OK, so while it's sort of true that English has been influenced by many different languages, this is neither unusual for a European language (or any language, for that matter), nor as extensive as most people think. There are some misleading statistics around, such as that only 26% of words in modern English are Germanic. First, that's incredibly hard to determine for lots of reasons (mainly, deceptively simple questions like \"what is a word?\" are surprisingly difficult to answer). Second, in normal speech, we use mainly Germanic words. A huge number of non-Germanic words are words you almost never use, unless you are (for example) a scientist, a doctor or a university professor who likes to show off how incredibly well-educated he is. Britain is not the only country to have been invaded by people from lots of different places. In fact, most of European history is about invasions and migrations, and to a lesser or greater degree, virtually all European languages have long had bits of other languages mixed in. For example, French is a Romance language, and it's pure and unsullied, right? Wrong. French began when Latin mixed with the Celtic Gaulish languages (the word for \"horse\", \"cheval\", is an example of a word of Gaulish origin); later, France was invaded by Germanic tribes -- indeed, the very name of the country, \"France\", comes from the name of these invading Frankish tribes. The Frankish influence on the language was surprisingly profound, even affecting the pronunciation. Meanwhile, the influence of Norman French on English is often overstated. There are a few obvious quirks that come from this period -- that we say \"cow\" for the animal but \"beef\" for the meat, for example -- but they are extremely rare. Mostly, Norman French gave us some words for the things that the Normans took over or set up: royalty (but not, strangely, the words \"king\" and \"queen\"), government, jurisprudence and the military. Most of the Latin and Greek words we use in English were imported much, much later -- in the last 200 years or so -- and they were imported into other Germanic languages as well. Here's a typical English sentence (it's attributed to Jim Carrey), with all the non-Germanic words highlighted: > I think if we all **acted** the way we felt, four out of eight **people** at a **dinner party** would be sitting there sobbing. Here's a typical German sentence, with all the non-Germanic words **bolded** and a couple of very recent imports from English (this is very common in modern German) in *italics*: > Das vielleicht **extremste** Beispiel ist wohl die Hamburger Reeperbahn, die sich von der sündigen **Amüsiermeile** zum *trendigen Open-Air-In-Club* für Jung und **Pseudo**-Jung gewandelt hat. OK, so that's not really good enough as an explanation. Basically, it's more like this. Spanish and Portuguese have diverged very little from each other -- in fact, they are so close to each other, they're almost variants of the same language (I hesitate to use the word \"dialect\", as it's a very inaccurate and loaded term). They have diverged a fair amount from French, but not by a huge amount: knowing Spanish, you can probably figure out the meanings of some simple sentences. However, I'm willing to bet that you'd have great difficulty deciphering Romanian. That language is also a Romance language (and relatively free of influence from other languages), directly descended from Latin military slang. With the Germanic languages, the situation is probably more interesting. Icelandic is out on a limb and has changed very little. The Scandinavian languages split off from the rest quite early on, but have remained very close to each other. English and German have diverged a fair amount -- not as much as you might think, but German has acquired a really quirky word order that messes things up a great deal. German and Dutch, though, are still very close, and if you know German, you can probably -- with a bit of effort -- read a children's bed-time story in Dutch. Similarities between languages, though, are often really well hidden. Here's a German sentence: > Neu ist das nicht. One word at a time: * neu: This is not difficult to recognize as \"new\". * ist: Clearly \"is\". * das: A couple of things have changed with the English version of this word. The \"d\" became pronounced with a sort of lisp, while the \"s\" has (through a very well-understood process) transmogrified into a \"t\". The word is \"that\". * nicht: The German \"ch\" sometimes corresponds to English \"gh\", which in English has become silent. The English equivalent is \"nought\", which you sometimes still see when it means \"nothing\". But in this sense we have abbreviated it to \"not\". So the translation would be \"New is that not,\" but that's gibberish. This is because while German word order is still quite flexible, English has lost a lot of that flexibility, so we have to unscramble the sentence to give us \"That is not new.\" Or, perhaps more naturally, \"That is nothing new.\" So really, the similarities between English and German are quite striking. It's just that these days, you need a trained eye to spot them. I mean, \"eye\" and its German translation \"Auge\" come from the same Germanic word, but you wouldn't know it just by looking at them.",
"English is Germanic in structure, but the vocabulary came from basically everywhere in Europe (Celtic, Latin, German, Danish, AND French speaking cultures each had their turn ruling the island). So the grammatical form and sentence structure is consistent with the other Germanic languages, but all the vocabulary is different.",
"When people learn a second language, the structural differences between the first and second languages tend to be the hardest to pick up. For example, if your first language doesn't have honorific speech levels like Japanese or Korean, then you may never pick them up if you can communicate (albeit roughly) without them. Another example might be a complex case system like [Russian]( URL_0 ). If you can make yourself understood in the second language without all the subtlety of total mastery then you may never take the time (or even be able) to master it. The history of England (and the British Isles in general) is one of repeated invasion. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes displaced the Britons. The Vikings invaded and displaced the locals. Then the Normans invaded a thousand years ago and replaced the elite. Each invasion and displacement rubbed away some of the complexities as locals and invaders alike learned to communicate, and each introduced a layer of vocabulary. As a consequence, English now has very few of the grammatical features that make Germanic languages Germanic. John McWhorter put it like this: > English's Germanic relatives are like assorted varieties of deer - antelopes, springboks, kudu, and so on - antlered, fleet-footed, big-brown-eyed variations on a theme. English is some dolphin swooping around underwater, all but hairless, echolocating and holding its breath. Dolphins are mammals like deer: they give birth to live young and are warm-blooded. But clearly the dolphin has strayed from the basic mammalian game plan to an extent that no deer has. For a very easy introduction to English (and the source of that wonderful analogy) see [Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue]( URL_1 ).",
"The most basic vocabulary of English tends to be clearly Germanic. That is, if you make a list of the words you guess were most likely invented first as humans developed speech, those are the words with the most obvious English/German equivalents. As you move up to more advanced vocabulary in English, you start to see a lot more Latin influence."
],
"score": [
86,
19,
13,
11,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://russian-language-for-couples.com/img/russian-cases.gif",
"https://www.amazon.com/Our-Magnificent-Bastard-Tongue-History/dp/1592404944/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521707136&sr=8-1&keywords=our+magnificent+bastard+tongue"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
868r1h | How did different cultures with different musical systems account for differences in notes used in their music when transitioning to standard notation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw39ago",
"dw38kzz"
],
"text": [
"They didn't. Standard music notation is used for traditional western art music (or at least music written before the 1920s). Traditional music from non-western cultures doesn't use the same notation, or oftentimes no notation at all. For the vast majority of human history music has been an oral tradition, and that's still true today. Most music isn't written. Even in the context of western music, the notation hasn't stayed constant (ever) and the literal frequency of notes wasn't standardized until the late 19th century. Even today people don't use standard notation to refer to specific note frequencies, it's a guideline for playing intervals in our set of notes. There's even a theory out there that tries and generalize all music into one concept of intervals called Shenkerian analysis, but not everyone treats it as valid, it has shortcomings, and it's fundamentally biased towards the western European tradition. Others tried to go more \"out there\" and unify notes and rhythm into one concept of frequency but that didn't catch on (google the name \"Karlheinz Stockhausen\"). In short, there is no standard that fits everything, attempts to make one work has failed, and not everyone sticks to the existing standards today.",
"No differences in notes really, just the order, or groupings of notes [scales, like a major scale] that they preferred to use. Cultures found beauty in different patterns of notes and those patterns became the basis for what wet now call a \"scale\". Music is a theory, it's open for interpretation, there is no standard notation in music's opinion."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
86e40h | How do art thieves find legitimate buyers for high profile pieces? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw4bonc",
"dw4bp22",
"dw4cfsj",
"dw4bm7z"
],
"text": [
"Yo ho ho! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why would someone steal a \"priceless\" painting? Wouldn't it be impossible to sell? ]( URL_7 ) ^(_73 comments_) 1. [Selling stolen art ]( URL_1 ) ^(_1 comment_) 1. [What do people do with stolen art? ]( URL_3 ) ^(_._) 1. [ELI5: Art heists. How do the criminals sell their goods when it's obvious they were stolen and whoever buys them will never be able to show them? ]( URL_6 ) ^(_9 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why professional thieves are interested in stealing famous art and artifacts if they can't sell it because they'd be caught? ]( URL_8 ) ^(_7 comments_) 1. [Can a stolen art piece (painting, sculpture etc.) from museum A be displayed in museum B legally? ]( URL_4 ) ^(_._) 1. [ELI5: When thieves steal famous artwork as rare as it is, who do they sell it to, and how? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_8 comments_) 1. [ELI5: If somebody steals a piece of art, how can they make money of it? Wouldn't they be recognized and caught as the robbers if they are trying to sell it? ]( URL_5 ) ^(_10 comments_) 1. [ELI5: How do thieves find buyers for multimillion dollar works of stolen art? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_36 comments_)",
"They don’t. Art thieves who steal high-priced pieces to sell to collectors mainly exist in movies. In reality, most stolen art is ransomed back to whoever it was stolen from. That is how art thieves make their money",
"Generally high value art is stolen to either ransom back to the owner or stolen on order. The latter is when a rich person is willing to pay for the crime so that they can ad the piece to thier private collection. In these cases it usually takes until the owner dies before the stolen piece come to light.",
"Stolen paintings actually end up used as a sort of currency for large transactions. It's a hell of a lot easier to give someone a painting that everyone agrees is worth $1 million than a duffel bag full of cash. They'll go on and trade that again for something worth at least $1 million, and so on. Think of stealing a painting as the equivalent of the mint printing new cash for the illegitimate world."
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pu8xs/eli5_when_thieves_steal_famous_artwork_as_rare_as/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1qbgz5/selling_stolen_art/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11raa1/eli5_how_do_thieves_find_buyers_for_multimillion/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1km0t2/what_do_people_do_with_stolen_art/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/75s9zl/can_a_stolen_art_piece_painting_sculpture_etc/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2trp8v/eli5_if_somebody_steals_a_piece_of_art_how_can/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6uhx25/eli5_art_heists_how_do_the_criminals_sell_their/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o7s6y/eli5_why_would_someone_steal_a_priceless_painting/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z18bx/eli5_why_professional_thieves_are_interested_in/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
86htpi | Why do news stations, such as Fox News, want to be firmly associated with any kind of political party? Wouldn't they want to reach the most viewers possible? This surely limits their viewership. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw57ajv",
"dw57i29"
],
"text": [
"People like to hear things they agree with. Trying to be as unbiased as possible is much less profitable than targeting a demographic and getting them locked-in. Why would Fox want to compete in the Center-left news game against a half dozen already established companies when they could go after the right-wingers who make up something like 50% of all TV viewers. It makes a ton of sense to let CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/PBS fight over half the viewers while Fox takes the entire other half for themselves.",
"There's tons of competition in the \"straight\" news business. If you wanted to take customers from CNN or CBS, it'd be really hard to make yourself stand out. When Fox News was started in 1996, there was nobody targeting right-leaning viewers, making it much easier to build up a dedicated fanbase. It worked pretty damned well. Until recently, they were the #1 cable news channel."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
86mdvj | The meaning behind "Don't Tread on Me" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw650y3",
"dw65ltk",
"dw66etr",
"dw67hgh"
],
"text": [
"> ELI5: The meaning behind \"Don't Tread on Me\" Pretty simple: It means don't trample on my rights.",
"In 1751 Benjamin Franklin wrote a commentary in his newspaper *Pennsylvania Gazette* about the policy of Great Britain to send convicts to America, suggesting that America should thank them by sending rattlesnakes to England. In 1754 he published a now famous woodcut cartoon that [depicted the colonies as a rattlesnake]( URL_0 ) during the French and Indian War, with the caption \"Join, or Die.\" This was generally the start of using the snake to represent the union of colonies as their own group independent of Britain. Later in 1775 the motto \"Don't tread on me\" was recorded as being used by Marines enlisted in Philadelphia. The general meaning is something like \"Check yourself before you wreck yourself.\"",
"It is an implied threat that if you try to take advantage of me, I will respond with force. It is often accompanied by a picture of a snake, you step on a snake, you get bit. The slogan dates to colonial American. The Timber rattlesnake was a particularly dangerous species at the time, and it was often used symbolically, including on the Gadsen Flag during the Revolutionary War, when the slogan was first introduced. This gives the slogan a second meaning. Using it means you are trying to link your cause to the patriotic founding fathers asserting their rights against an oppressive government.",
"I'd like to see more public discussion of this symbol as I always gravitated towards it in my youth as a way to say, \"I support our constitution and what it stands for\" However it seemed at some point in the last decade some right-wingers and I think it was the Tea Partiers latched onto it, none of which I identify with despite my liberterian leanings. Now I would like to put a Gadsden Flag bumper sticker on my car but am concerned it would be completely misinterpreted. Never has there been a better time to find some iconography to say \"I support the protection of our inalienable rights\" but apparently I will have to keep looking."
],
"score": [
39,
19,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg/800px-Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
86x04z | Why do people feel pride when they hear a countryman did something great? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw8g9b9"
],
"text": [
"Humans are instinctively *tribal.* We treat members of \"our own group\" as if they are connected to us much more than people not in our own group. Why? 1. People from our group are likely to share our DNA, which we've evolved to pass on. 2. People from our group are more likely to be our allies, and we benefit when our allies succeed."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
86zba1 | What is "overproduced" music and what does it sound like? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dw913fj"
],
"text": [
"Calling something over- or underproduced is inherently subjective because people have different tastes and preferences. But a song being \"more\" produced generally refers to background strings/synths/voices etc being added on top of the core instruments and singing. The music producer takes the raw tracks from the band in the recording studio and adds the extras to flesh out the sound. For a good example of how \"producing\" a song can change it, listen to the differences between the Beatles' Let it Be album, the original version (produced by Phil Spector) and the reissue \"Let it be... Naked\" with much of the production removed. I don't think the original is necessarily overproduced, but there is something to appreciate in the more raw, stripped down \"naked\" version."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.