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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aeu0vl | How do home schools work ? How is the syllabus set and how is anyone eligible to teach those subjects? Also how is there teaching validated? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edsvqv0",
"edslv3c",
"edsk850"
],
"text": [
"Oversight varies wildly from state to state. I've had formerly home-schooled students arrive with a far greater depth and breadth of academic knowledge than their public school counterparts. I also had a student who came from out of state and was home \"schooled\" for their entire life. Couldn't read, write, or count past 20, let alone do math. I asked them what homeschooling was like. He said he was supposed to watch Discovery Channel while his parents were at work, but never did. We scheduled parent meetings, and they never showed up. We had the kid set up with an intervention plan to try to at least give them some skills. Within a few weeks, the student was withdrawn. Our admin contacted CPS, who did a visit and found no signs of abuse. Laughably, they also didn't identify any neglect. A few months later, one of my students said the family had moved. Still wonder about that kid. He'd be in his early 20s by now.",
"My high school had an accredited homeschool component associated with it, which allowed students to basically switch back and forth between \"regular\" and homeschool if they wanted/needed. Homeschoolers could even participate in afterschool activities if they chose to. As a little disclaimer though, I went to a private Christian school, so I'm not sure if this applies across the board in Maryland. The school's homeschool curriculum more or less mirrored what was taught in the \"regular\" classroom. There was some variance in order and emphasis but, essentially, students had to hit certain benchmarks in order to qualify for advancement to the next grade. To progress, homeschooled students had to pass a qualifying test at the end of each year that covered, somewhat liberally, what students would have learned during \"regular\" school that year. So basically, all students studied the same curriculum and had to hit certain benchmarks in understanding to pass to the next grade. Those at the \"regular\" school had tests designed by the teachers; whereas homeschooled students had pre-designed (i.e. standardized) tests. That student's work was then sent to the high school and recorded. Upon successful completion of the high school curriculum, they could walk with the graduating class of that year, even if they had never actually attended the regular school. Most did for the social interaction, but some did not. If the homeschool student wanted to transfer from homeschooling to \"regular\" school, they had to take a general comprehension test for the grade to which they were applying. Oddly enough, those students were usually held back a year when they transferred. I think it was more social acclamation than actual comprehension because the former homeschoolers always seemed to have a better grasp of the knowledge than those of us in the \"regular\" curriculum. Where the \"regular\" students shined was in their understanding of the different testing styles. This was really apparent whenever a homeschooler would join the \"regular\" class. They'd clearly know all of the material, but then have difficulty studying for the exam because the teachers would emphasize certain parts over others and have different expectations on the answers. Tl;Dr My high school had a homeschooling curriculum that those students had to follow. Students were then tested frequently on their comprehension of the material through standardized tests that were graded by the parent or third-party educator and collected by the school. Edit: Grammar",
"I don't have all the information, but according to my friend who was home schooled from K-7, he said that the state gives the requirement subject and topics. Then they have state certified test to take pass you get credit and fail you don't. Now the rest of the logistics is beyond me."
],
"score": [
11,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aeupzh | When did the old-style of boxing come to look silly and start being replaced. | If you look at a picture like [this]( URL_0 ), it looks kinda silly nowadays. But you'll see it in historical films and such, this is how people used to fight. When did that change and people start raising their hands a bit to better cover their face? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edss00u",
"edt7jbu",
"edt411x"
],
"text": [
"Once gloves were introduced it became possible to repeatedly strike the head without breaking your own hand so holding a higher guard was necessary. Also, grappling was clamped down on and so a stance that facilitated wrestling was no longer needed.",
"When they introduced gloves and rules to \"soften\" the sport. Too many nasty injuries and even deaths before, so various rules were introduced to make the whole thing less dangerous. This obviously lead to a change in strategy and the new strategy demanded a different stance. Source: my late great-granddad was european champion in the 10st class in 1915",
"The rules were different and aiming for the face wasn't the best tactic. This meant keeping your distant from the other fighter was valued over protecting your face. Thus you have a pose which will help you do just that. The rules were changed after a boxer died in a famous boxing match. Well they weren't so much changed then created, it was pretty no bars before hand. Or at least extremely not standard."
],
"score": [
46,
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aevm2o | How do People Invent New Languages? / How did everyone learn the first language? | How do people invent new languages, and how do people spread information in that language about new languages. For example, the first language on Earth, how did people explain how to speak English? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edt1dxm",
"edt4eep",
"edt8y7p"
],
"text": [
"Here is a Wikipedia link with many theories that explain simply different theories on how the origin of language came to be. URL_0 In many theories it seems to be a common belief that humans started imitating the sounds of animals and with accompanied gestures and signs. I think a good example of these theories would be watching babies and toddlers learn to talk.",
"As far as new languages, that’s a result of geographic isolation. When two groups with a common language (Latin) are separated geographically, they encounter new ideas and concepts as well as flora, fauna, and inventions. People need new words to describe them, and different group choose different words as they aren’t in contact, but a group itself maintains some level of cohesion where everyone uses similar words. As far as how words change, new words can bring slightly different spins on old concepts, and replace them over time, as well as accents developing (likely due to random personal voice change changing the average “accent” of a region). With different accents, sounds change and letters sometimes follow long after (Such as old English Werman becoming Women yet sounding like Wimmen sometimes)",
"Not really an explanation but more a point to consider. Languages are not fixed immutable things. English isn’t an intrinsic property of the universe that was waiting to be discovered and learnt. The English language has existed for well over 1000 years, and is descended from other languages that existed before it. But 1000 years ago, ‘English’ would have been unintelligible to you now, save for some words you might recognise. How exactly would you go about teaching you 1000 year old English? Would you even understand the concepts behind the structure and grammar? Consider this, if you went back to the 1970s and proudly declared to people that you were going to ‘ask a question on Reddit. Which a website, which is kind of like an Internet forum and also pretty similar to a blog. I access it by using a router and a modem which connects me to the internet’, they’d understand some of the words, but others would be total and utter gibberish. Languages thrive on usage, they haven’t been invented by one person, they are basically living entities that are ‘made’ by the consensus of hundreds, thousands, millions of people. Languages are just audible representations of physical objects and concepts, it’s like a kind of ‘money’ to offset the need to point at something. We agree that it has value and we trade in it daily."
],
"score": [
9,
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aewqb6 | Why do Italians consider that ordering cappuccino after lunch is rude/offensive? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edtftqf"
],
"text": [
"Because cappuccino is a breakfast only beverage. It can be tolerated if you use it for a snack mid-afternoon, but usually it's strictly morning beverage. For us Italians someone ordering a cappuccino after lunch is not rude, we see it as \"stupid\" or a distinction between a foreigner and a local. It's like eating ice cream between pasta and a steak, or a salad after a coffee and bitter. The only beverage after lunch that is tolerated is coffee, maybe with some milk, but even milk and coffee (latte macchiato) is frown upon."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
af0m7b | Why and when did goats and goat parts become symbols of satan or devils? | The only thing I could possibly think is the dying culture of Greek and Roman mythology/religion as other religions became more prominent and wanted it out but that is a completely wild guess | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eduelco",
"eduyy80"
],
"text": [
"Since 1856, the name Baphomet has been associated with a \"Sabbatic Goat\" image drawn by Eliphas Levi. Baphomet was a diety that the Knights Templar were falsely accused of worshipping in the 14th century when they were excommunicated from the Church.",
"In the old testament, it has to do with goats being made into idols and worshiped as gods. \"The priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and turn the fat into smoke as a pleasing odor to the Lord, so that they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.\" (Leviticus 17:6-7, NRSV)"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
af4e6v | Hieroglyphs...how does ancient subjective image become a modern language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edvgwjv",
"edvfbmb",
"edvv76c"
],
"text": [
"Hieroglyphs aren't subjective pictures, but a formally codified language in which pictures represented sounds (usually sounds contained in the word for what the picture was of). As a made of example, a picture of an apple might represent the letter \"a\" or the syllable \"ap\" and every time you saw a picture of an apple you would read it as that sound, not as that word. So it's a lot less primitive and a lot more consistent than it seems.",
"Do you mean how do people translate hieroglyphs? Most of what archaelogists and linguists know is based on the Rosetta Stone, which had a decree written in stone in three scripts, one of which was Greek. They translated the Greek, and knew one of them was similar enough to contain the same text, and the third was hieroglyphs so they deduced it must be the same text. They worked backwards to reason what the text said in hieroglyphs.",
"As /u/deadantelope said, hieroglyphs are not \"subjective images\". On top of that, hierogylphs are not a \"language\" they're a system of writing a language. So, to take Egypt as an example, the Ancient Egyptian language existed, and hieroglyphs were invented to write it down. How the language developed over the millennia is probably mostly independent of how it was written. Egyptian hieroglyphs, however, were simplified (which we might consider \"modernisation\"), but, as I understand it, were ultimately replaced by the Greek alphabet."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
af8m6n | What's happening in France politically and who are the Yellow Vests? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edweo2j",
"edwojf2",
"edwrdr1"
],
"text": [
"President Macron heavily taxed fuel in an effort to contribute less to climate change. Rural people who use their cars and trucks for work didn't like the outrageous fuel prices. Everyone in France is required to have a yellow reflective vest in their vehicle in case of emergencies. The protesters just used them to identify one another. Macron has caved to almost all of the protests demands except for resigning. He's abandoned the fuel taxes, raised minimum wage and removed several other taxes but I personally don't think they'll stop until he resigns.",
"As there is a strong media coverage, it seems that all of France is in Yellow vests. There is around 10k to 20k protesters every saturday. France population is over 66 millions.",
"The immediate concern is taxation, but the longer term deal (and the reason there's so much instability and right-wing revanchism in France and most of the EU is the general economic malaise - stagnant wages in nominal terms (declining in real), piss poor economic growth, lack of opportunity, a top-heavy labor force that's highly educated mated with a jobs market that can't fully utilize them. Then you have the problems of the Euro and the fact that many people in the EU bloc countries feel politically disenfranchised because their national governments seem powerless compared to the economic masters-of-the-universe at the ECB who control the Euro and thus control each country indirectly. The protests in france are just another iteration of what happened in Greece a few years ago."
],
"score": [
105,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
af925n | If the National Enquirer is often said to publish false or misleading information, why aren’t they sued for libel often? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edwhjjh"
],
"text": [
"You also have to prove damages and rags like the NE are not seen as ‘respected news sources’ which could cause such damage. Go take a look at the Sandy Hook Parents v Infowars lawsuit, they have made a claim of damages caused by things said / printed on that platform."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
af9j73 | Why aren’t there many (if any) off-brand beers? Like “great value”... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edx5pqv",
"edwmcdj",
"edxv5z5"
],
"text": [
"Here in the UK we do have value beer. Its about the equivalent of a dollar for a 4pack and around 3% Its just a plain can with \"beer\" written on it, or \"Lager\" Every large supermarket sells it",
"There are several. Keystone Light, Natural Light, Pabst Blue Ribbon, etc are all examples of cheap, \"value\" beers.",
"Costco has a Kirkland brand beer. It’s a bud and bud light knock off. There’s also Kirkland wine."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
af9k7l | Why are boats given female pronouns? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edwmbl5"
],
"text": [
"Because the Latin word for ship, *navis*, is feminine. Grammatical gender is a concept that doesn't exist in English, so it's hard to make a comparison, but in Latin this word takes female pronouns because it's in the same category as other feminine words. Edit to clarify: this pattern carried over into the development of English. Why that word and not others, I don't know."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
afae0m | Why is spicy food so prevalent in Asian cuisine but not so in western cuisine? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edwyic5",
"edwz73r",
"edy2j4s",
"edx98lg",
"edydkrt",
"edy8iup",
"edyalf9",
"edwwump",
"edxumir",
"edybz9l",
"edybfoh",
"edyd5xe",
"edy6ekz",
"edygt9y",
"edya2dp",
"edydk55",
"edyc5g0",
"edy9kmc",
"edyb0ct",
"edy7xfl",
"edyc73d",
"edyr1lz",
"edxmgxn",
"edwv9mw",
"edxfkey",
"edy9be7",
"edyekru",
"edyq56e"
],
"text": [
"When chili peppers were brought from the New World they were introduced to India in the late ~~15th~~ 16th century by Portuguese traders. The peppers grew very well in the tropical climate of India and was quickly adopted into their foods. From there the peppers spread to southeast Asia where a similar thing happened. However, chili peppers don't grow very well in Europe where western cuisine comes from.",
"Spicy plants tend to grow in warmer places. Like southern Asia and Africa. Not so much in Europe and northern Asia (though truth be told not much at all grows well in northern Asia). The same is true in the Americas, so when spicy plants like chilis were imported by European traders and colonizers, they couldn't cultivate new world peppers in Europe, but they thrived in eastern colonies and trading partners.",
"Seems to me that the OP is disregarding the Latin American cuisine, which can be very spicy and is just as Western as that of European countries.",
"foods in warmer climates spoil faster. they used spices to keep that food fresh, longer. Here is a video that goes into more detail URL_0",
"Oh! One I can finally weigh in on! If you look at the regional cuisine all around the planet, try not to think of it as East vs. West. But more North vs. South. The closer you get to the equator, the spicier the cuisine. Warmer temperatures spoil meat faster. Spice covers the flavor of rotten meat. Think of all the regional cuisines close to the equator... Jamaican, Mexican, Indian... All are full flavor and loaded with spice. Scandinavian, English, Russian food is all very mild by comparison. You could kill an animal and it would spoil much less quickly without refrigeration. Even within Asian regions... Thai and Schezuan are burning hot, while Japanese is much more mild. Source: about the only thing I remember from my evolutionary psych class in college.",
"Mexico is Western and we love chile so do most other Latin American countries . As any Latino and they'll probably tell you the same thing",
"I have lived in Asia for a 18 years, in Europe before that. Apparently, a large reason is food preservation. The fridge is relatively new. There were only a few ways to conserve prepared food for days, especially in warm climates: 1/ in strong alcohol 2/ in salt 3/ in spices, especially chilli Europe culture went the salt way, with lots of meat preserved in salt. Lots of other cultures found it easier to use chilli to conserve food, especially when chilli was easy to get in warmer climates.",
"Spices prevent food poisoning and parasites. They are commonly used in cuisine in hot and moist climates, like India but not as prevalent in colder regions, like Japan.",
"Horsereddish and mustard, I can't come up with any other plants that would have grown in Europe through the ages that were spicey.",
"Besides the climate reasons other people have mentioned another reason is that often spices were associated with pleasure, wealth, and hedonism and so some Christians thought eating more plain foods was more righteous.",
"I have always thought the US liked spicy food. Hot wings, Cajun food, chili and it seems like we make spicy versions of everything. Potato chips, dorito, fritos, burgers, hot dogs, candy, etc. We have enormous hot sauce sections at every grocery store also.",
"What is Western cuisine? Go to Mexico, try some food, and reconsider this question.",
"I’ve always understood it that in hotter climates, spicy food makes you sweat more which is your body’s natural way of coping with heat by helping you cool down (wet skin and a cool breeze).",
"Is mexican food not western food? Texmex can get pretty hot too. Or some southern cooking. If youre talking about Europe then there are some spicy sausages not sure what else. They seem to liie savoury foods.",
"There’s a theory that the use of hot peppers was partially (perhaps without knowing) because the capsaicin is antimocrobial and foods grow bacteria more easily in warmer, wetter climates URL_0 (sorry for bad formatting I’m on mobile)",
"In Korea it is really cold in winter. So forget the chicken noodle soup, spicy soup really warms you up!",
"Haven't seen anyone mention this but during the Middle Ages food was heavily spiced in royal courts because it was a status thing to be able to use all those exotic and expensive spices. This was one of the motivations for early colonial activity, an attempt to ensure control over the spice trade. Now what I do not know, is whether that food was spicy or merely spiced.",
"This thread is turning into a circle jerk. \"Chili peppers grow better in hot climates.\" Maybe so, but they're cheap and widely available all over the world now, but hot and spicy food is much more common in some places than others. \"They were introduced to India and South Asia 500 years ago, and caught on.\" True, but why didn't they catch on other places? \"They have anti-microbial or anti-parasite properties.\" There isn't much evidence of that. If it were true, why aren't they popular everywhere? No one likes microbes and parasites in their food. \"They make you sweat in hot weather.\" There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that. In any case, it's a silly argument. *Hot weather* makes you sweat! \"Indian food isn't that spicy.\" Maybe not all food in all places. However, I lived in India for about six months, ate many different food in different settings. Almost all of it was agonizingly hot. This was a few decades ago. I guess things might have changed. Personally, I've always wondered about this. Whenever pale Europeans travel in places where the food is hot and spicy, this question comes up frequently. You'll hear all of the foregoing answers, stated confidently by various know-it-alls. As far as I can tell, there is no satisfactory answer.",
"I think some cultures in the West have a lot of spicy food. Heavy use of paprika in Hungarian cuisine, for example.",
"Is Mexican considered Western to you? I mean, it *is* the western hemisphere, more western than Europe. Mexican and Latin American cuisine, including the cuisines flourishing in the US (Californian, Tex-Mex, New Mexican, et al especially in the Southwest) tend to be pretty spicy. Not meaning to rain on your question, it's certainly relevant in the Asian vs European/Euro-American context, but Western is the wrong word.",
"Spicy food is very prevalent in western cuisine, especially in Central America but also in the U.S.",
"Is Mexican food not considered western food or am I missing something?",
"Spicy peppers grow well in hot climates. Also, meat spoils faster in hot climates. Also also, spicy flavoring hides the taste of spoiled meat.",
"There aren't many, if any, peppers native to Europe, so traditional recipes wouldn't use them. In contrast, Asia and South America have many native peppers, so they became integrated into the cuisine from those regions.",
"A lot of scientists think that warmer climates have spicier food because spicy food has antimicrobial properties and bacteria spread easier in warm areas. That’s why people from colder climates (where infections and parasites don’t do as well) typically have bland food and warm places (lots of bacteria and parasites) have spicy food.",
"Because India is a tropical country where spices grow. Now, spices are, in essence, natural preservatives which are used to prolong the shelf life of food items. Because India is a tropical country, cooked food spoils faster than say, USA. Which brings us to the first point that spices are used in cooked food in order to prolong their shelf life in tropical countries such as India.",
"In Chinese medicine studies, spicy food can help human to release the \"moisture\" from the body. People who live in environment that has high humidity may regularly consume spicy food for the sake of balancing the body \"moisture\" .",
"Water contaminants play a big part in using spice to kill certain bacteria. Garlic, onion, allspice and oregano, for example, were found to be the best all-around bacteria killers (they kill everything), followed by thyme, cinnamon, tarragon and cumin (any of which kill up to 80 percent of bacteria). Capsicums, including chilies and other hot peppers, are in the middle of the antimicrobial pack (killing or inhibiting up to 75 percent of bacteria), while pepper of the white or black variety inhibits 25 percent of bacteria, as do ginger, anise seed, celery seed and the juices of lemons and limes....Season your food."
],
"score": [
7575,
794,
393,
321,
98,
65,
41,
35,
29,
19,
15,
14,
9,
9,
8,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sziIUZgdgk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1998/03/food-bacteria-spice-survey-shows-why-some-cultures-it-hot"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
afb31k | Why is Sunday always shown as the first day of the week on calendars? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edx21ot",
"edx1y95"
],
"text": [
"Not an answer, but FYI, Sunday is not always shown as the first day. \"European-style\" calendars show Monday first. I'm also curious if there's an answer for Monday as well.",
"Calendars were made by some religious dudes. They knew Sunday is a day for God were you are supposed to go to church and not work. It being really important to them they naturally made it the first day of the week."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
afghyb | Why are some words across different languages very similar while most are hugely different? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edyfm8d",
"edyf9dd"
],
"text": [
"When the word for something is similar in two (or more) languages, it usually means that it has the same origin. For instance, romance languages like French and Spanish have Latin origins, so there is a lot of overlap in their vocabulary, albeit with slight variations in spelling/pronunciation. Additionally, similarities across languages can come from the history of the people who speak it. Persian Farsi is not an Arabic language, although it is written in Arabic script (with some variations) and uses a TON of Arabic words. This is because of the Muslim conquest of Persia way back when. Persians were forced to adopt Arabic, though they fought back and maintained their own language (for the most part). Finally, another reason for similar-sounding words can be that one language may not have a word for something. “Computer,” for example. Computers are relatively new thing, and instead of coming up with their own, unique-sounding word for “computer,” many languages simply adopted a similar-sounding word. These are called cognates. Fun fact relating to to cognates: Iran actually has a committee in place that is dedicated to creating new, purely Persian words to replace cognates and Arabic words. At least, that’s what one of my teachers told me.",
"Some languages share common roots, like Spanish and French are both Romance languages and others get loan words from the same source (like Ancient Latin and Greek for medical terms). The further back you go, the closer languages tend to get to each other. Some words are almost universal like \"mama\" that sounds the same in all languages."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
afnqz4 | What factors could prevent a cult from registering as a religion? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee043cg"
],
"text": [
"The requirements for a group to register as a religion are an established creed recognized by its members (written into literature, as well), a code of behavior/discipline that reflects said creed, to not be affiliated with any other religion, professional organization of the ministers that includes education for them before they're ordained, a place to gather for worship, regular gathering schedules for services, education for its members, and to wrap all of that under a legal existence that can be presented to the IRS. You could get really pedantic drawing lines in the sand between \"religions\" and \"cults\", but the path to becoming a recognized religion in the eyes of the IRS just has to put a check in all the boxes, philosophy on what differentiates the two aside. What usually keeps most cults from registering is corruption/disorganization/confusion among the higher ups that prevents them from getting everything properly organized, though."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
afp1s5 | How do religions and mythologies differentiate between “spirit” and “soul?” | I don’t even know if/how fellow members of my own belief system (Roman Catholicism) distinguish between the two. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee0fj2e"
],
"text": [
"In the Christian Bible the two are used multiple times and refer to different things depending on the translation. The word spirit refers to the immaterial facet of humanity. Humans have spirits, but are not spirits. In scripture, only believers are said to be spiritually alive. The spirit is the element of humanity that allows to have a relationship with God. The soul refers both to the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Humans are souls. In the most basic sense, the word soul means life, the Bible does speak about the word soul in multiple context, the most important of which is how humanities soul is tainted with sin. The soul is removed at death The take away is this. The soul is the essences of human beings. The spirit is what allows us to communicate with god. Now, I questioned religion and turned atheist over 20 years ago, so someone else may be able to give a more precise answer than this. But this is what I was taught coming up in the church."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
afuxus | The difference between cacao and cocoa. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee1ilv3"
],
"text": [
"Cacao is the name of the plant & the seeds it produces. Cocoa is the ground & processed seeds of that plant. Among other things, it's roasted & the acids are neutralized. It's also separated from the fats (cocoa butter) that naturally occur in the plant."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ag99e1 | Pax Americana | Can someone explain the concept of Pax Americana to me? The wikipedia page seemed pretty difficult to understand... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee4gcxx"
],
"text": [
"\"Pax Americana\" is the idea that the relative global peace and stability since 1945 is at least partially attributable to the fairly unassailable military and economic might of the United States. You're either part of the US-led economic world order by profit or force, or you're a dirt-poor scrub. There have been local conflicts and at least one nuclear standoff since then, but none of the catastrophic total wars and imperial conquest that raged on and off through much of the 19th and early 20th century. The term comes from a time period known as \"Pax Romana,\" a point in history when the wars of conquest and tribal bickering all across Europe, north Africa, and the near East came to a stop... because they'd all been conquered or absorbed by the Roman Empire. Both times it's a period of relative peace and prosperity, but held together by promise of wealth and penalty of destruction. It's not to be confused with true world peace where we all get along."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
agckel | Why do radio stations only play a handful of songs (basically on repeat) all day when artists and bands have other great songs? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee56rcv",
"ee59xa4",
"ee5ci1i",
"ee5haye"
],
"text": [
"Many, many experiments have been done with many, many radio formats. The \"Pop 40\" format you seem to be referring to is a result of that study. It turns out most people listen for 30-60 minutes, and want to hear at least 5-6 songs they like in that window. Since you can play about 20 songs an hour, that means 40 songs on repeat produces the most repeat listeners. Also, you're not the first person who listened to the same station all day and got tired of this format. Alas, you are a minority, so radio stations won't change to be more to your liking because keeping you as a listener means losing two other people. Thus, the Internet brings you Pandora. Truth in advertising, I haven't like music on radio since Jim Ladd.",
"I worked in a radio station in high School as an on air DJ for communications class, Our actual songs are part of a big program, think like Pandora for radio stations. Studios upload artists songs, and we were able to go thru it and build playlists for our station. The system had like some ungodly amount of songs, 100,000+ and many radio stations across the US use it. The songs were categorized like “Top 40” or “billboard new releases” The general way of doing it was playing the top billboard songs during peak listening hours and charging more for advertising during the time block. During early mornings and late nights we played less top hits and more older music, charging less for those block hours. Edit:spelling",
"Assumjng 'Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business' is factual, it lays out a system of money and middle men by which if you don't pay you don't play - at least on the major stations. It talks about how a record exec once experimented with a specific song that was a smash world round - was it Pink Floyd's 'the wall'? - and he decided not to pay the middle men thinking there's no way the stations would avoid playing it. Indeed the song didn't get wide radio circulation during that period even though the album was selling really well and was very popular. That was decades ago. I can only imagine it's gotten even worse now.",
"Radios service a large population. It is a fine balance between new/diverse music, and popular/repetitive music. Your typical response to a music being played is [listen and enjoy] [leave it on, not that bad] [let see what else is on and change channel]. Top 40 music is what most studies concluded on."
],
"score": [
96,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
agm416 | How do people keep up with recent findings in their field of study, they won't go to college again. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee74o77",
"ee75532",
"ee753n5"
],
"text": [
"People do learn more. There are \"Continuing Education\" requirements for certain fields/licenses.",
"TBH most dont and it's telling that the people in most industries making big decisions at any company are out of date and relying on subordinates not to be. its what creates financial crises these days, antique instruments getting exploited. hell even the academy is mostly behind itself except for any professor's myopic field of interest. really we've just built a society so specialized and fast paced we can barely keep up while we're getting the education. other than that, continuing education",
"There are technical and scholarly journals available if you want to keep an eye on the cutting edge. You can always attend demonstrations and classes too if there's something new you feel you should know. For most positions in industry though, that's not really necessary. Once you leave school you take a job and begin to hyperfocus on a very specific role with very specific technology. If you're a materials scientist that took a job formulating rubber for bulldozer tires, new breakthroughs in superconducting ceramics are fascinating but not relevant to your field. There are industry meetups and conventions where new developments get shared and competitors discuss broader market trends."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
agmdkj | Why are so many people offended by the new Gillette ad? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee76vxb"
],
"text": [
"A lot of people feel like it’s a personal attack on them, I guess? If you do, it probably means you got problems"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
agml7u | How come the Queen in Chess is the strongest if women have been second class citizens for much of history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee78vjf",
"ee78vkr",
"ee79gou",
"ee7ts3d"
],
"text": [
"The pieces in chess have not always had the same names and shapes as they do today. One of chess's predecessors was the vizier, and acted much like a queen, but was male. But I think the main reason is that chess was never really a commentary on gender, and the queen was made powerful because it makes the game better.",
"Queens, emperors mothers etc. have always been considered to be the powers behind the throne in many cultures and while the king is restricted by nobles and officials as to what he can do the queen may have a much freer hand.",
"The piece we call the queen was originally called the vizier, which was effectively a weak bishop. The medieval Europeans started using queen instead, and the influence of three really significant queens (Eleanor of Aquitaine and Blanche of Castileand Isabella I of Castile) might have something to do with the queen piece's enhanced capabilities.",
"The queen actually used to be the adviser (the original name was fers or ferz) and could only move one square. The modern version of the queen was invented during the reign of Queen Isabella of Spain, and some historians believe it was intended as a tribute to her."
],
"score": [
13,
11,
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
agt0qh | why is violence accepted in society while sex is taboo? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee8ufk7"
],
"text": [
"What do all western cultures have in common? We all stemmed from Europe between 16th and 18th centuries. What was big back then? Jesus. They were like mad into him and his book. The early states of the USA were settled by puritan's and other sects which really frowned on bumping uglies for shits and giggles. Contrary to popular belief, australia was not settled by convicts (i mean yeah they were the landworkers) but an upperclass of british lawmakers chosen for their intolerance to anything 'sinful', given their charges were the dregs of society at the time. Here in new zealand were a bit more chill about that stuff but we still have a massive colonial hangover similar to the one Australia has. We're just not cunts about it."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ah1bhk | What’s with small businesses with names like “TATTOO” “SMOKE SHOP” or “Mexican Food?” Isn’t this bad marketing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eealzdn",
"eealt6t",
"eean41f",
"eeb7t2y"
],
"text": [
"There's not really any need to brand your store if it's basically identical to any other store in the same business. People probably go to their local liquor store because it's the closest one to their house or work, not because of advertising. That's all naming a business ultimately is; advertising. If there's no need to advertise, why bother?",
"When you have limited sign space sometimes \"TATTOO\" is a better use of the space than a using 100 characters too small for anyone driving by to read.",
"With those names, you know you can get a Tattoo at a shop with a sign that says \"TATTOO\". Although I stopped at a smoke shop recently and discovered they only sell vape products. People driving by need to know what the business does, and quickly. Until they can get well known and have a national following and an easily recognizable name/logo, it's best that they go this route starting out. McDonald's, possibly one of the biggest successes here, did that back in the beginning. Today, their signage just tout the brand McDonalds, but when I was a kid in the 60s, the signage could be more like [this]( URL_0 ) In another hundred years they may change to \"Mickey D's\" after Disney Corp acquires them. Shortening of names to common nicknames is not unusual, either. American Telephone and Telegraph legally changed it's name to AT & T after decades of being referred to as AT & T. Yes, headlines actually read AT & T changes it's name to AT & T. KFC was originally Kentucky Fried Chicken and IHOP was the International House of Pancakes. Notice, all of those names incorporated the type of business they were in.",
"I feel like “Tattoo” is the only one that really doesn’t work because most people want a reputable shop and those usually have full names. As for smoke shops and liquor stores, they are all going to sell exactly what’s being advertised. No sense in needing a longer name or anything else because a person going in those places is already going in for a specific type of cigarette or specific alcohol! Edit: not to say there aren’t reputable shops with just “Tattoo” above the parlor!"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://forgotten-ny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mcdonalds.jpg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ah4b1y | Why do some calendars mark the beginning of the week on Monday and others on Sunday? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eebbz78",
"eebcakr"
],
"text": [
"Different cultures result in different people considering different parts of the week the start. If you look at French calendars, they start their week on Monday (Lundi) and end their week on Sunday (Dimanche or Day of the Lord translated). This mostly came about, because people viewed the end of the week as when they had Mass and felt as if after Mass it was a new start. That's just one example of why some calendars might mark the beginning of the week on Monday or Sunday; it's mostly just because it varies from culture to culture.",
"Not sure if this is 100% accurate officially, but I think it's about when you think about your week starting. For example, I do science teaching and I do prep on Sunday in preparation for Monday lessons so Sunday is kinda the start of my obligations. In my previous science research position, work starts on Monday so I preferred my calendar to start on Monday. I notice most US calendars start on Sunday where a lot of international calendars start on Monday."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ah5rv6 | What is an r/nicegirl? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eebnny5"
],
"text": [
"Urban Dictionary says: A girl who believes she's the best choice for a girlfriend. She doesn't understand why guys only go for \"sluts\" or \"whores\" when she can \"cook and clean\" and also she's \"ugly so it's not like I can ever cheat on you!!!!!!\" [Nice Girls]( URL_0 ) have self-esteem issues and throw [passive-aggressive]( URL_1 ) fits on social media when they get rejected. Nice Girls believe that you can tell whether or not a girl has morals by looking at the size of her butt. Nice Girls are self-centered, jealous girls usually in their [teenage years]( URL_2 ), but some occasionally last up until 30s. Others never grow out of their Nice Girl phase."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nice%20Girls",
"https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=passive-aggressive",
"https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teenage%20years"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aha6ex | Why have movie trailers not only become much longer but now most seem to include the entire plot and end scenes condensed into the trailer? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eecn1l9",
"eect0hy",
"eecpcqr",
"eecnkma"
],
"text": [
"Could I also ask, on top of that,why do so many trailers seem to start with a 5 second trailer trailer",
"They used to be much longer and reveal much more! Take a look at some of the trailers from the 60s: URL_0 Some of them edge up to 5 minutes (!) in length and include full scenes from films, and spell out endings entirely.",
"Movie audience changed. When for decades, a movie would be making most of its revenue during the first weeks of its running, that is now made on the first weekend. Accordingly, word-of-mouth and reviews are less important for revenue since those are just too slow. People go to see a movie based on the trailer so holding *anything* back doesn't pay off. It doesn't matter if the trailer spoilers the plot and ruins all the good laughs. Until word gets around that the movie is nothing like the trailer, the studio is laughing all the way to the bank, the first weekend has passed and the film has already been past the point when it was expected to have grossed 95% of its lifetime revenue.",
"Possibly because of how popular trailers have become ~~of~~ on YouTube. And I see this mostly with movies/directors/stars that already have a die hard fan-base that will watch it whether the trailer is good or not. As for me, if I REALLY couldn't wait to watch a movie then a nice juicy trailer would have some replay value until I get the real deal."
],
"score": [
29,
25,
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.retroyoutubevideos.com/1960s/movie-trailers-1960s/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ahg5k3 | How far can we see into space? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eee87xn",
"eee8eah"
],
"text": [
"If you mean, observable objects, in good light conditions, Andromeda is visible to the naked eye, and 2.5 million light years away, making it one of the most distantly visible things to the human eye.",
"It depends on what you mean by \"see\". We \"see\" light particles, not objects or distances. Light travels at a fixed speed (in a vacuum) so it's probably more accurate to ask how far back can we see in time instead of how far can we see into space like."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ahmigp | Why are certain professional sports disproportionate racially to the population? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eefwelj",
"eefxv90"
],
"text": [
"Are you actually asking why a lot of sport stars are black, but in a PC way? Basically it comes down to opportunities. Sport is the one field other than music where ANYONE from ANY background can be recognised and excel. Its the one field where a black kid from the hood has as much chance as a middle class white kid to earn a scholarship, or be recognised for his/her ability. Not to say racism doesn’t exist in sport, it does, but sport and athleticism is one of the more colour blind career paths there is. Equally there are very few black people in ‘exclusive’ sports like polo, or competitive shooting because to be exposed to these sports from a young age is usually indicative of wealth, and these wealthy kids who take them up are usually white.",
"People who grow up with a lot of money have a lot of different opportunities to explore and will get siphoned off into different career paths. People with fewer resources will have fewer opportunities and tend to get concentrated into career paths that have lower barriers to entry in terms of the personal resources required to learn and get good at them. Sports that require minimal personal investment in terms of resources beyond a shared ball and res of play are easy for people to pick up when they don’t have a lot of money, and they are more likely to pursue those as a career path when they have fewer alternatives. Because there is a racial disparity in the distribution of wealth, this carries over into sports that are more accessible to people who are not as well-off."
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ahq4ue | Why are ships always referred in the context of a woman? An example, “she can sail the seven seas in 70 days”, not a good example but along those lines. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeh2q3r",
"eegwo7j",
"eeh8h5x",
"eegyivn",
"eegxd59"
],
"text": [
"In English and many other European languages ships are female. In languages like Russian ships are male and some languages don't really have the distinction at all in their grammar. In other languages it is quite common to give a gender to everything. Often a whole class of named objects has the same gender like all ships being a she (or is some few languages a he), but sometimes you are met with a situation where gender is a case by case thing (good look figuring out which rivers are male and which are female in German for example). It is pretty rare in modern English for named things to have a gender as English has mostly gotten rid of gender in its grammar long ago, but nautical tradition is nothing if not traditional and keeps using conventions from long ago.",
"A lot of European languages genderise objects. Like, all objects. English has almost entirely discarded that, but some remnants remain. Vehicles being feminine is part of that",
"\" *A ship* is always referred to as '*she*' because it *costs* so much to keep one in *paint and powder*. \" Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, USN",
"Because ships, until recently, have been full of men, and what guy wants to be sailing around inside of a dude?",
"The explanation that I've heard and instantly clicked with me was that they carry life, and therefor are referred to as being feminine."
],
"score": [
65,
36,
33,
29,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ai9fu8 | Why is soccer named as such in places like the USA but football mostly elsewhere? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eem127x",
"eem13qj",
"eem2tfi"
],
"text": [
"The term originated in Britain, university students would shorten the names of things like “rugger” for rugby. Soccer was a shortened way of saying association, as in ‘association football’ The Americans seem to have adopted it as to not confuse it with their version.",
"Because the USA and some other countries have a different game that they call \"football\". For American \"football\" is American Football. I'm from Ireland, and here \"football\" is Gaelic football. We sometimes say \"football\" for soccer, but that leaves a bit of ambiguity and we usually have to ask which football or assume from the context. . . . Football is just a generic term I guess whereas \"soccer\" is specific.",
"The term \"football\" applies to any sport played on foot utilizing a ball historically. There have been dozens of games that go by the name in English and there are at least 5 that go by the name now in modernity in English. So it is not a very good unique term. Soccer is a shortening of the full name of the Sport (Association Football) and was coined in the UK. It was actually the most commonly used term for the sport when they started to \"export\" the game to their colonies and former territories and that name actually stuck in primary use in the US, Canada, and Australia."
],
"score": [
7,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aigqn9 | What the actual fuck is salami? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eenl1vn"
],
"text": [
"Its chunks of meat and spices and a few other good things, mixed together then sometimes fermented for a bit, then shoved into somekind of sleeve, then hung up to dry out. By drying it out and removing moisture it prevents the bad bacteria from growing."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aigvig | Why are people who have 1 white parent and 1 black parent (e.g. Obama) always classified as black? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eenlvqv",
"eenmw1o"
],
"text": [
"When you say “always classified” what classification system are you referring to?",
"Depends who is making the comment. My nephew has English and Gambian heritage and when he's here in England people consider in more 'black' whereas when he visits Gambia he is regarded as more 'white'"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aiitag | Why does modern orchestral music sound so different from the classics? | I'm obviously not a music expert, so if I get terms mixed up, I'm sorry. I feel like there's a clear difference in the sound of classic orchestral works and modern ones. They're all technically playing with the same instruments, but there's something different about the feeling of orchestras composed by modern composers. Maybe I'm wrong and there's no real difference, but I have the nagging feeling that it's there. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeo9tzy",
"eeo2zk0"
],
"text": [
"URL_0 Here's the wiki on 20th C music. As far as I understand it, music going into the 1900s was of the Romantic period: very expressionistic, very #feels (think Debussy, Mahler, Wagner, etc.) As the new century started people wanted to try to mess with the fundamentals of music itself, like how Picasso and the Cubists messed with the rules of composition in painting. Arnold Schoenberg was the first to try atonality, which made by throwing scales out the window and using dissonant (ugly sounding) chords and intervals to be kinda edgy. Schoenberg was one of the first to put elements of atonality in front of the normie audience, especially with his 'Firebird Suite' and 'The Rite of Spring', both of which were booed during their debuts. In the 40s electronics became more popular in orchestras, messed around with by guys like Pierre Schaeffer and John Cage (who came up with the term 'experimental music'.) As the 50s and 60s approached Post-Modernism became groovy and everyone went wild with ducking everything up. Cage wrote '4.33' which is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Steve Reich made music with repetitive rhythms, like 'Music for Clapping', which is for two guys who just clap. My personal favourite is Phillip Glass, who would write hours long operas of arpeggios and people counting. The problem with Contemporary art as a whole is that there's so many different facets and techniques that they've kinda lost their meaning. What's hip in universities now is Post-Tonal music, which is a fancy word to say that it shouldn't make sense. But just the same you'll get people writing stuff that's in an early Modernist style, or Minimalist, or Neo-Classical or whatever. I think the point is is that people use whatever means to express their ideas that they want to, and it's more about the personal expression. So if it sounds kinda normal it was written by a hipster, if it sounds minimalist it was written by a stoner, and if it's Post-Tonal then they're just an edge-lord and I wouldn't shake their hand because I wouldn't trust them to wash them.",
"Is it weird that the beatles and led zepplin have different sounds? They play on many of the same instruments. Or would you think it strange that an opera singer and beyonce have different sounds? They also use the same instrument (vocal chirds). The experience you have when you listen to music, the sound, is determined by both the sounds the instruments are capable of making (a property of the instrument) as well as the techniques the artists use, and the melodies written by the composers."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_classical_music"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aim1jm | How did people without available treatment, cure (or relieve) serious depression and anxiety disorders? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeox92a"
],
"text": [
"Prior to the advent of modern mental health care folks self medicated. A LOT. Like a lot a lot. Eg: Pre-WW2 opiates were legal in the US (I couldn’t tell you the exact date they were outlawed without looking it u) and all those patent medicines “Jon Smiths Cure for Man and Beast” the active ingredient? Morphine. So they “worked” in that whatever ailed you soon felt much better after taking a dose. Cocaine IIRC was also legal. Some of the biggest users of these drugs not the folks you’d expect - instead there were housewives - stuck in fairly dull and I thanked roles a lot of women took them, particularly folks with mental health issues. And booze. Prior to prohibition in the US Americans consumed an **absurd** quantity of booze. Booze and drugs. You sometimes see things like “would the great artists of days gone by have created their work if they’d been dosed up on Ritalin or Prozac”, and the answer is probably “yes” - because a lot of them had lifelong battles with mental illness - depression, bipolar, etc and generally self medicated the fuck out of themselves with whatever drugs they could get their hands on. Few, of any, of the great works of art from history were the product of clean living. EDIT: As an add - use of opiates and other drugs was for a long time very mainstream. You could buy them from Sears’ mail order catalog. The original Coke had cocaine in it *by design* it was sold as a remedy. IIRC it also had alcohol, until prohibition when they took the alcohol out, left the cocaine in because that wasn’t controversial at the time, and added sugar to make it taste better. Only later did they remove the cocaine."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aip80f | ? Why the passenger seat in a car is called shotgun? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eepe3a5",
"eeq4voz",
"eepe3m8",
"eeqit5t",
"eepe7ke"
],
"text": [
"It's related to travel by coach (pulled by horses). The driver is controlling the horses. The person next to them is holding a shotgun to protect the coach from robbers.",
"In the days when horses were the means of travel in the American West, a horse drawn stagecoach (4 to 6 to sometimes 8 horses called \"a team\") would often employ an armed guard if the stage was going through rough or dangerous territory. As the western territory was often wide open with little shrubbery or places to hide and ambush, plus the lack of seats on the top back of the stagecoach, the guard's best vantage point was next to the driver, and the best gun for that wide open territory was a rifle or shotgun. There was room for only one other person besides the driver on the front seat, so the term \"sitting shotgun\" was give to anyone (preferably armed with a rifle who knew how to use it for defense) seated next to a stagecoach driver. For an American East Coast public coach (put to 4 horses, and called a \"four in hand\" when the coach was private) or an European coach, the seat next to the driver (who is properly called a \"coachman\") was often filled by a passenger who might wish to try driving the horses himself. The guard didn't sit there. The guard sat on the bench at the top rear of the coach. While armed, he also had a second job which was being the \"coachhorn\" or \"tootler\" - someone who blew the coaching horn to announce arrivals, departures, passing, and other horn tunes to identify the particular coach, speed, or greet another coach. The reason the guard sat in back was to have a full range of view of all sides of the coach, as well as the road behind the coach, because coaching routes in the eastern Americas and Europe often traveled through dense woods, shaded lanes, and other closed in roads where highwaymen (bad guys) could hide and jump out to grab the lead horses reins, or leap unseen from the trees after the coach has passed by and sneak on the back of the coach to climb up and attack the coachman behind his back. A guard on the back of the coach would quickly discourage a thief from trying to attack from the rear. A short pistol was the defensive weapon of choice as it was easy to handle, easy to load, very accurate at short range, and could be tucked into the guard's coat when he was busy blowing the coach horn. Also shooting a pistol directly over the heads of the horses wasn't the safest, but shooting a pistol from the back of the coach was less stressful to the horses. So \"riding shotgun\" is purely an old American West stagecoach term that is now used for anyone riding in the front passenger seat of a car.",
"Someone told me once it was because back in the day stagecoaches and stuff always had a guy with a shotgun sitting there.",
"It refers to the concept of armed man riding next to the driver of a stagecoach. Fun fact, this term is actually originated in cowboy movies in the 60's. Not the actual old west.",
"I think back when there was horse drawn buggies the passanger next to the person holding the ranes of the horse had a shotgun called a coach gun as a means of defense. So the seat next to the driver is the shot gun seat"
],
"score": [
173,
39,
11,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
airs5i | Why is there an L in LGBTQ when there already is a G? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eepy77e"
],
"text": [
"Because \"gay\" used to only refer to gay men. And gay women were and still mostly are referred to as lesbians."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aisw3t | Is sign language the same in all countries? Can a German speak to a Franc without a translator? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeq6vth"
],
"text": [
"No, it is not the same. Sign language has its own grammatical structure and signs depending on the country you live in. There are even differences between sign languages of countries with the same language (like American Sign Language and British Sign Language) and it is possible to talk in dialects in some sign languages."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aiu0c0 | how does the Chinese social credit policy function | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeqhw9s",
"eeqifur",
"eeqjl9b",
"eeqiv0g"
],
"text": [
"I was expecting it to be a crazy high tech dystopian automatic system like it was shown in black mirror, but with less person to person control and more state control. But I saw a documentary that was showing how it was actually working in one of the test cities, and it was not as expected. It was a rudimentary pen and paper system, with next to zero tech involved. Less black mirror and more 3-ring binders, duotangs, and paper spreadsheets.",
"Here's a VICE video that explores this topic: URL_0 An important note is that this system, upsetting as it is on its surface, is not implemented country-wide.",
"It is never existed. There is no any official credit system in China. But media always relates the punishment system to credit system, it is not be proved and has no official source.",
"In most business press rather than tabloid news i've heard it clarified as that there's some government efforts but also private company efforts. some tech co.s are trying to establish something similar to a credit score system by equifax or transunion which china currently doesnt have. gov't i think has similar initiatives. & #x200B; The general gist i think is that due to lack of understanding the regular western press has been overhyping (for lack of better word) it. & #x200B; edit: i think in general understanding these things in china involves understanding how sometimes there's a sort of evolution of policies through like political natural selection. perhaps central gov't is giving leeway to local governments to come up with their own local solutions like this app and seeing how effective they are before any national adoption."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkw15LkZ_Kw"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aivrkw | What's the difference/distinction (if any) between post-moderism and classical and/or contemporary solipsism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeqy2my"
],
"text": [
"Both sides subscribe to the Cartesian dualism method of analysis, but are concerned with opposite sides of the spectrum. Post modernists believe that there is is no objective whereas Solupists believe all that exists is the subjective. Which is a crucial distinction to make in philosophy."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aiwmho | Why does "Te amo" hold so much more importance? | I remember learning in Spanish class that when you want to say "I love you" you say "te quiero." This is true when telling your partner, children, people you love. But, my teacher would always say that "te amo" is only reserved for when you're very serious about it. I was wondering if this true and how this came to be. Why is there two ways to tell someone "I love you" in Spanish? And if "te amo" is soooo special then why do you still tell your partner/children/etc. "te quiero" instead of "te amo"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eer1a0f",
"eer1kzj",
"eer3y1e",
"eerf8m8",
"eer751f",
"eer0rc8"
],
"text": [
"My boyfriend is Mexican and he explains that \"Te quiero\" is more like I appreciate you, I like you, etc., but \"Te amo\" is a lot more serious, when you actually mean to say you love someone from the bottom of your heart. I thought they were the same so I said \"te quiero\" to him but he was like, no no no and he wanted to hear me say \"te amo\". He has been saying \"te amo\" to me a lot. Didn't even remember the last time he said \"te quiero\" to me, probably never actually... I hope that helps.",
"Spanish, like most latin languages has different words for different kinds of love. Latin itself has more than 7 words for love, one for brotherly love, familial, motherly, romantic, erotic etc. Like how you would say you love a food and you could say you love someone but the word \"love\" has 2 very different meanings, Spanish just has separate words for this purpose.",
"This is a failure of English. Spanish like most of the Romance language, Latin itself, Greek, and several other languages have different words for different kinds of love. English does not have multiple words for this and instead need to write sentences or even paragraphs to differentiate the types. \"Quiero\" is a kind of love that is a very strong appreciation. You really like something. It is the kind of thing you would say for a food that you really enjoy eating (Yo Quiero Taco Bell for us old fogies), love for you school or hometown, or even love between friends. \"Te Amo\" is romantic love. It is descended from the Latin \"Amor\" which is romantic/sexual love. We get the English word \"amorous\" from the same root.",
"In Spain at least, \"te amo\" is normally used for relationships (boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife). When you want to express your love to your son or any other relative, or even a friend, you say te quiero. Because \"te amo\" has a lot of passion and feelings, but also attraction. You don't feel attracted to your kids so you normally don't say \"te amo\" to them.",
"This is not an answer but I needed to say anyway. In norwegian there's those two kinds of love. Jeg er glad i deg = te quiero. Jeg elsker deg = te amo.",
"*Te quiero* is more a statement of desire (check YouTube for “Yo quiero Taco Bell” if you don't remember the commercials). *Te amo* is literally saying “I love you,” expressing feelings of strong affection for someone."
],
"score": [
47,
25,
24,
14,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aiy4ug | Where did the idea of countries and their borders come from? | At what point in civilization did we did decide that "we should own this piece of land, but only up to this point, then that's your piece of land"? What was the rationale behind it? Where did entire prospect of land ownership even develop? And a bit related, why are we so precious over land which we can't inherently own, nor have any control over? Is it a primordial instinct, or does it originate from agricultural and resourceful benefits? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eer9ypg"
],
"text": [
"You've guessed the correct answer. People hold on to control of land because they want its natural products, such as plants, minerals, animals, and water. So they pick an area they are willing to defend."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
aizdeu | Why does Martin Luther King Jr get all the glory and Malcolm X gets left in the dust? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eerhedm",
"eerj05s"
],
"text": [
"Malcolm X was radical and preached violence and black supremacy. He openly challenged whites and Christianity. Basically back in the day for the government and white communities Martin Luther King would be considered the \"lesser of two evils\"",
"Well Professor X wanted to co-existence with mutants and humans, to bring equality to the world without violence, and to show society that mutants weren't the bad people the world made them out to be. Magneto didn't want to co-exist so much, he wanted to put humans in their place and instilled in mutants that they shouldn't have to live in fear and promoted violence as a means of getting results for the mutant race. Professor X wanted peace, Magneto wanted retribution."
],
"score": [
15,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aj7dam | Where did the Roger come from in the saying “Roger that. “?? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eetagz9"
],
"text": [
"\"**Roger**\" was \"phonetic\" for \"R\" (received and understood\". In **radio** communication, a \"spelling alphabet\" (often mistakenly called a \"phonetic alphabet) is used to avoid confusion between similarly sounding letters. In the previously used US spelling alphabet, R was **Roger**, which in **radio** voice procedure means \"Received\". & #x200B; [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-189587,00.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajb30g | The Venezuela crisis | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeu7nte",
"eeudlbt"
],
"text": [
"I'll be honest, it's *VERY* hard to explain this situation shortly as it's a pot that has been boiling for over 20 years. I'd recommend spending a couple minutes reading this amazing and well-written response in another thread in /r/OutOfTheLoop URL_0",
"ELI5 is not for current events. Questions like this are better in r/outoftheloop or r/worldpolitics."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/aj3mdi/what_is_going_on_with_venezuela_and_the_new/eesm7j9/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajbd5x | What is the concept of purgatory? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeu7n55",
"eewrbqm"
],
"text": [
"According to some Christians, purgatory is the place you end up after you die but before you go to Heaven or Hell. While you are in the \"waiting room\" of purgatory, the prayers of your loved ones can purge your sins. (In medieval paintings, purgatory was often shown as a giant flaming sauna that \"burned\" your sins away.) This means that if you have a sinful relative who just died, you can still pray for them and help them reach Heaven. Different Christian denominations have different beliefs about purgatory. The Roman Catholic Church has officially said that purgatory exists. However, other traditions such as Protestantism and Orthodoxy state that purgatory doesn't exist at all and you just go directly to Heaven or Hell when you die. There are other religions that preach of a purgatory-like state between death and afterlife, such as Gehenna in Judaism and Barzakh in Islam. In a more metaphorical sense the term \"purgatory\" can be used to refer to any painful or hellish experience. Wikipedia article for further reading: URL_0",
"Purgatory is a place or process (it's not entirely clear) in which those who died in the state of grace (that is, with their sins forgiven and destined for Heaven) but still with some attachment to sin, or with a debt of justice still outstanding from their sins. They are saved but not perfect, so Purgatory is the means by which God supplies their perfection so that Heaven can actually be enjoyed. It is not a \"second chance\" at salvation. Nor is it a third eternal destination; Purgatory will eventually be empty. The best biblical description of Purgatory comes from St. Paul: \"According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. *If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.*\" (1 Cor 3:10-15) The Catholic Church solemnly affirms the existence of Purgatory. Some other forms of Christianity strongly deny it."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajbndh | Why adults change their voice talking to children? | I quite often see that adults do that. It could be a mother or just a friend of parents. What the reason and purpose of such behavior? Is it better to children for some reason? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeu60bq",
"eeug5l0",
"eeu66hf"
],
"text": [
"I “think” it’s simply to be less intimidating. We are big and scary to kids. Especially kids that don’t know us really well. I’ve noticed people do it a lot more to my son when it’s people that don’t see him often. The softer higher pitched voice is closer to that of other children and makes him more comfortable.",
"As a male with a pretty deep voice, if I do not pitch it up a bit, small children can get really scared xD As such, to actually be the cool dude I obviously am, I lighten it up a bit so I sound more like them = > Guaranteed fun",
"It's actually called \"Motherese\". It's a more soothing tone for the baby/child. Babies don't actually understand what we're saying, they take meaning from your facials and tone of your voice :)"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
ajc8lc | the different contexts of the term Zionist | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eeua49l",
"eeurlld"
],
"text": [
"Zionism is the Jewish nationalist movement with the aim of establishing a nation for Jews. People saying Zionist as a derogatory term have the exact same definition of the term. They're just implying that the project to create a nation for Jews in Palestine has effectively been a colonial project aimed at displacing 2/3 of the people (i.e. Palestinian Christians and Muslims) who were living there prior to the establishment of Israel.",
"Zionism is a movement founded in the late 1800s with the goal of finding a safe homeland for the Jewish people of Europe due to the rising anti-semitism taking place at the time. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, brought together European Jews of many backgrounds - artists, socialists, businessmen, secular Jews from France and Germany, religious Jews from Poland and the Russian Empire, etc. - to come up with a plan to find a suitable place for Jews to relocate to and build a nation of their own. Their plans were incredibly flexible and really just wanted a place, not caring too deeply about where it was. Granted, some in the Zionist congress were set on what was then known as Ottoman Palestine, but the idea that Israel would become a full blown sovereign country was not necessarily on their agenda. Because this period was also the height of European colonialism, the Zionists had some options for where to go. Plans included going to Uganda, the Sinai peninsula, and when the Nazis came to power, Japan or Madagascar. At the end of the day, it was decided that there was no Jewish connection to these places, meaning that any attempt to settle was nothing more than a forceful colonial settlement or merely being subjects to another empire. At this point, a sizable number of European and Middle Eastern Jews had already joined their people already residing in Ottoman Palestine, which later became British Palestine. Nobody, not Jews or Arabs, liked the British in power. This led to a period of violence between Jews-Arabs, British-Arabs, and British-Jews. At this point, the Arab population in Palestine was merely a fraction of what it is now and the land had been largely dejected by the Ottomans and British so it was very easy for Jews to settle in places that were not occupied. That's the history of Zionism. Now, because Israel is already an established state and we think very differently of nationalist movements, modern anti-semites come up with all sorts of baloney rationals for why Zionists are evil. In reality, Zionism now just exists as a political movement to make sure Western countries continue to support or at least recognize the Jewish state. Israel is a complicated geopolitical issue, and it's in many ways everybody's fault, but using Zionist as a derogatory word is stupid. It's just the newest form of anti-semitism in a world where saying \"I hate Jews\" is inappropriate while saying \"I hate Zionists\" is, for some reason, a legitimate political belief."
],
"score": [
25,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajj5ks | How are beehives made? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eevzkkq"
],
"text": [
"Are you asking about the honeycomb, the thing with the honey in it made from beeswax? That's bee fat that the workers extrude and use as a building material."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajjn8a | the difference between poetic justice and irony | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eew55w2",
"eew2xkc"
],
"text": [
"Poetic justice: A man kicks a dog. He is later eaten alive by wolves. Irony: A man kicks a dog. Later, a dog saves his life.",
"Irony: when an event is dramatically opposite of what one would expect or imagine. Poetic justice: when a person suffers the same consequence they have caused for others, or a consequence that seems very appropriate given what they did."
],
"score": [
25,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajlm2i | How Gorbachev came to the conclusion that the Soviet Union needed to be dissolved. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eewt5u5",
"eewj4of"
],
"text": [
"Your premise is incorrect. Gorbachev did *not* want to dissolve the USSR. He simple recognized that it was de facto dead already. Soviet republics were declaring independence left and right, and rebellions and uprisings were springing up faster than they could be put down. Moscow had lost all authority and control. Even the Russian SFSR was in open rebellion against the Soviet government. There was simply no path forward.",
"The soviet republics have startet to leave the union. First one was Lithuania, the last - Russia. At the end there was a union without any members. It was pretty complicated and bloody, sparked several civil wars."
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajlrd7 | Dreamtime (Aboriginal Mythos) | What exactly is “Dreamtime” in regards to Australian or aboriginal context? I’ve tried researching online, but end up more confused on the subject the more I try and comprehend what/who/when it is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eewk5yc"
],
"text": [
"Think of it like Genesis (the book of the Bible, not the band) but for a much, much older civilisation. Check out these stories but also the rest of the site. URL_0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.welcometocountry.org/aboriginal-dreamtime-stories/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
ajobmn | Why is Voter ID viewed as racist in the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eex4t3t",
"eex56n9",
"eex45q9",
"eex7b9u"
],
"text": [
"Because so far, each time anyone has tried to implement rules of said kind, it has always been done in a way that disproportionately (and sometimes, plain purposefully) affects minorities. If the people arguing for voter IDs would also be arguing for easy to obtain, cheap (or even free governement-supplied) ID, there wouldn't be such an issue. Instead, the people who argue for voter ID are also the people who then close DMV locations (or cut their hours down) but somehow only in areas where there is a heavy concentration of minorities. Or when picking IDs that are acceptable, they somehow manage the select the ones that are mainly held by their (white) voter base but exclude the ones held by minorities.",
"Because it's often put into place while simultaneously making it more difficult for minorities to get the necessary identification. The most notable instance of this is in Alabama in 2015, where the state instituted a voter ID law and then closed 31 of their driver's license offices. \"In the 10 counties with the highest proportion of minorities, the state closed driver's license offices in eight.\" ([source]( URL_0 )) Similar impacts have been seen in other states that have put voter ID laws into place.",
"it is not racist **in itself**. However, it has been shown to disproportionately affect specific ethnicities. & #x200B; Edit: it's affect not effect, ofc.",
"I always think of [this video]( URL_0 ) when people talk about voter ID laws."
],
"score": [
26,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ajqvxj | Why are Americans allowed to pay bail to get out of jail? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eexw2m9",
"eexw2w7",
"eexvx0d",
"eexw4hn",
"eexw7vo",
"eexwff5"
],
"text": [
"Its important to note bail is only offered prior to conviction. It's been established that the government can't force you to stay in jail until trial unless you are judged to be a huge risk of fleeing or reoffending. (Ie the courts can't declare you \"guilty\" without being proven guilty) At the same time, the courts want to give you an incentive to show up for trial to make it easy for them. Requiring you to put down a reasonable sum of money, to be returned only after a successful court appearance, does that job.",
"You're not guilty until you're convicted. You pay bail money that you get back as long as you show up to court for trial. This allows you to hold down your job and attend to your responsibilities, which is a big plus in the 'not ruining your life' column if you actually happen to be innocent.",
"It’s so they can fight their court case outside the jail walls not just to get out of jail.",
"It's not like your charges get dropped. Bail is payment you make that you'll return for your court date instead of being held in a holding cell.",
"You're innocent until proven guilty. Jail is to hold people considered a risk, such as for flight. But bail provides an incentive to return if they let you go: to get your money back. Note that jail is not the same thing as being in prison as part of a conviction.",
"Because when you're in jail you can't work to pay your bills or perform your day-to-day duties. Unless you have someone who can effectively handle your entire life for you, you might lose everything you own and have your entire life ruined, even if you are innocent of the crime that you were accused of. Also because money."
],
"score": [
17,
15,
10,
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ak6pf0 | Occam's razor. I I’m aware that it means the simpler solution is usually the answer, but what does the razor have to do with it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef22id4",
"ef20jrb",
"ef20v4p"
],
"text": [
"For the record, Occam’s razor doesn’t say to use the simplest solution, but the one that requires the fewest unprovable assumptions. Basically the fewer things you have to assume, the less chance that you get an assumption wrong. Usually that’s equivalent to the “simplest” solution, but not always",
"[The term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by \"shaving away\" unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions.]( URL_0 )",
"It is called Occam's razor because the idea is to Cut away through the more complex solutions, leaving yourself with something simple but effective."
],
"score": [
75,
70,
19
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#William_of_Ockham"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ak6ybe | Why are some nationalities considered a race, and not others? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef2adpi"
],
"text": [
"Mainly due to the fact that we want to categorize with the intent of adding cultural meaning or simply to..simplify. What I’m trying to say is: The term race wouldn’t appear if there was no agenda. A world with easily distinguishable categories is easier to comprehend and it’s easier to make way for someone’s agenda if there’s just a small set of categories. Facing a problem, it’s easier to refer to a race instead of many different countries, peoples etc. Thus term race itself is problematic and has been criticized for decades now."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
akb348 | Why are points and naming in tennis rather weird, it is it counted 0, 15, 40 and not 45, and why 0 is called 'love? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef3cg0i",
"ef3bjrf",
"ef3vxww"
],
"text": [
"The French used to play a game called jeu de paume, which was like tennis but with the palms of their hands. The courts were 90 feet long, so each player had 45 feet to play in. When the player got a point they were allowed to move up the court - the first time 15 feet, the second another 15 (to 30 feet), and finally 10 feet (to 40 feet) so there was still a 5 foot gap from the player to the net. The scores still follow this pattern. They could have changed it I suppose, so it would go \"15, 30, 45\", but 45 is harder to say than 40 L'oeuf means egg in French, representing zero, so this is a plausible explanation forLove,15,30,40. URL_0 Edit : thanks for the gold, my first one!",
"\"Love\" is usually (read: what I have seen a couple of places) taken to be a bastardisation of \"l'oeuf\", the French for \"the egg\". Because this is what a 0 looks like. Incidentally, similar reason why a batsman getting 0 in an innings in cricket has scored a duck: short for \"duck's egg\".",
"So far I've seen 2 different theories posted in this thread with statements saying they are unproven. I have a third one that up until now I always assumed was just the actual known answer. It must be another unproven theory, so I'll add it in... The one I heard is that the scoring system comes from a game similar to tennis that was played by British naval officers in India in the 19th century. When firing a salute the ship's fist deck would fire it's 15 pound cannon, then the second deck would fire it's 30 pound cannon, and last the third deck would fire it's 40 pound cannon. They would supposedly use those poundage numbers for scoring their game."
],
"score": [
4297,
329,
16
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-history-of-tennis-strange-scoring-system"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
akcgy8 | How did the human race come to universally accept touching mouths together as a means to show affection? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef3rmtv"
],
"text": [
"In short, we don’t really know. Some theories include: Kiss feeding, where babies are fed softer pre-chewed food. Necessary before baby food or even stores existed. Some cultures still do this today, but don’t kiss, so there’s little support for this theory. Grooming: it could be a socially developed grooming behavior which is common throughout the animal kingdom in social animals. A learned social trait: it may simply be something we learned to do based on social norms. The act of kissing has had many social uses and meanings throughout history, not always sexual or romantic in nature. Sensory: the nerves and tactile feedback as well as the social implications may trigger the pleasure centers of the brain giving a positive feedback loop. There are so many ways it’s been used, so many forms and social uses that the exact origin or reason is unknown."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
akcovt | Why do all the former British colonies use Dollars rather than their own version of the Pound? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef3qr3l"
],
"text": [
"Largely because the Colonies had influences from Dutch and Spanish settlers, both of which used \"dollars\" for currency. When the War for Independence broke out, America began to use Spanish Dollars more than British Pounds Sterling, as it was easier to get and trade with, and that lead to the adoption of our own currency, also called the Dollar. Canada, which was similarly influenced by the Dutch and eventually America, adopted their Dollar later, as the decimal-based system made it easier to trade with America, rather than the metal-based system of Britain. Australia is the latest of the three major British Colonies to adopt a Dollar, as they used a Pound Sterling as late as 1966. They chose the name Dollar after much debate, probably because they were adopting a dollar-like decimal system."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
akcza7 | Is it a good idea if the UK would leave Northern Ireland. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef3uedz"
],
"text": [
"What about the people who live in N Ireland and LIKE being part of the UK?"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
akmz6k | Academics of Reddit, I've seen the words "normative theory", "normative issues" etc. numerous times throughout my reading, yet a dictionary definition has left me no closer to understanding what it actually means. Please explain like I'm five. | Particularly in a social science context. The phrase has come up time and time again. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef6f41n"
],
"text": [
"A \"norm\" is an idea of how things ought to be or how people ought to act, in a fairly practical way. For example, \"all dogs should be leashed when in public\" or \"police officers should not take bribes\" or \"you shouldn't wear shorts to a job interview\" are all norms. Sometimes, but not always, norms overlap with laws, or with ethical principles, or with conventions--but not always. Academic studies of normative theory or normative issues involve studying why and how those norms form, what impact they have on societies, cultures, and individuals. For example, heteronormative studies focus on traditional norms about how men and women should act and dress, and how those norms (e.g., men should be strong and assertive breadwinners, women should be demure homemakers, people should only marry someone of the opposite sex), and what those norms do to society and to individuals, and whether there are moral or ethical reasons for or against those norms. & #x200B;"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
akvhxy | Why does the fashion industry require models to be so tall? | I've been watching America's Next Top Model over the last few days and they've mentioned a few times how hard it is to get a job as a model if you're under 5' 9". What reasons are there for that restriction? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef88qhh",
"ef8eoo9"
],
"text": [
"Fashion people agreed that tall is better because it’s more visible on the runway. The same few dresses or outfits go to fashion shows all over the world so they need to fit different models at different places. Longer answer [here]( URL_0 )",
"Slightly different answer. Optical lenses are basically astigmatic. You may have heard the expression that “the camera puts on pounds”. It really does. Tall, skinny girls look better in photos and on video than normal people. People who are photogenic are often not particularly attractive in real life."
],
"score": [
15,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-models-tall"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
akxwsr | How do we know the comfortable distance from one another in social settings? Does it change culturally or geographically? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ef8ul03",
"ef9hga2"
],
"text": [
"It definitely changes in cultural settings. You'll find that rural communities prefer much larger differences than city folk. A good rule for not being too crazy is this: get a mirror that has nothing in between you and it. Stand so you feel comfortable looking at yourself. Double the distance to the mirror and now you have an idea.",
"Definitely different culturally. Personal space is very different in India vs Scandinavia. The old joke photo of Swedes waiting on a bus with them spaced out 7' apart. URL_0 In India it's nut to butt."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/xcfikOK.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
al3zah | How can Amazon already have used copies available of a book that came out today? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efahp19"
],
"text": [
"Presuming these aren't actually used, but booksellers attempting to resell via Amazon copies that they don't think they will able to shift in store."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
alei16 | Why is homophobia called homophobia if it isn’t a phobia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efdcif8"
],
"text": [
"Phobias are not just limited to fears, they also include strong feelings of distaste to something. So while not everyone will be scared of being gay or being scared of homosexual people, they can have a strong sense of dislike or hate towards the idea, thus is classed as a phobia."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
allqc0 | We have semi accurate images of what people from before Jesus looked like, however, why are there no accurate and descriptive depictions of Jesus? Why are there no drawings? Wouldn’t one of his followers had described or drawn him to a full extent? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eff1it6",
"eff0hip",
"eff170u",
"eff0a6w",
"eff3nv9",
"eff4dal"
],
"text": [
"Why would we know what he looked like? Jesus *at the time of his death* was essentially a nobody. What he became, and whether you want to bring Faith in or not, is irrelvant. At the time of his death he was a dirty peasant leading a cult. Nobody cared what he looked like. We have no idea what most people from that time period look like beyond general ideas. Keep in mind that we only have an idea of what some historical figures look like because they were important enough to actually matter. The emperor of Rome mattered, some Jew in the Levant did not.",
"We don't actually have any accounts from people who saw Jesus in person, so getting a drawing is equally impossible. All we have is anonymous authors writing accounts from unknown sources who themselves are recounting hearsay of Jesus's life. An accurate description of his appearance probably just wasn't ever conveyed.",
"Biblical scholars don't think any of the books of the new testament were written by people that directly met Jesus. The earliest dated books come from the letters of Paul, starting around 20 years after Jesus death. Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his life, and only says he saw Jesus in a vision. The earliest dating of one of the gospels is Mark some time near 70 AD, so nearly 40 years after Jesus' death. It's quite likely that Jesus following was not that large in life, and only became such a big deal after being spread by his followers after death.",
"From wikipedia: No useful description of the physical appearance of Jesus is given in the New Testament and the depiction of Jesus in pictorial form was controversialin the early Church.[1][2] The depiction of him in art took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen. The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around 300 AD, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. It has always had the advantage of being easily recognizable, and distinguishing Jesus from other figures shown around him, which the use of a cruciform halo also achieves. Earlier images were much more varied. Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created. Beliefs that certain images are historically authentic, or have acquired an authoritative status from Church tradition, remain powerful among some of the faithful, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism. The Shroud of Turin is now the best-known example, though the Image of Edessa and the Veil of Veronicawere better known in medieval times. URL_0",
"Basically outside of the Bible we have virtually no information about him and his life at all and certainly none that can be relied upon to single out a specific individual as the \"Jesus\" as mentioned in the Bible, what little we know could refer to a different person or even several different people.",
"Just an aside here, but even though we don't have an accurate description or picture of Jesus, the depiction that you are familiar with today is almost certainly not what a first century Israelite would've looked like - Jesus was almost definitely a brown guy with dark hair and a beard. Lily white Jesus is about as accurate as Lily white Santa Claus .."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
alqsjy | Why are there 7 musical notes only? | I know that they have other components like # and b. But my question is why they're divided into A through G and not, let's say, A through M or whatever | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efgaqns",
"efg7bwu"
],
"text": [
"The diatonic 7-note scale was developed in Greece at a time when the Greeks were obsessed with ratios. They thought that everything could, and *should*, exist as a perfect ratio to each other. An octave is a very nice ratio: go up an octave and you double the pitch, a 2:1 ratio. A \"perfect fifth\" - going from C to G, for instance - is a nice, clean 3:2 ratio. Similarly, a perfect fourth is 4:3 (C to F), and a major third (C to E) is 5:4. Using this ratio-based system, the Greeks built out a full seven-note scale. Other scales exist around the world. 7 music notes is not universal, but it is pretty popular, because it is so strongly rooted in ratio mathetmatics.",
"For starters, there are other scales that have less (pentatonic for instance). The number is to a certain extent arbitrary, but has an upper limit in terms of how many you can have before you run into issues of repeating similar sounds due to harmonics. a 50Hz sound will more or less make the same note sound as a 100Hz and a 150Hz sound. Hypothetically then, you could have notes fill up all the frequencies between 50Hz and 100Hz, except your ear can't really differentiate say between 50Hz and 51Hz, so having such a division would be pointless."
],
"score": [
19,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
alrxnd | What qualifies something as a language? | Some languages sound very similar to each other, and can allegedly even be mutually understood when two native speakers of different languages speak to each other (like Afrikaans and Dutch). So, what key factors make a language its own instead of making them something like a dialect difference? Edit: Made the question a bit clearer. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efgw0s7",
"efgkqzn"
],
"text": [
"There is no clear distinction. Mutual intelligibility is a useful guideline, but even that isn't an easy yes/no thing to evaluate: what percentage of the language do you have to understand to be mutually intelligible? What if the languages are mutually intelligible primarily when written, and not so much when spoken? On top of that there are phenomena like dialect continua, where you can draw a line on a map so that people everywhere along the line can understand the people near them on the line just fine, but so that the people at each end of the line can't understand people at the other end at all. Often cultural or political ideas are also involved: some people will talk about \"Chinese\" as though it were a single language despite the presence of many mutually unintelligible varieties, and some will split Serbo-Croatian into four different languages (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian, i.e. one per country where Serbo-Croatian is primarily spoken) despite all four having a high degree of mutual intelligibility. This has led to the semi-serious saying that [a language is a dialect with an army and navy]( URL_0 ).",
"I don't believe there is a strict line but Afrikaans for example qualifies as an own language. It has very strong influences from dutch but also from other african languages. In general you might say, if you can understand a language quite well like a Bavarian understands someone from Berlin it's just dialects but I doubt a Dutch person properly understands Afrikaans. Of course there are dialects which are spoken in a way by some people that others don't understand it but I'd argue that's an exception."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
alvsi6 | "air quotes" (I really need anexplanation for my 5-year old daughter) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efher74",
"efhcvsp",
"efhd0bb"
],
"text": [
"Welcome to my favorite part of other peoples' kids' childhoods: The age where they understand that jokes are funny, and understand the structure of certain jokes, but don't understand that you can't just plug in random words to that structure and suddenly make the joke funny. Does she also tell knock knock jokes that go something like: Knock-knock Who's there? Banana Banana who? Banana monkey ook ook ook! Because those are my favorite. Sorry, I got distracted. Anyway, air quotes are for when you say one thing, but you really mean the opposite. So if you say: Hey dad, that shirt looks \"awful\" then you're really telling dad that his shirt looks great. It's not a very nice thing to do when it goes the other way. (I'm not sure how to go any deeper into this subject without having to try to break down the concepts of irony and implication to a 5 year old, which I don't think I'm qualified to do).",
"Air quotes are what you use when you are using the words which someone else uses but which you wouldn't use yourself",
"They are like holding up a type of sarcasm sign. That whatever you are air quoting is supposed to be one thing but it isn't behaving like it."
],
"score": [
20,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dbmk93 | Why do some languages (like French) have gendered words (ex. Desk is masculine) and others don't? | Is this a European thing, or does this exist in Asia and Europe too? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f22vxoo"
],
"text": [
"Basically, in linguistics, gender is just a way of sorting nouns into categories, and most of the time the gender of a word has nothing to do with anything that's literally male or female or neutered. We find various kinds of gendering all over the world. For example, in the Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea, the masculine gender “includes things which are tall or long and slender, or narrow (e.g. fish, snakes, arrows and slender trees).” Then we have a language like German where \"die Gabel\" means \"the fork\", \"der Löffel\" means \"the spoon\", and \"das Messer\" means \"the knife\", so a fork is feminine, a spoon masculine and a knife neutral. Just.........because. And then there are some languages that have four genders, like the Zande language of Africa, which divides nouns into 4 genders: masculine, feminine, animal and inanimate. However, some inanimate objects that are extra important in Zande mythology are classified as animate. Then there are other languages that assign gender based on the ending of the word. For example, Spanish words that end in -a are usually feminine. That’s why *la mesa* is feminine, even though a table doesn’t physically have a gender. As far as *why* this happens, we aren't entirely sure. Some linguists think that it's probably because Proto-Indo-European, an ancient ancestral language from which so many of today's languages developed, probably had two genders: animate and inanimate, and then as languages developed over the centuries, and cultures split off from one another, that gendering habit just went along with them. And the languages that exist today that don't use genders, they simply have different ways of sorting words into categories."
],
"score": [
25
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
dc0qx6 | how the first people learnt other languages | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f25ailx"
],
"text": [
"The exact same way that anthropologists learn the languages of indigenous people. They start with known objects, for example a ball. They say \"ball\" and point at the ball. Then they listen for what the indigenous person says. Then they repeat it back with another ball, to make sure the word is \"ball\" and not the color of the ball, or the type of ball, etc, etc. You keep doing this with various objects, collecting the spare words (like color, shape, size, possession, etc) that are discarded in the moment. Then you move to another person and try the exact same thing, to make sure they have the same words for the same things. You keep doing this until you have a bank of words that can describe a bunch of common things, a bunch of common types of people (familial, governmental, etc), and actions. Once you have the subject words, object words, verb words, and adjective words, you can start to form caveman sentences. \"Me buy garlic\", \"you sell food\", \"we eat here\". Once you can do this, you can actually communicate fairly well. You won't sound native, but you'll be able to communicate ideas and receive answers. From there you can fill in articles (and, if, but, etc), verb forms (run, running, ran), and other nuances. It actually isn't that hard if you know how to do it, and in what order to do it in, and by taking competent notes."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dc1s6z | Why do NFL teams play more games against teams in their division than in other divisions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f25edae",
"f25ewtd"
],
"text": [
"Because they are competing for the division title. The best team in the division is best determined by head to head match ups, not performance against non-division teams.",
"Major North American sports use a divisional structure, mostly dating back to when the leagues were smaller and teams had to travel by bus. It was easier to play your closer opponents more often and only travel on special occasions and for the playoffs. In hockey, there used to be two pro leagues, the NHL in the East and the PCHA in the West. The champions of the two leagues would play each other for the Stanley Cup, but otherwise it was too expensive to travel so you'd only see Seattle playing Montreal in the Cup Finals. It's partly a tradition, and partly that teams now have rivalries with their divisional opponents and fans scream bloody murder if you suggest rebalancing the schedule."
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dc8hur | What determines which cast member gets featured in the opening credits of a show? | I was watching The Office and I realised only Michael, Jim, Pam, Dwight, and Ryan were featured in the opening credits but not the rest of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Why is that? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f277791"
],
"text": [
"The first names or the last names \"And Starring...\" are considered the most prestigious, and so actor's agents will negotiate for billing as part of their contract. Being elevated to the title credits of the show is usually a sign that the producers are committing to your character."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
dc8j0f | What is amazing about the Mona Lisa? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f26kktp",
"f26jwew",
"f26p4j8"
],
"text": [
"Art History major here who geaduated in 2009: Da Vinci uses a technique called 'sfumato,' which makes for a smoky aesthetic. It also makes the colours blend into each other, which is a departure from most Renaissance paintings with distinct colour differentiations. The technique also predicted some of the trends prevalent during the Baroque era. Also, the attention to detail is insane for just a portrait. The painting isn't my jam, but commenting here made me realize how good it was as an artwork.",
"The Mona Lisa became famous mostly because it was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by a man named Vincenzo Peruggia. Prior to that, the painting was certainly admired by lovers of art, but it wasn't as widely known.",
"The Mona Lisa's fame is due to a series of rather interesting but completely coincidental events. It's a good painting, but it's no more than a good painting. The painting's journey really starts at the Louvre, where it was installed as a regular portrait. People thought it was pretty good, but not much more. It was stolen, but couldn't be sold because of the widespread reporting of its theft, which gave time for the importance of the painting to grow. After it was recovered it was toured around Italy before being reinstalled, and when it was reinstalled, the French treated it as a national treasure that had been recovered. After one artist, Marchel Duchamp, did a bit of a publicity stunt by creating a defaced image of Mona Lisa, other artists followed suit and the Mona Lisa became one of the most famous paintings in the world - simply because it was just important enough for other artists to make spoof versions for the sake of publicity. Basically, the Mona Lisa is the most famous portrait in the world simply because the Mona Lisa is the most famous portrait in the world. It was just famous enough to get noticed, and it was noticed just enough that it became famous."
],
"score": [
32,
24,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dc8vgf | What did Robert Louis Stevenson mean when he said “Man is a creature who lives not upon bread alone but principally by catchwords.”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f26lwdg",
"f26xdm5"
],
"text": [
"We are fickle. We base ourselves heavily on changing concepts without knowing if they're true, only that they're popular. In a way, that manner of being fuels the human existence.",
"It's important to understand that this quote is a *reference*. The phrase \"Man does not live on bread alone\" is from the bible, and it's a common phrase to see repeated. It's in some Shakira lyrics, for example. The original meaning of the statement is that *faith* is as essential to human existence as bread. This is building on the body-spirit duality that is a common theme in Christianity, with bread sustaining the body and faith sustaining the soul, and so on and so forth. The full quote (in one translation) is \"'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.\" So, in the original context, we're already seeing the idea of \"living on words\" that's in Stevenson's statement. But, of course, different types of words. Without knowing a lot about Stevenson or his politics, I think he's saying that political catchphrases have replaced faith for many people, and are the main source of intellectual/spiritual nourishment that they use as a basis for their existence."
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dc9tm3 | What does ‘I think therefore I am’ mean and why is it a big deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f26rpvt",
"f27jum3",
"f27is6x",
"f26rl5t",
"f27xpb1",
"f27xpm5",
"f26x4jk",
"f282otp",
"f27lnq4",
"f27irqf",
"f26rjia",
"f27tjhp",
"f27uuf7",
"f27m78h",
"f27mfs9",
"f2954yb"
],
"text": [
"The phrase \"I think therefore I am\", or \"Cogito ergo sum\" in Latin, was made popular by the philosopher Rene Descartes. In his work, he goes about destroying the assumptions that most people had in philosophy before him. Many people would say, \"ah well I see the sun, or I feel the grass, so therefore it exists\". Descartes basically said, \"ok, but what if your brain is in a jar, and you are just dreaming all of this?\" Philosophy is based on axioms. Axioms are self-evident facets of reason that allow you to construct the rest of philosophy on them. Descartes basically argued that all of the axioms that had previously been used were wrong because they were not self-evident. In the same sense that you don't know you are in a dream when you are dreaming, how do you know that anything around you is as it truly is? So he started his philosophy with doubting **everything.** At first, he couldn't figure out where to go from there. How are you supposed to know anything if you doubt everything? Eventually, he discovers his first axiom: I think therefore I am. In order for him to doubt everything, **he** must exist. He can't assume anything about who or what he really is but he can safely assume that he exists, otherwise, he would not be thinking about the fact that he exists.",
"The philosopher Descartes wanted to find a fact that was always 100% true no matter what situation. (This is called an objective truth) Since the brain constantly misinterprets sensory information (eg optical illusions), Descartes concluded that nothing a person senses can be objectively true, everything could possibly be a hallucination and not real at all. The one objective truth he found was that no matter what his conscious definitely exists, because if it didn’t then obviously Descartes couldn’t be thinking anything at all. Hence the phrase “I think, therefore I am.” - Even though you can’t be certain anything physically exists, you know your conscious exists in one form or another because you’re able to make thoughts in the first place.",
"Has your brain ever lied to you? It probably has; between sensory illusions, deja vu, hallucinations, dreams, false memories, etc., our perception of what is real is very suspect; your mind plays tricks on you. Descartes basically said that the only thing you can know with any real certainty is that you exist, and you know that because you are the one thinking about existing.",
"Descartes (the man who wrote it) wanted to find something that's objectively true You can't trust your senses since they wrong you a lot, mathematics could be different, etc. At the end of his long experiment, he took a step back and notice that something (that thinks) did an experiment and that's true. It's probably the only thing you can prove and only to yourself.",
"Logically, there are two cases - \"I\" either exist, or \"I\" don't. If I exist, that's fine. If I am being fooled into thinking I exist, that means I must exist in order to be fooled!",
"Many people here are getting this wrong. Descartes reasoned (due to the many philosophical upheavals at the time) that many of our fundamental beliefs are in question, and desired to start from scratch to see what he could absolutely determine as true. He decided start by doubting everything, even his own existence. But he reasoned that doubting is an act of thought, and that something that doesn't exist cannot think. Thus the reasoning: \"I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am\". The problem is that this argument only demonstrates ones own existence. I can use it to demonstrate to myself that I exist, but I cannot use it to demonstrate to you that I exist (and visa versa). This is known as the problem of \"Hard Solipsism\", and can essentially be summed up as the idea that you can't actually prove you aren't in a simulation (like the matrix), as all external stimuli (everything your five senses tell you) could potentially be false data fed to you by the simulation.",
"Try this experiment. Imagine yourself as a body without a consciousness. It's very difficult or even impossible to really do. Now imagine yourself as a consciousness without a body. Not that difficult to imagine.",
"Reminds me of my favourite professor's worst joke: Rene Descartes walks into a bar. A man asks him if he would like to dance. Rene says \"I think not,\" and disappears.",
"decartes is the philosopher who compiled this thought into its more complete form. it should be noted that he is french and there is a better translation than the phrasing noted by OP above. “i doubt, therefore i am” i may be just a brain in a jar who is being manipulated by a mad scientist in everyway imaginable. However, when i doubt i can say, 100% of the time, that doubt comes from me. therefore I am a source, unmanipulated.",
"Back in the olden days, there were lots of things people thought were true but hadn't properly thought about. Then this guy, Des, decided to try to work out what was true and what wasn't. He started by looking at science, and realised he couldn't prove any of it. Then he looked at what he could see, and realised his brain might be being tricked by magic. In the end, he decided the only thing he knew for sure was that he was thinking about this stuff, and if he was thinking then he must exist! From then on, he started to get people to think differently. Everyone started to try to work out what was real, and what wasn't. In the end, many things people thought were true were nonsense, and many things people didn't know before were discovered! I hope I have explained that in a way a 5 year old might understand. For explanations for higher age groups, please see other comments, including that from xPanZi.",
"It's a philosophical saying by Descartes. It basically states \"If I am able to think (which clearly I am by thinking this sentence) then I must exist\". The idea is that if you're able to think then you must exist in some sense (could be a simulation or something though, that counts as 'existing') Fundamentally however the statement is wrong (strictly speaking it in invalid) it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question (also known as circular reasoning).",
"Here's how it was explained to me, long long ago: Imagine you're just a brain in a jar, and aliens have hooked you up to a machine that creates a fake world for you to live in. Everything you know, or have ever known, has been fake. All of the people have just been simulations, all of the History is fiction. How do you know that you're not fake, too? Well, you're capable of thinking. And that's how you know that you're real and not just another simulation.",
"For further reading on philosophical bases try [simulation theory]( URL_0 ) which posits that, 'even though you can think, it doesn't mean you are.' It suggests that we, and everything we comprehend is just part of a vast computer simulation run for reasons unknown and tests the maxim: 'audentes Fortuna iuvat' - Fortune Favors the Bold. It suggests that only those prepared to risk everything are worthy of success. The wealthy man gets the trophy wife, the courageous soldier gets the ribbon and the persistent athlete gets the medal. The persistent counter-argument is that the vast majority of entrepreneurs go broke, the vast majority of brave soldiers are KIA and the vast majority of committed athletes break down before achieving success, thus both proving the adage, but qualifying it by displaying Fortune's obliviousness to mortal matters: Those who never try will never succeed, but even those who do make every exertion are vastly more likely to perish in the attempt than to succeed. I believe the warrior-poet 50 Cent put it best when he said 'Get rich, or die tryin.'",
"You know how in lego, or as kids call it, Minecraft, all buildings start with single first brick? 'Well I think therefore I am' is that first brick in philosophy. You can't deny you think, so you can't deny you exist. For others it's the same. Since everyone now has the same starting brick it's possible to start adding other bricks to it answer all sorts of other about reality and morality. Before this when philosophers would try building ideas together one would start with a Jellybean like \"Since we that God created us in his image...\" and another with a mango pit like \"Don't be an idiot, God doesn't exist\", and well those pieces would rarely fit together at all.",
"A hallucination can not experience itself. Since you experience your own self awareness, you must exist. You think, therefore you are.",
"are you a computer simulation? are you inside a dream of someone else? are you real?? well, I'm thinking of it, so I must actually exist"
],
"score": [
19598,
1276,
333,
122,
90,
54,
25,
16,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dcdur9 | How does the House of Lords work in the UK? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f27kpc6"
],
"text": [
"Believe it or not, it kinda is. They have pretty limited power though; the idea is for them to not have to worry about elections or other 'politics', to slow down legislation to give it proper scrutiny and to revise laws they deem unsuitable. They're self-regulating, which means filibustering is possible (which it isn't in the commons) and there are limits on how many of them can be 'hereditary' (I.e. Born into it) Lords at any one time. If the House of Lords delays a Bill for too long (around a year), the Commons can reintroduce it later and vote it through without the consent of the Lords if they want to. That's it off the top of my head, check out the government's video on the topic: URL_0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://youtu.be/-U0LhurGWOc"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dcfbjc | Why is the Irish PM called the Taoiseach but Merkel isn't called the Bundeskanzler? | I am talking about the usage of the term in English language. The term Taoiseach is even defined in the Irish constitution as "the Prime Minister", according to Wikipedia. So I wonder if there's a historic reason the term is left untranslated in English language, unlike terms for equivalent offices in other countries. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f27tp7z",
"f2837g1"
],
"text": [
"Ireland and Britain have a very long and bloody relationship, there has been conflict for almost all of their recorded history. Insisting on the use of Irish titles is a way of asserting Irish national identity after finally breaking away from the British Empire.",
"The UK colonized Ireland for a long time and at points suppressed and prosecuted people for being too Irish and that included trying to wipe out The Irish language. In the 1920s Ireland drove the British out of most of the island and established the Republic of Ireland. One of the things they’ve done since then is to introduce Irish language terms back into official functions to assert their identity as Irish. That’s why the police are also called Garda and the Post Office is An Post. Taoiseach is part of that."
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
dckatm | What does "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f28ryh0",
"f28u389",
"f28q8cr",
"f28px0h"
],
"text": [
"It's a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, which is a piece of Hindu scripture. It was quoted by Robert Oppenheimer after the first successful atomic bomb test. As for the strange wording and why it's not \"I have become death,\" that is believed to be for two reasons: first, Sanskrit (the original language of the *Gita*) does not have a present perfect tense in the same way that English does, and \"I am\" is the word-for-word translation. Second, \"I am become\" is technically grammatical in English; it's now archaic but you can still see it in old texts like the King James Bible (e.g John 12:46: \"I am come a light into the world). Since the *Gita* is also a very old text, it makes stylistic sense to translate it into archaic English. I see conflicting sources that Oppenheimer was working from a translation of the *Gita* or that he translated it himself, so I'm not sure who to attribute the decision to.",
"It is J. Robert Oppenheimer's translation of a line from the Bhagadvad Gita, a Hindu sacred text. In the Gita, a god, Krishna, is trying to convince a prince, Arjuna, to join into war. Krishna is posing as Arjuna's chariot driver while he is doing this. Arjuna doesn't want to fight, and doesn't want to kill. Krishna tells him it is his duty to do so. Finally Arjuna realizes who Krishna actually is, and asks him to show him his godly form. Krishna shows him [his full, multi-armed, multi-faced form]( URL_0 ). Arjuna is struck by the sight — it is \"brighter than a thousand suns,\" and he worships Krishna. Then Krishna speaks to Arjuna. He says, in essence, your duty is to fight. The people that die are truly killed by me, not you. They are all fated to die. You are just the instrument. For Krishna himself is time, or death. As Oppenheimer's Sanskrit teacher translated it:\" Death am I, and my present task / Destruction.\" Or as Oppenheimer rendered it: \"I am become death, destroyer of worlds.\" Now you might ask: what's the meaning of Oppenheimer saying he thought that, when he saw the first atomic bomb go off? It's not Oppenheimer saying _he's_ death. Oppenheimer is not saying he is Krishna. He is saying he is Arjuna: he has just witnessed this incredible splendor, something that shows him how small and human he is, and that whatever his misgivings about the deadly task in front of him (the destruction of Japanese cities), it is his duty to continue onward. Such as least is the interpretation I find most consistent with Oppenheimer's life, ethics, feelings about the bombs, tone when talking about it, etc. (Which is to say, I do not think the statement was meant as Oppenheimer claiming the position of the god.)",
"I am rustier on the context in the Bhagavad Gita, where it originated, but Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, noted that was what went through his head watching the fist nuclear weapon be detonated. His creation, he knew when he saw it, would cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale.",
"It's a line from the Bhagavad Gita, as Krishna cycles through his various and infinite forms in front of Arjuna, the prince he was carting around during a war of his family. Oppenheimer utters it in reference, and reverence, when he sees the first atom bomb go off."
],
"score": [
19,
11,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gita-130.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dcmala | Why do prison sentences vary so drastically for the same crime in the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f294tvh",
"f299tjp",
"f293e2q",
"f29aajh"
],
"text": [
"1. Judges have some discretion in deciding the sentence and do so by weighing the specific factors involved. 2. Many crimes are prosecuted at the State level not the Federal level. The individual States have their own guidelines and there is no requirement that they completely align.",
"Because there is no such thing as \"the same crime\". Each crime is unique, we just group them into convenient categories. Within a category, crimes can have different degrees of severity, consequence, and malicious intent, judges and juries example each case to determine what punishments are appropriate.",
"A number of factors, consisting of the circumstances and general key points of said crime. Also it depends on crime history, like have you done this before, or something else before.",
"Imagine your 5 year old self taking a candy from a store. Now imagine your current self taking candy from a store. There are lots of factors that go into sentencing, and since every individual is unique in this world, no two crimes are the same. That’s why there can be such a difference."
],
"score": [
41,
23,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dcuyre | If it’s racist for a white person to do “blackface”, is it also considered racist for a black person to do “whiteface”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2bk47g"
],
"text": [
"I would hope so...kind of missing the concept if it wasn't right?"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dcv1t9 | What is Plato’s Cave Analogy and why is it important? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2bo7so",
"f2bosum",
"f2boz8t"
],
"text": [
"So you have a person shackled in a cave. They can only see the back of the cave wall, and the shadows projected onto it from the mouth of the cave. The person, given their perspective, knows only the world of shadows. It's seen the shadow of a man, of a dog, of a bear, and doesn't know that those are any other way. Bring that cave denizen into the daylight, have a man walk past, a dog sniff his hand, a bear ambles by, and he'll have no idea what he's looking at despite seeing them hundreds of times. We can't rely on our sense to provide knowledge. That cave dweller thought he knew the world based on his eyes. True knowledge has to be gained through philosophy and thinking, or else we risk our perspectives limiting our knowledge.",
"I won't reiterate the actual analogy, as you heard it. The ideas that the cave represents ignorance - people are not seeing the \"real\" reality, but only shadows of it, given to them by the people walking past the fire (the people in control of any society). They believe that what they see is real, because they have never know anything different, but that doesn't make it real - it is still an illusion given to them by those who have knowledge. Knowledge doesn't exist in the cave - you can only gain it by venturing outside (studying philosophy and being exposed to truths). If one many is removed from the cave (forced to abandon his illusion for reality, ignorance for knowledge) this will be painful for him, as his reality is being shattered. He will deny it as false because it is foreign and painful for him. He will want to return to the cave at first, because the ignorance is comfortable for him. It is only over time, as he grows accustom to knowledge, that he will begin to see that the outside world is better than the cave, and he will begin to prefer knowledge to ignorance. It is only through the study of philosophy and a quest for truth that we will appreciate truth as superior to half-truth, and knowledge as superior to ignorance. The man will then want to return to the cave, because he wishes to dispel the ignorance of the other people that live in the cave - he now understands the value of knowledge and truth over fiction, so he will want to share that with others that have yet to understand. However, he is accustomed to knowledge now, and will be unable to see in the darkness - he will no longer be able to comprehend ignorance because he is no longer ignorant. When the other cave-dwellers see that he is blinded, they will assume that the light is harmful, and it will only convince them to remain in the cave - they will see the knowledgeable as harmed by their \"knowledge\" and this will only reaffirm that ignorance to truth is the better status. The philosopher will have a hard time talking to the ignorant, as the ignorant are not ready to see truth. It is an allegory for philosophy itself - when a philosopher is born ignorant in the cave, believing the half-truths presented by the shadows. It is only when they are freed from the cave and given knowledge (through the study of philosophy) that they can begin to comprehend reality. This is difficult at first, as they cling to their old ignorant assumptions, but gradually they gain knowledge and prefer the truths of philosophy to the ignorance of their younger days. They then try to bring this knowledge to others, but it is seen as a corruption by those not ready to gain knowledge (Socrates would go on to understand that all too well)...",
"So Plato's \"Allegory of the Cave\" goes something like this: A group of prisoners are born and raised immediately chained-up so that their only view in their life is this one blank wall that is illuminated from behind them by a campfire. As they grow and watch and learn, they sometimes see shadows from figures walking in front of the campfire; the shadows come and go, they hear speech from those figures, etc. As they grow and learn about the \"world\", their worldview is heavily distorted because all they see is this one tiny piece of what's really going on. But for them, it *is* the world. It's literally all they know. Now, if you take one of these prisoners and free them, they start seeing what is really happening. They see that there are other people, and that the shadows are artifacts of the light, and they get distorted based on how close the people are to the fire and things like that... They have more knowledge, and objectively know more. But if you then put them back, they have what I've heard called the \"curse of knowledge\"; they know the truth, but they can't make any argument that doesn't rely on seeing it themselves to the people whose entire worldview is that those shadows are reality. Similarly, they can't *ever* go back to seeing the shadows as the real world, because they *know* better. The importance depends somewhat on who you ask, but to me it teaches us three important things: 1) You can't argue someone into disbelieving something that they weren't argued into believing. 2) Our intuitions and perceptions can be artificially limited, and that can shape what we think is true. 3) Knowledge is a double-edged sword to some degree. Most people, when pressed, would say they'd rather find out the truth than continue believing a lie, but if you look at the prevalence of cognitive dissonance, there is a strong mental barrier against that. People can see tons of things that should shatter their worldview and just brush that evidence aside and find ways to argue around it. But more than that: if you *do* finally find new knowledge, you can't go back to not knowing about it, you can't go back to *really* thinking that something that is false is actually true. This can put you at odds with family and friends who haven't been \"freed from the cave\", as it were, as you know they're horribly, dangerously (in some cases) wrong, but have no power that can show them that they're being misled, because to do so is to go outside of their world, essentially, and that can't be overly forced. Further: it leads to breakdowns in communication, when you learn more about the underlying principles of reality in certain subjects. Think about any sort of technical jargon that gets misheard or misinterpreted and then repeated by people with no experience in that field. The example Plato uses is that if a prisoner sees the shadow of a book, and says \"a book\", he is referring to a shadow of a book, and is by necessity missing a lot of the function of an actual real book, but these prisoners lack any other worldview from which to overhaul their view of \"book\". On a more controversial modern example, the idea of \"racism\" has become a bit of jargon in the social sciences because their goal when talking about racism is to talk about the bits of our society that promote or uphold racial biases, whether intentionally or not, while most of the rest of the world hears \"racism\" and thinks violent race bigots, not the scientific study that shows that people raised in western countries implicitly react more negatively to black people than white people. And often the fact that two people are talking about two very different things using the same word makes them not actually communicate. Finally, a more simple quote that gets to the heart of it and its' relevance to modern society: \"The word 'respect' has two different meanings; there's the sense where you acknowledge someone has authority through deeds or position or knowledge, like you 'respect' a doctor's knowledge of medicine. But there's also the definition of 'respect' where you treat people with dignity and like a person regardless of their accolades. \"So then, when a police officer says 'If you don't respect me, I won't respect you' it sounds like they're being fair, but what they're really saying is 'If you don't treat me like an authority, I won't treat you like a human being.' And that is both not fair and not OK.\""
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dda0in | Why were the 1992 Los Angeles riots so bad? | So in 1992, four cops were acquitted of the beating of Rodney King, sparking protests throughout California, in which over 60 people were killed. In 2019 this seems insane - even with Black Lives Matter protesting over people being KILLED by cops, I can't recall more than any fatalities at those events, much less dozens. Why is it that the 1992 riots were so deadly? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2fdjgw",
"f2f61tg",
"f2f1gqv"
],
"text": [
"In 1992, people didn't have cell phones, much less phones with cameras. This was one of the first times that degree of police brutality was captured on video. Everyone was sure justice would be done, but after a fake internal investigation and a half-hearted prosecution, the police officers were found not guilty despite the evidence that millions of people saw. This lead to outrage against a department that already had a terrible record when it came to race issues. Compounding the problem was the lack of preparation against protests...LAPD insisted their guys were innocent, everyone would see it their way once the court \"proved\" it. They were not ready for ready for the level of response...some of the more conspiratory minded believe they wanted riots to show how King's supporters (i.e. black people) were a bunch of violent criminals. Even without the King incident, racial tension made the city ripe for this sort of thing, there likely would have been some other event that triggered similar violent protests. Also, crime rates in the US are at or near their historic lows today. They peaked in 1980, with a second peak nearly as high in 1991. There were a lot more violent criminals out there willing to take advantage of the chaos, particularly in urban centers. 1992 followed decades of \"white flight\", where the middle class (of all races) fled the inner cities for the suburbs, and was well into the decline of the US manufacturing sector. Not only did this leave behind the poorer, less educated people with fewer job prospects, but they took their tax dollars with them, leaving cities with fewer resources to deal with the most needy. This let to racially segregated, high crime, poorly policed neighborhoods than we see in these days of gentrification.",
"It’s worth noting that violence and crime were a lot worse back then. There’s been a constant decrease in crime and violence since that time when it was at its peak. No one is sure why this is so, but a pretty convincing argument has been made that leaded gasoline, which was the standard until the mid 1970s, led to lead poisoning damage to growing children’s brains. One key effect of lead poisoning is more impulsivity and violent tendencies. Children born after the mid-1970s are going to have more ability to resist violence.",
"I am reading the wikipedia: URL_0 It appears that police and authorities were not very well prepared. IN recent protest, you see officers in riot gear that outnumber protesters. LA officers had small numbers and no riot gear intially. As riots spread, police did not have the manpower to try to take control of riot areas, and had to pull out and let riots continue. And it did not help that mayor of LA made a speech that was hostile to police. On the other side, there are a number of factors that made riots worse: URL_1 - Buildup of tension from several earlier incidents of police brutality - Economic recession nationwide - inner-city poverty specific to LA - tension between blacks and korean-town immigrants."
],
"score": [
20,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Day_1_%E2%80%93_Wednesday,_April_29",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Scholars_and_writers"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
ddae7y | Why is the Sabbath considered to be Sunday in Christianity but Saturday in Judaism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2f72n1",
"f2f3m2o",
"f2felhb",
"f2faz4f",
"f2ffzyt",
"f2fkhpt",
"f2fqx1m",
"f2fkjjp",
"f2fp64q",
"f2fdoyx"
],
"text": [
"It isn't. The Sabbath is on Saturday. It's just that Christians do not celebrate the Sabbath. Church is on Sunday because the Resurrection occured on a Sunday.",
"For Judaism; this was the 7th day of the week in which God rested. And he blessed the day to be a day of no work and later worshipping. For Christianity; Sunday is the day Jesus stood up from the Death. Sunday is thus a little reminder to Easter.",
"Most Christian churches (in my experience) teach that Saturday is the Sabbath, but they worship on Sunday, because that's the day Christ was resurrected. Sunday is often called \"the Lord's day\" but not \"the Sabbath.\" (Also from my experience) a lot of individual Christians don't pay attention to details, and get this wrong. Also, Bible Study is on Wednesday evenings, because nobody ever has anything planned on Wednesday evening, so you don't have any excuses. We'll see you at 7:00 for cookies and punch (aka watered-down Kool-Ade.)",
"Christianity doesn't really celebrate the sabbath like Judaism does. It is just a day of rest, which means spending time at home with your family. Church is celebrating the ressurection, which happened on a Sunday.",
"The Seventy-day Adventurist church (Protestant Christian) recognizes Saturday as it's Sabbath.",
"Technically in Judaism, Shabbat (sabbath) starts at sundown Friday evening and goes until sundown on Saturday.",
"The Sabbath is Saturday. **Some** denominations just took it upon themselves to say that the new sabbath is the day that the day of Jesus’s resurrection is the new Sabbath even tho Jesus still observed the sabbath after he came back. The logic was Jesus that Jesus came to break the old covenant (he didn’t). There were a few more arguments too like wherever people come to worship that’s where the presence of the Lord is (it is said in the Bible which is fair) and that the sabbath was made for man so by extension we should be able to change the day (idk anything about this so I won’t address this myself) Now I specified that only some follow this belief because Seventh Day Adventist still advocate that the Sabbath is the seventh day. I won’t go into too much detail but pretty much they follow both the new and Old Testaments.",
"While I certainly can’t explain the question, it made me think of the names of the weekdays in Spanish, my mother tongue. Saturday in Spanish is “Sábado” which clearly alludes to Sabbath. But Sunday is “Domingo” which comes from Dies Dominica, or day of the Lord. So basically in Spanish both Saturday and Sunday are Resting days, which is, in my opinion very correct and sensible.",
"In Judaism, Saturday is the seventh day, when God rested after the six days of creation. In Christianity, Sunday is the day that Jesus rose from the dead, the day after the Jewish Passover and the third day after His crucifixion and death that previous Friday. While some Christians call Sunday the Sabbath, it's not really accurate, as the Sabbath is and has always been Saturday.",
"Christianity doesn’t celebrate the Sabbath, so Sunday shouldn’t be compared to a Saturday Sabbath. If your question is why Christians worship on Sunday as opposed to Saturday like their older brother origin religion, they will claim it’s because Jesus rose on Sunday. While that is their justification, it’s real reasoning is from the molding of pagan practices into Christianity during its early adoption. A literal reading of the biblical text will show that Saturday is the proper day of religious worship for Biblical believers."
],
"score": [
255,
53,
25,
14,
11,
8,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ddb62g | Why does almost every driver blatantly ignore the speed limit? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2f96mv"
],
"text": [
"Better question maybe for /r/CasualConversation or /r/TooAfraidToAsk A lot of it's just because the police in many areas don't enforce the speed limit, and the laws aren't so strictly defined in some states that speeding is open to interpretation. In Virginia, anything 20 miles per hour over the speed limit or anything over 80 is a very serious offense that can be punished with jail time and heavy fines. In Maryland, though, the standard is just that the driving has to be \"reckless\"... so you can get away with more there. Of course it varies by city, county, etc. There are some places where people do more strictly follow the speed limit because the police will pop them for going even a couple miles over. But there's otherwise an unwritten rule that says 5-9 is OK."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ddgvp6 | Why is the term "coloured people" offensive, but "Person of colour" is considered politically correct? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2h9vbr"
],
"text": [
"Others are saying \"history\" but that's not really a complete answer. The term \"colored\" is racially charged because of instances like [colored water fountains]( URL_1 ), [colored bathrooms]( URL_0 ), [colored entrances]( URL_3 ), and more. In each instance, the one word *colored* is used to describe the people. That word specifically was used to isolate, demean, and otherize people. It wasn't \"person of color\" it was just \"colored\". That's the same reason why the \"n-word\" is so heinous. On its own, it's just a word, and at one time it was the \"correct\" word to use. But it wasn't just used to describe people, it was used to discriminate against those people. And centuries later, when the people who it was used against made it a point to say, \"Please stop using that word because it was used to hurt us before,\" people *continued* (and continue) to use it *because* it is hurtful. It's hard to say the word is \"just a word\" when it's deliberately being used to hurt people, eh? And for the same reason, albeit with a lot less controversy, the word \"colored\" used in that way is hurtful because it's usually used to hurt. The other part of it, though, is \"people-first language\". When you say, \"Person of color\" the word *person* comes first, and that matters. When a sign says, \"Coloreds only\" it removes even the personhood of the people it's describing. They are not *people*, they are *colored*. It reduces them to a single defining attribute, which is the color of their skin. They are colored, and everything else about them comes second. On the other hand, \"Person of color\" emphasizes that they are, in fact, still a person and they presumably have many defining characteristics. Many people of color may have a lot of other things they personally choose to identify as before they identify as being of color. Think about it this way: consider a person who is biologically male, attracted to other men, flies planes commercially, loves cats, and has dark skin. Are they a gay black man pilot who loves cats? Or a pilot that loves cats, is male, is attracted to men, and has dark skin? Or a black cat lover male pilot who is gay? In other words, [what kind of guy are you?]( URL_2 ) The guy who started the fire? Or *fire guy*? Sure, it seems silly, but everyone has things they use to identify themselves with. And yes, as part of society we use a lot of short-cuts and it's usually easiest for someone who doesn't know that person to identify their race *first* because it's the most obviously visible part about them. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. However, again you have to keep in mind that they are still a person and regardless of how *you* first categorize them, *they* may not define themselves that way. People-first language is an attempt to keep that in mind by saying, sure, we're saying that your ethnicity is something other than white, but also that's not the only thing about you. You will see similar language used to talk about other marginalized groups. For example: person with a disability rather than a disabled person. The point is the same. They are not defined by their disability, they're a person who happens to have a disability."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://live.staticflickr.com/7015/6675996033_f0a46a651c_b.jpg",
"https://sophiedaveyphoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/segregated.jpg",
"https://i.redd.it/z37mispi0zjz.jpg",
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/5f/04/615f040a844625668cad078b5f68f4a5.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ddkm9f | why do brands have different names in different countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2iz6hn",
"f2izbg5"
],
"text": [
"* copyright/trademark issues * language issues ie the name doesn't translate to the native tongue * different market, so the name doesn't fit.",
"Two main reasons- •the most likely is that a larger brand became global by buying out smaller regional brands. The regional brands already had the public trust and were familiar, so why mess with the name? So now you have a mega corporation which owns many previously-independent brands. *This is the case with walkers/lays. The American Lays company bought out the UK Walkers company in 1989.* •second is that they did some market testing and found that due to language or culture certain brand names were more accepted in different regions (or maybe the name was already used for something else) so they divided up the regions into whatever brand name suited it best. *This is the case with dove/galaxy. The Dove Chocolates company was founded in the USA and introduced as Galaxy in the UK in the 60’s.*"
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ddqck1 | Why are there reports of dragons in history that appear to be similar to one another which originate from different corners of the globe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2lw3n9",
"f2lsvor",
"f2lvgqw"
],
"text": [
"Dragon mythology exists across cultures, centuries and continents from one end of the earth to the other. Evolutionarily and anthropologically speaking, the theory is that dragons are an amalgamation of the beasts that most threatened pre-human ancestors and early humans - snakes, raptors (birds of prey) and large cats (and similar predators). Most historical depictions of dragons include snake-like features (scales, sometimes fangs, sometimes long sinewy bodies), raptor-like features (wings, talons, sometimes feathers) and often large cat like features (large, powerful jaws with sharp teeth, sometimes clawed feet). Fear of snakes, raptors and big cats is programmed deep in our brains, instinctively or at least primed to be learned (the theory goes), because those primed to be wary of these threats tended to live long enough to reproduce more successfully, passing on this characteristic. Add to this ancient peoples' discovery of dinosaur fossils, and there's a readily adaptable wholly-formed myth that might even aid survival.",
"Merchants and others travelled the world along with other people far more than many people think and far earlier and when they travelled they took their folk tales with them. Alternatively dragons may have existed - URL_0",
"The original \"dragons\" were probably just crocodiles, I think it was in the Bible they're mentioned as reptiles with hot breath (which got mistranslated as flaming breath). Since there were no crocodiles in Europe this was not corrected by real-life experience. Probably a similar situation in Asia, sightings of big reptiles like snakes and Komodo dragons got embellished in travelers reports. And Chinese dragons and European dragons are quite different, Chinese dragons are good creatures that bring luck, while European dragons are evil, maiden-devouring monsters."
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/pG8jBoKho_g"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ddz3el | "Straw Man" (A form of argument) | Read through the summary on wiki but its still vague to me. How is it used or pinpointed in an argument / debate and why is it referenced to a Straw Man? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2pagv0",
"f2pf4k1"
],
"text": [
"What it means is to argue by constructing a false argument, and then defeating that instead of addressing what your opponent is actually arguing. For example: A: I don't think strict regulations on X would help reduce the incidence of Bad Thing. B: Sure, let's just have X everywhere! We'll hand them out for free on street corners. Give a whole bunch of X to kids why don't we? That's ridiculous, you're an idiot! We call it a \"straw man\" because in this case B has built himself a scarecrow (a straw man) to beat with a rhetorical stick rather than actually attack A or his argument.",
"So a strawman is basically when someone intentionally mis-represents an argument to make it easier to defeat that the actual argument. It's a dishonest way to argue, and often involves taking an argument to a ridiculous extreme. An example: Person A: \"we need to relax drug control laws, as they're choking up the prison system and causing more harm than good\". Person B: so you're saying we should give out cocaine to children? That's horrific!\" Person B hasn't addressed person A's argument. Another example: Person A: we should lower the drinking age in the US, as 21 is higher than most other countries. Person B: that would mean children could buy alcohol, and alcohol is bad for their development."
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
def271 | if a USA state decided to adapt a different political idealogy and leave the US how would the US government react? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2urnm8"
],
"text": [
"Historical precedent shows that the U.S. government would respond by forcing California into submission. The civil war demonstrated that states are not allowed to leave the union for ideological reasons."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
defw3q | Why do people seem to be using terms like 'Boomer' and 'Millenial' so much now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2uw686",
"f2uw2a8",
"f2uvy18"
],
"text": [
"Because since the dawn of time, people love to blame someone or a group of people for something bad that happened. Boomers are thought to have destroyed society and the planet. And millenials to have destroyed the good things in society like art, human interaction, human behavior, etc. Truth is, we're all pawns in the game, and no one knows what type or magnitude of a consequence their actions hold, and then society in turn shapes us in a way that may destroy society. It's impossible to blame anyone other than humans as a whole.",
"\"Boomer\" and \"Millennial\" refer to two generations of individuals. People are using these terms more as millennials are growing up and making decisions that the older generation, in this case the \"boomers,\" don't agree with. It really just boils down to generational friction, the older people not wanting to listen to younger people and vice versa.",
"Boomers (baby boomers) are the people born after World War II in the US, from 945 to 1963. Technically I am in that group, at the very end. Boomers had it good, and basically wrecked the country for future generations, say the younger people, with some justification. \"Millennials\" is a tag for people born in a certain time, but it's often misused to mean anyone younger than 30. Kids these days are no good, say boomers, with some justification."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dej52t | When did people stop believing in the old gods like Greek and Norse? Did the Vikings just wake up one morning and think ''this is bullshit''? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2vojt3",
"f2vl8wb",
"f2xagvx",
"f2wtfbq",
"f2whgol",
"f2wyaw3",
"f2x7zql",
"f2xmgsw",
"f2xplml",
"f2y87dv",
"f2xs1s5",
"f2xmtlw",
"f2y14i9",
"f2xrzn7",
"f2xqo74",
"f2x4ycq",
"f2xtex5",
"f2xu4lx",
"f2wyr24",
"f2wui47",
"f2xnlyb",
"f2xu449",
"f2z02s1",
"f2z7a8t",
"f2yereh"
],
"text": [
"Usually in those days the average person on the street, didn't have too much choice in what religion they wanted to be. For the most part you were whatever religion everyone else in your village was and everyone was the religion that the person in charge said they were. If the tribal leader or king converted to Christianity for political reasons, the people followed, not necessarily because they wanted to, but because they had no choice. For example Harald Bluetooth for which the Bluetooth wireless connection is named became a Christian and then he became King of all Danes and then the Danes became Christians because he said so. In practice many conversion efforts only slapped a new label on pagan customs and traditions. Old gods were relabeled as saints old feasts became Christian feasts and many kept doing what they had been doing all along with only gradual change of the underlying stuff. Individual people may have converted because they were convinced by theological arguments, but the majority switched because they were told to by people you couldn't disagree.",
"Generally speaking, Christian influence is to blame. Rome originally persecuted Christians, but after emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Rome quickly became a monotheistic society. As religious tolerance wasn't huge back then, it didn't take long for Rome to start persecuting \"old gods\" instead, including the Greek and Roman gods. As Rome spread across Europe, so too did Christianity, making its way into England, France, and even Norway (Normandy is interesting reading, by the way). Missionaries converted those who were willing, and societal pressure persecuted those who weren't, until eventually almost everyone was Christian.",
"In Iceland it was a democratic decision taken in 1000AD. It was driven by the Christianisation of Norway under king Olaf Tryggvason who had all the enthusiasm of a new convert and insisted on bringing all Norway’s neighbours into the Christian sphere of influence. Tryggvason managed to trigger conflicts in Denmark and Norway between Christians and followers of the old gods and he soon set his eyes on Iceland. Iceland had received a number of Christian missionaries who had had some success in converting the local population, but one whom, Thangbrandur, enraged the population and ended up killing some of the Icelanders. When he returned to Norway, he told Tryggvason that the Icelanders were refusing to accept the new religion, the king threatened war and there were genuine fears that Iceland would soon be engulfed in civil war. Things came to a head because of the actions of a Christian convert, Hjalti Skeggjason who had been sentenced for mocking the goddess Freyja. He was allowed to serve his sentence in Norway along with his father-in-law. During their exile, they got the backing of Tryggvason and on their return raised an army that threatened to trigger the war in Iceland. So, the matter was referred to the Icelandic parliament for arbitration. Iceland was a form of democracy where individual chiefs gathered at the Althing located at the site of Thingvellir a little to the East of modern Reykjavik. The speaker of the Althing was a man called Thorgeir Thorkelsson, he heard arguments from both sides and the gathered everyone at the Law Speaker’s Rock to hear his plan. Thorgeir said that all Icelanders should be baptised into the Christian faith - HOWEVER, and here was the genius part - the old gods could be worshipped in private. So Iceland became a Christian country in 1000AD and civil war was avoided. If you’re ever in Iceland, you can visit the national park at Thingvellir and see the Law Speaker’s rock from which the proclamation was made. If you go to the North, you can also visit the beautiful waterfall at Godafoss which was given its name after the huge wooden statues of the old gods were thrown into the river. Apologies for mangled spellings, I don’t have an Icelandic keyboard in front of me.",
"While a number of respondents have made the case for Christianity becoming the official religion and pushing out the “old” gods, this has never stopped underground believers from continuing their faith. Surely adherents to the Norse and Roman pantheons continued their beliefs. The OP asked when people stopped believing that a bunch of humanoid deities sat atop Olympus. I am curious too if there came a point wherein people said “Okay, this is just too ludicrous to be believed.” As I write, I realize there is an active religion today that purports to believe that an alien dictator brought billions of people to Earth on Dc-8’s and blew them up using hydrogen bombs so maybe there is nothing people won’t believe.",
"Greco-Roman religion was officially abolished as state religion by the Roman emperor Constantine (306-337 AD), briefly revived by Julian the Apostate and finally abolished by his successors. Since then, it fought a long defeat against Christianity, but pockets of Greco-Roman paganism still lingered in rural Greece until VIII century (the Maniot pagans), and a Byzantine philosopher Gemistos Pletho advocated a return to the old faith even later (he lived during the last years of Byzantium). The Norse religion started to peter out similarly, after the Christianization of Scandinavian kingdoms. However, all Scandinavia did not Christianize in an instant, unlike Rome. Denmark became Christian around 1000, Norway Christianized under Olaf the Saint (1015-1028), Sweden was gradually Christianized from 990s until 1100.",
"Suomenusko died thanks to the crusades to what we know as Finland, and conversion activity by Novgrodians. Also centuries of oppression by the swedish crown. Many of our traditions did continue existing along side christianity. Mainly thanks to swedes failing to culturally convert us, and us keeping our own language.",
"Technically, the religion is still alive. I know there are some families who still worship the old gods, and there's a movement of neo-paganism which have been causing a resurgence in worship of old gods among people.",
"As someone who has come back to the old religions, you'd be absolutely shocked how many people STILL believe in those old gods. You've already gotten answers sure, but there's no one answer here. Christianity, monotheism as a whole, is more profitable and more political. You can't tell a Northern Heathen how to worship Odin, he'll question *your* methods. How to worship God/Yahweh/Allah is already detailed in some books. That's easier to corral people with than any spoken doctrine. However Iceland has had the Ásatrúarfélagið (Ásatrú Fellowship) since 1972, and as far as this little American knows, the Ásatrú Heathen faith is an indoctrinated religion there which is growing quite rapidly. They're one of very few places that has official temples dedicated to the old Norse gods. Naturalists, pagan polytheists, wiccans, they're all straying from organized religion in lieu of a more ambiguous practice. I personally don't like being told how to view the world, I prefer to let the world tell me. I know a lot of modern individuals who agree. I'd argue the worship of old gods never truly went away, it just got oppressed into silence by the Church.",
"I would argue that the Greek and Roman pantheons were never believed in, in the same way that Christianity is believed in. Christianity is a faith based on specific historical claims about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it has produced a series of creeds and confessions that lay out precisely what Christianity believes to be true. Greek, Roman, Norse, and other myths belong to a different category entirely. They have no creeds, no confessions, and no catechisms. Their adherents would have been puzzled by the suggestion of such a thing. Their \"faith\" such as it was, existed in a different frame from their philosophy, which co-existed fairly happily but remained separate. (You might see something similar today in the practice of Shinto, for instance.) Christianity was the first faith to put the two together and give us theology. I'm not sure if this is an original thought to him, but G.K. Chesterton elaborates on this at length in one of his great works, *The Everlasting Man.* (You can easily find it as a free PDF, and can just jump to the part where he starts discussing \"comparative religion.\") Incidentally, this is part of the reason that the line used by folks like Dawkins in debating Christians is mistaken: \"You're also an atheist when it comes to Zeus and Thor and Baal, I'm just an atheist for one more god than you.\" It's a category error. There was never anything like Jewish monotheism, until Christianity which consummated it (Jews would disagree). And there hasn't been anything comparable since that hasn't somehow descended from Christianity.",
"When was the last person celebrating the fertility feast of Eostre ? Last April. When did the people last celebrate the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Last October 31st, and we will again this October 31st. there's your answer.",
"No one woke up and thought it was bullshit. it was enforced through convert or die methods. I responded further below but I will cut and paste here too. & #x200B; it was absolutely state enforced religion. convert or die became a thing... don't forget the romans burned heliopolis when they discovered the governor was pagan, visiting pagan temples was forbidden, pagan holidays were abolished and changed into christian holidays even later on it was baptism or death... the massacre of verden had 4500 pagans beheaded because they would not be baptized. Look at saint george who got his saint hood for killing pagans or saint demetrius who destroyed the temple or atemis and killed the pagans in there.... it was one of the seven wonders of the world for crying out loud.",
"I Norway at least they killed everyone who would not converte. My history teacher explained it like this once \"both sides pray to their religion before a battle, if you win your god was clearly stronger so at the next battle your enemies pray to your god too\"",
"European perspective. 1. The spread of Catholicism / Christianity, starting with Roman Emperor Constantine. Christians were pretty aggressive at spreading the faith, at least once they got to the point where they had material political and military power, 2. Arguably, the 'old gods' where a god would be dedicated to a specific purpose, desire or topic (god of fertility, hunting, farming, lost causes,...) was replaced with the Roman Catholic canonization of saints.",
"Here's why, in bullet points: * Christianity appeared. * Local rulers noticed that the main point of Christianity is \"life sucks, but grin & turn the other cheek and then you get eternal rewards (TM) after death.\" * Local rulers thought, \"hey, this means God is telling them not to rebel against me when I raise taxes, sweet!\" * Rulers then found God and converted to Christianity. * Any vikings who weren't so sure about the new, merciful God got burned at the stake or murdered. * The Vikings who remained alive decided that it was safer to follow Jesus than not to.",
"Long story short? Christianity spread like a very violent plague.",
"I know a few pissed of Frisians didn't take kindly to being proselytised and killed the guy who later became St. Boneface in the town of Dokkum in 754. So no, there appeared to have been a bit of resistance :-)",
"I don't think we ever stopped believing in 'god' or 'gods'. We just gave them different names, different stories and from different backgrounds. I think as human beings our brains are hardwired to want to believe in something ... anything because of the amazing imaginations we have and our ability to create new ideas and images within our own thoughts. Look back on the ancient religions and you'll notice that every one of them is a progression of the one before it ... even in the modern day Christian religion, the entire book, ideas, messiah, birth, rebirth, life after death story is thousands and thousands of years old and has been rehashed from other religions before it. In the future, in a few thousand years from now (if we are still around), the world won't call it Christianity ... it'll be something like Internetism, Redditanity or LifeOnMarsdenanity ... or something like that and the religion will be filled with gods, demons, angels, prophets, messiahs, and stories about how the saviour LifeOnMarsden asked this very question and where it took them.",
"If you've ever listened to Viking metal you would know there's lots of people who still believe it",
"It didn't happen overnight, but was rather a slow burn that took place over the course of about 600 years. Starting from the rule of Constantine as Roman Emperor, to the establishment of the Carolingian Dynasty and Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne. Early Christianity wasn't spread by the sword in quite the same way early Islam was in the Middle East and North Africa. Many conversions were done from the top down for political and economic reasons. Christianity had been rapidly spreading throughout the Roman Empire after Constantine's conversion from Greco-Roman paganism in the 300's. When Rome fell, those people remained Christian, and they began building powerful kingdoms from the ashes of the Empire. Most notably the Frankish Kingdoms, who would come to dominate the Western European political landscape throughout the Early Middle Ages. As these kingdoms grew in power, lesser powers in the region would be encouraged to covert in exchange for favours. One notable example is Rollo, a Viking who became Count of Rouen and first Duke of Normandy. In exchange for ceasing viking attacks on on the Frankish kingdoms, Charles III offered Rollo Normandy, but on the condition that he convert as well. Which Rollo accepted. There's evidence that he never really took the conversion seriously. However, things did filter down over time such that his descendant William II (aka William I the Conqueror, King of England) was maintaining close relations with the Church about a century later. There was also active missionary work going on. You're probably familiar with St. Patrick, who converted Ireland. Many of these missions were good at integrating pagan customs with Christian practices. For example, It's well known that many modern Christmas traditions stem from the Norse holiday of Yule, including tree decorating, Yule logs, gift giving, and Santa Claus, as well as it taking place around the winter solstice. Not to say there wasn't conquest, like Charlemagne's campaigns into the Germanic territories, where forced conversions of Saxons took place. Which ultimately led to the formation of the Holy Roman Empire.",
"The last of the pagans in europe were killed or forcibly 'converted' during the northern crusades as late as the 13th century URL_0",
"Battles were fought in Norway between christians and pagans around the year 1000. There are stories of Norwegian kings converting the population to christianity using creative torture methods like trapping a rat in a bowl against the stomach of a farmer, forcing the rat to try and bury through him.",
"A few thing to note that a lot of people generally miss out on: 1. The Roman Religion was already on the outs when Christianity was picking up steam. The Romans were already flirting with ideas like monotheism with concepts like Sol Invictus and the official religons days were numbered. In actuality a lot of what falls under that traditional umbrella is separate competing religions like Simonism which was at best mildly syncretized but has it's own philosophy and cosmology. Something was going to give eventually. 2. The Norse religion only appears in it's earliest Germanic form hundreds of years into the common era and *after* Rome was already christian. Some of the older viking runestones talk about historical kings and leaders but some of those were already christian despite having been dead for centuries by the time of that carving. 3. To be particular Theoderic The Great was a Gothic king and Patrician who was very much an Arian Christian. However like a lot of historic figures he got twisted around into a mythic form. Christians in Germany interpreted him as Dietrich Von Bern, a kind of Arthurian hero who both fights historical battles but also slays dragons and fights dwarves. He runs into other historical figures that similarly got twisted around to be nearly unrecognizable. However, at more or less the same time this is going on the Norse were carving his name as Tyrker the bold and telling a mostly exclusive but similarly outlandish set of stories about him. Some of the other historic figures become Valkyries or immortals. 4. As you can probably tell at this point folklore and mythology kind of blend into each other and become context sensitive. People didn't just stop believing in Dwarves and Giants and didn't stop telling stories. They also didn't really stop with sorcery. You can see some surviving incantations where Odin and Balder just got replaced with God and Jesus. Norse style sorcery continued for centuries past this point. One of the things people forget is that there's a lot of folk catholicism that uses spirits and monsters and weird figures that at best just kind of become saints of that the church just kind of allows to happen because it keeps the wheels spinning smoothly. 5. A lot of these folk ideals can still germinate past that point and spread to other, almost entirely different folk ideals elsewhere. Brigid the celtic god became St. Brigid to Catholics. But then at some point she also became Maman Brigitte, a voodoo death goddess. So there isn't really a linear A-B. It's more accurate to think of it like genetics where there can be a lot of branches and cross pollination between them and some genes become dominant but others don't really go away.",
"I heard once that only poor uneducated people ever believed in that stuff and the rich just used it to control the poor.",
"One point is that polytheistic religions (like the Norse one) are usually more tolerant of other religions than monotheistic religions. To them the christian God would have been just another God and would see no problem in worshipping all the gods. It is quite common to find Christian crosses and Thor's hammers in graves of a certain time period. Then gradually the local priests would convert the populace out of believing in the old Gods. Sometimes people were converted by force, sometimes peacefully, but as the Christian faith had the backing of the elite (because being Christian was a smart move politically) in the long run they stood no chance.",
"I just finished re-reading Mythology by Edith Hamilton. One of her themes touches on this (at least in regards to the Greeks). She discusses several times how the Greeks of the Classical Period were uncomfortable with many of the recurring elements of the mythological stories including human sacrifice and the dishonorable ways the male gods behaved towards young women and their children. Additionally she relates a story about Socrates in which he is asked if he believes a particular myth and he replies: “‘The wise are doubtful,’ Socrates returned, ‘and I should not be singular if I too doubted.’ This conversation took place in the last part of the fifth century B.C. The old stories had begun by then to lose their hold on men’s minds.” I’m not sure if this represents the common view among classicists, but Hamilton certainly seems to think the Greeks had begun to outgrow their myths by the Classical period."
],
"score": [
6723,
1710,
264,
81,
48,
17,
12,
11,
10,
9,
9,
8,
8,
8,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dekmw0 | How would you organize a library or index in a language without an ordered alphabet, such as chinese? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2w687x",
"f2wpi2d",
"f2xbucs",
"f2x3d91"
],
"text": [
"One way that some librarians or bookstores organise books \"alphabetically\" is by using the Chinese *pinyin* system. Basically, pinyin is how you would \"spell\" a Chinese word using the alphabet based on the word's pronunciation. For example, the characters for Beijing are 北京, and the pinyin is indeed \"bei jing\". Using this modern method of organisation, 北京 (Beijing) would be in the \"B\" section based on its pinyin, as the pinyin is also organised A to Z. **Edit:** A little further detail. Each Chinese character represents one \"word\" of pinyin, e.g. the above example 北京 is 北 (bei) and 京 (jing) together. Most pinyin \"words\" are made of two, three or four letters which represent the way you would pronounce them in spoken Mandarin. When I'm booking a train ticket here in China, the city names are listed from A to Z according to the pinyin of the characters. So if I wanted to go to Shanghai (上海，shang + hai), it would be under \"S\". My own city Xiamen (厦门，xia + men) would be under \"X\". This is not the only way of organising Chinese characters - one other way may be ordering the characters by the amount of brush strokes it takes to write them, e.g. the character 上 (shang; up) requires three strokes and would be somewhere near the top of the list. Likewise you can organise the characters by the \"components\" within them, called radicals. For example, the character 板 (ban; wood or plank) contains a radical called 木 (mu; wood or tree) on the left side. All characters containing that radical on the left side of the character may be categorised together. There are other methods too. The above two that I just mentioned are a little older and more complicated, but still fairly commonly used. The pinyin method is new but is gaining ground as the most popular method of organisation on computers, mobile apps and book stores because of its simplicity and the young generation's stronger familiarity with the pinyin system.",
"Pingyin is a product of westernization. First you need to understand a chinese word. it could be ranging from a single block like water 水 where as something like an ambassy would be using 3 word 大使馆 to actually find the word in a dictionary, you need to understand that a character is made up of components. 操 is made up of 3 parts, the 手leftside radical, then the 品top radial, and lastly the 木radical. You would then organise all the letters with the leftside radical together, then further organise them on the 2nd top radical, and lastly on the bottom radical. Here is where it gets fuky. there is basic words in the chinese vocab that are considered the \"fundamentals\", those are categorized by number of strokes, and are basically our ABCs, except they actually mean something. So in a typical dictionary, it would be the basic, then ALWAYS followed by left hand radicals, which then sub divide into the right hand component. Then once all left hand radicals are logged, you move onto ones with no left hand radical but only top radicals, so on and so forth. And unlike english, while you could gain some meaning from reconizing radicals, it is nearly impossible to know the pronounciation and actual meaning of the word, compared to english, where you can read it out.",
"Traditionally it is done by the number of lines in the first sign, or by the first \"sub-sign\".",
"I studied Japanese in Japan for a few months, so I don't really understand the details. But the way things like dictionaries were organized was by stroke order and radicals of the Kanji. Like I said, I don't really understand it but the idea is that you order entries based on the way the symbols are written. In book stores, for example, authors are just ordered by their romanized names because that's obviously a lot easier. I also studied Akkadian for a few semesters, which is written in cuneirofrm. Most Akkadian dictionaries are simply transcribed and ordered alphabetically, with some extra entries for letters like š (after s). The reference works that are actually in cuneiform use a somewhat chaotic and arbitrary method that lists all symbols that start with one horizontal wedge, then those with two horizontal wedges, etc, then the same for slanted wedges, then angle wedges, then vertical wedges. I never used any cuneiform dictionary myself, so I'm not sure how convenient it is. Cuneiform is a fairly complicated writing system in general though. Also, keep in mind that this is how **modern** reference works are ordered and even that's not universal. There are ancient lists a dictionaries written in cuneiform but I actually don't know how those are ordered. Although I'm guessing there was a similar system because assigning a fixed, random order to all of the hundreds of symbols would just be impractical."
],
"score": [
169,
39,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
del9qx | What is a deconstruction when we talk about characters? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2wb0jz"
],
"text": [
"Deconstruction (in this sense) is the action of taking an established trope, character, plot, or other literary device and taking it apart. The goal is usually to better understand and examine the meaning and relevance to the real world by exploring the inherent contradictions between how the trope appears and how it would actually work. For example - The Great Gatsby is an early deconstruction of the American Dream. It shows that the rich and happy people are actually empty on the inside and the clash between the newly rich and the \"old money\"."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
deqi29 | Why, in the US, are states shying await from 'punishing' the adulterous individual when it comes to divorce? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2y3m5j"
],
"text": [
"If it's at fault you have to prove it, that makes it an expensive divorce, if you just want to get away, no fault is easier, just say we don't want to be together, and a just says sure."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dex4rw | In the english language, why does "entitled" sometimes mean actually being owed something and sometimes just mean someone has the attitude of being owed something? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2zkb1a"
],
"text": [
"If you ARE entitled, it means you are owed something. If you ACT entitled, it means you behave as though you were owed something that you are not owed."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
df55gb | Deputy US Marshal vs US Marshal? Difference?? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f30yi0j"
],
"text": [
"U.S. Marshal is the general term for anybody within the organization while Deputy US Marshal is a more specific title/rank within that agency."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dfe8hf | If Antartica was not discovered until the year 1818 then why does it seem to appear on many older maps? Dated medieval and before. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f32i9o1",
"f32i97k",
"f3375fo",
"f33fnz2",
"f33dae9"
],
"text": [
"Antartica corresponds with the Terra Australis that in ancient times was believed to be there to balance the lands in the northern hemisphere with lands in the southern one. Here's a link showing that representation of the earth with balanced lands: URL_0",
"Any map that shows land where Antarctica really is but before it's discovery is not actually depicting Antarctica but instead a then hypothetical continent called Terra Australis. It's not based on any observations but purely speculative. Various geographers and cartographers just assumed that all the landmass in the northern hemisphere should be balanced out by equal landmass in the southern hemisphere, but they knew places it *couldn't* be from previous exploration, so they put in the place they hadn't been to yet. They just happen to be correct that there was a continent there, but the maps are all pure guesses, so the size and shape varies because it's made up.",
"Well, there is the theory of Terra Australis, but at the same time many old maps are copied from older maps that are copied from older maps and some of those maps are very accurate in their mapping parts of the antarctic coast The most famous, the piri reis map, has notations on it by piri reis that say he made his map from copying many older maps",
"I remember someone pointing out that sailors going way back claimed to be able to tell the difference between an iceberg formed at sea and an iceberg that forms near shore, I suppose because the ones that form on land carry gravel and other non-floating impurities. & #x200B; So sailors puttering around in the Southern Ocean would have seen dirty ice islands and concluded that there was land somewhere, even if they couldn't see it.",
"This is actually one of those \"we don't actually know for sure\" questions. This question is used in a lot of fun conspiracy theories, particularly ones involving aliens interacting with ancient humans or there having been previous advanced civilizations. The most likely answer is that someone just made it up and, by coincidence, they happened to be right. Then that design just happened to be the one that got used the most."
],
"score": [
461,
206,
23,
11,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.e-manuscripta.ch/doi/10.7891/e-manuscripta-16478"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dfnr9i | How were colors invented? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f34n9sa"
],
"text": [
"I think you think for colors there's some difference to in how the language around them was formed. I'm not entirely sure why. But to answer your question the process would have been similar to people saying \"this, this is a tree, and anything that looks like this is a tree.\" Although I suspect the process wasn't quite like that. We're getting into a big subject but there's a reason we have language and most other animals don't. Our brains are formed to understand abstract concepts like \"tree\" and \"blue\" and that's why we can have language the way we do."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dfo01b | What the blizzard hate is all about | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f34pu8o",
"f34q3sr"
],
"text": [
"There was a high level hearthstone(video game) tournament after which the winning player stated his support for the Hong Kong protestors on live stream. Blizzard then banned the player from tournaments for a year, revoked all his winnings, and fired both interviewers that were present.",
"Blizzard gave a one year ban to (and forced a forfeit of $10,000 in winnings) Chung Ng Wai, a Hearthstone player from Hong Kong. To quote the New York Times: > In a post-match interview with the Taiwan stream of Hearthstone, Mr. Chung, who is known as Blitzchung, appeared with ballistic goggles and a gas mask, protective gear often worn by protesters during demonstrations in Hong Kong. Mr. Chung shouted in Mandarin: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” a popular slogan of the protesters. Blizzard also reportedly fired the hosts who were live during Blitzchung's appearance."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dfvfq0 | Why do actors get paid tens of millions for their movies instead of a normal salary? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f3635w3",
"f360q7j",
"f36ivjh",
"f37axcy",
"f35zwye",
"f364gkz"
],
"text": [
"Because popular actors are a big part of what causes movies to make so much money. Popular actors know this, so they negotiate their salaries to be commensurate with their worth to the movie production. This probably isn't true anymore, but in the 00s accountants determined that casting Cameron Diaz in a movie meant it would automatically make an extra $30,000,000-$50,000,000 overseas. That's huge, and it meant that any movie that cast Diaz could assume at least that much profit. Consequently Diaz was an extremely in-demand actress for about a decade, and she negotiated her compensation so it matched her bankability.",
"Mostly because we value entertainment very highly in our societies. Same reason sports is also a very high paying job; people want to watch movies and sports, so it high in demand, and has a lot of money going IN.",
"Back in the \"studio era\" up through the 50s they used to! Usually they had deals for a certain number of movies signed with a particular studio for a yearly salary. But kinda like in sports, actors would get signed young and would realize how much money studios would make off of them and \"free agency\" began where they started negotiating deals per movie.",
"Because actors are not fungible - you cannot replace an actor with another and get exactly the same results.",
"One side wants to offer lowest wage, the other side wants the highest wage. Either they both agree on number, or a contract doesn't happen. \"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.\"",
"Movies can make a lot of money. Bad actors can ruin a movie and so the people producing it don't make any money. Good actors know this so they demand a large amount of money."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.