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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9eqaml | When listening to a new song, how do we know exactly when the refrain starts even though we never listened to the song before? | I was looking for new music and listened to some bands I've never heard before. Even though I didn't know the songs I could always tell when the refrain started and ended. What sets the refrain apart from the rest of the song and makes it so recognizable? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5qp69r",
"e5qq0do",
"e5qpnyb"
],
"text": [
"Some songs follow a \"standard\" pattern. For examples 4x4 beats and then swap to the next part (intro, verse, refrain, bridge. etc...). This makes the songs extreamly predictable and (according to me) boring. Appart from that, songs are also mostly built up by another more general pattern: Intro - > **Verse** \\- > **Refrain** \\- > outro. (not sure of the names or order, sorry) Repeat the bold text for as many times as you like and you got yourself a song.",
"Cultural expectations. There is nothing inherently musical about a chorus to label it as such. Usually they're more melodic (they should be the most sing-along-able part of the song) with a good hook (something that distinguishes it, makes it stick in your head). They might have a shift in register as compared to the verses. There might be a strong iteration of the tonic chord right at the beginning of chorus. Many performers are also giving cues. They might sing louder or with more energy or make any number of small vocal changes at the chorus. At live performances or even when listening with others there are probably visual cues. Edit: as others have pointed out, another musical cue is a lyrical break between the verse and chorus. Usually 4 beats without any words. This makes the chorus feel more like an arrival. None of this defines anything as a chorus. You can't say \"this song doesn't do x, so that's not a chorus.\" Or \"well, musically, y happened, so that *must* be the chorus.\" They are just cultural cues. Most musicians probably aren't even doing anything consciously - they're just immersed in the same musical culture.",
"You've been conditioned, by your constant exposure to arranged music, to subconsciously recognize the time signature a piece is recorded in. Because of this, you are able to anticipate upcoming transitions based on the amount of beats and/or measures which have occured in any particular section (intro, refrain, hook, bridge, etc.) of a piece. 4/4 time - AKA \"common time\" is - obviously, the most commonly used in modern western music, which indicates each measure contains four quarter note beats. Your subconscious syncs to this and the repitition of modernly arranged music allows it to see these transitions coming."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9ese7i | Why is three the standard number to count up/down to? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5r92aq"
],
"text": [
"Three is the smallest number needed in order to set up a pattern and follow it. In this case, the pattern is the count, or timing to be followed. * When you say \"one,\" it's not clear how fast you're counting. * When you say \"two,\" there's now a clear rhythm to your count and someone else can predict when you'll say \"three.\" * Then you say \"three\" and the other person is able to match your timing. You could definitely count higher if you wanted, but three is the easiest and quickest number to get this job done. This is the same reason that the \"rule of three\" exists in storytelling and jokes. You need two to set up a pattern and three to break it. There are three little pigs so that two can get eaten and one can break the pattern and defy expectations by staying safe in his brick house. A joke might involve an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman (or a blonde, brunette, and redhead) walking into a bar, so that two can create a pattern and the third can break it in the punchline. Any fewer and there's no pattern to be broken, so there's no humor. Any more and the joke goes on too long."
],
"score": [
22
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ewtst | When the distance between the gun and the target is very small, why is it called 'point blank' range? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5s2ngv"
],
"text": [
"“Point blank” comes from the French “point blanc” or the “white point”, and represents a range where you don’t have to adjust your aim for gravity or other factors like wind and can just aim directly at the white center of a target to hit bullseye."
],
"score": [
51
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9eyktu | Why is interaction (small-talk etc.) between strangers so uncommon in Scandinavian countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5sjkxy"
],
"text": [
"Nordics/Scandinavians have a conversational culture which treasures the silences. This comes from a significantly increased comfort with silence compared to their American counterparts. Nordics/Scandinavians have a very turn-based structure and style. While the Finnish are notorious for the slow pacing of their conversations and their extreme comfort with what would otherwise be considered painfully uncomfortable periods of silence, it is a trend present to a lesser extent across all of the Nordic countries. The result is a conversational practice which is heavily turn based with definite gaps to signify the closure of a point. In this way a traditional Nordic conversation much more closely resembles the structure of formal debate than a round table free-for-all discussion. In discussions with Danish friends and by closely exploring my own conversations, I’ve come to realize that this translates into a certain level of frustration among Nordics when talking with native speakers. It can often translate into the perception that the American (or other native speaker) is arrogant, dismissive, not paying attention, and/or rude. URL_0 If business or pleasure takes you to Scandinavia, you’re in for a shock. Scandinavians do not appreciate small talk the way Americans do, and it would be very rare to hear a conversation filled with social pleasantries. Most Swedes, Fins, and Norwegians have conversations to truly converse, not just to fill time or interrupt a silence. It’s not because they’re intrinsically rude, small talk is just not part of their culture. On the contrary, if someone asks you how you’re doing, they truly care to hear that answer. URL_1"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://virtualwayfarer.com/nordic-conversations-are-different/",
"https://blogs.transparent.com/language-news/2014/04/14/small-talk-is-a-big-deal-perceptions-of-chit-chat-around-the-world/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ezh0c | Why do Americans seem to trivialize racism, sexism, slavery (etc.) because it was "in the past", but make a big deal every year about remembering 9/11? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5smgmn",
"e5smixb"
],
"text": [
"Things we've done bad = Trivial. Things others have done bad = The most important thing in the world.",
"I don't think any of those things are being trivialized. Your question is based on an assumption made by yourself so it is impossible to answer."
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9f94wv | Why does Antisemitism only apply to Judaism when Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all considered Semetic Religions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5unxqq",
"e5unvwq",
"e5upz5e"
],
"text": [
"Because that is how it has been used, historically. Words do not always stick to their etymological roots. So even if \"semite\", \"semitism\", and \"antisemitism\" were used more broadly in the past, in modern times, they have been used exclusively to refer to the Jewish people and religion.",
"Because Judaism is the only one (arguably) that includes race/genetic components. ((There's one sect (as I recall) of Judaism that accepts converts. For the rest, you must be of one of the twelve bloodlines. )) The other religions have nothing to do with race/genetics. They are a choice, not a condition of birth.",
"The appropriateness of grouping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by the terms \"Abrahamic religions\" or \"Abrahamic traditions\" has been challenged. In 2012, Alan L. Berger, Professor of Judaic Studies at Florida Atlantic University,[22] in his Preface to Trialogue and Terror: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam after 9/11 wrote that there are \"commonalities\", but \"there are essential differences between the Abrahamic traditions\" both \"historical and theological\". Although \"Judaism birthed both Christianity and Islam\", the \"three monotheistic faiths went their separate ways\". The three faiths \"understand the role of Abraham\" in \"differing ways\", and the relationships between Judaism and Christianity and between Judaism and Islam are \"uneven\". Also, the three traditions are \"demographically unbalanced and ideologically diverse\". Also in 2012, Aaron W. Hughes published a book about the category Abrahamic religions as an example of \"abuses of history.\" URL_0"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9f9qcp | Why are some Unions powerful and respected by their industries, while other attempts to Unionize (such as Walmart) can be pounced on and shut down by large corporations? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5usw08"
],
"text": [
"Organizations *always* pounce on and try to suppress attempts to unionize, as unions threaten their bottom line and their freedom to do what they want. When the union is in the process of being formed it's at its weakest. Once it's been formed, it's got a lot more power and industries will often play nice with them because it's in their best interest--they no longer have a chance of breaking the union. Before it's formed, potential members stand to be hurt by joining it. There's a whole standard bag of tricks companies have to prevent unionization, such as penalizing people who advocate for the union by firing and/or intimidation, rewarding people who are anti-union, and releasing anti-union propaganda. Once it's been formed, there's less they can do. A lot of pro-union laws were passed in the early 20th century that make it illegal to retaliate against unions. And unions have the funds and organization to fight such retaliation."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9fa62j | what does it mean when someone says “I’m trying to find myself”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5uwekx"
],
"text": [
"It’s usually a shitty excuse people use to say they want to be alone but i guess it could also mean that somebody wants to discover things about themselves that that didn’t previously know."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9fbaaa | How did languages first get translated? | I understand how they would do it now, but how would Latin based languages be translated into Cryllic or Greek for example? As they have little to no similarities. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5v5n3b",
"e5v6q0l",
"e5v5bdu",
"e5w0g22"
],
"text": [
"Guy points to an apple and says apple in his language. He repeats this for a lot of things. Another guy watches him and learns the words. The first guy does this over and over and over with words, phrases and grammar. The second guy watches. Second guy lives in first guys community for a while and learns the language. Now second guy knows his native language and that of first guy. Now he can translate between them. So basically the same as nowadays. Theres a reason we do it this way. The reason is that its the only way.",
"\\ > As they have little to no similarities Actually they do have similarities. The Latin and Greek alphabets are based on the Phoenician; Cyrillic is Greek modified to represent phonemes in Slavic languages not found in Greek. It was devised by St. Cyril and St. Methodius, who evangelized the Slavs back in the day. Transliteration between Indic alphabets (abugidas) is a lot trickier. I think it would be based on the example given by /u/SuperSyrias for translation. In fact, that's a good question for /r/linguistics :-) & #x200B;",
"I'm confused as to if you're asking about *translation* or *transliteration*. Are you asking about the actual vocabulary or just the writing systems?",
"If you like sci-fi and are interested in this it might be worth your time checking out the movie Arrival. In it two linguists are tasked with translating and learning the language of an alien species. The movie covers the principles and concepts of this very well."
],
"score": [
22,
7,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9fob20 | What does it mean for the world to be one's oyster? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5y1ri5",
"e5y07ui",
"e5y2ar4",
"e5y1n6n"
],
"text": [
"It means that your fortune is yours for the taking. It originally comes from Shakespeare, where Falstaff says that he will not lend another character any money, and the other character replies with something along the lines of, “Well, then the world is my oyster, which I shall pry open with my sword.” The character is a thief, and if he is going to seek his fortune, he will do so with the skills he has. Namely, robbing people at the point of a sword.",
"Some oysters contain pearls. Not all, but some do. Point being, there are opportunities to find something wonderful, but you don’t know unless you investigate.",
"It comes from a Shakespeare quote, and originally it meant that one was going to take what one wanted, using violence if necessary—like using a knife to pry open an oyster’s shell for the meat and pearl inside. Now It’s mostly used to mean that there’s no limit to what you can do",
"It means that if you’re willing to cut the shit out of your hand you might get opportunity to eat some briny stuff that looks like a vagina. But ya gotta take the risks"
],
"score": [
18,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9fxi3m | We see lots of videos of shirtless men picking street fights - why aren’t they wearing shirts and is being shirtless a meaningful red flag for avoiding someone? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5zzhp3"
],
"text": [
"Often, people who intend to fight will quickly pull their shirts off so their opponent can't grab them. You can even see this in fights in sports (eg. hockey) where one player will pull the other's jersey over their head if they can, blinding them and giving the grabber a lot of leverage."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9fxps9 | 99% of Americans would support legislation blocking spam calls and email, but government won't do anything about it. Is this a technical or political issue? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6004y2",
"e6033ts",
"e6037mu",
"e602r25",
"e603l7e",
"e603zi4",
"e6045zi"
],
"text": [
"Entirely technical. There's no way to enforce any of this without cracking down on how the internet works, and/or going after the scammers who are overwhelmingly in foreign countries.",
"There already is... It just doesn't work. URL_0",
"Technical issue, both for phones and email. There’s no agreed-upon, universally implemented, way to verify that the caller ID or email send address are correct. There are edge cases where it looks like someone is impersonating, but there is a valid reason for it. I have worked with both VoIP systems as well as email for 20 years. The carriers should all get together and implement something, but they would all have to agree and then implement. And they are all over the world, not just in the US and EU.",
"It's a political issue. Telcos know where calls are coming from and can block scam callers on their end. Same goes for email spam, but every worthwhile email provider already has a spam filter.",
"I'd say technical. With a VPN and phone number spoofing, there's really no way to track them down.",
"Eventually nearly all of us will have opt in phones that ring only when somebody on our allowed list calls. Everybody else will go straight to VM.",
"While you can inject political issues into the discussion, it is 100% technical. The important thing to understand is that the protocols used for both are technologically ancient, and are essentially unchanged since their public debuts. The public switched telephone network, which is how all our phones are interconnected, regardless of whether the phone is cellular, VoIP or plain-old telephone, isn't very different from when Alexander Graham Bell made his first call. Email still uses the simple mail transport protocol, isn't very different from its initial versions in the early 1970s. The real issue is that both are open platforms -- anyone can call or email anyone else. The only way to fix either problem in a real way is to make it a closed system, similar to how most instant messaging systems work. You have to authorize another person to contact you before they are allowed to contact you. If you do that with phones and/or email, you have a serious \"chicken and egg\" situation -- how do you get authorized to call/email someone you can't call or email? You can't call or email to ask permission to call or email them. Do you send them a letter or a telegram first? Sure, if it's your neighbor that's easy, but in most situations it's not. Similarly, neither medium has any true verification that the caller/sender is who they say they are. If I know your phone number, I can easily place a phone call that looks like its from your number. If I know your email address, I can do the same with email, but even easier. So lets say you invent a new phone protocol that requires all callers strongly verified and whitelisted by the recipient before they can call them. Now you have to replace massive amounts of infrastructure in every single country (probably every City) in the entire world. In the mean time, as this new system is implemented, anyone that hasn't paid for the new equipment is cutoff and can't call or receive calls from anyone that did switch over. Now consider the huge economic disparities within and between countries, e.g. the US can afford to upgrade by Montenegro cannot, and Bill Gates can afford to upgrade but those living on minimum wage cannot. Now you're creating a huge communication rift in the world. It honestly would be cheaper and easier to create a time machine and invent telephones and email a year \"early\" and make sure it's done in a way that's future proof -- at least your current perception of the future. Another easier and more likely thing to accomplish would be to get all the assholes of the world to stop being assholes. That would fix the phone and email issues too."
],
"score": [
260,
31,
22,
10,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9g3w7k | What does the EU meme ban actually mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e618wye"
],
"text": [
"So memes with copywrited material are already illegal, the new rule doesn’t make anything new illegal. Article 13 basically says that instead of the government chasing down posters, they will instead just go after the site hosting it, to encourage them to take care of it themselves."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9g53sf | Why is Japan so obsessed with hunting whales? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e61i78g"
],
"text": [
"Non-japanese here so i may be totaly wrong. But i believe that Japan (like other whale hunting nations) feels singled out. The rest of the world is happily destroying rainforests and hunting all kinds of animals. They also killed a LOT of the whales. Now they expect the japanese to just give up a tradition that goes back thousands of years. And the Japanese are kinda like... screw that."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9g60xo | Why does Metal Music seem to have so many more subgenres than other styles | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e61q7ex",
"e61qxlp",
"e61q3p2",
"e61pd05",
"e61x0s4"
],
"text": [
"Around 95 elements on the periodic table are metal, and only a few are rock. None of the elements are folk.",
"There’s like 1billion electronic music sub-sub-sub-genres. It can even be exactly the same but just a different bpm and they give it a new name",
"I think there are two factors. Metal is a very technical genre which means that those technicalities are used to define and differentiate subgenres. Also because metal is not a mainstream genre, or a genre that ever shows up in popular music, it is mostly listened to by people who have more than a casual interest in metal, which facilitates the discussion and labelling of different genres.",
"Well in rock I'll say a lot of bands who dont fit in with any certain genres will just go by the genre of alternative. Look at the Red Hot Chili Peppers for example, they're classified as Rock, funk, and alternative for all their songs that just don't fit into a defined genre.",
"Metal is really best defined by \"...loud distorted guitars, emphatic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals\" ([From Wikipedia]( URL_2 )). As you can imagine, that can cover a wide variety of music. Is it slow and powerful or fast and aggressive? Are the \"emphatic vocals\" shouted, growled, or sung operatically? Does it have wicked guitar solos or crushing breakdowns? Or all of the above? And since metal isn't exactly a very mainstream music, a lot of very musically different bands get labeled by the public as \"metal\". The additional subgenres help to clarify which specific type of metal you're talking about. Personally, I like uptempo music with virtuoso guitar solos, so I would say I like thrash metal (like [Metallica]( URL_3 )) or power metal (like [Dragonforce]( URL_3 )). And even between those two samples, you can hear differences: thrash metal is more aggressive while power metal is more operatic. I'd say metal fans are more passionate about subgenres because metal is on this weird edge of society where everyone can identify what *is* metal, but not what *kind* of metal it is. So you get situations where [The Simpsons call Judas Priest death metal instead of regular heavy metal]( URL_1 ). For comparison, [this is Judas Priest's \"Breakin' the Law\"]( URL_4 ), while [this is what death metal sounds like (\"Hammer-Smashed Face\", by Cannibal Corpse]( URL_0 ). It's like when your mom comes in on you watching Sailor Moon and calls it Dragon Ball. Yes, it gets crazy sometimes when you have to differentiate between the sub-sub-subgenres, especially when so many bands combine different elements from different types of metal. But, at least with the more popular subgenres, it's a helpful way to classify metal music."
],
"score": [
27,
8,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhN6lT-y5U",
"https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/14/simpsons-apologise-judas-priest-death-metal",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Characteristics",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAITxlCsj4Y&t=2371s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9g9pml | Why people have a 'type' that they are (sexually) attracted to | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e62qw8e",
"e62up6f",
"e62qz9b"
],
"text": [
"There are two major factors, biological and psychological. Certain things like smell are more certainly evolutionary, they can indicate things such as diverse immune systems, so that your offspring would be better able to survive a wider range of disease. This particularly explains being attracted to people of other races. Psychological factors such as the environment you were raised in, stereotypes promoted by the media, as well as your families preference are more psychological and likely to change.. features likes glasses, hair colour and body weight play more into this in the modern world. Genetic features would not play into effect with things from thousands of years that simply isn't long enough for genetic divergence to occur",
"One theory boils down to 'repeated arousing exposure,' and this explains fetishes. Person A sees Person B and is aroused based upon the primal motivators \\[curves, for instance\\]. While aroused, A pays attention to B and notices traits such as \\[height\\], \\[hair color\\], \\[behavior\\], \\[voice\\]. A might also pay attention to the environment; \\[music\\], \\[colors\\], \\[objects\\], \\[crowds\\], etc. The next time A is exposed to \\[music\\] and \\[hair color\\] they remember B. The visualization of B causes arousal. The next time A is exposed to \\[music\\], their brain has now made several connections between \\[music\\] and arousal. Now they no longer need to visualize B to be aroused because their brain is wired to jump straight to the end. Hearing \\[music\\] causes arousal. This needs to repeated many times to actually become a fetish. This doesn't really explain how the first exposure to B causes arousal. Why are \\[curves\\] arousing in the first place? That also comes from exposure, and the idea that people are attracted to individuals that resemble family members, particularly the parents. Then you also have to consider that life is crazy and complicated, and A will be exposed to B and C and D and E... ... ...so there is a lot of messy stuff to sort out when actually explaining a particular person and their particular fetishes when using this theory.",
"A lot of it has also to do with how your culture defines beauty. You were born and raised into a large group which will have biases towards certain traits. The actual origins or reasons behind these biases might be based on stuff like genetic rarity, but I think most of it depends more on that uncertain, slow moving social accord. It can also be shifted by other factors, like powerful trends. I think of royalty and music back in the olden days, or the fashion industry today. As to the One definitive reason? I don’t think you could/should narrow it down so much. You’ll tend to lose accuracy, somehow. Don’t know why, but I always think of an electron cloud as an analogy for pinpointing the reasons behind these biases. Edit: added another example I think helps Edit Edit: my sister is “loose”, so I fixed my keys."
],
"score": [
29,
24,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9g9qil | what's happening with the EU banning memes? Will it pass, has it already? What does it mean for the Internet as a whole? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e62igej",
"e62iyuu",
"e62ijxq",
"e62k080",
"e62jy2c"
],
"text": [
"They are not directly banning memes. They are creating a law that will have lots of negative effects if it is put into force, and the people who wanted to campaign against the bad law had to come up with some catchy way to convicne the general public how bad this would be. They went though the long list of potentially negative consequences and somebody happened on the ne thing that would hopefully mobilize the internet against it: Memes. The law supposedly should help protect the interests of copyright holders on the net. Since most memes are just words on top of pictures that the poster doesn't hold the copyright to, this would catch them. Normally nobody would care if you post a still frame of a Star Wars prequel movie with a pun emblazoned at the bottom. Not even notoriously lawsuit happy Disney will come after you for this or try to have it taken down. Mostly because many people argue that this falls under one of the categories of legal derivative works. However with automatic upload filter that they want internet companies to implement won't care about any of that. It won't be able to tell the difference between legal and illegal derivative works and simply stop them all. In theory at least. Wether it would come to that in practice is another matter, but as a sort of negative scenario to prevent it is something most of the net can get behind.",
"I’ll go a little simple than the other 2 excellent explanations. Most memes are text that is typed over a funny picture. The problem is, in most cases the person creating the meme didn’t create the picture. Rather they’ve taken someone else’s copyrighted material. Like this [picture of drake liking disliking something, and liking something]( URL_0 ). You didn’t take that picture. You didn’t get the photographers permission to use it. You didn’t get drakes permission to use his likeness. Using someone else’s intellectual property in most cases is a copyright violation. What if you’re not a meme maker, but a meme sharer? Well, you are still unlawfully distributing someone else’s material. So the new law will let companies choose to have their copyrighted content filtered out of the internet. So if drake wanted this copyrighted image filtered out of the internet, the law says that companies would have to comply. So the new law isn’t about memes. It’s about copyrights and intellectual property. But the *side effect* is that some memes could be auto filtered out of view if they are using someone else’s material. If you made a meme from scratch by taking your own funny picture this law would have absolutely no effect on you. If someone allows their material to be freely redistributed, this law would also have no effect on it. It works basically the same as YouTube’s content filter, that filters out copyrighted music and videos. The law would basically apply that filter across he board. *Final sidenote: in the USA we have something called “fair use” as part of our copyright law that allows for personal use and parodies, among other things.",
"\"Banning memes\" is not what the law is directly about, that would probably end up being a side effect however. What the EU suggests is for social media platforms to scan user uploads for copyrighted content and block anything that might contain it, a la YouTube's Content ID. Since \"memes\" are often based on sceenshots of movies, etc, some people have spun the law into \"banning memes\". The law in itself is highly problematic however (as are most Internet laws that governments try to push through) as it could be abused for implementing censorship of *legal* content and it would require quite a lot of computational power which smaller websites may simply not have.",
"No. It has not yet passed. It must still be approved by each member state individually before returning to the European Parliament for a final vote, which is likely to take place early next year.",
"It's not nearly as bad as the internet is making it out to be. The changes made to the original are significant and provide improvements and safeguards to a lot of what is being fear mongered. An that's not even counting that this is merely a framework that will then be used to create laws so those laws can be worked so that the internet is not ruined. This still needs your attention but it doesn't need any panicking or rumor spreading. I suggest reading the actual words of what was passed."
],
"score": [
251,
34,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://pre13.deviantart.net/8f3d/th/pre/i/2016/255/0/b/drakeposting_template_by_aaronicworksinc-dahdgl0.png"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9gcff4 | Sixteen year olds are fighting for the right to vote in the USA. What leverage do they have to make that happen? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e631ioq"
],
"text": [
"Very little. 16 year olds don't have good paying jobs, if any, and are of little concern as \"taxpayers\". Where they might be able to argue is in the case of Child Labor laws. That is, if we are going to let kids hold jobs (especially in the entertainment industry), then maybe we should have some way for them to have more of a voice in the rules governing them. And while no one will expect an 8 year old to vote for competent legistators, maybe a 16 year old has the right to help decide what lawmakers will be in power when he becomes an adult. That said, children are not an oppressed minority that needs voting rights, and we have all agreed as a people that 18 is the age of adulthood. But let's be honest here, it's not like most teens would waste their time voting anyway."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9gff9b | Why aren’t languages becoming more like each other? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e63sglr",
"e63sopm"
],
"text": [
"Yes. In fact TV is doing away with various local dialects, especially in England. Also England used to say “zed” for z but the prevalence of American kid tv shows has them simply saying “z” more often. URL_0",
"That is not how languages work on a global scale. When many nations need to interact they do not have their languages drift toward each other, they choose the language of the most dominant culture of the region and use that as the trade language or \"Lingua Franca\" in Latin. This happened with the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Mongol Empire, Chinese Empire, and British Empire. When the US took over as dominant Superpower from Britain English Remained the Lingua Franca as it is our dominant language too. Eventually a non-English speaking country is likely to become dominant and then their language will be the next Lingua Franca."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/tv-and-culture/10-ways-television-has-changed-the-way-we-talk.htm"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9gicrb | how can a song be "so bad it's good"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e64f6mh"
],
"text": [
"Short answer is \"because actually it's good - you just thought it was bad because everyone told you it was!\" and also \"actually it's bad, you just thought it was good because everyone else told you it was!\" So what makes a song bad? is it because nobody cool likes it? because it's cheesy? It's silly? These things are all based on cultural assumptions, really ie what your peers like and think. What makes it good? I mean, yeah, there's certain formulas that you can apply to music to say whether it is technically \"good\" but most pop does indeed fit to those rules good or bad. So the answer is: it's good because you like it, it's bad because you don't. Sorry."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9gm5f9 | What is the origin of wearing different clothes for different occasions? (formal, casual, etc) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e655l6e"
],
"text": [
"So, the concept behibd this goes back pretty much all of human history, but the modern division of it, at least, goes back to the industrial revolution and just before that. So, imagine you are a medieval lord in England in the 1500s. You're a rare breed indeed, and very full of yourself. You can have clothing made from anything you could want, even the extremely rare material 'silk'. Your peasant, named Mark, can't afford those things on the taxes you charge him, so he wears itchy woolens and roughspun flax. You wouldn't dare be seen in those things because they're vulgar and the duchess is holding a party soon that you have to attend. You want to make an impression and show her your wealth, so you have your tailor make you the finest clothes you can. This divide of 'rich people get to wear expensive things and poor people can't afford those things goes on, even when the lords and kings fall and are replaced by senators and business tycoons. That is, until the 20th century, when your average man becomes wealthy enough, and fine clothes become cheap enough, that Mark the peasant (who is now a construction worker) can now afford a silk suit just like you. He can't afford 2, so he doesn't wear it all the time. Only when it won't get ruined and he needs to show off his wealth. Thus his suit becomes 'formal wear' and everyone now has casual and formal clothes. Rich people still wear nicer things than the poor, but we live in an era where the poor can fake the clothes the rich wear pretty well, and we have enough abundance that our society cares about these sorts of things. So when you go buy a suit to wear to a wedding, it's to show all your friends that you are not a peasant, even though everyone is doing that and the notion is meaningless."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9gpc8o | How come whenever alcohol is mentioned in history, it is either wine, rum, whisky or in some cases vodka. But now, we have Martinis, beer, etc etc | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e65uhsl",
"e65udfn",
"e65utf8",
"e65un49"
],
"text": [
"Well Beer/Mead has been brewed for hundreds if not thousands of years. A martini is a mixed drink so it is a bit different from just a normal alcoholic beverage. And many cultures had their own alcoholic drinks that you don't hear of as often.",
"Also, history mentions liquor a lot more than today.",
"Well you're wrong about beer. It's older than civilization, and it's all over history. A martini is a cocktail (a mixed drink with several ingredients), and they have only really been around for ~150 years or so.",
"They had pretty much all the same alcohols types that we had just not the variety. The wealthy mostly drank the wines and runs and what not while the common people mostly drank the ales and cheaper drinks"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9guqes | Why do job applications ask if you are hispanic or latino? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e67797u"
],
"text": [
"If a company wants to claim that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer, one of the ways to prove that that is the case is to track applicants and new hires to make sure that each location or franchise doesn't have a tendency to only accept applications from one group to the detriment of another. So, for example, let's say the main corporate HR office notices a location is only hiring Asian men, or Jewish women (or whatever group, doesn't matter) then they know they need to visit/contact the local HR and see what's going on."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9gwmbz | The Chobani Paradox. | What in the world was it? I know it had to do with milk sales and Chobani, but why was it a problem? Please really break it down, as I'm not the brightest man on the planet. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e67cm8u"
],
"text": [
"In this case, Chobani is the buyer (user of the milk) and the dairy industry is the supplier (producer of the milk). Chobani grew as big as it could in the New York market. For simplicity's sake, let's say they were producing 1,000 cups of Chobani yogurt a year, but they wanted to increase that to 1,300 cups per year. You would think that the dairy industry also wants to grow, because it's basically a big business (made up of smaller businesses), in order to sell more milk and make more money. But the dairy industry is made up of cooperatives - the individual dairy farms sell their milk to a central organization that then distributes it to the buyer (to make yogurt or bottle up as drinking milk or to make ice cream, etc.). So in order for the industry itself to grow, the individual farms have to grow. Except that means that the farm has to spend more money to get more cows to make more milk... but they won't get a lot of money back on their investment. Which means that Chobani has to go to another market to expand, and there are other markets that are growing faster than the New York market specifically (which has been stagnating for years)... which means the New York supplier market doesn't grow even though there is increased demand for their goods."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9hh11s | Why is white pride racist, when no other "colour" pride is considered racist? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6btbfl",
"e6btops",
"e6butez",
"e6btf98",
"e6bvhnh",
"e6bts9e",
"e6bvrem",
"e6bvsr1",
"e6bv8qu",
"e6bvx6z",
"e6btuvl",
"e6bw0jo",
"e6bu7od"
],
"text": [
"In general, the issue here is that when people say they have \"white\" pride, they are saying \"I am proud that I am not black.\" as opposed to people having pride in their specific heritage. No one has a problem with people having pride in being Irish, German, Italian, Polish. Those get celebrated. But \"white\" just means that you are of European descent. In practice, it gets used by white supremacists. Now, you're going, \"Yes, but black people have black pride!\" And that's because their heritage and history were destroyed by slavery. They can't trace their ancestry back to a specific culture or country. So all they have is the common background of being of African-descent. They use \"Black pride\" to show solidarity in the face of adversity. No one uses \"white pride\" in a positive manner. It is used to show superiority over black people, not a celebration of a rich cultural history.",
"White pride is not inherently racist, but expressions of white pride almost always are. \"Pride\" movements are intended to push back against marginalization and stigmatization. White people, in almost every nation on earth, have no stigma or marginalization to push back against. So what is the purpose of \"white pride\"? Almost always, the purpose is to give a platform and lend legitimacy to the white supremacist movement.",
"US centric answer here, but; Various \"color\" pride doesn't happen; the only one that's socially acceptable is black pride, and the rest of it is *specific to a given ethnicity*. Swedish or Finnish or Italian or Irish or Russian pride is fine, because it's the celebration of a given ethnicity. White pride is inherently racial, so it's not. The specific reason black pride is acceptable is entirely because of the fact that, up until relatively recently, black people in the US didn't really know their ancestry beyond \"somewhere in west Africa.\" As a result, they ended up banding together into one larger group based on a shared cultural history (e.g. slavery).",
"Mainly because it's socially acceptable to be proud of being from an ethnic group that has been oppressed or is a minority. As a Frenchman in Canada, I can be proudly French here. If I were too openly proud to be French at home, it would be seen as a far right political message. Basically, pride is considered oppression if it comes from the majority, but as liberation if it comes from the minority. It also works for other stuff than color, like sexual identity, tattoos, religion....",
"When blacks were enslaved and brought to America, they became property of their owners. Being property, families were split up and it was hard to keep track of who your mom's mom and dad's dad were, what country they came from, and so on. When slavery ended, black people could only trace back their history to when they were slaves. Because of this, they formed a new cultural identity which was soecial to black people in America. Almost all were and are a part of this group, which is just called Black or African American, because that's as deep as their roots go. It is not based on their skin color, but rather based on something every one of those sharing their skin color experienced. Whites in America can find out who their great great grandparents were because if you came to America and you were white or not a slave, there was a record kept. Therefore, whites' cultural identity is traced back to their shared experiences. There is nothing that most people consider racist about being proud to be Irish, for example. Even poorer whites (and many blacks) will have regional American pride such as \"southern pride\" which, despite the South's racially tense history, is also not considered by the mainstream to be racist. So in conclusion, the words \"black and white\" are not black and white. To have \"black pride\" is to be an African American who shares the experience of other African Americans who descend from slaves. To have Irish or Southern pride is also a reference to descent and cultural identity, for example what your grandma always cooked for dinner or the way you spoke, the way you were raised and the values that were instilled in you by your family. White people are not a monolith and share very different heritage, even though we might look a whole lot alike. Therefore, to say you are proud to be white is to say you are simply proud that your skin color is white. You are not saying you are proud of your specific heritage. When American blacks say they have black pride, their heritage and experience IS all the same because their race and culture in the United States are not distinguishable because by having black skin, it means they were forced into slavery. To say you are proud of your culture is not racist regardless of the color of your skin.",
"\"White Pride\" is used as a slogan by white supremacist groups in the US '\"White Power! White Pride!\" as \"a much-used chant of white separatist movement supporters\"' The slogan \"White Pride Worldwide\" appears on the logo of Stormfront,",
"Its not inherently racist, but I can see why people would consider it as such. As a comparison, I am an atheist, which automatically puts me in the 5% of the US population. When the church preaches about being persecuted it kinda pisses me off, as Christians are literally the biggest religion worldwide. So in the same manner minorities frown upon \"white pride\", I frown upon the church's persecution complex. It just seems kind of nonsensical to organize pride events for a majority. The need to express pride arises because you are an exception to the norm.",
"Pride movements tend to emerge from opposition - the pride movement happens because the overwhelming social message otherwise is shame. White pride doesn't happen because the same structural opposition doesn't exist against white folk. Edit: not \"doesn't happen\" so much as \"feels somewhat different\"",
"Its that in most (if not all) practical instances of white pride there is anti-blackness. 1) The confederate flag: White people fight tooth and nail to be able to fly this racist memento under a guise of white pride or solidarity. Why if you see the problem with racism and better yet slavery, would you want to emblem and align yourselves with a flag that proudly endorsed slavery, inequality, and injustice. Is there no other way to show or prove solidarity. Its like saying I want to start a club for bald guys and we are the most unified sect of bald guys. How do we show that? Well theres only one group I know that we could align with that share a characteristic of what we signify. Lets be skinhead neo nazis. Your message is baldness so be nazis makes as much sense as you want to show white pride so you align with open racists. 2) All lives matter: This was a slogan coined only in retort to the original sentiment, the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement. Where to even start on this one. BLM was started to bring awareness to the fact that there is a landslide of injustice when it comes to how black people are and have been mistreated in situations with law enforcement. Black people are being killed at an alarming and disproportionate rate and regardless of why you think that is, its a problem. The message is literally a reminder to law enforcement who kill or show extra assertions of aggression toward black people that out lives matter so please stop killing us. Its a cry for justice and peace. Whit people took that message and in response said “no, black lives dont matter. All lives matter.” And yes all lives do matter but for one, all lives arent in danger in simple traffic stops. And for two how heartless do you have to be to tell people with a message of mourning that what theyre advocating for doesnt matter. Their relatives, family etc. That thats not what they should be saying they should instead advocate for everyone. Another analogy, say your dad dies and at the funeral people come in and tear all the decorations down and tell you its because this shouldnt be your fathers funeral. This this be a memorial service for everyone who has ever died. Its wildly and disgustingly insensitive. And All lives matter again is flown under the flag of ideology that white people matter too. Its white soldarity. But again contains a message of insensitive anti-blackness The list goes on but you get the message. TL,DR - i understand that white people do genuinely think they’re showing solidarity in acceptable ways and would like to but it almost always has direct sub texts of anti-blackness.",
"Have you ever heard the phrase \"every month is white history month\"? Same logic. These movements are formed on the presupposition that white people have it better historically, socially, and economically. To a certain extent, this is true, but not *every* white person has it better, so it's hard to notice. Yes, on the surface it is hypocritical, but hypocrisy is the point of these things. To balance out previous slights is the reason. Fair warning, you don't want to go down this road, questioning the way our society treats white people. Black becomes white, up becomes down. All things true become false, and the most vile, twisted things from the hearts of men become welcomed friends under the guise of jest. Complain as you like, but remember that there are literal Nazis dangling a false solution in front of your nose as they listen in. That path leads to ruin.",
"It would be racist if there was privilege among people of color. I’ve never met someone with “white pride” that wasn’t also a racist. If white privilege didn’t exist, if slavery never happened, if systemic racism still wasn’t a thing, and if people of color were not still marginalized; then maybe “white pride” wouldn’t be viewed as racist. My fiancée is from the Caribbean. She takes pride in her heritage. Not because she’s black, but because she knows her history, where her roots come from, what her family has had to endure, and how she came up. For me to tell her I have “white pride” would mean what exactly? That I grew up being afforded opportunity? That I’m not looked down upon for my skin color? That I’ve been given jobs because I’m white (I have; was literally told so)? That I didn’t grow up in a shack and shit in a can? Should I be proud that the color of my skin has had no negative impact on my life? There is no adversity in being white, what are you proud of?",
"Simple thing I'd like to answer to some of these answers. Usually it is safe to have pride in your ethnicity and not your race. The difference with black people is that Americans stole their heritage through slavery to the point where many black people can't trace their ancestry and specific ethnicities back like white people can. This is why black people celebrate a collective african and black american culture",
"In most parts of the world, Caucasians have not been subjected to systemic social and governmental prejudice due to the colour of their skin. Caucasians as an ethnic group have never really been made to feel unnecessarily ashamed of being white on a grand scale. In addition, Caucasians have been historically guilty for the vast majority of racial prejudice throughout the years, mostly thanks to colonialism and the cancerous expansion of the British Empire between the 16th and 18th century. 'White Pride' is seen as inappropriate because, really, we've got no reason to be particularly proud of being white. Especially with our particularly bloody past."
],
"score": [
1147,
79,
69,
56,
19,
17,
10,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9hh91n | Why are some cities, like Paris, based on a spoke layout when it creates loads of space inefficient pointed corners for buildings? Wouldn't a grid have been far more sensible? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6bwdpi"
],
"text": [
"Those spiderweb cities were founded and built out centuries before vehicle traffic was a issue. They're laid out for foot traffic and have a few radial \"spokes\" for horse traffic. Cities built up in the 19th and 20th centuries were planned with more vehicle traffic in mind specifically because of the traffic problems in older European cities."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9hmsyr | Why is tea (and coffee) so popular and important to so many different cultures? | It seems to me that tea (or sometimes coffee) has been an important part of many different cultures since ancient times. Even now, offering guests tea or coffee is a common social nicety. Is everybody just addicted to caffeine, or is there a deeper reason that tea/coffee is so important in so many cultures? As a person who doesn't find coffee or tea particularly tasty, I just don't get the widespread appeal. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6d7p2l",
"e6dbbi9"
],
"text": [
"Brewing coffee or boiling tea kills off a lot of microscopic nasties. The high temps kill them off and boiling can remove oxygen from the water. Caffeine is a stimulant (and permitted by many religions). & #x200B; & #x200B;",
"Coffee and tea consumption hasn't always been as popular and widespread as it is now. Tea was grown and drunk in Asia, and didn't catch on in the West until the 17th century, when British and Dutch colonists started shipping it to Europe. Likewise coffee was originally produced in East Africa and the Middle East, then spread to India and Europe in the 16th century, and South America in the 18th. As more and more tea and coffee were produced in developing countries, more and more people in developed countries could afford to buy it, and it went from being a luxury item to a household staple. Both coffee and tea were considered medicinal originally, possibly because of the caffeine content but also because they were hot and nutritious. They both contain antioxidants that fight inflammation and repair cellular damage. Today they're so plentiful and so cheap that it's an accessible pick-me-up for average people. As you say, it's also become a cultural thing almost everywhere - when someone comes to visit, we offer them coffee or tea, and we often catch up with friends over a hot drink in a cafe. It's almost an emblem of hospitality. If you don't like it, you don't like it, but you might find something that suits you."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9hrfw8 | Why is solid deodorant used/advertised predominately in the US when it seems the rest of the world uses aerosol? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6dyf3c",
"e6dy245"
],
"text": [
"The US also uses Aerosol, it is just labeled body spray rather than just deodorant most of the time. Most of the US actually uses Antiperspirants which stop or hinder sweating thus preventing body odor from forming (or at least reducing the frequency and speed that it develops), not just deodorants which are a scented product to cover up body odor after the fact. Antiperspirants work by physically blocking sweat glands with the somewhat waxy material of the stick, something that cannot occur with spray on deodorants.",
"Same reason most shit happens. There was a point where CFCs were the propellant in aerosols and once word got out about CFCs being bad the the US market does what it always does-freak the fuck out- and ban not CFCs but all aerosols and suddenly anything pressurized in a can was thought to be straight poison cancer. The rest of the world banned CFCs and they switched to a different propellant. At one point Axe body spray became all the rage and US consumers started to get the point about aerosols and they are returning."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9hs4mk | Suing culture in the United States. | I see it multiple times per day. (For example: I tripped over a threshold in my rental property, can I sue my landlord for everything he owns?) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6e6uqj",
"e6e2x5t",
"e6ecn7e"
],
"text": [
"The reality of lawsuits in the US is very different from the lawsuit culture that we have. Due to bad reporting, a general misunderstanding of the legal system, and some politically motivated reform efforts, the average person really doesn't understand what happens in the system. The first big misunderstanding is that being able to sue someone requires your case to be accurate or have some legal merit. It doesn't. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, because all it means is that you've filled out some paperwork and submitted it to the court of your choice. So if you see a headline like \"Mike sues Jim for $10 million after falling in Jim's house,\" all that's happened is Mike has paid a lawyer to fill out paperwork for him and submit it to the court. It doesn't mean that the lawyer thinks Mike will win, or that Mike deserves $10 million, or that he's been awarded that much money. So the lawsuit goes before a judge, and assuming the paperwork is all filled out correctly, hears out both sides of the argument, which includes Mike detailing exactly why he's owed $10 million. This usually involves presenting all the ways he's been financially damaged by the fall, like hospital bills and how much work he's missed, etc. With a very small exception, emotional damage alone counts as nothing to the court. It also includes Mike having to explain exactly what the fall was Jim's fault. If he can't prove that, or if Jim can counter it, how much Mike was hurt in the fall is a moot point. In the end, the judge rules on the lawsuit, awarding Mike some fraction of what he asked for, or the judge finds in favor of Jim, awarding no money, or Mike and Jim settle the case outside of court, bringing the dispute to an end based on whatever they agree on. Lawsuit culture comes from a misunderstanding of this process, and people seeing every accident as a chance to get rich quick, not realizing that the majority fail to get anywhere.",
"The United States has an outlier legal system. Besides being adversarial instead of inquisitorial we achieve societal cost spreading and regulation through personal cases, rather than government oversight. Think of it this way: We need a system of recourse for when someone trips at their rental. *Someone* needs to determine if the landlord was negligent and causes you injury, and *someone* needs to pay for your medical bills. One way to do that would be very thorough government regulation. There could be a \"Bureau of Trips and Falls\" and you could go there to state your case. Maybe there would be some kind of investigation performed by officials. They'd come up with a result, and lets say they think you deserve compensation, your medical expenses would be payed from their coffers, most likely funded by your taxes. Under this system our two goals are met: cost spreading (your medical bills are paid by taxes) and redress (the Bureau addresses your concerns). We don't like that over here at a very fundamental philosophical level. The US has always promoted individualism and small government. Our legal system reflects that. Instead of a Bureau of Trips and Falls, we have a *decentralized* system of regulation managed through private suits. So if you trip an fall, you, an individual, sue your landlord, an individual. Lawyers and judges fight it out in a court battle, and a decision is reached. Costs will be paid by insurance. Liability to law suits encourages people to follow the rules, and this decentralized system of regulation ultimately evolves with each case and suit. So once again our two goals are met, but in totally different ways: Costs were spread (insurance) and you get redress (court system). Both systems effectively do the exact same thing. One of the biggest misconceptions in the US is that the lawsuit culture is bad thing. It's not. It's a necessary part for *our* system as a whole. On a side note, the US has moved more and more to a hybrid system over the decades. We now have much more of an administrative system than we used to.",
"A part of this that isn't quite as well-known is that there was a deliberate effort on the part of corporations to sell this image, when the US congress was discussing tort reform; basically the poster child of this that you may have heard of was the \"McDonald's Coffee Lady\" case, where the headline goes that a woman sued McDonalds for 3 million dollars for spilling coffee on her lap. That headline is the result of a multi-million dollar PR campaign by McDonalds; the actual facts of that case include the following bullet-points: * The woman in question received third degree burns over her genitals and thighs, requiring skin grafts and a few months of time in the hospital. I'm not googling this because I'm at work, but I read in one medical report that the term \"burn fused labia\" and that stuck in my brain as indicating that *maybe* the coffee was actually just too goddamn hot. * The initial suit was for her medical costs and the lost income from her daughter, about $20,000. * McDonald's counter-offered an absurdly low figure, like $800. * During the trial, it was discovered that it was corporate policy for McDonalds to serve coffee at a temperature that was far higher than the industry standard, between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit (~82-88 Celsius) when the industry standard was much lower (~165 farenheit, if memory serves, can't find that right now). * It was also discovered that McDonalds had known that this temperature could cause 3rd degree burns in 5-7 seconds, and over the past decade had settled over 700 other claims of burns from their coffee. * The case sought total damages of $200,000; the jury awarded further punitive damages after the case of \"about a day's worth of coffee sales\" of 2.7 million. * One of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.” * The judge immediately decided that this verdict was too much, and awarded $600,000 or thereabouts * McDonald's appealed the verdict, and eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum that is confirmed to be under $500,000. And before the case was done, the PR attack had begun; they fed stories slanted to their favor to news outlets who reported on an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits being brought by people who, they made out, had done stupid things and now wanted to be made rich."
],
"score": [
19,
14,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9hy62g | What is the reason for people having middle names? | I have never called someone by their middle name. Even if a person didn’t go by their first name, they went by a nickname or abbreviated version of their first name. Is it to distinguish people, especially as we now live in larger cities? Like there might be more than one Jose Ramirez in a city, but only one Jose Hector Ramirez? Or is there a cultural significance to them? It doesn’t seem very practical, in your day to day life. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6fp4pu"
],
"text": [
"I can see that they can be useful. Don't like one of them? Go by the other. And a lot of times the mother wants one babe and the father another... Everyone's happy then, right?"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9i0swk | Why is the passive voice seen as "bad"? How is it any different to the active? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6fy9tk",
"e6fy7ra",
"e6fy5se",
"e6g03oh"
],
"text": [
"It sounds like you aren't taking responsibility for your words or actions. \"I'm sorry you got run over\" is just you pussyfooting out of saying \"I'm sorry I ran you over\". It's the same the other way. \"Over 1 million trees were planted!\" sounds ok, but \"We planted over 1 million trees!\" gives credit where credit is due. If **you** did something, then **you** deserve the credit or blame. It didn't just happen, **you** made it happen. **You** built that shed, it didn't just appear in your backyard all by itself. **You** shoplifted that candy bar, it didn't get up and walk out of the store on its own.",
"Here's a super-simplified explanation: neither the passive or active voice is actually bad. Both can be good in the right situations. However, using the passive voice when the active voice would be better can often be a very bad mistake. The situations where the passive voice is better are usually harder to identify and understand. If you're a novice writer, it might be better to avoid the passive voice until you are a good enough writer to tell which voice is more effective. At least that's what is believed by some people.",
"It downplays the the subject. That isn't always bad, but people use it because they think anything other than what they do naturally must be \"good writing,\" and so churn out needlessly convoluted sentences that actually obscure their meaning.",
"Passive voice is usually really boring as a storytelling technique. If you are writing a scene with action in it — not an action scene, to be clear, although those count as “scene with action” — you want the reader to keep reading. Passive voice doesn’t charge the emotions like active does, and most fiction is intended to create an emotional response which engages the reader and compels them to keep reading. Passivity is good for summarizing events over the passage of time, but isn’t compelling for telling a story as a moment is unfolding. In a fight scene, you want your sentences to reflect the speed of the action: quick, intense, immediate. Passive voice is usually more loquacious, in addition to not being very helpful at tension building, so again: not great for action. It depends on what you are writing, though. Passivity can, when handled well, be horror inducing. Something which is frightening precisely because of how apathetic it is — eldritch horrors, forces of “supernature”, even medical description — will benefit from a well applied passive voice. Even then, a piece of fiction written as a medical record is probably going to have some decidedly nonmedical active voice for the sake of drama. If a story is mostly told in a passive way (I say, very generally and hyperbolically), there is probably something else compensating for the absence of linguistic action. Like art. (I want to say The Gashlycrumb Tinies has some examples of the art filling in some gaps in the story, but it's been a minute and I’m not 100% certain.) If you want to create emotional distance in your writing — to summarize, to emphasize the intellectual element, to create a framework or setup — passive voice is very helpful. It’s frowned on because too many people use it for straightforward storytelling and it's become a hallmark of amateurism."
],
"score": [
40,
13,
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9i1hts | Why do priests ask the people if they want to object at weddings? | Is this an old tradition? Is there a story behind this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6g2xk8",
"e6g2rx4",
"e6g2j0q"
],
"text": [
"It is an old tradition. It is also basically meaningless these days which is why there are a lot of people who leave it out. Basically, there have always been legal (or religious) reasons for why two people couldn't get married. Think of them being related or one of them already being married. Nowadays, all of that is pretty easy to check beforehand thanks to computer systems. Back in the day though, there were no easy ways to check this, so they depended on members of the public. Essentially, this line was meant to ask if any member of the public knew of a legal/religious reason why these people shouldn't be married. So it wasn't asking for someone to go 'no, Sandra, don't do it, I still love you'. Rather, it was so someone could go 'the groom already has a wife in another town, so this marriage is illegal'.",
"In olden times, where people would have an easier time of hiding criminal pasts, or the fact that they are already married, it held a purpose of making sure that the two people were eligible to get married before finishing the ceremony, by asking the people in attendance. Nowadays, that's not really a concern, so it's not commonly used.",
"I do weddings. I don't ask this. The reason some ask is that people at the wedding have a job to do. They are witnesses to vows. If they are supposed to keep people accountable to their vows, they should be in agreement. Basically, if you object, say so now or you are accepting the responsibility to help this marriage."
],
"score": [
28,
21,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9i2ecj | Why is Russia so large? | Russia's territorial claims for centuries have been quite extensive and incredibly diverse both geographically and culturally. From a historical perspective, What drove Russia to expand from the Baltic Sea to the Bering Strait? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6ga49f",
"e6ge53n"
],
"text": [
"1)No access to deep water till 18th century, so no possibility to colonize overseas 2)Strong military opponents on the West and South 3)Relatively weak opponents to the East 4)Plenty of people willing to get first bite on treasures of Siberia (mostly furs and precious metals) while also not willing to live close to czar and nobles 5)and those people were mostly familiar with harsh climate Edit: double CRs",
"Nobody wanted the land enough to take it from them. Napoleon tried, bad outcome. Hitler tried, bad outcome. Given the value of the land, we have a shortage of wanters."
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9i2sst | Why didn't samurai or lower japanese warriors use shields? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6gftmw"
],
"text": [
"Samurai were primarily mounted archers. Firing a bow and controlling a horse at the same time didn't lend itself to using a shield, you didn't have a free hand for it. Foot soldiers initially used spears, eventually supplemented by matchlock muskets. While it is possible to use a short spear with a shield, the Japanese soldiers seem to have used longer spears that did not pair well with a shield. Foot soldiers did sometimes use a large freestanding shield called a tate. These were set up standing on their own without needing to be held; the soldier would crouch behind them to avoid enemy missiles."
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9i33vd | In old portrayals of fighting participants stand in a defensive pose with the palms of their fists facing themselves but in modern fighting the palms face one another. Why did this stance change so dramatically? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6gfmwv",
"e6h35f3"
],
"text": [
"The style of training most likely. Old fighters were primarily trained in boxing or kick boxing which uses the bony side of the forearm for defense which means the natural stance is “palms in”, while new generation fighters typically train in Muay Thai and/or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu which typically have a “palms out” stance.",
"I could be mistaken, but I believe what you are referring to is fisticuffs, which I think was a particular style of bare knuckle boxing that was designed to cause less severe damage, a more civilized form of violence, and it fell out of favor as fighting became less socially acceptable, which paradoxically caused the fights that still happen to become more violent and less concerned with the opponents wellbeing."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9i6hql | If all universities have strict policies on underage drinking, why aren’t frat parties consistently shut down when the location/time is the same every week? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6h8en6",
"e6h8cqx",
"e6h8hok",
"e6h8e26",
"e6h92ze",
"e6h9kwp",
"e6h9a6m",
"e6h9m8w"
],
"text": [
"I think one of the benefits frats like to sell to potential pledges is that the frat house is off campus and not subject to the universities alcohol rules.",
"If universities spent time and money trying to shut down frat parties, the frat parties would just go somewhere else and get significantly harder to deal with. Much better to let it happen in a controlled environment and deal with anything major if and when it happens rather than to risk not being able to.",
"Because there's the world on paper and then there's reality. Might as well enforce all the laws. As well as have the man power to process everything in a neat and orderly manner. That's just not practical. There are more important things to worry about than young people partying. Don't set anything on fire. Don't go to the hospital. Don't break something expensive and for the love of all that's holy don't video tape it.",
"> All universities have strict policies on underage drinking wut?",
"Frat parties are generally at Frat Houses which are off campus. The School has no real authority to shut them down, that is the responsibility of the city police and only upon people being arrested for drinking as a minor can the school step in and reprimand the students or the organization. Now if they know that a party is likely to happen they could tip the police but that is information not commonly given to a professor or administrator. Now if the drinking is on campus itself then they can do all kinds of punishments, but is a separate thing. But some Universities do patrol and enforce things strictly. Abilene Christian University used to have rules that drinking at any age was a violation of campus code of conduct and even entering a liquor store or bar was grounds for being expelled. Ronnie Dunn, of the somewhat famous Brooks and Dunn Country Music Duo, was kicked out because his band was playing in bars.",
"University Police here, So in my experience, and it depends on the school, most fraternity and sorority houses are off campus. This means you have to have probable cause or be invited in. Nobody is inviting you in and they know how to mitigate getting the cops called in the first place. Some fraternities have parties at satellite houses which tend to change every few years. The final thing is that the police just can't show up to these parties to check for underage drinking. We have to be called there (in my state) for specifically underage drinking then there is potentially probable cause",
"Private universities cost up $50,000 per year. Would you go to one if you knew there was absolutely no way you could party? Universities dont want to get sued...but they're not stupid either. They're not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.",
"All US universities. In the UK by the time you go to university you're legally allowed to drink."
],
"score": [
80,
55,
15,
9,
8,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9icder | What makes a country song a country song? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6iktya",
"e6ikfj4"
],
"text": [
"There are no hard set rules but some common identifiers are: Use of instrumentation traditionally associated with country: Acoustic Guitars, Fiddles, Banjos, Mandolins, Steel Guitar, Dobro, and even Upright Bass. Electric versions are use, but the traditional acoustics are the defining sound, and while drums are used they are generally less prominent than in other genres such as rock or metal. Use of styles drawing from traditional American Folk, Scottish and Irish Folk, and Spanish Folk music traditions that were merged into what is American Country. Use of a narrative style that often tells a story dealing with common life hardships, love, and rural life.",
"Classic country is essentially folk music for the working American man. It spread as people traveled westward to settle. It became known as “country music” through radio, mostly to differentiate it from regular old folk. While folk music tended to be more poetic, country moved towards more populist and “salt of the earth” sentiments in its lyrics. There’s a south-western twang to it as well, which isn’t found in folk usually. Eventually, like any other genre of music, country has been co-opted by pop music. Now you have country pop, country rock, country rap, all of which don’t really have much in common with the original country scene, except for the twang."
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9if0u5 | Why do ancient Greek sculptures have such small penises? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6j705c",
"e6j7bbn",
"e6j7a1d",
"e6j7t1y",
"e6j73wk",
"e6j7665"
],
"text": [
"At the time, large male members were considered primitive / uncultured / barbarian in nature.",
"A large penis was associated with foolishness, brashness, lust, and was considered ugly. A barbarian trait, not one becoming of a good Greek citizen. You might see them on statues of satyrs, half-goat half-man beasts who were the embodiment of foolish, desire-driven living. Small penises were considered dignified, and the mark of a reserved, intelligent, cunning man. But also, almost all ancient Greek statues which depict a penis depict a *flaccid* penis, often with pubic hair, and the size depicted isn't actually that small in many cases.",
"Large penises were seen as being vulgar, animalistic, and someone of no self control. It was reserved for the specific deities of fertility and for depictions of barbarians. The knowledge loving Greeks saw small penises as the perfection of mankind.",
"Well, they are not erect. They are not statues of fertility gods. They are artistic representations of the male body.",
"Because that was their cultural standard of beauty. Perceptions of penis size and attributes of penis size are arbitrary and culture-specific. They considered large penises to be vulgar, and small penises were considered refined, and so their art reflected the idealized male body type.",
"It was just the fashion at the time. They thought that a large penis was barbaric and animalistic - they reflected a man who was controlled more by his primal urges than reason & civilization."
],
"score": [
19,
12,
11,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ifcb9 | Why is it important to vote? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6j9elr",
"e6j9ezn"
],
"text": [
"It starts and ends in your community. You vote for the person that you think will best represent you, be it in your schools and traffic courts to how your voice are heard in foreign countries and the world. Your vote is your final voice on many things. It's important to make that voice heard and not silenced. It may not always be heard, but it's crucial to speak, else your thoughts will never be heard. It's equally important to note that your voice is always one amongst a crowd, and that's something fundamental to democracy. Your voice and your vote is not the only one that matters. It counts in aggregate, that is to say that the voice of a single person is not going to change a result but the clamor and shouts of many do. It is better to be a part of a voice that is quiet than to be silent, else nothing can change, and no one will hear about what matters to you, your family, or your community. Edit: Voting is not the only part of participating in democracy. Advocacy at your local and regional meetings, volunteering time and resources to issues you care about can also be impactful. But voting is the single most importanr thing you can do, because no matter what it's something than can be counted and quantified. It's the most important thing anyone can do to ensure democracy and peaceful transition of power or transition of policy occurs.",
"So, the presidential election is the only where where the popular vote doesn't fully decide things. Pretty much every other elected official is done by the popular vote. And while the presidential election is done by the electoral college, each state picks who their votes are going for based on the popular vote in that state. It's just that some states have more of a say in the electoral college than the raw numbers of people voting would suggest."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ik92n | Understanding Simulacra and Simulation -- "The simulacrum is never that which hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true." | "The simulacrum is never that which hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true." -- Jean Baudrillard/Ecclesiastes & #x200B; Can someone help me understand this quote? I think I understand the basic concepts of simulacra and simulation, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Simulacrum is composed of symbols that have lost their original meaning. So clothing that is purchased for its social value as a display of wealth or class, rather than a practical purpose (to protect you and keep you warm) could be an example of a simulacra because the consumer of the object has completely lost sight of the original purpose of the object. & #x200B; So in relation to the quote, the simulacrum doesn't hide the truth -- the fact that there is an object that has come to mean something different than originally intended, doesn't hide the fact that the object originally existed with a different purpose. The new meaning wasn't created to obscure the original meaning. & #x200B; The part that confuses me is: "it is the truth that hides the fact that there is none." What exactly does this mean? That the truth hides that fact that there is no simulacrum, so the original meaning hides the fact that there is a new meaning? Like if you only look at clothing as a tool to keep you warm, does this truth hide the truth that clothing can indicate status? Or is it saying that the truth hides the fact that there is no truth? So what someone believes to be true, might not actually be true. So if you deeply believe that clothing only indicates status, does your truth hide the actual truth that it is meant to keep you warm? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6kb267"
],
"text": [
"So you're partially right, but simulacrum doesn't necessarily mean an intentional distortion of the original. Simulacra can also be a faithful reproduction or an attempt to perfectly copy the original, whether it's an image or an object or something else. Think of something like a recreation of a sculpture in a museum somewhere. Baudrillard argued that simulacrum was not just a copy, but becomes an original thing in its own right, as a hyperreal. Hyperreality is the inability of consciousness to distinguish what's real from what's not. That the real and the fiction blend together so seamlessly that one can't tell where one ends and the other begins. He proposed orders for transition from real to hyperreal. The first order of simulacra is that known to not be real, the viewer never confuses it for being real, such as a landscape painting during the renaissance period. The second order is when the simulacra is taken to be an adequate substitution for the real, but the real may still be recognized. This would include a photograph of the earlier mentioned painting. The third and final order of simulacra is the hyperreal, in which their is no original, only a simulation of a simulation. A good way of identifying the hyperreal is not by asking if there's an absence of real, but if it's meaningless to ask whether it's real or fake. Disneyland is always given as the best example . A child sees an actor wearing a Mickey Mouse costume and thinks \"Wow it's the *real* Mickey Mouse\". But of course, there is no such thing as a real Mickey Mouse, it was always a simulation, it's neither fake nor real. That's what he meant when he said \"it is truth that hides the fact that there is none\". & #x200B; & #x200B;"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9ir3qc | What’s so special about Route 66? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6lqda3",
"e6lpy07"
],
"text": [
"Route 66 was one of the first highway routes and went from Chicago to Los Angles through the midwest. At the time of the great depression Chicago were one of the worlds biggest cities, Los Angles were one of the fasting growing cities in the world and the midwest were suffering in the great dust bowl. This resulted in mass migration that took place fully or partly on route 66. Even people migrating from New York would take for example route 20 to Chicago and onward on Route 66, people from the south would take route 70 to Albuquerque and route 66 from there. In general most people going to Los Angles would end up on route 66 which made the road a common cultural sign for everyone looking to migrate west during the 30s.",
"It was the original highway linking east and west and because of that it goes directly through small town rural America not bypassing it like the interstates."
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9irloy | Why is it that in certain cultures the dowry is paid to the groom while in others, the dowry is paid to the bride’s family? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6ltdxs"
],
"text": [
"> Dowries exists in societies where capital is more valuable than manual labor. For instance, in Middle-Age Europe, the family of a bride-to-be was compelled to offer a dowry —- land, cattle and money —- to the family of the husband-to-be. Bridewealth exists in societies where manual labor is more important than capital. In Sub-Saharan Africa where land was abundant and there were few or no domesticated animals, manual labor was more valuable than capital, and therefore bridewealth dominated. [Source]( URL_0 ) ELI5: Capital > Labor: “I have access to lots of people to work for me, so if you want me to take in your daughter you better make it worth my while.” Labor > Capital: “I need more workers! How much for your daughter?”"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9iz9mn | When there’s traffic, why can’t everyone just start driving forward? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6njx6m"
],
"text": [
"Check out this [video]( URL_0 ), which explains this problem way better than I can. Basically, traffic happens when any vehicle in the flow of traffic decides to decelerate to a speed below where everyone else is traveling. The next individual behind that decelerating vehicle must also slow down. Then the next individual. And so on. At some point, someone along this chain might slow down so much that they stop. The idea of everyone \"just driving forward\" requires a lot of coordination and almost perfect reaction times by all drivers. If someone accelerated in front of you, you typically would wait a bit before you accelerated yourself (so you don't need to slam the brakes if they do)."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://youtu.be/iHzzSao6ypE"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9j021g | Bible "Book of Revelation" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6nqvx1"
],
"text": [
"The Book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament in Christianity. The Christian Bible consists of the Old Testament and New Testament. What Christians call the Old Testament is the entirety of holy scripture for Jews, who simply know the Old Testament as \"the Bible\" or \"the Hebrew Bible.\" The Book of Revelation contains many prophecies for the future, most importantly, it prophesies the return of Jesus Christ to the Earth and the end of the world. It also contains many fascinating numerological and mythological artifacts, including seven-headed dragons, lions with three faces, and the famous Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The Book of Revelation was most likely written during the time of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, who ruled between 81 and 96 CE."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9j40np | how did the taste of mint become associated with freshness? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6orxgf"
],
"text": [
"FYI there is already a thread about this very topic (pretty old though), so if you want you can read the responses there: URL_0 Mint has been used for a really long time; long as in thousands of years. Not just for food, but also to mask unpleasant smells. This has caused mint to slowly get associated with cleanliness since it's so commonly used to remove and mask bad smells."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x755o/eli5_why_is_it_that_mint_has_become_associated/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9j8lef | How is movie/theatrical makeup different from consumer makeup? Why don’t actors rub it off or smudge it when they touch their face in a scene? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6pighg",
"e6q5shv",
"e6pjmwt"
],
"text": [
"I don't know if this is true for everything, but I worked at one of those amusement parks where I had to wear scary make up. What they did is put all the make up on me and then spray me with something (Make up setting spray I think?) that would then keep my make up from peeling or rubbing off. It was still possible for me to rub it off, but it was pretty hard to do so without make up wipes. I hope this helps and I hope you have an amazing day!",
"As for what makes them different, they're used for different purposes. Well, the same purpose, but at very different scales. Film makeup is used to compensate for the combined effects of powerful lights and high definition cameras; the lights wash you out and the camera sees and records every flaw. This is in addition to makeup used for artistic effect, such as age makeup. Theatrical makeup is much the same, but replace HD cameras with physical distance. Even the front row is about 20 feet from the performers. Anything you want the audience to see needs to be bold. Consumer makeup is designed to work at close ranges, in varied but not extreme light, and to fool human eyes.",
"Theatrical makeup is the same for a lot of actors. There are ways around rubbing it off. One of my recent experiences was at a place that used a type of spray to keep makeup on us. For films it's a bit different as there are makeup people on hand to touch up any issues in between takes. It actually gets kind of irritating, you've just finished a good take, you've been given a good set of notes and the cameras have been set for another go or a different angle, and you get someone rushing in to brush your face or pat your hair down. It's something you have to get used to, and to be honest, I found I quite enjoyed having powder applied to my face. The brush is one of the softest things I've ever touched!"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ji0pk | Why do some countries that are completely different cultures/origins share some names that are more often associated with another? | This namely references two specific instances. I apologize if my assumptions are just incorrect based on my own knowledge/experience. I've just never really noticed these things until relatively recently. The first one being a commonality of names between NE European/N Asian names (Russia, Ukraine, etc) like Alexei, Katya, Dimitri, Ivan, and others shared with Latin countries like Mexico, PR, Domincan Republic, etc. I've spoken with more than one hispanic person with a name that was very...Russian-sounding (to be general). However, I've never noticed a NE European/N Asian person named Juan or Alejandra. The second instance is the Latin/Hispanic influence on names in the Philippines, when clearly they're an Asian country. And with the same as above, you don't see any stereotypically Asian-sounding names in any Latin countries. Would this be more of a high thought than an ELI5? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6rmbli",
"e6rm2oa"
],
"text": [
"1. Russia was *very* heavily involved in Central and South America during the Cold War. The USSR provided lots of military and economic aid to friendly nations, and supported a lot of communist political movements in the region. 2. The Philippines was a Spanish colony for a few hundred years.",
"> The second instance is the Latin/Hispanic influence on names in the Philippines, when clearly they're an Asian country. And with the same as above, you don't see any stereotypically Asian-sounding names in any Latin countries. This is the easier one. Spain setup colonies in the Phillipines starting in 1565 and ruled the Philipines until losing them to the US in the Spanish American War in 1898. 333 years of Imperial rule will cause some mixing between the main country of the empire and its colonies. Turns out people move around a fair amount so your first one likely comes from a Russian community in those Latin countries."
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9jjesh | Why talking on you phone, even quietly, on a train or bus is considered rude but talking to your friend in the next seat is okay. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6s1jb2",
"e6s10zm"
],
"text": [
"It’s because we can’t hear the other end of the conversation so our brains have to work harder to fill in the gaps.",
"Says who? Talk on your phone all you want. Just keep it to a reasonable volume. Unless you're in the quiet car of the train, then get the hell off the phone"
],
"score": [
10,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9joxsm | What do Jehova Witnesses believe in exacly? And how to they differ from Christians? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6t4a3g"
],
"text": [
"I was raised as a JW but left when I was 15. Lots of things are similar, some are different. Basics are they are a doomsday cult and have unofficially predicted the end days many times. They belive only 144000 people will ever be in heaven the reat of the \"saved\" will live on a paradise earth much like the garden of Eden. They dont belive in a literal hell but an abyss of nothingness for every one not saved. They go door to door to save as many people as possible, and are very bible literal with some aspects and not with others. This is where their belifes of no birthday celebrations no Christmas, Halloween and other celebrations stem. Also no blood transfusions and discourage higher education. They also preach against becoming involved in politics. Any one who speaks oit against them are considered apostates and shpuld be shunned, especially former members. So they also discourage associations outside of the church."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9jpen9 | Who Mister Rogers is and what he’s done? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6t7mzn",
"e6t7u9t",
"e6t7za5",
"e6t7otc",
"e6t9k2b",
"e6t9zgl"
],
"text": [
"Yes. He was a beloved children's show host, who was very kind and gentle. He is probably best known for making a defense to the US Congress about the positive aspects of children's television, convincing them to not cut the public broadcasting budget so that his show, and others like his could continue. He died several years back, but a documentary about him was recently released. And a Hollywood movie version of his story is also in the works.",
"That's exactly right. Mr. Rogers was the host of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, an American kids' show that ran for decades. What makes him stand out is that instead of relying on the usual \"kid stuff\" that most shows play out over and over, like annoying, loud voices and lots of bright animation, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood focused on kindness and goodness, teaching kids how to be respectful and kind to others above all else. It really was a wholesome gem of a show. Here's a random episode from youtube: URL_0",
"Mr Rogers was the host of a children's show for a long time that treated kids like smart, earnest individuals who were capable of growth, strong emotion and internal conflict. His show was a safe haven for kids- no swearing or violence, a calm atmosphere they may not have anywhere else. It provided a comfortable place to learn and explore new ideas, including those that were controversial at the time, like race and disability. He was always kind and taught love, both to others and yourself. Because the show was so long-running, many ages of kids grew up with him and appreciated him over time which brings teens and adults together to remember him in love once again. He might seem silly as a adult looking back if you never saw him through the eyes of a child, but few shows (or adults in real life for that matter) really recognize the capacity of children and the complexity of their experience and work to help them through it in such a positive way. He really encouraged everyone to be the best they could be.",
"He is a kids tv host that showed children strong moral values in a safe and controlled environment (his neighborhood)",
"This trailer for the documentary about him basically explains what you need to know URL_0",
"Randall Munroe from XKCD expressed it beautifully in [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ). > Mr. Rogers projected an air of genuine, unwavering, almost saintly pure-hearted decency. But when you look deeper, at the person behind the image ... that's exactly what you find there, too. He's exactly what he appears to be. Mr. Rogers was a genuinely nice person, who cared about kids and treated them with honesty, integrity and decency. Edit: Added XKCD"
],
"score": [
13,
9,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w5r5-PrbCY"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV_kxc9PxrQ"
],
[
"https://xkcd.com/767/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9jqazx | Would Van Gogh pass art school? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6tewlz"
],
"text": [
"Probably not--his contemporaries did not like his style. So, if art schools as we know them today existed back then, and he went to one, he'd probably fail. That said, artists who have a very distinct style can also draw/paint differently if they want to/need to. So perhaps there's a chance he wouldn't fail after all."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9ju0ib | How do TV and film writers go about writing insults about actors’ looks into a show or movie? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6u8twe",
"e6u9t49",
"e6uaguh",
"e6ua4dw",
"e6u8vys",
"e6ubea8",
"e6ua74q",
"e6ufv9x",
"e6ubf5y"
],
"text": [
"I read once there's certain words to indicate \"ugly\" like \"seeking character actors\" in call sheets. Steve Buscemi is famous as a \"character actor.\"",
"You don't get to be a working actor without growing a thick skin. There's also context for the scene and why characters are saying something. If one character says your character \"looks like a camel\" it's for a reason, that reason *isn't* because you really look like a camel.",
"In the movie Home Alone, Buzz's girlfriend was actually the art director's son in costume; the producers thought it would be too mean to cast a girl as the ugly girlfriend.",
"Amateur writer here. Some scripts are cowritten by directors or producers. Fat actors know they're fat. They are just thankful to be working. Same as actresses with big boobs. Ignoring it is strange too. Check out Chevy Chase on Community. There was a lot of drama there because the writers were making his character look racist.",
"I would imagine they ask the actor if they are fine with it, and the actor could always ask for the line to be taken out if they were not.\\* An actor confident enough in themselves will probably be able to laugh it off or will see it for what it is: a comment on the *character's* appearance, not their own. \\* Unless it's integral to the plot, of course. They wouldn't have got very far with making Ugly Betty if America Ferrera had objected to every insult, and I'm sure she would have been aware of the tone of the show before she accepted the role.",
"In some cases, I don’t think any care goes into how those lines affect the actors’ feelings. The writers of “Growing Pains” put in so many fat jokes about Tracey Gold’s character, and Tacey ended up becoming severely anorexic. She ended up missing most of the last season because of it. So, so sad.",
"They get the script before they audition so they know the lines are in there before they accept or are chosen for the role. If they get the role and have objections to particular things they can address it with the director but most have a pretty thick skin after being judged their whole careers and won't object unless it's truly tasteless",
"Actors are paid to appear in films and TV shows. Keyword being 'appear'. Even if they're not out seeking leading man/leading lady-type roles, there's still the focus on appearances and that comes with a very conscious awareness of how one looks on stage or on camera. The whole process of learning to act forces you to confront your own physical appearance from the perspective of an audience and learning to manipulate that in order to convincingly embody the character you're playing. In other words, fat actors know they're fat. Ugly actors know they're ugly. They have to in order to do what they do. If you can't accept the way you look and use it to your advantage when you're playing a character, you're probably not going to make it as an actor. Nevertheless, you still sometimes see actors speaking out about social issues regarding personal appearance and how negative stereotypes of, say, fat people are perpetuated through film and TV. Like fat actors talking about how they're tired of playing stereotyped characters like 'the insecure fat girl', 'the funny fat guy', etc., and would love the opportunity for more diverse roles. But again, those criticisms tend to stem from broader social concerns rather than personal discomfort.",
"The characters are already created before casting and it is up to the actors to bring qualities of the character to life. The actors understand that everything on script is fictional including insults, romances, anger and even the physical aspects of acting such as the looking like their character. If they can write in a believable insult to match the character's physical description, then casting and writers did their job."
],
"score": [
38,
17,
15,
14,
10,
9,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9jx0ap | Why is the Arabic alphabet written from right to left? Don't they just smear everything when they write? What's the history behind it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6uqur9"
],
"text": [
"At the beginning of written text: Semitic languages such as Arabic or Hebrew were written on stone, long before paper. Most people were right-handed, they grabbed a chisel with the left hand and hit it with a hammer on the right hand. This arrangement is easier for the writer, allowing to see what is being written."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9k20ky | If dragons weren't real, why do so many ancient cultures have depictions of them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6vuev8",
"e6vunjb",
"e6vvo4z",
"e6vvvt6",
"e6vu9qy",
"e6vvwc9",
"e6vv4hh",
"e6vvfzz",
"e6vw4mb",
"e6vw6au"
],
"text": [
"From my current knowledge, I have a few different explanations. I’ll put an edit for whenever a person with the correct knowledge comments. I put the reasons in order of what I believe most in. * A lot mythical creatures were based on fossils. Dinosaurs are the likely cause of dragons. It also wasn’t until the 1800’s that we (as humans) decided that animals truly can go extinct, so medieval folk were like, “This is one giant looking lizard. Oh crap! That must mean there are giant lizards going about.” “George, if there was giant lizards bout these parts, surely we woulda’ve seen it.” “Jack! That must mean it flys!!” *Music stops playing in the local tavern.* *Everyone in a blind panic sets the building on fire.* *Tavern owner blames fire breathing giant lizards for insurance reasons, rather than admitting he left his electric plasma space stove on, then splashed blue milk on it.* * Culture spread across the Silk Road from China, though we don’t see to many dragons in India. * Old wives tale...? Edit: * (credit to noobiepoobie) Dragons truly do exist, and the governments are just trying to hide this fact.",
"There was a parcast podcast on this. They kinda settled on the fact the Dragon is a combination of all our ancient ancestors predators rolled into one. The snake, the large lizard and large birds of prey.",
"Dragons of different culture (eg. European, african, aztec, chinese) don't even look alike. Of course if you just shove everything in the same category you'll think everybody thought of the same thing.",
"A knight walks into a bar and tells a tale: * He claims he slain a great beast that would kill a thousand regular men * He has the story to prove it * Dino bones (AKA huge lizard skulls) would be enough proof * More people have the same stories",
"Whenever you see a common theme in historical mythology it usually because of a generality in human nature: All humans value certain things like survival (having food, not becoming food), having stuff, love, etc. and don’t want those things taken away. So, the heroes or good creatures in stories are those which represent protection of the things we find valuable or obtaining those things and all scary beasts/ villains represent those thing being taken away. What is universally terrifying and something that is nearly indestructible and takes away all those things we value? Dragons. They can burn everything you love to the ground(figuratively and literally with their fire) and destroy everything you own and there is very little to stop them. Send in the hero who represents the protection of all the things we value and he slays the dragon so we feel happy again. Winning story. Winning story people like=story reiterated over and over.",
"This is speculation, but: A good theory is that they express the fears of our ancestors. They are a mix of all the predators of the hominids we come from: wings like hawks or eagles, claws and limbs like big felines, scales and color like snakes or big reptiles. The idea is that we evolved a fear of these predators subconsciously and combined them into one general creature. If this is true then it explains why they were used in stories later in human history as well, as they are an abstraction of fear itself, or chaos, and to face them would be to do the “right thing”.",
"WHAT IF!!! ancient cultures exaggerated such things but we take it literal. Like their gods were really just famous people, and our gods will be our famous actors/musicians but to the people of the future.",
"Imagine ancient cultures stumbling on a t-rex type fossil and a pterodactyl type fossil... Boom- dragons",
"Jordan Peterson posits that our tree dwelling ancestors were prey to three types of predators- snakes, cats, and birds of prey. The dragon is a cat/bird/snake.",
"There's a [Vsauce2 video about this( URL_0 ), however credible you find that to be. Basically his argument boils down to: early mammals' biggest predators were snakes and birds of prey, and early primates were hunted by larger mammals like big cats. What is a dragon? A snake/bird/large-mammal chimera. Again, not sure how credible or sound the argument is, but it's there."
],
"score": [
289,
59,
43,
15,
9,
8,
6,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/6grLJyqIM8E"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9k4med | Why are older artists like van Gogh, Michaelangelo, Rembrandt and others so glorified and godified, while nowadays we see unknown artists that can draw/paint/carve things that look more true to life than those ever did? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6weih3",
"e6we1bw",
"e6we3yy"
],
"text": [
"I'll try to keep this short (I used to teach art history). To put it simply: the story of art is the story of humanity, and throughout our history we have had different pursuits and priorities. Art, in any era, is going to be a reflection of those priorities, which is why you'd see less \"realistic\" art from medieval Europe than you would during the Renaissance. Medieval Europe wasn't concerned with realism for a number of reasons, chief among them: * reluctance to \"toe the line\" of making graven images (from the Ten Commandments) * a largely illiterate populace that relied on simple imagery to tell biblical stories * priority towards overt and obvious symbolism (colors, relics, etc) to make those stories even easier to comprehend, whereas realism would present obstacles to that comprehension This shifted with the Renaissance, which saw a renewed interest in classical Greek and Roman art and philosophy (which, it should be stated, also had its own priorities 1500-2000 years prior). As literacy grew, so did the appetite for artists to explore new avenues for storytelling (and showing off). You brought up Van Gogh as well, who stands apart from Rembrandt and Michelangelo for a very special reason: he came onto the scene after the invention of the camera. Now we have a device that will capture a scene perfectly! Suddenly commercial demand for realistic portraiture plummeted, since it was vastly more expensive to have a portrait painted than photographed. So! What are artists to do? They change the conversation, and they look at what the current era's priorities are. Cameras can capture light and color, but can they make it dance? That's what Van Gogh and the Impressionists wanted to explore. Excited about all of the new technology coming out? Check out the Italian Futurists. Exploring the spirituality of color and form? Abstract Expressionism. Want to throw a wrench in the stodgy European art scene at the end of the Cold War? Get fkin weird with YBAS. Sick of hypercommodification? Blek le Rat, Shep Fairey, and Banksy helped spawn a generation of street artists who are bringing these crucial questions to the masses. None of this is meant to be a slight to the prodigy who can draw or paint incredibly well. It's just that unless that skill is applied to a relevant concern or contemporary experience, it's just a technical skill, and little else. Hope this helps!",
"A number of reasons. Looking true to life is not the best test of an artist. If you want something photorealistic you just get a photo. More to the point the point of art is not that it's technically difficult but that it produces something we find pleasing. Good art, like good music, doesn't have to be hard work. This is why rock and roll is more popular than freeform jazz or prog drum solos. The people you mention are truly unique individuals who painted works that look like nothing before or since except maybe \"someone trying to copy van Gough\" etc.. So they're unusual and rare and so there's a premium on that. They also in many cases moved on the artform and changed how we think about painting which isn't something which can be said of many people however technically brilliant. So there's an academic merit and interest. And then there's snobbery and money and the fact that rich people like to drop names people know.",
"For the same reason Chuck Berry is revered for his 3 chord rock songs that are so easy to replicate, any guitarist who can read TAB notation can play them easily today. Why are Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, (and if you will forgive the comparison, Chick Berry) so glorified today? Because *they did it first.* Originate a new style that people have never seen before? You are a hero. Copy it later? Meh."
],
"score": [
18,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9kafds | What are the qualifications for earning a Michelin Star for a restaurant? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6xnzgp",
"e6xokl7"
],
"text": [
"You're not actually going to be able to get a solid answer. The decision itself is left to people who are not supposed to reveal their secrets.",
"I know when the three star system was initially made in 1936, one star was \"a very good restaurant in its category\", two stars was \"excellent cooking, worth a detour\", and three stars was \"exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey\", but the exact criteria are unknown. It should be noted that Michelin only has guides for (and hence only reviews restaurants in) a certain cities/countries."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9kamk9 | if a womans place was traditionally in the kitchen, why are chefs traditionally men? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6xp26a",
"e6xpbee"
],
"text": [
"Woemn's roles are traditionally considered to be domestic in Western European tradition. That means cooking, cleaning, child raising, and other household chores. Large commercial (or estate) kiitchens were (and still are) hot, rough, and demanding places to work. Those jobs were traditionally held by men.",
"Men get paid for women's work. Women nuture, but men get paid to heal. Women cook, but men are chefs. Women may like clothes and fashion, but men are designers. Women do crafts, men are artists."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
abfw81 | Why are Burmese Buddhists so Violent? | Of the 3 major schools of Buddhism, all abhor and denounce violence. Of course, there are always exceptions, but generally, that refers to individuals. In Myanmar(also known as Burma), there is systematic brutality carried out by the Buddhist majority government against the Rohingya minority. Many watchdog groups have already begun using the word "genocide" in regards to this particular situation. Why are the Burmese Buddhists so violent? And why target the Rohingya with such animosity? This is the only major news of 2018 that I could never understand. Please explain like I'm five. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eczz7hk",
"ed020bm",
"ed00x7x"
],
"text": [
"They’re so violent because they’re human. In Myanmar/Burma, the Buddhists are the entrenched conservatives. The Rohinga are the foreign interlopers to them that won’t let things be done the good and proper way. When social pressure and non-violent pressure didn’t get them to conform, those in power turned to violence. The fact that they claim to be Buddhist is beside the fact. The same type of people have caused violence to visible minority ideology groups that threaten their power base under the guise of pretty much every ideology out there.",
"It is the same reason as why Hindus have been lynching Mulsims in India for trading and eating cows. The religion itself is of not that much relevance as nearly all religions are religions of peace, the probably is people will go to extreme lengths to protect what they think is the correct path/religion. What is present is two groups that have different views, some of which may be offensive to the other group for a reason that does not seem that important to an outsider. If you add factors such as population sizes of each group, economic hardship, spiritual orientation of the countries leaders, eventually one group may end up in a bad situation.",
"Because Rohingya Islamic aggression towards Rakhine Buddhists has been going on for a very long time. How long? Since the aftermath of WW2. The Rohingya appealed to Pakistan to annex their territory, but Pakistan did not do so. Subsequently, many muslims fought in a separatist rebellion, and this rebellion stretched all the way to the 1990s, with terrorist groups later splitting off and growing (with reported help from countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - worth noting that ARSA's leader grew up in Saudi Arabia, amongst its leadership is a committee of Rohingya immigrants in Saudi Arabia, and the group follows Islamic traditions, where recruits swear oaths to the Quran, address their leader as emir, and ARSA asks for fatwas from foreign Muslim clerics). In the 1980s-1990s, the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation was the main group that attacked Burmese authorities. In October 2016, Harakah al-Yaqin, another terrorist group, attacked Burmese border posts, killing policemen, and another attack in November of 2016. Also, 24 August 2017, where the same group (now re-named Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army or ARSA) attacked police and army posts, resulting in 71 deaths. This was supposedly to drive out the Buddhists in order to create an \"independent\" Rohingya Muslim state/region. The next day, ARSA attacked the Hindus in the Kha Maung Seik village cluster, killing not just men, but Hindu women and children as well (in total 99). The men were separated from the women; the 56 men were executed first; then the women were raped, and they and their children killed. The declared aim of the ARSA militants was the ethnic cleansing of North Arakan of all but Muslim inhabitants. In Rohingya-majority towns, there have been attempts by the Rohingya to subject all people, including the Buddhists, to Islamic Shar'ia law in the past, too. These attempts had to be stopped by the government."
],
"score": [
28,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
abi0j6 | The use of the word META | I am so confused. I'm not native English, so there's probably my problem...but I am failing to see the connection in how people use it most of the time. The way it's being used now by most people in my eyes, it kinda starts to look like a line from JayZ & Kanye - Niggas in Paris: "No One Knows What It Means But It's Provocative, It Gets The People Going" & #x200B; Also, have a good 2019. & #x200B; | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed0f6wn",
"ed0emr8",
"ed0em3t",
"ed0h795",
"ed0gm6y",
"ed0e9bg",
"ed0jb67"
],
"text": [
"As a general term, the word ‘meta’ is talking about the next level of information up, I guess, in a sense of the usual level of what’s happening in a given context, and then ‘meta’ would be not just looking at that, but looking at looking at that. For instance, ‘meta’ in a gaming context might not just be discussing how you can best play, but discussing what everyone else is thinking and building your strategy for that. In an online forum, the usual level of what’s going on is the everyday discussions and threads- ‘meta’ in this context might be looking at the sorts of discussions and threads that are happening. In a research context, individual pieces of research will look at one question and come up with an answer. ‘Meta’ in this context would be a meta-analysis, where you analyse all the answers and note general trends and such. Hopefully a few examples helped- but TLDR; ‘meta’ is going up a level of information; not just talking about something, but talking about talking about something.",
"yeah it is kinda a tricky word usually on the internet it's used for \"data or discussion about other data or discussions going on\" so like on a reddit sub, a regular post might just be a discussion about music or pets or how to fix a lightswitch. but a meta post would be about how those other posts should work on this sub.... like a discussion about whether discussions of pets or music should be allowed on that subreddit, or if people like getting longer or shorter answers. or a bunch of stuff like that.",
"as far as I know the word meta describes information about something, contained in itself. So, as already written above, in music that could be song information embedded in the song (file) itself. Or if I remember correctly, in communication: if we talk about how we talk to each other, we are doing meta-communication.",
"By definition, \"meta\" is a greek prefix that means \"involving itself\". Maybe it's best done through some examples: * Metadata. Files often include metadata: data about the file itself. This is data like the creation date, last modification date, resolution (picture), title/album/artist/length (music), etc. * Metaphysics. This is a branch of philosophy that studies the relevance of physics itself: \"okay we have all this science, what place does it have in our lives?\" \"How does it relate to our existence?\" ... * Metadiscussions. In communities like subreddits for example, metadiscussions are about the subreddit itself. A good example would be a discussion about the sureddit rules. In the gaming community, META is interpreted slightly different, as the abreviation of \"Most Efficient Tactic Available\".",
"A discussion about itself. Like discussing the subreddit on that subreddit, or discussing a thread within from that thread. Or an art piece talking about the medium itself. Metadata is data about data.",
"\"Meta\" would be any of the information that you use when looking for something to buy. It's not part of the experience of dealing with the thing itself. If you think about a book or a news article or a song as a piece of information that's being conveyed, \"meta\" just means information that helps categorize that piece of information, rather than the information that makes up the piece itself. So, for example, if you had a song, the information that's part of the song would be the lyrics, the beat, the way it sounds, yadda yadda yadda. The entertaining part of it. \"Meta data\" would be information about how to categorize the song. It would include things like the title, the genre, a mention of who the artist was, the year the album was released, the songwriter, et cetera. Similarly, for books, the information would be the story itself. The \"meta data\" would be mention of who authored the book, the number of pages, the year it was written, whether it was a hardback or soft cover. \"Meta data\" for you would be like your name, your height, where you were born, your residence, how many times you've done things, et cetera. Knowing the information would help other people put you in categories, but knowing it doesn't mean that they've really experienced \"you\" as a person. Or for your home, \"meta data\" would be like your address, the type of building, the number of people living there, the year it was built, et cetera.",
"My first use for the word was around pen/paper gaming - we used the term 'meta-gaming', for conversations about the game that were 'outside' the roleplaying conversation. . . the DM would tell us we're getting started, no 'meta-gaming', which told us that all our conversations following were 'in-character' and 'in-game'. . . and he the DM, would treat casual off-hand comments as made by the character. Later I started hearing similar for games like LoL, where you might be discussing how to play ONE single hero, with the meta-game being a discussion of the community playing LoL, which heros are being played competitively on ladders, etc - which are strong now, in current season, etc. . . It's the 'bigger picture' rather than discussing just a part of the picture : the 'forest' instead of a tree"
],
"score": [
31,
10,
8,
7,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
abj3af | Why are all James Bond songs similar, regardless of who the artist is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed0lno7",
"ed0lg16"
],
"text": [
"I think OP’s question is more of what is it about the song that makes you know it’s a Bond song, even if you hear it outside of a James Bond movie?",
"They all deal with topics related to Bond and the music tends to pay tribute to the original Bond theme(s) or other songs that were written for the other Bond films. For example, Chris Cornell's \"You know my name\" was inspired by Paul McCartney's \"Live and Let Die\" and Tom Jones' \"Thunderball\" two previous Bond themes."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
abke63 | Why are there so many Circa photos? Why are people in those photos usually out of the ordinary? | It has been solved. It seems i was circa dumb | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed0whnk"
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, but Circa means approximately. So if you see a photo labeled Circa 1907 that means it was taken around that time, but an exact date is probably unknown. I'm not sure about the out of the ordinary people, maybe a coincidence?"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
abmjkd | How did forenames and surnames become a concept that mostly everybody in the world uses? | Given how spread out and diverse the world is, and all the different languages that are in use, how did the idea of a forename and surname for each person come about, and how is it so prevalent? Did it start with one region of people and transfer everywhere else? EDIT: Thanks for your answers! I didn't realise there were so many different ways that this is done and that many places don't use this form. It's really interesting to read your answers. Apologies if the question seemed ignorant of other cultures. =) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed1fuhq",
"ed1gbb0"
],
"text": [
"It wasn't really universal at all, almost all of asia uses family name first, personal name second. And a bunch of places like vienam didn't really do the sort of first name/last name thing we do so everyone just ended up \"nguyen\". People in nordic countries have surnames that are only their actual direct parent's name and spanish speaking countries often have multiple names. Lots of places have 'you have a first name then your last name is your tribe/group\", and english even fudges it by having women have no fixed last name and just having their current husband or father. We just kinda squish everything into 'first name/last name\" with \"maybe some irrelevant middle names\" when that doesn't really accurately describe what a lot of places actually use.",
"When Europe colonized southern Africa, the locals didn't have sur names. Slaves were only given sur names on being freed. Many didn't understand how it worked so got assigned names on the date they were freed. So we have lots of Mr Januaries and Mr December here in South africa."
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
abtjj5 | why does the past tense of some verbs end in "ed" (reach/reached), while others do not (teach/taught; fight/fought)? Why not reach/raught? Or fight/fighted; teach/teached? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed2zcad",
"ed2swul"
],
"text": [
"Because English is a horrible language. It was formed from the Unholy Union of German and French. English doesn't so much borrow from other languages as it follows other languages down a dark alley, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.",
"I'm not sure if this answers your question exactly, but the more a verb is used, the more likely it is to become \"irregular\", like fight and fought. A long time ago, the past tense of teach would have been teached, but as it's become a more and more popular verb, it has become irregular. We're not exactly sure why this happens."
],
"score": [
24,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
abween | Why are so many people overweight/obese? | Like I get why there would be an amount of people who are both underweight and overweight, that makes sense, but why is it over 2/3 of America's population? Note that I am not trying to be offensive, it is fine if you're overweight/obese, I just don't understand why it's such a high amount of people, at least in America. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed3f3qc",
"ed3ey6z",
"ed3f6us",
"ed3kgko",
"ed3gyd0",
"ed3fdiq",
"ed3eyf8",
"ed3jlbx",
"ed3f9pv",
"ed3i0qx",
"ed3qtv2"
],
"text": [
"Here's what I wrote three weeks ago when a similar question was asked: \" If you can find the single answer to that, you're probably in line for a Nobel prize. Personally, I think it's a combination of a lot of things. \\-Capitalism: The entire food industry is predicated on getting people to eat more, buy more, and get \"value\" for their dollar (which often means getting multiple times the amount of something that would be a reasonable serving). I believe it was Frito-Lay that had problems moving into the Chinese market because between meal snacks weren't a cultural thing. So what'd they do? Run a huge advertising campaign to make snacking a thing. \\-Size and age of the country: The US is pretty young as far as countries go, and has had higher than horse speed travel widely available for most of its existence. The suburbs are a thing in the US more than anywhere else in the world, IMO. That means we don't walk places, and outside of the biggest cities, we really don't take taxis either. I'd be interested to see how somewhere like Manhattan compares to the country as a whole. \\-The Great Depression: This had a huge impact on the generation that grew up during that time period, such that they taught their kids that wasting food and not cleaning their plate was one of the worst things they could do, regardless of whether or not they were hungry. If food was still scarce, this would not be a problem, but food is plentiful, so we were just conditioned to overeat. \\-Overall Diet: The US was primarily an agriculture/hard work society until the modern era, and the cuisine matched that energy output. Lots of meat and protein, lots of fat, lots of calorie heavy foods. Which is what you need to bring in the harvest, work the steel mill, etc. Now we've all got desk jobs and still eat those calorie-bombs. That's my opinion, and it's worth just a little bit less than you paid for it.\" & #x200B; & #x200B;",
"America likes unhealthy food and sells it for cheaper. So people without much money can only afford unhealthy food.",
"One of the main causes would be portion size. Food dishes are much smaller in other countries. Plus, we Americans eat a lot of fried foods, fatty foods, sugary, and oily foods, especially in the south. Add to that the fact that healthy foods are often more expensive and time-consuming to prepare than cheap fast food.",
"Being fat is multi-factor, and there is no one single answer to \"fixing\" the obesity epidemic. Just a footnote, the [obesity epidemic is a world-wide problem]( URL_3 ) and not strictly limited to USA. TLDR at the bottom 1. Nutrition, diet and food: the biggest influence on how much we weigh is how and what we eat. Eating more simple carbohydrates (like processed sugar and starch), \"bad\" fats (trans-fats and saturated fats) can [change our biochemistry]( URL_2 ) to take on more weight and elevate the \"bad\" cholesterol. The problem is that such foods come from tasty foods: simple sugars are very sweet, and fats come in large amounts in meats. Humans (and other omnivores and carnivores) have [evolved to detect such tastes and associate it with feeling good.]( URL_1 ) This is because these are calorie-dense, meaning a little of the food can provide a lot of energy with little effort. The reason we evolved like that is because back before humans invented farming, we needed to hunt and gather; when we caught some animal then we can get a lot of energy without having to go out to hunt and gather, exposing ourselves to the elements, competition, or other dangers. Also, moving less means there's more energy left for more (biologically and genetically) important things like reproducing. Hence, we evolved a reward mechanism that makes us look for calorie-dense foods, and like it when we eat it to minimize movement. In a more modern context, processed foods such as fast foods and frozen foods are much cheaper and tastier than fresh foods. This is because processing them makes them last longer, tastier and requires less money on storing them. The problem is that processing foods destroys the nutrients in foods by adding a lot of sugar and/or salt for preservation or taste. 2. Culture: I'm not American, nor have I visited, lived or worked in USA, so I'm basing this on what I hear from other people and over the internet. A lot of Americans like to work long-hours without being very productive. This means that they **get off work late, go home late but have to get up early for the next day**. Such lack of time means they don't want to cook (since cooking is a lot of investment of time and effort), so they reach for pre-made foods like microwavable dinner, which are high in sugar, salt and fat, which make them fatter (one of the reasons why food delivery services are a big thing now: click, pay, wait and your food is here). 3. Money and time: fresh food with lots of nutrients are more expensive. If given the option, most people will choose the cheaper option over the expensive one. And frozen, processed and/or preserved foods are cheaper than fresh food. Also, cooking a meal takes a lot of time and effort, at least compared to microwaving some food or making instant noodles etc. Our bodies need a reason to change: without a some stimulation, our bodies will start to stagnate or wither. So exercising is a great way to stimulate our bodies to build muscle and lose fat. But the **problem is that exercise is hard, difficult and overall unpleasant**, especially if one doesn't regularly exercise. I think this is related to how we've evolved (but no evidence; this is my conjecture): we don't like to move so we can save energy for survival and reproduction. 4. The way our cities are built: in a lot of \"newer\" cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Toronto, and a lot of North American cities is that they were designed with cars in mind. If you compare the road map of older cities such as London (UK), Berlin and Paris (FR) to the aforementioned cities, you'll notice that the older European cities' roads are a mess: they're short, zig-zag around a lot, and narrow. This is because European cities existed long before cars or machines so the cities grew people-centric: distances between each buildings and conveniences are mostly in walking-distance. In contrast, NA cities' roads are long, straight and wide to accommodate cars better: they were designed cars first, people second. This means that distances between building-to-building are greater in NA cities and it gets more inconvenient to walk, meaning you'll have to rely on cars to get around. This means more cars on the road, making walking or cycling a lot more dangerous, meaning even more cars. The [reliance on cars and less on walking diminishes physical activity]( URL_0 )**,** making us fatter. 5. Capitalism: if you ever walk around in a city you'll see hundreds if not thousands of ads, signs and logos vying for your attention. These tactics work, as many people will see some store sign and think \"oooh ice cream\" or \"oooh burger\" and just walk in. These advertisements make us spend more, eat more. **Restaurants also add more sugar and salt to be more tasty, which make us more fat**. I have only listed SOME factors that contribute to the obesity epidemic based on what I've researched and studies. There are more qualified people out there who can tell you a lot more about things. & #x200B; TLDR: we like sweet fatty foods, and urban environments encourage us to be fat",
"Broad brushstroke here, but most Americans generally exist in a state of mild anxiety and existential crisis. Our society raises us to think in terms of black and white instead of shades of gray. It creates sharply defined categories where you're in or out, and instead of falling neatly into those categories most Americans balance on the edges, not quite sure where to fall. We're raised to believe that success is equal to winning, coming first, material gain, leadership, and most people spend the early decades of their lives fervently pursuing such empty goals. Whether they achieve them or not, eventually the reality of the human condition sinks in and they become anxious and depressed. Food is one of the easiest, most acceptable and most accessible self-soothing drugs that Americans can turn to for a brief reprieve from the sense of emptiness, loneliness, meaninglessness, and impermanence that pervades their days.",
"Our ancestors evolved in (and gave us the genes for) an environment where food was often scarce. They had to eat when rich food was available, and pack on the pounds for later. Unfortunately in our incredibly wealthy modern world, where food is *almost always* available, this means we tend to just keep packing on weight.",
"Because our diets are *so shit*. Fast Food is ridiculously cheap (and not even really food), and healthy food (at least in the US) is not cheap. People will just naturally gravitate to the cheaper option because, in this oh-so-wonderful economic system we have, people (especially poor people) need to make sure they have money for other shit.",
"We eat too many carbs. Grains and starches are pushed as being a big part of our diet and we really only need a small amount.",
"a combination of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle (we're lazy and our jobs no longer require the exercise that day to day life used to) and diet (processed foods are cheaper both because of some fucked up subsidy programs, and because there is less waste in the supply chain than healthy, fresh foods because they last much longer.)",
"Very simple answer. It's more comfortable to eat and be sated, than to be a little hungry upon occasion. Of course there has to be bounty for this to be possible. It boils down to not giving a shit. The whole big is beautiful BS doesn't help. There is no shame involved in being fat.",
"I'm six months or so into Keto after struggling with my weight my whole life. I'm down 33 lbs (258 to 225lbs). I'm 100% absolutely convinced that food is as addictive as any substance. I used to crave carby foods - rice, chips, fried everything. Crave isn't the right word - I needed pizza at least weekly. Same with other stuff like that - I used to hit up a chinese buffet and stuff myself full of rice and fried crap weekly. After about 2 weeks on a low carb meat/veggie based diet, those cravings completely disappeared. It was the weirdest thing ever - I simply did not want to eat some of the crap I had been essentially living on. Then, the weight started to just fall off. & #x200B; I also want to mention the \"clean your plate\" theory. It was absolutely drilled into me by my parents (and them by their parents who grew up in the 30's) that you do not waste food. This was something that stuck with me my whole life. Once I started with portion control (and believe me, it felt wrong to throw food away after I was satisfied, instead of eating until I burst), I realized how much I ate but just flat out didn't need. & #x200B; Lots of good reasons here - but just wanted to chime in with the perspective of someone who's battling obesity."
],
"score": [
75,
15,
14,
12,
10,
7,
6,
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1586006/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680351/",
"https://examine.com/nutrition/how-are-carbohydrates-converted-into-fat-deposits/",
"https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/obesity/en/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
abxc61 | Why do some countries get their names translated and some don’t? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed3nrd3",
"ed3nq4a",
"ed3uu9w",
"ed3w0hl",
"ed3vrxc",
"ed4pn2b",
"ed3y8px",
"ed4cr6w",
"ed3nurr",
"ed422zy",
"ed3nceq",
"ed3yt6h",
"ed3n57d",
"ed3wfc3",
"ed3zrnj",
"ed3xpet",
"ed4s9vc",
"ed40yxf",
"ed4r27k",
"ed4gcop",
"ed3wisc",
"ed4jeoe",
"ed4vwu8",
"ed42det",
"ed4if12",
"ed42sbx",
"ed3ox74",
"ed4s57n",
"ed4ybk0",
"ed4go3r",
"ed4h7xr",
"ed4mu3l",
"ed5a5r7",
"ed4w9v6",
"ed502kw",
"ed3nie0",
"ed4ajk8",
"ed4rw2e",
"ed65w92",
"ed4ldur",
"ed50da7",
"ed4x9by",
"ed3zxrs"
],
"text": [
"It seems to depend on how well the original names language was communicated to other languages and how close a relationship they had. e.g. Puerto Rico was named in Spanish, English and Spanish are easily translated at the time of naming and they had a trading relationship therefore the name was communicated to English as Puerto Rico. Japan likely had little contact with English speakers and little to no trading so they would have learned the name that others used for it. In the case of Japan it seems to come from a translation of a Wu Chinese word through Portuguese. The closer the trading relationship at the time of naming the more likely the proper name will be used. Historically many places had names in other languages before strong trading relationships existed so the foreign language name stuck e.g. Germany should be called Deutschland but is called Germany in English and Allemagne in French, due to those names become fixed before strong international trade between the nation states could spread the name Deutschland. Think of it like a person (**A**) you see at work but never really talk to. So you ask another coworker (**B**) what the person's name is. The coworker (**B**) gives you a nickname and upon striking up a conversation you address **A** by that nickname and never go back.",
"In the past, if a country's name was frequently talked about in another country speaking another language, it would generally morph into a form easier to pronounce for speakers of that language. Then when people went around and invented dictionaries a couple hundred years ago, they wrote down these forms and boom, that's the name of that country in that language. Today, we have instant global communications and a general higher value on cultural accuracy, so people generally stick to something that is as close to \"what the locals call it\" as they can, except when they adapted form is already long-established (e.g. Japan for Nippon, etc). Another wrinkle is when the country's name itself contains *words* that are not proper names per se, for example *The United States of* America. In those cases many other languages will still translate however they would say the words \"The United States of\" even if they leave \"America\" intact.",
"Fun fact : I don't know why but in French, Puerto Rico is named Porto Rico. \"Japan\" comes from Chinese name \"Cipangu\" which traveled to Europe thanks to Marco Polo. So, it depends a lot on needs, trade and knowledge of the language used to name those countries.",
"I suspect the answer is also “convenience”. The Hungarian word for “Hungary” is “Magyarország”. We’re nothing to do with the Huns, honest!",
"That’s pretty instersting. Puerto Rico is Puerto Rico in armenian too. I think it’s because it’s small and didn’t have a much large global influence? Mexico is Meksicya, france is francya, Germany is Germanya. Japan is japonya, China is Chinastan, Russia is russastan. Armenia is armenia everywhere for the most part too and we’re a small nation too. It’s hayastan for us but no one calls us that but us. I would imagine countries who interact with lots of other counties would get their names translated to be easier for them to say often",
"My favorite one is the translations for Turkey and Peru in Portuguese. & #x200B; Peru is Peru in Portuguese Turkey is Turquia in Portuguese & #x200B; HOWEVERRRR - Turkey (the bird) is called a peru, which throws everything off in a weird humorous way.",
"> Puerto Rico is always Puerto Rico, no matter what language you speak Nah, it's called Portoryko in Polish.",
"Here's one example of path dependency - in Hindi, which is spoken in North India, Greece is called यूनान (Yunnan), which comes from \"Ionia\" via the Persians. In Bengali, which is spoken in Eastern India, it's just called গ্রীস (Greesh). The difference being that Alexander marched all the way to northern India and won a couple of major battles before deciding to go back. So the North Indians had their word for Greeks, while the East Indians never encountered them and only learnt their name through English.",
"Most cases of different names for countries in different languages is the result of confusion when the nations first had contact. For example Germany and Persia are all names of smaller areas in those countries, although the Germany tribe likely moved to Great Britain almost two thousand years ago now. Imagine traveling to the US without knowing English and somehow manage to ask a native what he calls this place and he answers California. Then you would get back and talk about this great country called California. Japan actually have the same meaning an Nippon but in a south Chinese language. When Portuguese traders first got to China they arrived in south China where they heard about Japan but of course not Nippon. When countries have names that everyone understand the meaning of it is also easy for people to translate it into the same meaning in their native language. This is similar to how you say the \"Federal Republic of Germany\" and not \"Bundesrepublik Deutchland\" as a native would say. If more people would know Spanish then you would likely not have called it Puerto Rico but rather Richport.",
"Because sometimes it's easier for people to say \"I took a trip to Thailand,\" than it is to say \"I went to Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit\"",
"Japan is an exonym, which is the name people outside of Japan use. This also happen with Germany (english), Allemagne (french), Deutschland (europe). Different names for the same country. In portuguese we use the french variation, by the way.",
"Better question, why don’t we just call countries what they call themselves?",
"The more people talk about a place, the more the name changes. People will pronounce the name of a place a little differently depending on what language they speak, whether the live their or not, etc., so after long enough, different languages will have their own unique name for a given country. Also sometimes someone will find somewhere “new” and say “I name you this!” even though the people living there had already given it a name.",
"Some English names for countries are markedly different from what the locals call it, despite the country having long been known to the English-speaking world. I was shocked to learn that Egyptians call their country *Masr*, or that Indians call their country *Bharat*. How did these discrepancies develop and persist?",
"Not true. Puerto Rico in Polish is *Portoryko*. [Fun fact]( URL_0 )",
"FIY, Puerto Rico does get translated too. Portuguese speaking people refer to it as Porto Rico, which is the literal translation.",
"So in English, non-English countries with names in their respective language have endonyms and exonyms, meaning outside and inside names. Like Deutschland vs Germany , Nippon in Japan etc... If it's a name that was unable to be pronounced or translated well into English, the English (or Spanish, french, really whatever conquering nation that has a language that acts as a lingua franca/international tongue) named the lands themselves, regardless of what the land was already called. So the English name for most country's is our \"outside name\"(exonym) for them , but they have their own language and culture so they call their land/country whatever they always have, making that their \"inside name\" or endonym... Basically if the endonym wasn't anglosizable enough we just refered to the country by the word we had for its people or their language like the Germany example, it is an area that is foundation of Germanic languages so we call it Germany instead of \"Deutsch Land\", because it's not particularly anglosizable... Same with Nippon, it was simplified to Japanese for anglocization... The French and Spanish did it too, but the French and Spanish for japan is just \"japon\" (the same but with Spanish vs french accenting), whereas Germany is Allemange (en Français), and Alemania en espanol Also important to note that the level of communication and diplomacy between the nation's may have a great effect on how well the translators tried to do their work... Like if the languages are similar in route it's not an issue , and even if they aren't if the countries really wanted they could have done better jobs but it wasn't really a requirement usually In recent years/ modernly if a country changes its name it is usually accepted, like Vietnam (formerly An Nam, Dai Viet, Nam Viet and others) Tldr: conquering nations were dicks to everyone and gave zero shits, if they couldn't pronounce your name they gave you a new one. But their languages are pretty popular now-a days so it's a problem sometimes",
"It depends on the country translating it too. China would translates everything, even people's name.",
"Probably already stated but USA is les etat unis in French . ** missing accent because I'm on my phone and building a baby. Edit: holding a baby!!!",
"why does Brasil get a Z and becomes BraZil?",
"To add on, I have never understood why Germany isn't just Deutschland in English, it's not hard to pronounce. I asked Germans where 'german' and 'germany' came from and they couldn't tell me.",
"Some languages don’t have words for literal names. For example. I’m Turkish and in Turkish there is no word for ivory, it’s called elephant teeth. So the country Ivory Coast we call it Elephant Teeth Islands. This isn’t explaining it like you’re 5, just an example I wanted to give.",
"Sort of a follow up question. When I was younger I always called The Netherlands 'Holland' but later on either was corrected or the name changed through some kind of campaign. Why doesn't this happen more? Did the Netherlands just care more? & #x200B; I'm Australian by the way, if that helps.",
"Does any language translate Canada to another word? I imagine it might sometimes be spelled with a K.",
"> United States of America gets translated to any language. In Korean, the name of the US literally translates to \"Beautiful Country\", not \"United States of America\". (Incidentally, the Korean name for the US is the source of a slur for Asian people. American GI's heard Korean natives saying \"Mi Guk\", and took it to mean \"I'm a Gook\" rather than \"You're American\")",
"The name \"Japan\" was the product of decades of phonetic mispronunciation, paired along with the long distance Europeans needed to travel to hear the native pronunciation. **It was effectively a long game of 'telephone' (if you've played that as a kid).** Traces of 'Nippon' is actually still in 'Japan'. 'Ni' became 'Ja', probably the most distinguishable difference. The 'P' is effectively the same. The 'On' became 'An', which is still very much the same depending on how you pronounce your A's and O's. The early Dutch and Portuguese explorers that frequented Japan most likely pronunced Japan very much like Nippon. However, translating from Japanese to Dutch to English over a long distance (roughly 7 months of sailing) will have a high chance to butcher the original pronunciation. Countries like Puerto Rico for instance is geographically very close to Western speakers so the chances of pronunciation change is very small. I should also add newer countries have less issues because methods of communication become better.",
"I have heard (From a Scot that spoke Japanese) that Japan did not have a word for \"Scotland\" until the 1980s. Japan is the other side of the world and before internet/international commerce/budget airlines it didn't really matter that Scotland and England are different countries and Britain is a group of several countries. Heck, a lot of English people skip over it and pretend Britain is called England and Scotland is just a region within England. So at some point Japan had to make a 'Japanified' name for our beloved land of haggis and buckfast. They chose 'Scotto Lannado' and an appropriate spelling for it in their various languages. Thus the Japanese name for Scotland was born! & #x200B; The point of this story is tied to the answer to your question: Necessity. If 18th Century Portugal wasn't trading or warring or negotiating with Turkmenistan then they wouldn't need a Portuguese name for Turkmenistan. But when 16th Century England was warring with tribes in \\[that region east of France and north of Italy\\] they named the region Germany after the Germanic tribes even though the Deutsch tribes eventually ruled the area and called themselves Deutschland",
"Hey, fellow Puerto Rican here. I also speak French and it’s said « Porto Rico », not Puerto Rico.",
"I do wonder why it is Denmark on English. We say Danmark. Why change the a to an e? It should be easy enough to say Danmark for English speakers, cause they do so Danish. And why say Denmark and Danish? It should be Danmark/Danish or Denmark/Denish, right?",
"It's messed up.. like Prague in English sounds alike PRAG or PROG, but in Czech it's like Praha. Get it together people~!",
"The British crown wanted to abolish the Irish language so it took the last three letters of the Irish name Eire and just tacked a generic LAND onto it. Hence Ireland. Would still prefer Eire to be honest or better yet the previous name - Hibernia",
"It's a fun one for the Netherlands, in Dutch we call ourselves Nederlanders from Nederland talking Nederlands, but since we are a small country next to Germany people called us Deutsch, which is why we are now the Dutch, from the Netherlands, speaking Dutch. I know in French we are called Aux pays bas or simmilar, which translates to \"the low lands\" being below sealevel and all.",
"In Chinese countries that China met first all got names formed similarly to Chinas name for itself 中国 middle country. (Because China was the centre of the world) America is 美国 beautiful country Britain is 英国 hero country France is 法国 law country Germany is 德国 moral country Similar but a little different is Japan which is 日本 sun origin Countries China met later just got phonetic translations like 马来西亚 Malaysia ma lai xi ya. 墨西哥 Mexico mo xi ge. 巴西 Brazil ba xi",
"America is the name of the country, \"United States of\" is just a prefix which obviously will be translated. \"America\", in most cases, will be modified so that it rolls easier off the tongue, for example, by replacing the c with a k. (Amerika, Amerikka) For example, Puerto Rico in Japanese is プエルトリコ which is read as \"Puerutoriko\", it sounds almost identical but it is written in a completely different way. Puerto Rico is not safe from translation either, in Chinese it is 波多黎各 which loosely reads \"Boduolige\". Bonus fact, Japan (日本国) can be read as Nihon, Nippon, Jippon, Japan, Hinomoto, Yamato, Wa, or Zipangu, of which \"Nihon\" is the most commonly used.",
"To add to the confusion: Puerto Rico is not a country. I just recently read [this post]( URL_0 ) from a Puerto Rican very angry about people who make that mistake. Do any US states get their names translated in other languages?",
"I did a little research and I didn’t find an answer other than convention. We sometimes translate names into English because it’s simply easier for English speakers in colloquial language. Sure, publications try to stick to the names familiar to natives (Myanmar is called Burma but some newspapers are still using Myanmar), but sometimes it becomes difficult. If we stuck to traditional names we’d have to say Suomi Tasavalta instead of Finland, and Taehan Min’guk instead of South Korea. Then there are the likes of Switzerland who don’t even stick to one official name between themselves. Puerto Rico is easy to pronounce in English so no reason to change it. Deutschland? Not so much.",
"Can someone explain why Nova Scotia is “Nova Scotia” (Latin) in English, but “Nouvelle Ecosse” (French) in French?",
"Cities too. I mean if Peking can be Beijing now, and Bombay is Mumbai, why can't we have Roma, Firenze, Napoli, Venezia, etc. back in Italia?",
"Just as a side note Japan is Nihon in Japanese (日 - ni, 本 - hon) as opposed to nippon in modern times. Traditionally it was nippon but the Tokyo dialect pronunciation became nihon which spread across the majority of the country since, well, it’s Tokyo.",
"In Portuguese the word for turkey is Peru. Which means that English and Portuguese have two different countries, with the name of the same animal. But I don't believe either country was named after the animal. Does anyone know if this just a random occurrence, or is there a meaning behind it?",
"And what about names of cities? Munich is Monaco in Italian, and Mjunhen in Bulgarian. Beijing is Pekin in Russian and Bulgarian. Ljubliana is Laibach in German. Vienna is Becs in Hugarian. And back to the countries, my favorite is how Slovensko is Slovakia in Slovakian. More on European cities - URL_0",
"Native American nations. The tribes names for themselves usually translate into \"the people\" or \"friends\", and then there is the name most English speaking people know, which usually comes from another tribes slur for them, e.g. the Lakota people (meaning \"friends/allies\") are more commonly known as Sioux meaning \"little snakes\" from Ojibwe (Chippewa).",
"It really depends on the country as others have stated. It depends on trading and history with other nations. However part of the reason is probably Puerto Rico is a territory and not a country. Much like Virginia is still Virginia or Nice in France doesn’t get translated either. As you get more specific about a place people seem to just not want to bother translating it."
],
"score": [
7874,
609,
333,
279,
121,
95,
72,
68,
51,
47,
39,
37,
29,
20,
13,
13,
11,
10,
10,
9,
9,
8,
8,
7,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9D"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/a9locd/google_maps_platform_yields_factually_wrong/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aby8a4 | Why are mercenaries not looked on as favourably as soldiers despite the fact that mercenaries risk their lives as much as soldiers do? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed3u3xi",
"ed3v5k0",
"ed3ul5r"
],
"text": [
"One fights for their country and out of obligation. The other for money and do so voluntarily.",
"The negative connotation comes from the stereotype that they will do violence for money *regardless of the justification*. Someone who volunteers to fight for his or her country enjoys the presumption that the military will be fighting for the interests of that country. So that can be seen as patriotic, loyal, even noble. No country is perfect of course, but in general, the military is thought to act for the common good *of that country*. But the stereotypical mercenary can be hired by almost anyone with the money to pay. So when evaluating the decision to become a mercenary, the soldier of fortune doesn't enjoy the favorable presumption of the ordinary soldier. The reality is of course mixed. Most modern day mercenaries actually do serve their country, although somewhat indirectly. The biggest mercenary companies in the world serve the United States or Russia exclusively and are made of former military members who served those countries. But there is also the fairly recent history of foreign mercenaries being used in places like Africa by dictators and warlords in disputes that caused pointless suffering and death.",
"Soldiers are viewed as patriots - men (and women) willing to lay down their lives to protect their country and countrymen (and women). We have been taught from an early age that this is very honorable and these people should be respected because they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice out of a sense of honor and duty. Mercenaries, on the other hand, are fighting for money. They are seen as willing to take up arms not out of loyalty or duty, but out of greed. They will kill based on whomever is willing to pay the bill and may very well be fighting on both sides of the battle, depending on who is paying them that day. Since they do not fight for honor, we do not see them as honorable."
],
"score": [
20,
19,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
abyc4g | Why doesn’t Greenland become independent from Denmark? | I was reading and I found out that Greenland can vote in a referendum to leave Denmark with 65% of its citizen saying they would vote yes. So what’s stopping them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed3vu1l",
"ed3w07h",
"ed3wgil",
"ed3xkw0"
],
"text": [
"The stark reality of not having a relatively rich and well-connected nation provide for your defense and welfare.",
"Money. Greenland doesn't really make enough money to sustain itself, so it's dependent on a grant from Denmark. That may change in the future as Greenland develops it's industry and becomes less reliant on money from the Danish government.",
"The only reason Greenland has even a semi-functioning economy is because of Denmark bankrolling them. Currently, Denmark supplies ~50% of the revenue of the Greenlandic state, and the Greenlandic government employes 25600 people, with only 10000 odd being Greenlandic (the Greenlandic workforce has 40000 people, this means that you'd have over half the population working for the state if there was no Danish labour). Just from this point of view, independence would be a terrible move. Secondarily, there's also the fact that Denmark pays for all military defence and patrols in Greenland, which is *very* important when you have Russia making inroads into the Arctic. Ultimately, we might see Greenland become independent from Denmark, but the current reality of the Greenlandic Home Rule agreement is that Greenland can, at any point, take over controls of any sector that is not being controlled by the Greenlandic state. So they might as well *not* declare independence until they've taken back control of all sectors of their state and know that they can pay for those sectors, especially once the Danish subsidy dries up because of the independence vote.",
"Most people vote with their heart on such subjects as it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the global and economic implications of such decisions. Greenland have a tiny population, few resources and vast territory and therefore they would have a lot of issues providing their citizens with important services. For example they do not have a university to provide high end education and important research, they are too small to have a well functioning administration and foreign policies, they could not be able to provide an army big enough to show force in their territory, something that Denmark have issues with currently. And for the most part Denmark is recognizing Greenlands autonomy and allows the citizens to act mostly how they want. If you look at the issues Iceland had in the years following its independence from Denmark and then see that Greenland only have 1/7 as many inhabitants and 20 times the area of Iceland. After their independence Iceland had to battle the British coast guard over the right to fish in their own waters. Greenland would be up against the US who already have invaded Greenland without the Danes being able to do anything and Canada. If there is even a tiny boarder dispute then Greenland would not have the military or diplomatic forces to gain anything from the deal. So if US fishermen were to fish in the waters around Greenland they would not be able to do much about it. If Canada discovers oil in territorial waters of Greenland then nobody would be able to stop them pumping it up and selling it. When the North West passage opens up who is going to pay for the required infrastructure needed for the shipping lane?"
],
"score": [
12,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
abzxpo | What does "I think, Therefore I am" mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed48fkh",
"ed48lmr",
"ed48mzd"
],
"text": [
"The philosopher Descartes said this. It means \"if you're wondering whether you exist at all, notice that you are thinking right now, so you must exist or who'd be thinking?\"",
"Rene Descartes went through a period of trying to discern all the things in his world that he could possibly know. He started eliminating everything he couldn't be absolutely sure about and, as it turns out, through being mistaken, being mislead, etc, we might not actually 100% know much of anything. The one thing he found to be his kernel of truth is that even if he's wrong, even if he's being deceived, he has to exist for those things to happen. So at the very least he can be fairly confident that he is a thinking thing. He thinks, therefore he must in some way exist. And that's possibly a truth he could rely on.",
"You think you know many things about the world, but ultimately, all information is relayed to you through your senses. When you see color, you aren't seeing \"What the world looks like\" you are seeing your brains interpretations of electrical signals sent along the optic nerve, that are responding to being struck by particular wavelengths of radiation. Your 'vision' is faked by the brain, and presumably if someone could fake the signals they could present you with a fool proof world that is entirely artificial. You have no 'direct window' to the universe. For that matter, even if we assume your senses are real, we often make mistakes involving them. People are fooled by their senses all the time. Beyond that, we also can think illogically, and something we believe is true, another may believe is false. If we are not unique, then we too are capable of bad logic and could have wrong ideas. So if you take that to its ultimate *possible* conclusion, everything you think you experience or know, might be wrong. But whether you think it is all true, or you think it is all false, or some mixture of the two, *you are thinking it* and so you, the thinking thing, *must exist*, at least."
],
"score": [
28,
17,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ac52gz | Why is some abstract art like a Jackson Pollock is considered a masterpiece by experts, but to most people is just splashy paint on a sheet? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed58xkb",
"ed5cuo5",
"ed5av7x",
"ed5d52m",
"ed5810t"
],
"text": [
"It's because they were the first to do it. It seems common now, but no one had thought of using paint like that. Kind of like the first kid on your preschool who got a fidget spinner. It was exciting then but isn't anymore.",
"There's a good book out there by Susie Hodge called \"Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That\". There's several pages on Jackson Pollock, discussing his 'Drip' technique. Remember, he was an artist and there was a long path he took through his career to get to this point, trying techniques, thinking about what art is, trying to determine how to express his feelings and emotions through imagery, etc., it's not something he did on a whim. To quote from the book \"Pollock's fascinations included primitive art, myths, automatism, and Jung's philosophies. His pouring, dripping, and flinging of industrial paint on to large unstretched, unprimed canvases on the floor was radical and overturned traditional notions of painting\". It was new, he was the first, it meant (and means) something, it conveys the attitude of the time, it marks a changing of the medium, and hence people hold it in regard.",
"Roughly one part \"He was the first who managed to sell this kind of painting for a nice price, which made him famous and therefore his paintings are famous too\" and two parts \"the fine art market is basically a scam/money laundromat/tax evasion scheme\".",
"I'm not going to dive into the merits of modern art but there's a pretty good explanation for why Jackson Pollock in particular is so popular. He was heavily promoted by an art critic by the name of Florence Rubenfeld who had a lot of sway in the art world. You can watch a cool video about it here: URL_0",
"Full disclosure- I don’t understand much visual art, and I used to despise it, but a friend of mine helped me understand one day what makes even the most mundane-looking stuff considered “fine art”. He explained that the visual component was only part of the art, but that the ability of the artist to explain their work, in a relatable way, was the key to separating art from trash."
],
"score": [
16,
12,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/10/1/17923698/jackson-pollock-clement-greenberg-history"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ac5suk | How come there are diverse languages across the world and spoken among various people? I just don't understand the origin of any language. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed5d2zz",
"ed5diuz",
"ed5ktib"
],
"text": [
"Because isolated groups of people develop their own way of communicating, and back when we first started to communicate we might as well have been isolated people. For example, let's say we take you and nine other people, and from the moment you were born you lived in total isolation from everyone else. you never interacted with another person, you never heard another language. The chance of you coming up with an exact replica of an existing language to communicate is pretty much guaranteed to be impossible.",
"The easiest way to understand it is in the case of the Roman languages, i.e. Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, etc. All of them were Latin not even 2000 years ago. Specifically Latin dialects. This happens frequently with languages when they inhabit a wide area. People start speaking a little bit different, borrow a few words from a nearby language, etc. * Fast forward to present day. At one point the Roman empire fell. All those regions became their own countries with their own ruler. It's common that people adjust their way of speaking to be similar to the media or the ruling class. We call it prestige variety and it's usually also the language we chose to do business in. And at that point it's pretty much it's own language as we erradicated that slow shift from Italian to French to Spanish as the borders draw sharp lines like which ruler you want to sound like. That's basically a microcosm what happen from Indo-European (basically most languages spoken in Europe and parts of Asia) and all other large language families downwards. Indo-European becomes Proto-Germanic, Latin, etc. Those become Western Germanic, Old Norse, etc. This finally becomes German, English, etc. Some scholars argue that there's a proto-language from which all languages are derived but, as this was before writing, it's hard to definitely prove. Edit: * of course all of these regions were fairly isolated because texting and travelling wasn't really existing at that point. And so those quirks any dialect developed didn't spread across a bigger area",
"Ever see an old person trying to understand a younger person talking? \"what is a 'bae' and why are you describing that lady as 'your bae'? \" Likewise look at any old timey movie, they'll use slang and idioms you barely understand. Languages change over time, you've just seen how much it can change in a handful of decades. And that's with the benefit of actual recordings of people speaking, it might change even faster without that. Now compare modern English to the stuff Shakespeare was speaking. It starts getting really hard to understand. Keep going back to the Canterbury Tales, nearly incomprehensible. By the time you get to Beowulf, you literally cannot understand it at all. That's how much a language changes in a few centuries. Every language has that effect, it shifts and changes over time. When people are in regular communication, the changes evens out and becomes similar. When people are separated, the changes start making their languages different. It simply unlikely that the isolate languages change in the exact same way. So over time, the changes bring the languages in different directions, until they can no longer be understood."
],
"score": [
20,
10,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ac8u1m | Why are Operas stereotypically portrayed as large women with viking attire? | Why are opera singers stereotypically portrayed as being large women in Viking horns/attire? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed62pej",
"ed62y3h",
"ed62e8j"
],
"text": [
"That is the specific character of Brünhilde from Wagner's Die Walküre Opera. It basically became the image we think of when we think of Opera, in part due to Looney Tunes referencing it at several times most famously being \"Kill the Wabbit\" to the tune of \"Flight of the Valkyrie\".",
"Probably because some of the most famous operas are Wagner's four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung). They involves the Norse gods, and some of the female characters wear horned helmets. The bit about large women is based off a long-held belief that having more flesh around the throat gives a more complex or better sound from the human voice. This may be going out of style now, but it was the norm for many years, and singers were encouraged to gain weight to improve their voices. Opera is a lot more than this, though! I'm just a casual fan, but don't knock it until you've tried it!",
"Wagner wrote the Ring cycle of operas which had a lot of that sort of thing in it. It's based on the Norse/Germanic mythology. Heroes, Valkyries, maidens on rocks in the Rhine, old Gods, dragons, magic ring, etc."
],
"score": [
43,
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
acdwws | How did we get last names? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed76jct"
],
"text": [
"In the early years of the Middle Ages, most people in Europe lived in small farming villages. Everyone knew his neighbors, and there was little need for last names. But as the population expanded and the towns grew, a need arose to find ways to differentiate between two people who shared the same first name. Because the British were among the first Europeans to settle in North America, many modern American surnames can be traced back to medieval England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Common adjectives used as bynames often referred to size - such as Little, Short, or Long—or to hair color or complexion—such as White, Black, or Red (which evolved into Reed). Sometimes, an adjective was combined with a noun to form a byname, like Longfellow or Blackbeard. Names such as Stern and Stout (meaning stout-hearted, not fat) described temperament, while Drinkwater implied someone with a powerful thirst. John Peacock must have been rather vain! A name might also refer to social status, such as Squire, Knight, or Bachelor. And Palmer described a pilgrim who had returned from the Holy Land. (It was traditional for such pilgrims to bring back a palm as a sort of souvenir.) Names derived from the Gaelic tongue are less easily deciphered by modern English-speakers: Cameron means “crooked nose,” Kennedy means “ugly head,” and Connolly means “valiant"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
acflog | How did empires in the past fail? And is any of the current empires in the world following such trend? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed7krct",
"ed7llfz"
],
"text": [
"A complex cocktail of greed, in fighting, outside attack, a poor management. There is a YouTube channel called \"overly sarcastic productions\" that has a video set describing the rise and, more relevant to this discussion, fall of the Roman Empire. You can see some of these trends happening in the United States",
"There are no current Empires. The closest to such an entity are the economic hegemonies that the US, Russia, and China have in their regions. (Edit: Though I suppose that the British Commonwealth is technically still an Empire as multiple nations or \"kingdoms\" are subjects of the same Monarch. But the Queen holds no effective power over them.) But some people do believe that the US is following some of the trends that Rome did as it fell."
],
"score": [
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
acg298 | How does language work? How do you understand what other people are saying? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed7uodh"
],
"text": [
"We understand what people say because we have learned to understand it. If I hear a language I can't understand at all it's just jibberish to me, just as my language sounds like jibberish to someone who doesn't know how it's built up. Language works in the way that we have a fixed sound for something as well as a limited sound alphabet, and then a couple of grammatical rules on how to use the sounds to describe things around us. The rules is what makes it a working language, that despite you have two people who have never met you have both learned the same rules and often same sounds. It's not the only things we learn to understand, if I cry you know I am sad, if I point at something you know that I want you to see something, If I wave my hand in a certain motion you know I want you to come closer and so on. It's a language by itself."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
acgrmz | Why is Bessie a common cow name? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed7vjo4"
],
"text": [
"Latin for cow is bos, which led to cows being called Bossie. For English-speakers, Bessie makes more sense."
],
"score": [
24
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
acq6sp | How did the phrase "God bless you" after a sneeze become a thing, and why is there a word for it in every language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ed9wmdq",
"eda14m1",
"ed9wv98"
],
"text": [
"In some places it comes from superstition. In others, they wish you health because a sneeze may be a sign you’re about to fall ill. However, there isn’t a word or phrase you say after someone sneezes in every language. If I remember correctly, they don’t do that in Japan/Japanese, for example.",
"There's various folklore from 'the soul is trying to escape' to as far back as ancient greece where a sneeze could be seen as a sign from the gods (ie. 'I bet Odysseus will kill you all' *achoo* 'ha see') > and why is there a word for it in every language? Most of those (ex gesundheit) actually mean something more akin to 'health' or 'good health' which makes a bit more sense and is another interpretation of the english one.",
"I heard it’s because your soul leaves your body so someone has to bless you so it returns."
],
"score": [
18,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
acupp6 | Why is there such a strong stigma against romantic/sexual relationships with a large age gap (15 years+ difference)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edaw0ui",
"edaw4h1",
"edaw3iw"
],
"text": [
"I think it’s because it can imply an imbalance of power within the relationship. And because the power may be unequal this might lead to one side being taken advantage of. The other reason is because with significant age differences there is also the possibility of parent-child dynamic type relationship.",
"It is often a concern about power dynamics. Typically the older person has more resources or authority which can be used to coerce the younger party. Likewise, manipulation is a concern. This tends to be for when the younger party is 30 or younger. There is a point where that age gap isn't considered such a big deal. Although there can be some question of whether the relationship is for emotional reasons or material gain depending on the circumstances.",
"As a society, we think of ideal couples as being from the same generation. It's weird to have your daughter (even as an adult) going out with your best friend. Part of the reason the stigma persists is the fact that we protect our children far beyond puberty. If you were old enough to no longer be protected when she was born, it's like you waited for her to grow up. Which would be creepy. A lot of the \"rules\" (not that we always follow them) are based on the rule of half your age plus seven, which if followed limits 16 year old girls to dating 15-18 year old boys. And it limits 30 year olds to dating 22-46 year olds. It's perfectly legal for that 30 year old to date an 18 year old, but people find it a little creepy. Because you haven't been in high school for over a decade, and she's probably still in it."
],
"score": [
22,
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
acxzk2 | Why is John Lennon's death generally referred to as an "assassination" and not just a murder? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edbr8es",
"edbr9ds",
"edbrcg8",
"edbrbn7"
],
"text": [
"Assassination is the killing of a prominent person, either for political or religious reasons or for payment.",
"I think it has to do with the nature of the killing. Lennon was murdered, and so was JFK, and so was Trotsky...but so were thousands of people. If the murder is motivated by politics, or of an important figure, and is done for motivations other than personal greed, generally it is considered an assassination. Lennon's death might be stretching this a bit, though.",
"An assassination is the killing of a prominent person. He was a very prominent pop culture figure. The rest of us normal people only get to be murdered.",
"Assassination generally refers to someone famous/culturally or politically influential, while murder is the blanket term. Legally, it's all \"homicide,\" however."
],
"score": [
22,
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ad2nsf | when lawyers choose to represent someone, does the person tell the lawyer that they're guilty? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edd2e8v",
"edd02vi"
],
"text": [
"This is actually an unresolved ethics issue. Believe it or not lawyers are not allowed to lie in court - though lying requires them to have actual knowledge that what they are saying is a lie. Because of that the standard ethical advice to defense attorneys is not to ask, and to stop a client if it sounds like they are going to tell you something that would require you to lie. But that's a lawschool hypothetical. In real life yes, it happens from time to time but everyone pretends that it doesn't.",
"Criminal defense attorneys aren’t just for proving someone’s innocence. They are also for protecting the accused’s rights for due process, even if guilty. It’s usually in their best interest to tell the truth to their attorneys so that the attorney can do their job."
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ad3322 | How did New York avoid the massive population loss in the 20th century that plagued other large American cities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edd5hft"
],
"text": [
"It didn’t. Population crashed and crime skyrocketed just like many other American cities. If it did statistically not lose much population it might be an artifact of the sprawling five borough system."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ad4uk0 | How would we translate a newfound language into one we understand? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eddk2wo"
],
"text": [
"The movie ‘Arrival’ does a great job of showing how our linguists would begin to start the process of communicating with an alien race we know *literally* nothing about. It’s all about building a groundwork and establishing whether or not they can even comprehend concepts on the same way we do, before we move on to literal translation and vocabulary. Do they understand the concept of an individual, do they even know what a question is? All this has to be deciphered before we can begin to learn something as simple as a language."
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ad7duf | What are the yellow vest protestors in France trying to accomplish? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edea6js"
],
"text": [
"Last year there were a few different changes in the French tax and fees rates which the yellow vest protestors feel is giving rich people proportionally lower taxes and poor people higher taxes. And while they do want lower taxes they also do not want to be screwed over like this again so they want the political leaders in the country to resign due to corruption."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adcubu | What is street epistemology and how does it work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edfvm30"
],
"text": [
"Street epistemology is a modern application of the Socratic method. If a person makes a claim, you can examine the claim by asking questions, like \"how did you determine this was true,\" or \"if that's the case, does it mean that X will also be true.\" By asking questions of the person making the claim, you're actually getting them to examine the claim for you, and see if they're confident in it or arrived at in a rational and intellectually honest way. The term \"street epistemology\" is specifically used by atheists looking to engage with religious people with the goal of helping them see that their beliefs aren't justified (or, perhaps, to discover that they *are* justified). But it can be used on any claim. The great thing about it is that you aren't making a counter-claim that requires defending, and you aren't making assumptions about the person's position."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
addhuc | Freemasons vs Odd Fellows | So I was wondering who the Freemasons are vs who the Oddfellows are. - What do they do? - How do they benefit society? (if they are set up to that) - I am **NOT** looking for conspiracy theories. I just would like to know what the differences are if any. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edg1v3a"
],
"text": [
"These are two examples of [fraternal organizations]( URL_0 ). Think of them as private social clubs. The members meet regularly, and do thinks like have dinner/drinks and give speeches. They organize events for the members. That could mean service projects like working in a food kitchen, or it could just mean hosting a picnic for the club members' families. It depends on the organization, as they each have different focuses. Many of these organizations benefit society by doing volunteer work or donating to charities. For example, one order of Freemasonry with a focus on charities is the Shriners. They operate a hospital network called [Shriners Hospitals for Children]( URL_1 ). As private clubs, most of these societies do not talk about what else goes on in the meetings. There is an internal structure and ceremonies that are specific to each."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_general_fraternities#Fraternal_orders",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriners_Hospitals_for_Children"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
ade1gy | Why does the President of Brazil want to wipe out the Indigenous population living in the Amazon rainforest? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edg8y7o"
],
"text": [
"Jair Bolsonaro (the president of Brazil) strongly believes that Brazil should exploit its natural resources for maximum gain. Land in the Amazon rainforest is mineral-rich and can also be easily converted to plantations and ranches. However, this land is owned by indigenous Amazonian tribes who are protected under the constitution. The only way for him to get his way is to strip these groups of these protections. Because indigenous people are deeply connected to their land, losing these protections will effectively wipe them out as a culture."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aden0m | How does one become an NCAA/NFL/NBA referee and what are their lives like? | I have wondered this for a while now. I went to an NBA G-league basketball game today and watched the refs again and I decided to ask my questions here. Is there a referee training school? Are referees hired only by conference/team/region? Do they travel a lot? What is the time commitment like? What do they do in the off-season? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edgc65l",
"edgc5hw"
],
"text": [
"I can answer this from an NHL referee perspective. Typically, most regions allow you to become a referee at 13. Assuming you’ve played hockey (you can start as young as 4 in Canada), you have a general grasp of the rules, and can skate. However, it is not a requirement. You take what’s called a referee clinic - this is a 2 day course and involves an off-ice component, and an on-ice component where you’re taught procedures. Then you’re just sorta let loose on the minor hockey system. Many local hockey organizations also have corresponding referee associations, which are self governed. Of those; many offer mentoring programs, where a more senior official will lace up and head out with the new officials. After some games, a referee gets the general sense of whether they prefer being a referee or a linesman - but you have to be able to do both. You slowly work your way up the ranks of minor hockey. Once you reach midget hockey officiating, your local association might consider you for a referee development camp. These don’t have many spots and are quite hard to get into. Once you turn 18, you qualify to referee Junior B hockey, if you have the skills. (This is the level I made it to, as a female official.) Scouts generally start looking around (yup, there’s referee scouts!). If you can keep control of a game, and handle your shit, you get invited to referee at prestigious minor hockey levels, like Midget AAA. (midget is 15-17 year old players). This is also where off-ice officials get noticed as well (score clock, shot counter, goal judge, etc). I officiated as an off-ice official for 6 years, as a score sheet keeper (the actual official paperwork where everything is kept - this is my personal highest level of officiating). The Macs Midget AAA tournament is one place that both players and referees are scouted for at a young age. This tournament draws scouts and also notable NHL personalities (I’ve personally seen Kelly Hrudy, Ron McLean, Jerome Iginla, etc, etc) watching these games. Doing a good job at the Macs gets too an invite to referee in the WHL. From there, it’s one step up to the big leagues. So, what’s it like for people that make it? Lots of travel. Referees need to be fresh and not spend too much time with the same teams. You’re generally sent on circuits that take you arena to arena. You also typically referee with the same team. NHL games have 2 referees and 2 linesmen. That’s your team. You travel with them. You keep yourself in shape the same way players do, though in my observation, less intense. Refereeing is more about stamina rather than strength. Remember - a referee skates an entire game, not just shifts. And for NHL, pretty much as long a you keep yourself close enough to an airport they don’t care where you live. I live in a small town near Calgary; and we have a plethora of active and retired referees in my town for some reason. We have one recently retired referee that is very active in our minor hockey program - I can’t remember the official title, but basically he manages any concerns female players have (as we have no female-only teams), and as a parent with a female player and as a female trainer in a predominantly male community, I interact with him a lot. My stepdad was for a long time the head of our organization, and I actually met my husband through refereeing. So we all seem to stick together. ETA: referees earn 165K-$360K. Linesman make $110K-$235K USD Most referees retire in their 40s",
"From an MLB umpire perspective....they get paid very well. They make enough in salary they don't \"need\" to have a job in the off season. And they get per diem and stay in nice hotels etc. But they are travelling about 7 months of the year and if their family stays home that seven months can be very lonely. In most cases they are usually older by the time they make it to MLB (they go to umpire schools in their 20's and it usually takes ten+ yrs to make it to MLB)"
],
"score": [
29,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
adfmfx | how (big) ancient cities, like Babylon, became deserted? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edgljln",
"edhvqid"
],
"text": [
"Cities like that can only exist if the people there can make a lot of money from the location. When the craftsmen and traders could no longer easily buy and sell goods due to near constant warfare during the reign of the Seleucid empire, people started to leave for (hopefully) greener pastures. The ones who remained were not able to maintain and guard the gigantic, empty city, so they too had to leave eventually. The main reason Babylon was never rebuilt was that there were plenty of other cities nearby. Both the Sassanian (Persian) capital of Ctesiphon and the Abbasid (Arab) capital Baghdad were built just a short trip away from the site of Babylon.",
"Take a look at Detroit for a modern example of this. Once an industrial powerhouse, it lost 2/3 of its population since 1950, and is only now maybe turning around, after an effort to shrink the city's boundaries and bulldoze the abandoned sections. Its a fantastic place to study urban prairie/wilderness now, as large sections of the city have returned to nature. How did it get this way? Not a natural disaster, this was all man-made. Poor urban planning, job losses, riots, crime. As a result, people who were best able to moved out, and the tax base declined. With many of the best and brightest and most affluent residents gone, and no money to fund city services, it entered a downward spiral of urban blight. It was basically one good war/major natural disaster away from collapsing entirely. Luckily it was in a peaceful, low-natural-disaster area and could count on support from state and federal sources to limp along until it found a viable path forward. Ancient cities mostly didn't have such advantages."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adkx8u | Why do certain cultures (Thai, Indian, Mexican) have so much spicy food, while others (US midwest) have very bland food? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edhv7ss",
"edhvblu",
"edhvotb",
"edhw1nt"
],
"text": [
"Availability of the spices in which spiciness is derived. Culturally and historically you use what you had near you. History dictates what culture perpetuates.",
"In the times before refrigerators spicy food was generally more durable and didn't turn bad as quickly. There's also the theory that eating spicy makes you sweat more and therefore helps you not overheating in tropical climate",
"US Midwest has bland food? You have no clue what you are talking about. There is barbecue all over the place. Kansas City BBQ and Texas BBQ for example. Tons of flavors, sauces, and spices.",
"Different climates allowed for different ways of conserving food. In hot climates it can be very hard to even get the food to last a few hours without going bad due to insects but spices can keep the insects away and cover any foul taste. However further north you might be able to leave food out for days or even in some cases months or years if dried and smoked. So there is less need for expensive spices for conservation. They still used spices but in more moderate amounts. In America things are quite different though. Food cultures takes hundreds of years to form and most immigrants to the US had a refrigerator within a hundred year of immigrating. So the food culture is mostly formed from where people immigrated from and less to do with the climate. This is why neighboring cultures in America can have very different food cultures whereas in Europe neighboring cultures are much more similar."
],
"score": [
18,
13,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adng7l | Why is modern abstract art so highly regarded and so highly priced compared to some older works that look like they require a lot more technique? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edimgmn",
"edimd7o",
"edipydu"
],
"text": [
"Because pieces of art that require no skill are just a crime ring scheme to be able to exchange large amounts of money without arousing suspicion.",
"Watch Adam Ruins Everything on it. URL_0 He is quite correct about how the art market works.",
"Because a lot of people who have money to pay for art valued originally over technical skill for long enough to make it a trend. I'm not a fan of abstract art, but the best eplanation I've seen is that it is like internet memes. Every cycle is referencing the one before in a more and more exclusive pattern and cycle. If you are part of the in group who follow them, the old ones get stale, and you know enough of the referencing to get the new ones, but outsiders are more and more excluded."
],
"score": [
13,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/Dw5kme5Q_Yo"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adrd0a | How did people back then during the sundial times keep track of time at night? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edjms3k",
"edjsj7e",
"edjlzhz",
"edjonsd"
],
"text": [
"You can track the moon and stars. But one of the most common methods was the use of special marked candles what are designed to last the whole night and burn a certain amount during a given hour. Other common methods were things like hour glasses which poured a set measure of sand during a set period of time. There were some large ones created that would take hours to empty once turned. But just like during the day measurement of time was not as exact as it is now and people did not live lives that required it to be such.",
"In addition to what others have said, for the vast majority of people, they just didn't. Up until the industrial revolution, most people didn't care about what time it was, because they had no need to do anything at any specific time.",
"Even at night, the moon and the stars move across the sky. Astronomers would have instruments for measuring the stars. They would have a very good sense of the time of night. Even the common man could judge the time within an hour or so. We don't look at the sky much these days, but they would have. They would know when the major constellations rise and set.",
"Look up \"deacons\" I don't know about all cultures, but I know the ancient Egyptians and a few others had specific stars they would watch across the night sky, and their rise and set would mark different increments of time. They even used the stars to mark the beginning of the year and seasons, so they'd know when to harvest, plant, and when winter was about to hit."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adumlh | What are the main differences between Orthodox Church and Catholic Church? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edk8v02",
"edk9hxt",
"edlgbv0",
"edlt5tq"
],
"text": [
"The biggest difference is that the Catholic church is organized around a single hierarchy, headed by the Pope. The Orthodox church is made of several autonomous groups that communicate with one another, each directed by bishops and patriarchs (the term is \"autocephalous\"). Both denominations agree on most subjects, but since they split in the Middle-Ages, they have grown different practices and customs. Orthodoxes can mostly be found in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Greece, Russia, and places with a significant diaspora of these places. Catholics are more numerous; they can mostly be found in central and southern Europe and their former colonies, most notably Latin America and parts of Africa.",
"The Catholic Church is one church with a single leader, the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox Churches (there are several) have no one leader. The split is the result of what Wikipedia calls the East-West Schism, also called the Great Schism, which occurred around 1000 AD. They have a good summary of some of the doctrinal differences, including interesting things like Orthodox Churches reject the idea of Virgin Birth, a difference in what Purgatory is, and so on. A lot of this is, frankly, a little obscure and probably beyond ELI5. In practice there are a variety of little differences. For example, Catholics use a confessional, while in Orthodox churches confession is generally face-to-face. In my limited experience, the music is also different. The differences are not as big as what one might see in a Protestant church. But at the end of the day I think an open minded Catholic would not find an Orthodox service completely alien, and vice versa.",
"The early Church was organized under multiple leaders who were regionally based rather than under a single leader (the Pope). The Bishop of Rome was one of these Patriarchs, but so too were the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and a few others. There were disagreements on church doctrine ranging from the use of unleavened bread in communion, the nature of the holy spirit, existence of purgatory, to the use of icons (images) in religious contexts, and many many other things. So the fissures on these issues, in particular icons, started to put distance between these leaders. Over time the Bishop of Rome began to gather more political power and started to claim to be the most important Bishop in Christianity, and many of those to the east and in particular the Bishop of Constantinople did not agree at all and the Great Schism occurred. Those to the East became the Orthodox Church and retained having multiple Patriarchs who lead the church in a council, and the West became the Catholic Church lead by a single leader who was the infallible word of God on earth.",
"The two churches share many beliefs and are what I might call \"legible\" to each other, but differ significantly in both practice and belief. The Orthodox Church places more emphasis on mystery and while conservative in many ways, has less of an emphasis on punishment. For example, people are not born with the guilt of \"original sin\" in same way that much of the rest of Christianity interprets it. Only the *effects* of original sin is passed down, but not the sin itself. Therefore, a baby that dies minutes after birth does not go to hell as they never had a chance to sin in life. As a result, both churches can say they believe in hereditary sin... But they mean very different things theologically. These are the types of differences that make it seem very similar, but that actually have major effects on how the religion has evolved. Catholic churches, in comparison, tend to be legalistic and transactional. Your relationship with God is like a bank account, sort of. You are expected to perform certai numbers of things and expect punishment for not doing other things. In the far past, the Catholic Church actually allowed people to buy the right to sin ... Which was part of the stuff that led to the Protestants. Another major difference has to how the two church's conceptualize the Trinity. Catholics basically thing that Jesus and God are Bros, co-equal but of the same stuff, and that the holy spirit flows from both of them. As a result, Jesus is kinda the center of attention. In orthodoxy, the holy Spirit and Jesus are extensions of God. Sorta. It's hard to explain. As a result, the emphasis is more on God. Jesus is still super important, but \"The Father\" is still the main deal. In terms of service and what you see in practice, the two churches are very distinct. In Catholic church, there are pews, prayer books, and usually a big ol' organ. In an Orthodox Church, everyone stands, the priest is running the show, and there is a choir. Only. Another big difference is how Jesus and saints are portrayed. Catholics don't like 2d \"graven\" images, so there is usually a big ol' statue of jesus hanging out. Orthodoxy is down with idols and has painting of saints and biblical scenes all over the place. Catholic priests are expected to be celibate. Orthodox priests get married and have kids."
],
"score": [
33,
13,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aduypd | the anchoring bias | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edkaov9",
"edkahyt"
],
"text": [
"Anchoring bias is when your point of view (or answer, or opinion) is based too heavily around the first piece of information you see rather than the entire knowledge pool. For example, if I ask Bob \"Did you know cats contributed to most deaths of Hummingbirds last year?\" and \"How many hummingbirds do you think there are in UK now?\", and then ask John \"Did you know people have been increasingly proactive at providing hummingbirds shelter?\", followed by the same \"How many hummingbirds do you think there are in UK now?\", Bob will probably give a smaller number as answer than John. This is due to anchoring bias - Bob's \"anchor\" is the information that cats killed hummingbirds, while John's \"anchor\" is the information that people helped hummingbirds. Both facts are correct, however because Bob and John heard different facts first, their perception is affected (and biased).",
"Me: Hey, I'd like to sell you this widget. It costs $100. You: No thanks, I don't really need a widget and that is a lot of money. Me: Well, I'm actually having a sale on widgets and right now they only cost $10. You: Wow, that's way cheaper than the normal price. I must be getting a really good deal. Basically, the first number that you associate with something becomes your anchor. Any number you hear after that will be evaluated in relation to the anchor number, regardless of the true value of the number."
],
"score": [
16,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ae9fxg | Why aren't memes called jokes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edngnhm",
"ednfb0t",
"ednispe"
],
"text": [
"\"Meme\" originally referred to a concept in memetics, which is a study of how culture evolves. A meme is a unit of cultural data, much like how a gene is a unit of biological data. Like genes being passed down to a new generation, memes are passed and propagate through culture; successful ones replicate more often, and may mutate into different forms. An example of a meme might be \"giving a high five.\" The high five started in the 1970s, and quickly \"reproduced\" and spread widely. It mutated into other gestures, like the fist bump. Back in the 90s (or earlier), people started using \"meme\" to refer to anything that spreads online in a similar fashion. A \"meme\" could be a questionnaire which you fill out and then send to your friends for them to fill out; it could be a funny picture you share with your friends; it could be a forum signature. By the mid-00s, \"meme\" took on its more specific meaning used today. They are often jokes, but not always.",
"Because a meme isn't always a joke. It can be an image, a video, or text, that is then spread rapidly over the internet. Generally they're jokes, but isn't always a joke.",
"I can be super frustrated by the poor use of the term \"meme\". The term as originally coined required it to replicated culturally - e.g. it had to have an element of virality that _actually permeates a culture_ to be called a meme (e.g. your can't create a meme, send it to 5 friends and say \"I created a meme\"). It's certainly not supposed to be limited to images with words over them, or even to be something that is humorous. The word originates from Dawkins in \"the selfish gene\" - a book from the 70s. (he doesn't really make claim to invention, and does point to others - but...he is who we commonly attribute the word). But...the point here is that memes aren't jokes, and aren't even necessarily funny. The \"meme\" I believe you're thinking of are sometimes not actually memetic and when they are, are only one example of memes."
],
"score": [
16,
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ae9uc8 | How rich peoples divorce works in US. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ednide0"
],
"text": [
"Some of it depends upon whether they had a pre-nup. He doesn't actually \"owe\" his wife anything current in the same way she doesn't owe him anything. They split marital assets that belong to both of them. They may want to split properties in certain ways. Spousal support going forward depends upon her income versus his to maintain their lifestyle. Their attorneys will go back and forth while they figure out what they're each willing to give and accept."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aee7uo | In the U.S. how are residential roads designated: Street, Avenue, Drive, Court, Place, etc. ? They seem to follow no rules to me. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edojfkt",
"edoitil"
],
"text": [
"Interesting fact. 2nd street is the most common street name as \"1st\" street is typically named after a person place or thing",
"You are correct. There are no rules. There used to be rules, like a boulevard being a large road with trees in the middle, but nowadays you can just do whatever you want."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aegn5z | Why is China so bad at football (soccer)? | Most populated country on Earth, and it’s a popular sport there, yet, they’ve only qualified to the World Cup once. Nearby countries like Japan and South Korea are miles ahead of China when it comes to football, but why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edp4j3m",
"edpaat4"
],
"text": [
"Because other sports are more popular and have the framework for players to learn and develop. For example, how good of a Sepak takraw player can you be in Canada? You can play all you want, but since it isn't popular and there isn't much competition or training, you won't be as good as say, the Malaysians or Indonesians, where it is very popular. Football/soccer is fun, but there is a plateau as to how players can develop because it just isn't as popular compared to say, badminton or table tennis, where they are significantly more popular and China is successful at.",
"As others have already pointed out, interest is very low in China. But to echo what another commenter posted, there's only about 2000 professional clubs in China. What does this mean? It means that there are very, very few places to get **consistent, professional training**. Training and youth development is always going to be the most important factor in how good a nation does in the sport. Okay I know you're thinking about Brazil. Brazil has an *intense* passion and culture of football. That can always offset the lack of development (which Brazil still has very extensively btw), so Brazilians in the past tended to be very good dribblers (they still are) because of the conditions in the favelas where they play soccer. So to recap, two things are necessary: interest and professional training. Professional training is far more important but can be offset by a very, very high amount of interest, but professional training must still exist. China has quite a low interest and their professional training and youth development is not high quality nor very extensive."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aemyox | Why does China have such a fixation on small harmless nations like Tibet and Taiwan? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edqtagj",
"edquvjp",
"edqqurk"
],
"text": [
"Taiwan : Since 1912 China was called the Republic of China. This government fought an communist insurgency between 1927 to 1936, but after the Japanese invaded, there was an uneasy truce/alliance to present a common front against the Japanese. After the surrender of the Japanese, there was a huge power vacuum in China and the Communist insurgency was now a lot bigger, attracting a lot of people in their rank to fight the Japanese. So after WW2, the insurgency developed into a civil war. The Communist constantly attacked the capital, forcing the the ''official'' Chinese government to keep retreated back until they had to flee on the island of Taiwan by the end of 1949. About 2 million people were transferred on Taiwan, while the local population at the time was 6 million. This government still had loyal forces on the mainland controlling region like Tibet and several others, but all of those eventually fall under the communist control by 1951. So Taiwan consider themselves the legitimate government of China, in exile. While Communist China consider Taiwan the last remaining land they need to take control of to finish the civil war, but that the US protect. For Tibet, the region was under Chinese control for a long long time, but the region have a different culture and language. Tibet have a independence movement and the authoritarian government of China won't allow them. It's not just because they are bad guys either, the deep root reason is that Tibet are the source of most of rivers in China and provide a geographical protection against any outside forces. Losing Tibet, would put China at risk of outside influence. For example, an independent Tibet could ally themselves with an enemy of China, which would allow them to put forces right next to the rich region of central China, or construct Dam, limiting the water going in the Rivers that go through China, which could put the agriculture of China in danger. 1 Billion of people is a lot of people to feed and a great risk of revolt if food supply decrease.",
"Because according to China Taiwan and Tibet are part of China. Any suggestion to the contrary implies that their respective revolutions were successful, and that it's OK for other bits of China to declare Independence without repercussion.",
"Technically Taiwan is China (and therefore should be called that). It is similar to, but not to the degree of, the two Koreas where the people are ethnically similar but have political disagreement, and therefore have established different governments. See URL_0 > The People's Republic of China (which administers mainland China) and the Republic of China (which administers Taiwan) do not officially recognize each other's sovereignty. The official position of the governments of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China remains that there is only one sovereign entity of China, and that each of them represents the legitimate government of all of China—including both mainland China and Taiwan—and the other is illegitimate."
],
"score": [
12,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Chinas"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aep4sc | Why are curse words censored? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edrb2r0"
],
"text": [
"Curse words are censored in order to make the show more appealing to a wider audience, which in turn makes these shows more appealing for advertising. Some people find curse words to be upsetting or they don’t want their kids hearing them. As for how curse words came about I’m not sure how they originated."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aepexe | How can historians know what ancient music sounded like? | I understand that by finding and replicating ancient instruments we can get a good idea of what was being used to play music, what notes are available, and what kind of tone it likely had, but how can we know what was actually played? Many cultures had no written musical notation, and many had no written language at all. How can we know what kind of scales and chords and melodies were played? Is there any known music recreated from before music could be written down? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edrftd5"
],
"text": [
"While we can’t definitively know what music from the pre-written era sounded like, we can use anthropology to work our way backwards the same as we do for linguistics. This is further informed by the artefacts found in a given area. For more recent music, there have been cases of it inadvertently being recorded onto clay pots during the turning process— very low fidelity and mixed with the other sounds surrounding the potter, but enough to confirm/shape theories."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aet0er | Why did Japanese culture become so much more popular with Americans than other cultures from places like Africa, South America, The Middle East, or Southeast Asia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edsasw7"
],
"text": [
"It is another first world country but with a radically different culture. The West has at least a lot of similarities and this is the only other first world country besides us"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.