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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aulani | Why are (were) there so many homeless veterans in the USA? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eh8rm6m"
],
"text": [
"It's very easy to spew patriotic pathos or hold emotional speeches honouring the \"brave soldiers\" defending conservative values. It's much harder to create a functional social safety net for traumatised veterans, especially after slashing healthcare and mental healthcare, so many of them slip into addiction and debt. The truth is that capitalists lead imperialist wars in order to generate profit for the ruling class. In order to do that, they need willing pawns that do the actual fighting. In order to coerce young people into believing they should risk their lives and safety to fight for the rich elite's profits – and in the process kill more than a few civilians – they make education so expensive that young people have no other way to pay for college than to join the military, and hype them up with patriotic rhetoric. Once they have fulfilled their role, though, the capitalists have no further use for them, so they are discarded."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aut3bf | Please explain the origins and social dynamics of ‘Furries’ culture. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehaf1c2"
],
"text": [
"So it's commonly said to have popped up in the mid 80s, mostly through fans of various Disney films. Robin hood mostly, though Jungle Book and sometimes Dumbo also get credited. The core idea is that we're fans of an aesthetic, rather than a property though. It quickly moved online, where people decided to represent themselves with the anthro animal aesthetic, and shortly after, there were meetups in more general sci-fi conventions, because that's where the new movement basically fit in. The fandom today is incredibly queer, specifically because of its early adoption of (technically) transhumanist thought. If you don't have to be fully human, what else don't you have to be? So 'outcast' types started coming in. In the 90s-ish, it became a full subculture with its own norms and ideals, but still centered itself around humanoid animals, because as it turns out, that still leaves lots of room open to interpretation. Because we're obviously not foxes or cats or whatever, there was a demand for art. What kind? Primarily visual, because the supplies are cheap. Then people decided to start making costumes, and then people started writing. Today, it still has decently deep countercultural roots, but has branched out, ESPECIALLY after Zootopia, to become a more 'mainstream' thing. But because of its roots on the edges of sci-fi and fantasy, and its heavily queer population, it's also got a middling to far left perspective, and there's a growing, but still kinda small political wing. Edit: my timings are fairly loose because I'm on lunch and can't do proper research, but that's the rough timeline. Art in particular may have started fully in the late 80s"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
av4fnx | Why does Mexico have rampant drug cartel issues while the US does not? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehcks43",
"ehcp5vr"
],
"text": [
"The US is the world's biggest cocaine consumer. Colombia is the world's largest cocaine producer. Mexico is stuck in the middle with a government that won't take a firm stance against trafficking because it's politicians are paid by the cartels. So you end up with a country pretending to fight trafficking while really just doing token gestures. Meanwhile cartels often settle disputes with violence. The only way out of this one is capital punishment for anyone trafficking or associated. It worked wonders for countries like Chile but it took a military coup to get it done which itself did a lot damage in other ways to the country.",
"My answer is one of economics. For complex reasons that I'm arguing with Concise Pirate downthread about, most of Latin America is poorer than the US. But Americans are willing to pay American prices for drugs, and that money ends up with the cartels, who can spend it anywhere. The average American policeman earns over $50,000 USD a year. The average Mexican policeman earns about $4,000 a year. If the cartels offer $10,000 to each, who's more likely to take the bribe? It's not about cultural superiority, or differences in ethics, it's about cold hard dollars, and the fact that the cartels can make an offer Mexican policemen find hard to refuse. There's also \"plata o plomo\" (silver or lead): the choice Mexican police are offered isn't a bribe or an ordinary life: it's a bribe or a bullet. Why does this work in Mexico but not in the US? Again, it's just economics. Enough Mexican officers are tempted by the silver that the cartels can deliver lead to the others and away with it. The bigger the bribe relative to salary, the more cops will be on the take, and so the easier it is to murder the honest ones. URL_1 URL_0"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Mexico",
"https://work.chron.com/police-officers-starting-salary-6740.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
av7wmy | Does any of the original celtic languages remain in modern English? | I've been reading up on English history and I've been wondering, does modern English contain any semblance of Celtic? Or did modern English form more from the languages of the various conquerors and settlers of England without the influence of her native languages? I would be interested in any related interesting facts as well, as I'm very interested in linguistics and history in general. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehd8eux",
"ehd84bh"
],
"text": [
"English is a Germanic language, with a lot of loan words from other languages. English contains fairly few words from Old (Common) Brittonic, which is the parent language of the present day Celtic languages in the British Isles.",
"Not really in england. While england was a Celtic nation at one point, it has not been for much longer than scotland, ireland and wales. In those languages celtic influence is still prominent. There are many people who do not consider england or the english celtic at all, rather a mix of anglo saxon and Scandinavian."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
avau2l | Why do we use a red cross to symbolize hospitals or anything medical, and does it have a religious backstory ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehdw65s"
],
"text": [
"There is an excellent answer to your question [here]( URL_0 ). Briefly, it is related to the Geneva Convention, and is an inversion of the Swiss flag in recognition of that."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.logodesignlove.com/international-red-cross-logo-design"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
avcpyq | How do swear words become swear words in the first place? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eheaen3",
"eheilyi",
"ehelier",
"ehe7ckh",
"ehe4hpz",
"ehf4o5c",
"ehex5nr",
"ehe26q6",
"ehf53o4",
"ehfdsp8",
"ehf16iq"
],
"text": [
"Actually very interesting topic, whilst a good number are just insults, the majority of English language swear words are Germanic origin words as opposed to Latin origin words; when the french-speaking Normans conquered England, they would include more french words when they spoke, whereas the Anglo-Saxons, which made up the majority of English population, had all been including German origin words. Wealthy people (both Norman and otherwise) wished to seem more Norman in order to get further ahead in life, so shunned German origin words; eventually this evolves into \"only a poor person says that\" meaning a proper person looking to forward there standing in society would never sound so common, then just flat out rude as people continued to emulate the \"proper people\". Example: cunt is a germanic origin word for vagina, and it's predecessor can be found in 13th century poetry, yet became considered slang, then by the nineteenth century it had the same vulgarity as it does now. & #x200B; TLDR: Swear words tend to become swear words because poor people used to say them. Edit: I love that my most upvoted comment is explaining the origin of the word cunt. I'm a true fucking Scotsman",
"Apparently apes have swear words too. They are cries of alarm. Swearing when something bad happens is a good social behavior because it alerts others in your tribe to danger. A good swear word tends to be a short one syllable word. & #x200B; Swearing is so useful that it seems to be hard-wired into a circuit in our brains. This is the mal-functioning circuit involved in tourette's syndrome. & #x200B; Obviously as society has gotten more complex so has swearing behavior. But I think the above is a good starting point.",
"We create swear words out of the things/ideas that repress us as a population. French Canadian swear words are words related to the Church. North American English swear words are words related to sex/nudity & #x200B;",
"They’re words that are meant to offend, get a strong reaction, express extreme emotion, and/or weren’t historically seen as fit to say in high society. Doing a little research into this topic is an interesting dip into the history and evolution of words and how society receives words, and it also shows how there’s never a such thing as a “nice” swear word. “Bastard” literally means half-breed, and the sting from that one is an echo from a time when your inheritance from your family and recognition in society was partially based on the assumption that you weren’t an illegitimate child. “Bugger” is simply anal rape. “Damn” is short for “Damn you to Hell” which, in my opinion, is probably objectively the worst one on here based on what Hell is, even if the punch of the curse has reduced over the centuries. “Shit” is...um...shit; nothing particularly inspired there, it’s just a more crass way of saying something that you don’t talk about in front of the queen or at the dinner table. Many words come and go as inappropriate/offensive words in society as time passes—retard, n****r, and pants (yes, pants) are all words that have spent time as both words you just say with no consequence and as words that you wouldn’t be caught dead saying during various times in their usage—some are simply consistently crass throughout the evolution of a language, culture, or changing of definitions.",
"Most swear words can be traced back to either the \"shit\" or \"sacred\" categories. And even \"shit\" really could fit under sacred. Think of any swear word and it has to do with prevailing religious or other moral codes as they relate to cleanliness, sex, or the nature of God. Making oaths using God's name used to be one of the worst things you could say. People would say \"by God's bones\" implying that if they were telling a falsehood God's bones would literally be destroyed.",
"In Quebec (french), our swear words are religion words. * Tabarnak = tabernacle (the receptacles for the communion) * ostie = hostie (the communion white things in catholic religion) * criss = christ (obvious) * calice = chalice (the glass for the communion wine) Basically, it was censored for decades or centuries. In the 60s, when our society started growing out of religion (we have a big proportion of atheists), those words were forbidden and... Well prohibition favors transgressions, so our people started using them as swears. ninja-edit: a word was badly written",
"The social understanding or meaning placed on a word eventually leads to it being added to the ever growing list of derogatory words. Create your own, use it a few times, wait a couple years as it festers and grows into something extremely toxic and boom there you go, you invented a swear word. & #x200B;",
"Swear words are just words that are considered bad to use. People often quote the bible which say that you should not use Gods name in vain which is a source of a lot of swear words related to deities. Similarly it is bad to call upon the devil or call someone bad names. There are new swear words all the time and you have likely witnessed words become swear words.",
"Not sure if it’s been brought up yet, but the “N” word didn’t always pertain to black people(general dark skinned, not just African descent). While the word’s roots mean black/dark(dark skinned, field-hands, mountain-men, Africans,etc)It originally meant ignorant or some variant of in common speech. So if you were the village idiot, you were likely called a N•••••. Since slaves(or anyone of lower standing) were seen as uncivilized/backwards/stupid by western society at the time. It became synonymous with slaves during the boom in the slave trade era and further cemented during the American civil war as ‘colored’ and ‘negro’ were seen as more sophisticated and acceptable terms for people of color by Northerners. This trend continued thru the civil rights movement. During the civil war, The south primarily used N••••• to refer to what they believed was property to separate the slaves from ‘proper people’. And then to the present era where we have it primarily as a derogatory term for any dark skinned person but still mainly focused towards African-Americans, used by edgy white kids, racists, or (for reasons that I fail to comprehend still, but that’s a can of worms for another day) a term of familiarity when one black person says it to another. There was *a lot* that I glossed over in this explanation. There’s a lot of cultural etc stuff that would take way to long to dive into and this is already a text wall.",
"Ok so I’m late to the party but I like to give it a shot Bengerman k Bergen described curse words as falling under 4 general concepts. The 4 taboos were religion, sex, slurs, and bodily functions. And all curse words tend to fall under one or more of these categories. Based on your culture, one category may be more offensive than the other. But all of these words, when said in the wrong context, tend to be unacceptable. For instance, America tends to lean away from the slur curse words. God damnit doesn’t seem to have as negative association as nigger. But 50 years ago that was backwards. You can actually get a good idea of what a community prioritizes based on the words that they find horrible versus just bad.",
"I don’t know if this has already been mentioned but evolutionarily speaking, the reaction when you stub your toe in be might and tell a curse word developed because we need to alert ourselves and others to a danger. Long ago certain utterances or sounds were likely used in the case of danger or harm and as such used in a reaction fashion. Now when you curse in reaction to pain or danger it is an echo of that."
],
"score": [
7291,
441,
245,
93,
50,
20,
10,
8,
7,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
avda7e | Is lip reading possible for all languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehe9h00"
],
"text": [
"It goes without saying that it’s not possible for ASL and other languages that don’t use the lips, but otherwise, to a certain extent. Lip reading isn’t 100% perfect for pretty much any language, because different sounds can be made with the same lip movements - your tongue and throat also play a role. Because of that, a lot of lip reading is educated guessing - contextually, only some of those sounds would make sense. If a language has a lot of similar movement words or common sounds, it’ll be more difficult to lip read in."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
avijan | The cultural and religious differences and tensions between India and Pakistan | Given the current hostilities between the two nations, I'd like to know more about their history and differences. Right now all I know in my limited knowledge of the subject is that the two used to be one country until the Partition, which was mostly split based on regions of Hindu and Muslim majorities. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehfviep",
"ehg09kk"
],
"text": [
"Hindus and muslims in India and Pakistan have been in violent conflicts for a long time. I used to work for an Indian family and they told me about several large events in India between muslims and hindus that I had never heard of. Events where dozens of muslims were killed by hindus or vice versa. Endless retaliations for past killings perpetuates the violence.",
"British rule over India is conceded back in the mid 1940s, and the religious tensions between Muslim and Hindu people was at an all-time high, and most Hindu people were concentrated in the middle-ish part of India, while Muslims were concentrated in the Northwestern and Eastern part of India. They separate, with East and West Pakistan being formed apart from India. Later on in 1971, East Pakistan would fight a war of independence to become Bangladesh and were aided by India in their fight to become independent so there is resentment over that as well. The main issue was during the division of India and Pakistan, the states left behind by the British were ruled by kings who owned the territory. The key territory here being Kashmir. Now the big controversy with Kashmir is that the majority of its population were Muslim, while the leader was Hindu. The leader originally wanted to make Kashmir it's own independent state and held out signing the territory over to both Pakistan and India. Pakistan became impatient and invaded Kashmir. India refused to help Kashmir against Pakistan because Kashmir was 'foreign territory' to them and they wouldn't defend territory that wasn't theirs. The king of Kashmir signed a treaty, the name of which I do not recall, which signed Kashmir over to India. Pakistan believes this treaty was signed under duress, and does not represent the values of democracy that India has. India says the treaty is final. The UN said that a referendum should be held that allowed the people of Kashmir to choose what they wanted to do, but India has refused to do that. Pakistan has tried to occupy Kashmir many times, and eventually did take some of the territory, leading to the LoC, or Line of Control today. This is the line in Kashmir that divides Pakistani and Indian control. The controversy recently has stemmed around India crossing this boundary to target terrorists that they are saying were Pakistani. Pakistan retaliated to India's crossing of the LoC by shooting down reportedly two of their jets. Which is where we are today."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
avj9hc | Are there specific reasons why sexual assault and rape are so rampant in the Catholic Church? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehfjrv9",
"ehfk1i9"
],
"text": [
"You know how people like to say \"if only they could get married, this wouldn't happen.\" That's not really the case. Predators go where their prey is. And they know that in the Catholic Church, they will be defended, and moved around, rather than go to prison. So you have predators (pedophiles, rapists, etc) who know they will have access to prey, and if they are caught, may possibly get away with it. So it draws them in. This is why you'll see it more in the Church than, say, a public school, where they won't get protected.",
"No one really knows - it has only been recently that the Church as even admitted this is a problem, and they still haven't really release figures on how big a problem it is or let people who have committed these crimes be studied to try and figure out why. Until that happens, it is all guesswork and conjecture. My personal feeling is that it is a combination of two factors: - Priests have a position of incredible power and trust that is very unique. This is the person who is supposed to by devoted to God and be your guide to the hereafter, so you are more willing to go along with what the priest wants for fear of reprisal (and potential lost of Paradise). This is only made worse by the fact that the priests in question tend to pick vulnerable people to victimize (nuns, traumatized women, children, etc.) - the victims are either too scared or too naive to come forward. - The celibacy restrictions are just flat out unnatural. Everyone has done something stupid when they are horny, so imagine being horny for _years_ with no outlet (even masturbation). It clouds the judgement and people with bad desires who would otherwise be able to keep them in check have those desires build up and burst out in very inappropriate ways. There is also the confounding possibility that people who have unacceptable sexual desires are drawn to celibacy as a means to try and control those desires (but that is incredible conjecture on my part)."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
avug87 | This Ancient Athens quote about women. | Thucydides rounds off the funeral speech attributed to Pericles: " The greatest glory of a woman is to be least talked about among men, whether in praise or blame". I am doing literature study about Ancient Athens and that's the quote I found in one of the books, could someone explain it with the context of the women's status in those days? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehhydqt",
"ehhrd57"
],
"text": [
"The Athenian ideal for women was to remain invisible to society. Athenian women as a rule did not engage in public life (politics, philosophy, science, poetry, drama, athletics, war) and did not own property. At the extreme, women of the upper class were encouraged to remain isolated at home (though very few probably actually did this). To be praised for one's beauty was to invite charges of infidelity, to be praised for one's mind was to be seen as masculine. To be talked of negatively , as promiscuous, or shrewish or whatever, was obviously bad. A woman therefore should be essentially unknown to male society. There were women who engaged more directly with male society. Foreign women were permitted to own property and engage in business. And the haeterae were a class of courtesan, many foreign, who provided entertainment to men. In addition to sex, they composed and read poetry, played music, discussed philosophy and politics, etc. Some, in fact, made fortunes without providing sexual services. The most famous of these women was Phryne, said to be so beautiful that when tried before the Areopagus on blasphemy charges all she had to do to be acquitted as display her naked body to the judges. But these were not ideal women. They were immodest, masculine, promiscuous and often foreign. They were frequent topics of discussion among men, but not for \"good\" reasons.",
"seems to be suggesting the best woman is one who is never heard from. perhaps praise was seen as a sign of desire from other men, and of course blame is a negative thing to get. so a woman never discussed is a woman doing her job. the best tech is that which you do not know how it works, and never need to know how it works. just silent in the background making sure a sandwich is ready at lunch time."
],
"score": [
37,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
avywme | Why do men's bikes have that high bar (nut bar) and women's bikes don't? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehispca",
"ehispzd",
"ehivpcq"
],
"text": [
"The way it was explained to me was that back in the day all women wore skirts and dresses, so the low bar bikes could accommodate dresses.",
"The lower bar on women's bikes were to accommodate long dresses at the expense of frame stability.",
"The bar on men's bikes creates a roughly triangle-shaped frame which is the strongest. This is why all \"serious\" riders use the men's style. Women in dresses weren't considered serious riders so were offered a less-durable frame style which accommodated skirts modestly."
],
"score": [
27,
14,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aw7hlt | Why do our voices get higher when speaking to people we don’t know well or just met? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehkhctt"
],
"text": [
"Low pitch = big animal = more threatening. Higher pitch = smaller animal = less threatening. Using a higher pitch could indicate that you're not interested in posing a threat to the newcomer, creating a more welcoming atmosphere. I don't think this is 100% universal, however. It probably depends a lot on your sex and the sex of those you're interacting with. You seem to be female from your post history, so that makes perfect sense for you, but as a man I feel that my pitch usually drops when I'm introduced to other men. The reason for that is probably the same as the above, but the opposite--I want to convey that I'm capable and confident."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
awkjd8 | I don't get the "nobody:" meme format | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehn6ihx",
"ehn5l1z"
],
"text": [
"It's a variety of another meme format: > (somebody): (something relevant) > (somebody else): (reaction) Here, the `nobody: (blank)`refers to nobody saying anything, meaning that the second person is just doing something out of nowhere with no provocation or anything like that.",
"I think it's like, the second person is responding as if the first person had prompted them, but nothing happened. Nobody said anything, and yet they still reacted"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
awov5l | what was the cross-over point where the slaves transitioned to working class and everyone just accepted that the rich and power are above them in status and law? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eho5k1u"
],
"text": [
"Your question is about the rise of global capitalism. In Europe, capitalism was proceeded by feudalism and the transition to capitalism was spurred by the process of enclosure in which peasants were kicked off the land by the aristocrats. They were, as Marx said, \"freed\" in the sense that they were no longer tied to the land or to paying tribute to some landowning aristocrat. Marx was being intentionally ironic though, because this process left people with no access to land and therefore no access to be able to feed their families, survive and reproduce -- except by selling the only thing they had, their labor power. This is the birth of the proletariat (aka the working class). This occurred starting as early as the 12th century but accelerated in the 15th and 16th century (roughly speaking -- it was different in different parts of Europe and I know most about England). Capitalism also entailed colonialism. Capitalism is expansive by nature, it wants to gobble everything up. So it spread over the world, violently, taking resources, enslaving people and gradually creating a global proletariat through war, settler colonialism, etc. Some people were deprived of land, like European peasants, and became working class that way. Some were forcibly enslaved. Others were compelled to participate in the market economy through taxation by colonial powers. Others were pushed to a precarious situation as their economies and environments were damaged, forcing people to turn to wage labor. This process was uneven and really too varied globally to easily summarize. As for the slaves in the Americas, when freed from slavery they generally became farmers or working class. Many in the United States initially ended up as sharecroppers, a semi-feudal situation in which the farmers were controlled through debt and gravely exploited by landholders, since slaves did not have access to their own land after emancipation. Industrialization eventually caused the former slaves and their descendants, along with other small / tenant farmers to move to cities -- mechanization on farms meant fewer jobs there, more factories meant more jobs in cities. Jim Crow laws and an active KKK were also factors in pushing African Americans to jobs in the northern cities during the Great Migration(s) of 1916-1970. Under feudal conditions, it was the landholding nobility and royalty who could get away with anything. Now it's the bourgeoisie -- the owners of the means of production. The French Revolution is the iconic moment where the bourgeoisie took over power from the aristocracy (so for example, factory owners became more powerful than land owners, to overgeneralize a bit). Our current legal systems are bourgeois, created by the bourgeoisie to protect their interests. While there are limits to what rich people can get away with, the system is designed for their advantage and will never attack them very much. You might be interested in reading The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx), The History of the English Working Class (E.P. Thompson), and The Souls of Black Folk (W.E.B. DuBois) as some starting texts to think about these issues. I apologize for the overgeneralizations and US/England focus but hopefully this is a start."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ax4v41 | Why have so many cultures, some that never interacted or shared history, valued gold to such a degree? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehrbm1w",
"ehrjgyb",
"ehr8acb"
],
"text": [
"Short answer: because it's pretty much useless. & #x200B; Long answer: If you want to agree on a material for a currency, there's not that many good choices. You don't want your money melting on a hot day or running down your leg if there's a leak in your wallet, so you're pretty much stuck with solids. Of these, you want a controllable source with a limited amount and decent scarcity (limestone isn't a good choice because everyone could just dig up a fortune in their back yard, neither are acorns, because you tend to get seasonal inflation. You also want it to be divisible (so shells aren't great) robust (no butterfly wings, then) and more of less the same everywhere you go. That means, you're more or less left with smeltable metals. & #x200B; Now, most metals are useful. Gold isn't. It's too soft to hold an edge or to make tools from it. It doesn't react chemically like some other metals do (e.g. lead) and which can be useful. In fact, before electronics, golds only real use beyond exchange medium was for decorative purposes. Why is this important? Because if a metal has a use beyond currency, increased use can lead to the value increasing (if your industry is running low of iron, iron prices will increase, suddenly your iron dollar coins are worth more if you melt them down and sell them). & #x200B; So, if you make a list of all these metals that were available to early cultures, but satisfy the above criteria and don't have any uses beyond decorative ones (jewellery included), you end up with : gold, silver, copper, and maybe tin. Notice anything? & #x200B; Interestingly, the appearance of electronics pretty much ended the use of copper as a currency, and it might do the same with gold someday.",
"There was a [checklist for why gold became commonly used for money]( URL_0 ) across history. * Cannot be a gas * Cannot be too corrosive or reactive * Cannot be radioactive * Needs to be rare -- but not so rare that it's impossible to find. They list five finalists: rhodium, palladium, platinum, silver and gold. Silver tarnishes too easily (though it has been used a bit for some coins). Rhodium & Palladium weren't known until the 19th century. Platinum's melting point is so high that you need a modern furnaces. You could use it for money now, but ancient civilizations would have had no use for it. That leaves gold.",
"Rareness. It’s easy to work with and therefore to create rings, neat amulets etc. Shiny ..."
],
"score": [
9,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.livescience.com/32863-gold-best-element-money.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ax9tva | How come there's the same one name in many different languages (only spelled differently) | For example: John (English), Sean (Irish), Johannes/Jan (German), Jovan (Serbian), Juan (Spanish), Jean (French) I know "John" is a Biblical name, but are there others that aren't. Edit: Thanks for all the explanations ! I see it‘s combination of different phonetics in each language and cultural similarities. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehs4sin",
"ehs4ti8"
],
"text": [
"When you’ve learnt and spoken a language for so long your brain is trained to hear things in a specific tone or phonetic type of way. When people would hear a name they of course wrote it how they heard it and the names were passed down giving us the names we have today. Language is really interesting. The codification of sounds which had no original meaning literally programmed our brains to hear things in certain ways. Language is the single most important thing which separates us from the animal kingdom. We make sounds, very random and specific sounds that have meaning but only to certain peoples. Yes, animals are capable of this but only to a certain extent. It’s crazy man, words were once random sounds and now communication is the single greatest tool mankind has. Language was once nothing and is now everything. Kinda mind blowing.",
"Religion may answer part of this too. For example, some of the most traditional names are biblical in nature (think John, Luke, Matthew, etc). Since often times a religion spans many cultures often those names are used and adapted for a different language"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
axbdgs | How did red become the “stop/danger/denied” color and green the “go/approved” color? | The best example is the traffic lights. Why is it that it’s specifically red that indicates us to stop and specifically green that tells us we can go? How did this become a world phenomena, whereby specific colors dictate specific actions/things? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehset71",
"ehshnss"
],
"text": [
"In support of what everyone else has said (that red attracts people's attention), it's interesting to note that many languages don't have separate words for a lot of colors, but [they always have one for red]( URL_0 ) (if they have any colors at all, and don't just say \"light\" and \"dark\", that is).",
"\"Prevention is better than cure\" You've heard of this right? Red lights, specifically red color itself has a unique property to be seen more clearly through fog and stuff than green. If you know that white light is made up of 7 colours then I'll proceed further: On placing a prism in the path of a fine beam of white light you'll see it \"break-up\" into 7 different colors of light (Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red),with red being on the top. This is due the fact that each color of light got different speed in the denser prism medium and hence the bend away from their initial point. The more is the speed, the less is the bend and hence, Red, the speediest comes out on top of all the colors. Imagine the prism to be the atmosphere of the earth. During the sunset, it's this property (plus something called scattering) of Red light that we see the sky redden before it becomes dark. Scattering is the bouncing of light off the atmospheric particles and therefore results in a change of direction of light. Violet scatters most, red least: from the list above... Which is why it's again more convenient for us to see reddish through the fog than green. You can even try this out on your own. Squint at traffic lights, as much as u can, the light entering your pupil will be scattered by your eyelashes. You'll see that red is more visible, even with hard squinting whereas green disappears soon. This is why, to avoid and prevent danger, red is used instead of green."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://youtu.be/gMqZR3pqMjg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
axbwku | Why is there such a stigma on mental illnesses? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehsinct"
],
"text": [
"If you havent taken a look into the history of treating mental illness, we have gone from killing the mentally ill, locking them in rooms for their whole life, shocking them into oblivion, pumping them full of drugs, and finally relized we should begin to actually try to treat and understand them. What if I told you this was all in the last 100 years? Nowadays we have people with downs syndrome holding down jobs, some people afflicted with PTSD/anxiety/depression/bipolar disorder have actual options in medicine and other theraputical routes. Throughout all of this history I think the stigma comes from the basic human fear of what they do not understand, coupled with the unwillingness to understand those afflicted. Most people actually dont know how depression works, they just say \"why cant you just be happy?\". This here is the problem. They do not try to understand them, so they are kept beyond arms length so the people can be comfortable in their ignorance of these issues. This is just one example. Society has a bad history regarding the mentally ill, and it will take a while for society as a whole to understand, and respect the differences present in every human being."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
axmyfl | why do women more often then not have better handwriting then men? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehukw6r",
"ehul587"
],
"text": [
"I think yesteryear women did because they were constantly writing notes to each other in class, honing their writing appearance. These days they just text each other instead, so the writing appearance has suffered.",
"More often than not ~~women~~ people (including women) are still raised with different standards and expectations ~~than men~~. Some of these expectations include to do everything neat and clean. Different standards are applied to men. This doesn't mean men are not at all expected to do stuff neat and clean, but they get a bit more leeway in certain things - one of these things seems to be handwriting. Also there are certain ideas about what's typically male and what's typically female. Those of course vary over time and cultural backgrounds. But if you try to identify as typically male or female, you will usually try to meet those expectations. I was brought up late 70s to 80s in a western european country, and having a nice handwriting was considered girly when I was a kid. Though we all had to learn cursive handwriting in elementary, most boys switched to block handwriting as soon as it was allowed, and I remember that made me feel more grown up. Even those girls that switched to block handwriting made little circles on their i's, since it was considered cute, being cute was considered girly, and most identified as girls and wanted to be girly."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
axylfr | Why do people live in areas that are known to have many devastating tornadoes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehww2c4"
],
"text": [
"Every place is going to be prone to some sort of severe weather phenomenon (or at least, not everyone can live where there isn't some sort of severe weather phenomenon)."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ay4te8 | How did people of ancient civilizations know that they were part of a new empire or such when wars occurred and civilizations expanded into different regions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehybwgg",
"ehyfdc9",
"ehy8xbn",
"ehyjg8p",
"ehypta6",
"ehymo5j",
"ehyqbfg",
"ehyq22z",
"ehyryy3",
"ehyozo6",
"ehysdi0"
],
"text": [
"They didn't necessarily. You don't have to conquer every single village to take over a territory. You might send your own tax collectors there, but you might also send the ones who previously did, just that they now collect taxes for you. A conqueror might also mint new coins, which would probably be noticed by the population. Coins were in fact one the most important means of propaganda in the ancient world.",
"Ancient communication was generally done by messengers, either on horse or on foot. Certain empires (like the Persians) were noted for having well organised systems of messengers to transmit news from one end of the land to the other. Rulers would transmit messages to their subject nobles who may or may not transmit it further down the chain to the merchants and peasantry etc. News also spread through informal messengers, basically anyone who was traveling from one place to another could be asked for news. My vague understanding is that part of the concept of ancient hospitality was that in exchange for shelter you would provide the latest news from wherever you'd come from.",
"An empire usually expanded through conquests or marriage. If there is a set of battles leading to the expansion you would understand this from the foreign army attacking your village and taking it over. And if the ruler married a neighbouring princess you would have also known that as there would have usually been celebrations. So even if you were in an ancient kingdom and weren’t able to understand a word from the local language and your ruler changed, believe me, you would have noticed the noise that surrounded the change",
"I don't think the common peasantry knew or really cared who was i charge.",
"Well, if you're a rural farmer living in a tiny village (and statistically for most of history, you probably are), you'd usually find out the next time you tried to sell your surplus crops and crafts at market in the nearest population center and found it either besieged or under new management. If you lived in said population center, you usually find out when a bunch of guys ride through town destroying your stuff and murdering/pillaging indiscriminately. This may be after starving you out for a while. If we're talking about Rome, you'd find out when some guys in scale armor came through your village building a road and maybe some baths/a temple/literally just some columns. There's also about a 50% chance they'll enslave you and/or start taxing the hell out of you. source: about to graduate with a BA in classical archaeology.",
"When the dude who is wearing amazing clothing/armor riding a horse, and all of his similarly dressed buddies on thier horses, tells you that youre a part of the persian empire now, is when you know youre part of the persian empire. Im sure other empires have similar stories.",
"Most villages - even now - communicate with the nearest town which in turn communicate with the nearest city for various official and non-official reasons. If that city fell, the news will cascade down the hierarchy.",
"As mentioned before with coins being part of propaganda, conquerors would also mass commission sculptures of themselves to be sent out into these new territories. They would send these busts out with their armies to be left in different villages along the way. This allowed the new citizens to see who the new conqueror is.",
"I'll use Rome as an example. This is what they did: * Spread their culture. They wanted the native people of the territories they conquered to be more like them and assimilate into their society. This included trading, giving people gifts, building new buildings in a town, making cities and towns more important, etc. * Architecture: New buildings were built in the Roman style. * Increasing production in rural areas. The more rural areas had to grow more crops in order to meet the new demand of the empire. * Religion: The Romans would equate native gods to the Roman gods. Rome would also absorb the native religions into their own. * Military: The Romans would enlist the native people into the army. This can be applied to most ancient civilizations. The general changes were to religion, laws, language, culture, military and architecture.",
"You need to realize that before computers and newspapers and stuff, there wasn't much to do, so people gossiped like crazy. They were fascinated by foreign lands. Every night was just hours of storytelling. What do you mean how did they find out, word spread like a virus back them.",
"I can't speak for every civilization, and they weren't even ancient, but the Incas had an extremely complex \"postal\" system through the chasquis, running messengers specially trained to run up to 240kms a day to deliver quipus, a type of message made by tying small knots specifically arranged to create a code. That's how messages and news were delivered in the biggest empire in American history, which was constantly expanding so news of annexations were frequent."
],
"score": [
730,
116,
63,
30,
21,
15,
7,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aydpa5 | Why do the priests ask everyone if they object the marriage and why is it necessary? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ehzzip7",
"ei02nw7",
"ei0504y"
],
"text": [
"To avoid bigamy. Back in the days before record-keeping, it would be impossible to tell if someone were already married. The priest is basically asking \"do any of you know if either of these two people are married already?\".",
"Traditionally, the banns of marriage are read out for a few Sundays at church before the wedding. This is so that if anybody in the parish knows that they can't legally marry (one is already married, they're related, one of them is being coerced), they can let the vicar know.",
"They don't ask whether people object, they ask \"does anyone knows a reason why the couple should not be joined im holy matrimony.\" As already mentioned, the chief reason was a prior marriage, but there are potentially other situations that prevent a lawful wedding - in the past including consanguinity (relatedness by blood or marriage) so special permission was required to marry your brother's widow (your sister in church law), or revelation that one party is not a Christian, too young, etc."
],
"score": [
19,
10,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ayevib | Why isn't antisemitism just racism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei082pv"
],
"text": [
"Because jewish isnt a race but rather a practising religion that anyone from anywhere can join. Also antisemetisim towards jewish people is more severly viewed apon in todays world because of the last attempted mass extinction and direct survivors that are stil alive today. Technically speaking there is no home country for Judaism either."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ayk5hx | Why are Matriarchal societies rarer than Patriarchal ones. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei1du0d"
],
"text": [
"Men are more aggressive and violent, speaking anecdotally. Many people claim there is a hormonal difference. Just like with many situations, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If someone is willing to kill anyone in their way to get power, they have it. The history of the world is profoundly affected by groups of people engaging in conquest or attempted conquest, and guess what sex they are?"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ays4gt | Why do many medieval books have fancy dropcaps in starting paragraphs? | What was the purpose of making the first letter big, enclosed, and fancy in the first place? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei2ukmu",
"ei2wi61"
],
"text": [
"For the #aesthetic Pretty bible passages are more fun to read than plain ones? Also, the monks transcribing them get really bored, which is why theres also illuminations of knights fighting snails or dudes with trumpet dicks.",
"Medieval books were luxury items. They were slow and expensive to copy, and could only be done by professional scribes in established workshops. And mostly there was only demand for books among the wealthy and powerful. So they were fancy to show off the wealth and importance of the person who owned the book, and also the skill and importance of the institution that had made it. But illuminated or decorated initials also served the more practical purpose of breaking up the text and helping the reader to find their way around it."
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
ayu63c | How do highly dense populations such as China or India deal with their dead when there is little land left? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei39yp1"
],
"text": [
"Obviously different cultures have different traditions, but the typical grave is 3ft x 8ft. There have been about 108 billion people that have ever existed on the planet. That means all the dead people throughout all of history could be buried in the area of about: 2.6 trillion square ft = 92,975 square miles = 240,805 square km That's about the size of Michigan or Portugal. There's plenty of space on Earth for the dead. Once someone has been dead for hundreds or thousands of years, you can just reuse the space in most cases. It's customary for Indians of the Hindu religion to cremate the dead, and their ashes are commonly washed away in a river."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ayvvsb | Why do mental disorders lead to so much more stigma than do physical disorders? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei3m4gh",
"ei3mfno",
"ei3m4rc",
"ei3nb63",
"ei3n68j"
],
"text": [
"They're more abstract. Break a bone, everyone can see something is wrong. Everyone understand it's painful. Maybe not HOW painful if they've never broken a bone before, but people understand it's painful, takes a while to heal, and will physically restrict you while doing so. Have clinical depression? There's not outwardly physical signs and symptoms. Your brain's just wired differently and someone whose brain isn't wired differently will struggle to try to put themselves in shoes they've never been in.",
"People dont understand them and think they arent valid/can be simply overcome with willpower because \"its all in your head\".",
"Because a large majority of them can’t be seen. It’s hard to have empathy for something you can’t see or haven’t had any experience with. Plus people tend to assume it isn’t as bad as people make it seem since there is no empirical evidence to back it up.",
"I think most people have days of “depression” and “anxiety” and many others have really high functioning depression/anxiety. But they’re never clinically depressed or have an anxiety disorder so they think those bad days is as bad as it gets, and they shook it off so someone with a mental illness must be faking it.",
"Aside from being an \"invisible illness,\" mental illness has been stigmatized for thousands of years. People who acted differently were characterized as strange and dangerous, with the solution being to lock them away from society. While we don't institutionalize people like we used to, society at large still doesn't have a great understanding of mental health, and many people avoid treatment until they are in bad shape, because they don't want to be labeled as \"crazy.\" It doesn't help that mental health services are seriously underfunded, and shootings are constantly being blamed on mental illness."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ayz1tt | why does st Patrick's day (a Irish based holiday) have so many Scottish related things? | So this is from an american celebration perspective and not from the actual Irish celebration perspective. St Patrick's day is a Irish based holiday but so many elements i see seem Scottish. For example kilts, and the use of Scottish Great Highland pipes (instead of uilleann pipes) and what i always found most strange me is when they play Scotland the Brave. So it actually a Irish holiday, a Scottish holiday or did america just somehow combine it incidentally. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei496gy",
"ei4arp8"
],
"text": [
"The Irish have their own tartans, bagpipes and wore kilts. Northern Ireland was settled by the Scots (that’s mostly where the Catholic / Protestant split came in) The Scots and Irish are cousins and share many traditions",
"I think that it is a bit of an American/ Canadian thing. I think it is us that has mashed it all together, not really paying attention to what country it is from."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
az0ih0 | Why all the outrage surrounding Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei4iu84",
"ei4j0rd"
],
"text": [
"She criticized how a special interest group that was pro-Israel was controlling Washington. Some people took it as an anti-Semitic trope about how Jews control the world.",
"The answer is very simple: she pissed off America's real bosses. American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the second largest lobbying force in American politics. They donate massively to Democrats and Republicans. Rep Omar complained about these donations, which prompted huge outrage. She is not wrong though. As a Congresswoman it is her job to question money in politics. AIPAC and Israel have huge influence over American, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Progressives always complain about the $2 Trillion spent on foreign wars, but they never mention why those wars took place (hint: it wasn't Bush). They are starting to question this relationship."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
az1c16 | how would you show bayesian thinking using the topic of cupcakes and oreos? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei4nodc"
],
"text": [
"Bayesian thinking basically means we continuously update our idea of what is happening. We have the prior information which is “updated” with new information to create the posterior information. So with cupcakes and Oreos, we can start with cupcakes. That’s our prior information. Everyone loves cupcakes. But then, we learn about Oreos and how popular those are. We then take our new data, the Oreos, and use that to adapt our prior information, the cupcakes. This may result in people taking the bottom half of the cupcake off and putting it on top of the frosting, to create an Oreo-looking cupcake “sandwich”. This is our new posterior distribution."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
az4s6j | Why are forced weddings (especially the ones involving children) in countries such as India still a thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei5a62u"
],
"text": [
"Are you referring to *forced* marriages or *arranged* marriages? They have different connotations."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
az8ny5 | How do different dialects arise? | For example, some bordering countries in the Middle East speak vastly different from each other even though they technically all speak Arabic. To the the point where bordering countries sometimes can't even understand the other's dialect. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei62z42"
],
"text": [
"If one big group speaks one language, then split off into their own sub-groups, sooner or later, the language in each new sub-group will diverge and develop unique quirks. Then, when these groups of people come back together, little differences in, not only their language, but also cuisine, music, fashion, traditions, and so on can be noticed. & #x200B; But now, let's think of politics. If you ask a Chinese person (or anyone, really) how many languages are spoken in China, you'll hear that there's only one (with hundreds of dialects.) If you ask a linguist, the reality is that there are actually eight distinct language families (with hundreds of dialects). However, due to political reasons, all languages are considered dialects of Mandarin Chinese, despite the lack of mutual intelligibility (as you mention with your example of the difficulty in understanding different forms of Arabic). & #x200B; There are many other examples of this. The indigenous Ryukyuan languages in Japan are considered dialects of Japanese, despite their vast differences and mutual unintelligibly. It's a power and control thing. & #x200B; Technically speaking, dialects should be mutually intelligible. However, politics. Lol."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
azfsth | why is it that homosexuals despite being less than 5% of the general population make up more than 60% of new HIV cases? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei7fqmf",
"ei7ftk9",
"ei7ims0",
"ei7fpg8"
],
"text": [
"It is actually pretty easy. Anal Sex is much more likely to cause little fissures in the skin. Which leads to a much higher likeliness of having the Virus being transmitted.",
"Generally people view birth control as just that, a way to prevent pregnancies. Very few people (relatively) view it as a method to stop the spread of disease. When you have an entire population subset for whom pregnancy is not a concern you end up with far far less people using condoms. As HIV does not present right away you end up with a quickly spreading disease not blocked by any precautions.",
"Its mostly in homosexual men. Like another comment mentioned, it's easier to become infected through anal due to tiny tears in the tissue. Another important factor is that men don't often use condoms with other men. I think a lot of men wear condoms with women to avoid children moreso than STDs.",
"It's simply part of how the disease works, anal sex is the most effective way (short of a tainted blood transfusion) to contract HIV."
],
"score": [
17,
10,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aziqi1 | Why does the UK want to separate from the EU? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei81nh0"
],
"text": [
"Because a large part of the population was fed a string of lies about how much better life would be out of the EU."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
azj47h | In movies and TV shows that have fake pop music, where do they get the songs? | I'm watching an episode of a crime-of-the-week show that revolves around the murder of a pop star. You hear snippets of her music throughout the episode and it got me thinking. I know for big movies like A Star Is Born that have full songs, they hire a songwriter. But for smaller budget movies and single TV show episodes where you hear snippets of fake songs to add depth to the plot, do they hire a songwriter as well? Or is there some sort of archive of written but not recorded songs that they can just buy pre made songs from? It seems like that would be cheaper and easier than hiring someone to write the music and lyrics that you'll only hear bits and pieces of. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei84tr0",
"ei9cm5w"
],
"text": [
"Sometimes archived, sometimes a small band doing it free for exposure. Sometimes from a site, there are free royalty-free ones but even a small studio can afford the subscription only ones. As an amatuer filmaker, I also have friends that play instruments and they have made music soundtracks for me before. With older filmakers such as big directors I imagine they also have more popular bands. Either as friends or one of them wanting to branch out into other industries, such as music into media or vice versa. An example would be Jim Henson and David Bowie making 1986 Labrinth. Does that help at all?",
"Very similar to the stock photos or stock footage used in TV or movies, there are also archives of stock music. Media makers can purchase the rights to use an individual track, or subscribe to the whole library. The musicians and songwriters who supply these archives generally work for a fixed fee, and sign over rights to the music as part of their contract, so the material is cheap to license. Larger TV networks also sometimes create their own in-house archives to cut out the middleman."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
azlzwe | Why is Florida not a true Southern state? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ei8o9rp",
"ei8ocpr"
],
"text": [
"Northern Florida does share the same “Southern culture”, but the further south you go the more influence from Cuban, Puerto Rican immigrants you see and the state becomes more liberal in general.",
"Florida is largely comprised of people from NY and NJ getting away from the cold. They have a very different mentality and culture that they bring to Florida..."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b01gph | Why do some last names have apostrophes? | I've seen last names with apostrophes all my life, and only recently have I ever questioned it. I asked my mom to see if she has the answer, but she didn't. So, I set off to find myself an answer. I did light searching online but never getting the answer I was looking for. So, I was hoping the community could give me a good answer, so here I am! Why do last names have apostrophes? I usually see it paired with an 'O' like O'Brien, O'Hara, and so on. I'm sure of differs from culture to culture, but is there a general answer? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eibj9ee"
],
"text": [
"It's usually a contraction - \"Of Brien\" \"of Hara\", etc. Back in the day when people only really had first names, as the population grew they needed a way to differentiate, so they named people based off of where they were from (thus the 'of') part."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b02hy4 | Why are people so obsessed with myers briggs? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eibv6pc"
],
"text": [
"Just listened to a podcast on personality testing and they said the Myers Briggs is not accurate and not worth taking. Plenty of free and proven tests out there if you are really interested, just Google \"big 5 personality tests\"."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b02lhg | What is Taoism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eibsw5f",
"eibw6qy"
],
"text": [
"A better question is \"what is the tao?\" What is the tao? I don't know. Maybe it's why bamboo dances in the wind. Maybe it's why cats lay in the sun. Maybe it's why rain falls more in winter. Maybe it's why water streams over stones. I don't think it's any of those things. I also think it is all of those things. I enjoy my knitting. The Earth spins in the light of the sun. Water over a fire will boil. Fish delight in the ocean's waves. The tao is the way everything is, itself, but it is also nothing at all. By trying to call it something, you lose track of its meaning. If you have more specific questions, join us on r/taoism . You are also welcome to message me if you want to discuss.",
"AFAIK, it’s basically this belief in “the Tao” which is kind of a quintessential belief/ideology/entity. Taoism itself is pretty vague on this point as each person is meant to discover/identify the Tao for themselves. This is done by living a simple life waiting for spontaneous instances that prove meaningful. Also I might be wrong"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b05chk | how nude art or nude photography is appreciated or what are the nuances that makes it art? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eic91wj",
"eic8a3i"
],
"text": [
"The human body is beautiful. Older art with nude humans were often meant to represent an abstract idea of beauty, the miracle of creation, perfect proportion, etc. Often far-removed from sex.",
"People can like different things. Some people appreciate the naked human form. Art is subjective."
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b06f22 | If the Gregorian Calender we use today only took effect in the 16th century, how does this impact the accuracy of dated historical events prior to then? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eicdcbd",
"eicer5g"
],
"text": [
"It's not too hard to convert, but it can be vague if older dates are given in the calendar then-used, or projected back in the current calendar, especially during the period when countries were converting. On the other hand, it's rare that the difference of a couple weeks matters in any larger context.",
"Julian calendar used for 15 centuries before then is basically the same thing as Gregorian aside from leap year correction - years ending in 00 are always leap years in Julian, but are only leap years if they divide by 400 in Gregorian. Converting that one isn't hard, now if completely different calendar like Mayan or ancient Egyptian is used it gets much harder to match to modern date."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b07ykv | Why is Marie Antoinette known for having a miserable life and why did the French hate her? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eicnquy",
"eicsdoc",
"eicp0af",
"eidibuy"
],
"text": [
"Partly because she was a foreigner. She was Austrian. Blaming foreigners for social problems is not new. She was living a lavish life at the expense of French taxpayers. And she was doing this in a place and time when resentment of nobility was boiling over.",
"She was Austrian at a time that France was in the middle of a not-so-cold war with Austria, so she came to a France already starting in a pit of unpopularity. She then \"fixed\" her popularity problem by doing every Kim Kardashian move ever and being an epitome of rich white privilege when the country's wealth divide was criminally staggering. Then after her second pregnancy ended in miscarraige, rumors started circling pretty publicly of her \"immorality and sexual deviancy\". True or not, that didn't help. When the revolution kicked off and it was super cool to publicly execute everyone the public didn't like like a fucking #trashtag, she was on everyone's shortlist.",
"She was miserable because she was in a relationship that she didn't want to be in and had to wait years and years to be with the one she loved. She was generally mentally Ill, very manic imo. The French hated her because during their hard economic time she was busy destroying and rebuilding her \"garden\", basically building a mini village/landscape while they were starving. The only thing she really contributed at the time was fashion",
"She was hated for many reasons. She was an Austrian, for one, and the xenophobia was working against her before she even set foot in the country. She was also hated for the perceived power she held over Louis XVI, who treated her like a favorite lover rather than as a queen consort as Louis XV and XIV had treated their wives. Typically, the public would place the blame of the corruption in the government and excess spending on the mistress(es) of the king; with Marie Antoinette, Louis XVI took no mistresses, and Marie Antoinette became the target. She didn't spend any more--in fact she spent less, even accounting for inflation--than previous French queens... but previous French queens had the luxury of mistresses who took public blame for excess royal spending. She was hated for her desire to live like a private person, rather than as the queen of France. French Queens in a sense 'belonged' to the French people and the court, but Marie Antoinette did everything she could to either completely get out of those public duties or minimized them to extremes. For example, queens were expected to dine in public so that anyone allowed entry into Versailles could see her; she reduced this public dining to once a week. For another example, she was allowed to keep her personal estate private \"by order of the queen,\" and invited only people she genuinely liked, rather than inviting courtiers who were technically entitled to be around the queen due to their status/position. She alienated much of the court with this behavior; the spurned courtiers then turned around and fed the gossip mill by publishing anti-Marie Antoinette pamphlets in Paris. These pamphlets were widely spread and played a key part in making her hated. This perceived influence over Louis XVI, her desire for privacy, her spurning of court etiquette, her Austrian heritage, and a particular brief yet unquestionably significant period in her late teens where she was behaving like a 'private person' by going to Parisian masquerades and indulging in passions reserved for individuals rather than queens (like fashion indulgence and gambling parties) led to a reputation that was held by a thread in the 1780s. Then the Affair of the Necklace happened and more or less sealed the deal. She had brief pockets of popularity after that but nothing long-lasting. She was not a bad or uncaring person. She contributed significantly and regularly to charities and welfare for the poor; she took in orphans and paid for their upkeep until she was literally imprisoned, she founded a charity for unwed mothers, she paid for women in prison for owning wet nurse debts to be released, she instilled the necessity of charity in her children, she express sympathy for the poor and acknowledged their hardships more than once, etc etc. But her personal charity and contributions, or those of Louis, could not come close to resolving the base issues that were behind the bread shortages in 1775 and 1788 and the overall heavy financial burden on the poor: harvests caused by terrible weather, a disastrous tax system which Louis XVI tried to reform but could not forcibly change until ironically the revolution of 1789, a national deficit that Louis XVI inherited which was only exacerbated by the French decision to help the American colonists in their revolution, and so on. Her spending was a drop in a drop in the bucket compared to what was spent by the French government on the American revolutionary war--but if you're a French laborer working 12 hours every day in 1786 so you can make enough to feed your family, are you going to blame your hardship on the intangible concept of \"a national deficit decades in the making exacerbated by our billion-livre military involvement overseas along with grain speculation causing massive rises in prices for bread already affected by a bad harvest\" or are you going to put blame and hate towards the foreign Austrian woman that the gossip sheets portray as a callous, loose harpy, who wears diamond bracelets around her wrists that you couldn't afford if you worked for 800 years?"
],
"score": [
20,
9,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b0gqkk | What is a divorce decree? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eiejxdi"
],
"text": [
"A divorce decree is the court's final ruling and judgment order that makes the termination of a marriage official. The general purpose of the decree is to summarize the rights and duties of each party in connection with the divorce."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b0mnm6 | Why do children prefer drawn movies/series over live action movies/series? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eifk756",
"eifk3gv",
"eiflhx6",
"eig46e7"
],
"text": [
"Many reasons. More vibrant colors, and creative character designs helps keep their attention for longer. Animation also means it's easier to have a kid be the protagonist, which is appealing for obvious reasons. Animation also makes it easier for slapstick comedy to be a focus, which really appeals to kids. And since cartoons are most often used for children entertainment, it's also more familiar to them.",
"Animation is a legit great way to tell a story. I think it’s more people grow out of animation because they’re brought up thinking they’re childish. It’s a kind of cycle, animation is usually made for children, so its childish, so adults don’t watch it, so why make one for adults.",
"For the same reason they like Barney and Teletubbies even though they're not animated: bright, contrasting colors and big, simple, usually rounded shapes. For the same reason they like picture books instead of a collection of Annie Leibovitz portraits. Children -- particularly babies and toddlers -- don't have the same level of visual sophistication to process complex, realistic images.",
"Do they? Are you basing this on what children actually prefer or on what's available for them? I think the *types of stories* we like to tell to children, fairy tales, fantasy fare with dragons and talking unicorns, exaggerated slap-stick to make them laugh.. would cost a fortune to produce in live action. The greater nuance of acting that live-action could offer is also not necessary if the stories don't have nuance to begin with. If you happen to have such movies though, for example the Soviets were huge on live-action fairy tale movies, I don't think kids would prefer those to be animated instead. They'll like live-action just as much or more."
],
"score": [
80,
23,
23,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b0taix | if cathedrals have such a significant architecture, why aren't we building memorable like that anymore? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eih4yza",
"eigzf6h"
],
"text": [
"There are at least one that is built at today [Sagrada Família]( URL_0 ) in Barcelona where construction started in 1882 and it might be finished in 2026 100 year after the architect died. The construction time is not that different from large historical cathedrals where for example the Cologne Cathedral started construction in 1248 and it was halted in 1473, construction resumed in 1842 and is was finally concluded in 1880 according to the original design. The construction of Sagrada Família is a slow build for the same reason that many in the past was slow and that is money. It is build by private donations only. Historically the catholic church have had a lot of power and bishops and other had direct control and right to tax land so they could get money that way. Other was build because king, princes, other leaders and the people was interested in building large building like that. There is other recent like the Salt Lake Temple that took 40 years to construct and was completed in 1893 so if you have a population that are interested in building like that you can get money, the way it was build is a lot like medieval cathedrals if I am not mistaken. There is a a lot of building that are memorable today but they are not churches because the interest among most people for religious building is not what is was in the past. I suspect museum and that type of building today is a more common new design for buildings that have a destine design built by governments because people support government building them more then religious building at least in the west. Another example that is perhaps one of the most identifiable building in the world is the Sydney Opera House and I am quite sure that more many time more people around the glob could identify it compered to any church. It has to one of the most identifiable buildings where I suspect that the Eiffel Tower has the top spot. Technically the Sagrada Família is a basilica and not a cathedral because a cathedral is a church that that have a bishop so it is the central church in a diocese. It is the same way that the St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican city is not a cathedral but a basilica and it is St. John Lateran in Rome that is the cathedral in the diocese of Rome. The word cathedral might be used a bit different in other denomination but the general name for a large catholic church that most of them was build as is a basilica not a cathedral.",
"Well, it’s about what a society values. We are building complex and beautiful buildings around the world, but they are mostly museums and skyscrapers (and sports stadiums). Religion just isn’t the focus any more."
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b0w4mx | How were languages created | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eihnkcn"
],
"text": [
"Ugh ugh. Grr. *Points at something* Also we have a special ability to make highly different sounds and a brain capable of interpreting patterns. We are so good at patterns that we see them when they don't even exist."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b1ax9r | The logic behind "That is SUCH a Virgo move!" What defines an astrological sign's personality, and how does everyone seem to know about them by heart? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eikiqx5"
],
"text": [
"In my opinion there is no logic to. The time of the year will have more of an impact on your personality than the environment you were brought up in? Nah not for me. The reason why you see inconsistencies is because it's not real. Just Google debunk astrology signs, there loads of experiments been done. In my experience a lot of the people who say things like this tend to be a bit kooky and look at me mysterious and in tune with the universe. Don't get me wrong I'm a spiritual person and I do truly believe there is much more to our reality then it would ever let on but no it's not astrology. Test it yourself. Look at the traits of each then look at people born in those signs. How much matches up and how much will match with another random person? I think all astrology is good for is taking a rough guess as to when someone was born."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b1hszb | Can someone explain to me the sensation behind why people hunt and kill whales? I’ve always been told it’s for culinary purposes except I’ve NEVER ever seen a whale prepared or know how it would be. I watch so many travel/food documentaries and blogs. Traditions maybe? Same as trophy hunting? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eilqebc"
],
"text": [
"It is for culinary purposes. Japan consumes more than 5,000 tons of whale meat every year, and it's eaten less commonly in various other countries, mostly by small indigenous populations. Whales are also killed for \"research purposes,\" though in fact this is often just a mask for hunting for meat. It's possible that some people hunt whales for trophies, but this would be very small compared to meat hunting."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b1jg6b | Why are 'no one' tweets phrased the way they are? What don't I understand about English? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eim3eeo",
"eime9yg",
"eimaojt",
"eim34qs"
],
"text": [
"That's a good point. The way your link phrased it wouldn't be correct. It's like she's saying \"no one: < says anything > \". It should be \"everyone: < blank > \" since the assertion is that everyone is silent at the moment. That said, we know what the poster means and we're probably being pedantic. You're not being a moron IMO, you are being correct. Though sometimes our days will go better if we don't use a critical eye and just enjoy the joke :) Edit: I think they're trying to reuse a similar idea like this bumper sticker I saw on a Prius the other day: > \"Cool Prius\" > -nobody Except that bumper sticker's format is well formed.",
"The 'no one's is just saying that no one asked for the thing following. It's unnecessary and unwanted, but here it is anyway.",
"Yeah this one fucks with my brain too. I think it's phrased \"no one\" rather than \"everyone\" to emphasize the lack of interest. At the price of making literal sense.",
"'literally no one' is saying that nobody does anything 'literally everyone' is implying that everyone is doing something"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b1k5ll | Sex ed not being taught in some schools while it is taught in others | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eim9kb8",
"eim92z5"
],
"text": [
"Angry conservative parents complain to the school board that sex Ed programs give kids ideas and instructions on how to have sex and \"get into trouble.\" These parents usually think they're best qualified to teach their kids about sex, but often find the topic too difficult to bring up, or try to push abstinence-only, or give misinformation because they themselves were taught falsehoods about sex in their puritanical upbringing. Hence all the issues of kids not knowing how to use condoms and getting pregnant/STIs at a young age.",
"Public school curriculum in the U.S. has traditionally been decided at a very local level. There may be some things that the state or even federal government mandates, but for the most part every school district does things their own way, and depending on where that district is there may be different views on how sex education should be taught, or even whether it should be taught at all."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b1s8fv | Why do most of societies are only accepting monogamy, not polygamy? From where does that come from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"einrhrd",
"einw3cm",
"einv0fc",
"einx8h6",
"einqsz7",
"einumjo",
"eio4tig"
],
"text": [
"From a cultural and political standpoint, marriages and unions also combined lands, status, and wealth. if a man had many wives (or the other way around), it would lead to alot of confusion about what families were combined at what level and how were the assets of all parties shared.",
"For every man with 10 wives, there are 9 men that don't have any wife at all. If the power is concentrated in a single, powerful leader, that leader will have have many wives, or at least one 'first wife' and many mistresses, lovers, concubines, etc. Kings, warlords, and tribal leaders will often have multiple wives. But when political power is more widespread, then the male-female ratio means that monogamy allows most men to get a wife.",
"Unlike some (not all) other primates, humans tend to mate for life, especially before we were able to achieve such long lifespans. Mating for life doesn’t really mesh well with polygamy when the two genders are being produced at equal rates and when males aren’t really that much larger than females. The former leads to a lot of males who can’t couple (because the females are all taken), and the latter sets up situations where the males cannot physically compete as much as they need to in this scenario. Evolution definitely would have solved both problems though if we had culturally stuck with polygamy, just like it does it all polygamous species, so it’s enlightening that it didn’t. Our birth rates are still about 50:50 across essentially all human societies. Men are a little bigger than women, but not very much, indicating that perhaps we adapted around small degrees of polygamy, but it couldn’t be too widespread or men would be much larger. Some anthropologists think that monogamy evolved as we moved onto the expanding Serengeti a few million years ago. Cooperative care strategies for partners became very strong due to the ability to walk long distances and carry things while you do it, so women were now incentivized to convince someone to bring them supplies while they bore and raised children (since it had become evolutionarily possible for one individual to fully provide for another), and that convincing required natural commitment. We’ll probably never *really* know the origins of it. For millions of years though, absent some small scale exceptions (such as the Maasai in Africa, or even just very profligate individuals), monogamy has been the strongest strategy for human societies’ long term survival and prosperity.",
"Humans are naturally serial monogamists, like many mammals. Most have the impulse to only have a single mate at a time and we have been this for for all of human history. This is an evolved impulse to make survival of the species more possible due to the long maturation period of our young. Now this does not mean we always, or even often mate for life, but it does mean we have one mate at a time. From there this impulse is reinforced with various social conventions. Most societies doe not allow for polygamy or only allow for it with a limited number of \"elites\" within society. Most of the time with these societies that allow it the marriages are not about procreation but are more akin of to alliances with nobles and other nations.",
"Humans reproduce on 1:1 male-female ratio. If polygamy was a thing everywhere there would be a \"women shortage\"",
"This is actually a very interesting question because physically we have physical adaptations that lean more towards polygamous reproduction.",
"Monogamy is how we make the most healthy family. Two parents teaching two children of their genetics for twelve-eighteen years"
],
"score": [
23,
17,
13,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b1xepc | How does a lawyer attempt to defend a mass shooter? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eiorwz4",
"eiosqn5",
"eiormus"
],
"text": [
"The defense isn't about trying to get their client out of the charge as innocent but rather ensuring the prosecution actually proves their case. So there is video of the shooting, how do they know the pictured assailant is the accused? “Sort of looks like him” according to who exactly, and how reliable is that? Was the video evidence handled properly to prevent any possibility of contamination or alteration, and is the source reasonably trustworthy? Perhaps the accused isn’t mentally all there such that the sentence might be lessened. There is a lot more to such legal process than if the person actually did the act.",
"A lawyer's job isn't to make sure their client is found not guilty. A lawyer's job is to make sure their client is fairly represented, doesn't have their rights violated, and receives a fair penalty. If their client is innocent, then a fair penalty is to be found not guilty and be let go, of course. When the client is guilty, the lawyer's job is to make sure their side is presented in the fairest way possible. So a guilty defendant's lawyer would make sure that the prosecution doesn't lie about what happened and make him seem worse (\"This man literally ate babies!\" Uh, objection, your honor?); or, ensure that when they sentence him they don't do anything cruel or unusual (\"We sentence you to eleventy bjtglillion years in solitary confinement in a 3ft cube of solid concrete with no bed or toilet and no light!\" Uh, objection?); or, just make sure the guy navigates the law correctly so he doesn't incur additional, unnecessary penalties. If the person insists that they're innocent of a *crime* (but definitely did the actions that the prosecution is arguing are criminal) the lawyer would argue there were mitigating circumstances or facts that the jurors aren't aware of. So, if someone (definitely not this guy, but a hypothetical other guy) is accused of murder after shooting someone, the lawyer would argue that it wasn't *murder* because the guy was...just cleaning his gun and it went off, or the guy he shot was threatening him or whatever. So he's admitting to reckless discharge of a firearm or whatever, maybe manslaughter, but not *murder*. So, stuff like that. At least in the USA, a lawyer is legally obligated to tell the truth - they must represent their client *fairly* and execute their wishes, but they aren't allowed to lie or knowingly cause others to lie. So if the defendant says, \"Yeah I totally fuggin shot that guy in the face because I wanted to murder him and was planning to murder him because I just love murderin. But whatever, I plead not guilty I'mma lie and say I didn't do it,\" in that case the lawyer would have to A) try to convince their client that this is a bad idea and that they aren't allowed to help them, and/or B) quit being their lawyer.",
"A lawyers sole job is to provide the best for their client. This doesn't always mean get them off for the crime they are on trial for. There's also making sure they are tried fairly, and that proper evidence is entered. As you said, everyone deserves their day in court."
],
"score": [
32,
22,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b2102q | why servicing fees for concert tickets are always incredulously big | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eipmcms",
"eipulmu"
],
"text": [
"Because your willing to pay them. Im not being snarky or sarcastic. All that fee is the venue or website making literal free money by asking you to pay that charge. The bigger the draw on the band or event thats happening the larger service fee people would be willing to pay usually.",
"Because the have a near monopoly on the ticket system so your only choice is to pay it or not go to the event. You can’t just go somewhere else to buy the tickets."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b243uq | Why does wearing heels appear to enhance female appearance and appeal? Is it cultural or biological or psychological? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eiq4zn5",
"eiq56uv"
],
"text": [
"It's cultural. They do change the way a woman looks but the response (\"that specific look is better than when she doesn't wear heels\") is cultural. That's why you hear stories about other cultures or time periods having different ideals of beauty (eg pale skin or extra weight are signs of prosperity and are therefore attractive). Heels and the cultural views of them and beauty are so widespread that it seems universal but its new and its not.",
"Depends on when and where you live, actually. High heels as we know it - enhancing female appearance - only got popular after WWII with the rise of pin-up girls. Previously it's non-existent and it's not considered as sexy or whatever. In fact, Louis XIV wore a pair of high heels. The shoes weren't considered to be sexy, it's even considered impractical. However it was expensive because it's difficult to made, as such it's considered high status. So no, it's not biological. Far from it."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b28u6l | How and when did we find out what was written on the hieroglyphs on objects and artefacts, i.e. the ancient Egyptian writing system? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eir1e7j",
"eir2k52"
],
"text": [
"We found a stone the was carved in multiple languages and was able to compare the languages that were known and able to translate the stone was known as the Rosetta stone",
"Rosetta stone is interesting I read, thanks. So from when to when was the langue \"unreadable\" I wonder? As it was rediscovered in 1800.."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b29suz | Why does a painting of a blue dot on a canvas sell for millions if one person does it and nothing if someone else does it? What’s the difference? | For example if I was to try sell a canvas of a blue dot it probably wouldn’t sell but in other cases it could go on to sell for millions but there’s no talent involved in producing the “art” so why the high price tag? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eir90f9",
"eir99pv",
"eisn013",
"eirdm6c",
"eira7iz"
],
"text": [
"Because some wealthy individuals are so self-centred and in such need of validation from their equally wealthy accomplices, that they are willing to pay ludicrous amounts of money to acquire any piece of art from any renowned artist. The contents of the piece do not matter per se; the important factor here is that the artist be esteemed enough so that merely their name commands respect. What matters is that acquiring the piece allows these individuals bragging rights about it and gives them the validation they require, both because they remain self-assured that they can acquire whatever they desire, and because of the general acclamation they will receive from their wealthy circles. The price tag for that piece of art may be miniscule to them, even if it ranges in the millions of dollars, so it isn't really a matter of cost. It's a matter of self-promotion and self-esteem. Of course, this doesn't apply to any and all wealthy individuals. However, when art pieces of clearly questionable artistic value are sold for exceedingly high prices, my best bet would be that this is the cause. Edit: To draw a parallel to this scenario, the underlying psychological factors are pretty much the same which cause individuals to buy that \"one thing that everyone talks about and is SO good\", even if that specific item is clearly overpriced. The difference is merely in the financial scale: for most it may be in the couple of hundreds of dollars at most, for a select few it may be in the couple of millions.",
"Art pieces don't happen in a vacuum. You have to consider the context, whether that be the artists personal life or maybe past pieces they've done that give context to the latest one. An artist who paints predominantly in red and then one day unveils a piece with a white background and small blue square is probably trying to say something metatextual about their work. In that case it'd be like the big twist in a shows season finale. It's unexpected, it signifies a big shift in the artists body of work, and it carries the weight of his past work.",
"There is another point that none of the replies brought up so far, surprisingly, so I will do it. You need to keep in mind that lots of such deals are simply a way to launder money. No one actually values the painting this much, but because the art *can* be valued subjectively, it allows for money transfers that would otherwise raise questions.",
"The way I’ve heard it said simply is “At a certain skill level it’s known that an artist can paint anything, but they chose to do this. The better the reason why, the higher the price.” (Probably an oversimplification though). Still, I don’t really “get” Jackson Pollack, but if you look at his early career, the dude could really paint things that looked like things when he wanted.",
"Art is entirely subjective. One extremely talented artist will go completely unnoticed for their entire careers while another will become the next Picasso. Name recognition and orginal works in the Art community is everything. That's why an exact reproduction on an original piece is considered next to worthless. The price of Art on the other hand is driven up by the Art community. Rich people buy up Art at ludicrous prices in an attempt to out do one another, which in turn drives up the prices. It's not about the painting itself, but rather the artist. Owning a piece of Art from a particular artist is like a rich persons badge of honor, like having a yacht you never use, dating a super model or owning a Ferrari. A lot of art is also sold as part of money laundering schemes and tax evasion. Rich people will buy art and then donate it in order to write it off as a loss on their taxes."
],
"score": [
15,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b2i1fu | How did the Greeks translate into Arabic, Chinese etc. without knowing the languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eispkhu",
"eisqx4s"
],
"text": [
"Who says they didn't? Human beings are capable of learning multiple languages. It is harder when the new language is completely unknown to you and there are no existing translations/resources to draw on, but not impossible.",
"Go travel to a place where they don't speak your language. You'll adapt. Most probably by learning to communicate with hand gestures and body language."
],
"score": [
19,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b2knw2 | Which came first to define the word orange, the color or the fruit? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eit7s2w",
"eit8p9h"
],
"text": [
"The fruit. The word for the fruit comes [originally from Sanskrit]( URL_0 ) where it's \"nāraṅga.\" In 1512, somebody first referred to something that was yellowish-red as \"orange-coloured.\"",
"The fruit came before the color. That is to say that the color existed but were within the red or saffron range. This is why a lot of orange things are called red. For example red heads for people with orange hair. So people used yellow-red instead of orange. Then the fruit came to Europe. The color were not a very common color before the fruit so people started to call orange things after the fruit. Similar to how we might say navy blue today they might have said orange red about the color which were quickly shortened to just orange. A large part of this might have been the fact that one of the main cities for imported oranges to be traded before getting to Paris was in a stroke of coincidence also called Orange. And the Prince of Orange adopted the color in their crest and later on became the King of Netherlands."
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%99%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b2p83f | Why does English have so many different words for groups of animals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eiu6g6h",
"eiudxei"
],
"text": [
"From what I can tell, a large number of the collective nouns we use these days actually originate from medieval manuals. Apparently the earliest one known to us (I'm only mentioning this because I saw the same book referenced in multiple locations) is The Egerton Manuscript, written around 1450. People in that era were kind of obsessed by allegory and poetic devices anyway, and it seems that a lot of names came into fashion around then and were - I presume - largely the invention of self-appointed experts, who liked the symbolism they could create. Collective nouns for other animals we discovered later on (such as the kangaroos) then basically followed the precedent already set.",
"There was a book written in 1486 called The Book of Saint Albans' where we get many of the collective names. It is a book about hunting, falconing, and fishing. Apparently around that time it was fashionable to come up with whimsical names for groups of animals and people. The book proved popular and the names have stuck."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b2raor | What is rape culture? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eiujneu",
"eiukg69"
],
"text": [
"It's a general term that refers to cultures where social, psychological and legal standards make rape more likely to happen, and sometimes ignored. For example, we in the U.S have a kind of rape culture when it comes to incarcerated individuals. Rape is sort of just expected in a U.S prison, and we don't seem motivated to do something about it. People just sort of ignore on the outside. I can't speak to how it's treated on the inside. In other countries, particularly ones where women don't have fair and equal rights, marital rape is legal, and non marital rape is treated less seriously. Feminists talk about it in the U.S because some of our cultural ideas about what's normal makes rape more likely to occur. For example, we kind of normalized the whole sleeping with someone after they get drunk thing, as if taking advantage of a person whose decision making ability is A-Ok. (Remember Superbad when Seth makes a joke about a girl getting drunk, waking up and saying 'oh, god, why did I sleep with that guy' and wanting to be that guy). I'll admit that this has gotten way better throughout my lifetime though. Others argue that because we ignore male rape, we have a rape culture that makes rape against men less likely to be taken seriously. It's debatable if the U.S has a true rape culture in the same sense that India has one, and I can see both sides of the argument, but I think it's worth thinking about.",
"rape culture is the normalization, rationalization, and perpetuation of rape/sexual assault in society. we normally see it in the double standards set for women in regards to their sexuality. women get raised being told how to “not get raped”; how to act, what to wear, what to say, how much to drink, how late to stay out, how often to look over your shoulder when walking out at night. men are scarcely taught not to rape however. we also see it in the leniency placed on sexual assault/rape cases. in many assaulters, we hear about their achievements, the life they have ahead of them, and how this was just a mistake. they’re granted lighter sentences because of their futures (namely brock turner). we also see older assaulters (namely bill cosby), being brushed off by media because he’s old and his life is practically over. there’s pretty much no correct time to report sexual assault, and when you try, you’re seen as attention seeking. there’s this false notion that women report based on attention, but no one remembers the names of the victims off the top of their head anyways, just the assaulters. the victims are blamed for how much they’ve drank, what they were wearing, or leading their attacker on, even though none of these should matter. its always rationalized or swept under the rug, and when its actually penalized, its usually on a short sentence. this all furthers the idea that rape is okay, and perpetuates this “culture”"
],
"score": [
22,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b34yno | Is basic science we learn now harder to understand for people in the past? | I know people overall are more educated. But I guess I'm wondering if teaching "Lesson one" to a child now would be easier than to a child in like 1900. And what factors (culture, other sources of learning, being surrounded by modern technology, etc.) may contribute to why a child from 1900 would have a more difficult time learning than a child from 2000. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eix7t2b",
"eixb2mh"
],
"text": [
"The question in a sense is; If you put a caveman child in a K-12 would they be able to learn at the same pace as everyone else? We aren't 100% sure, but research seems to indicate that we haven't evolved that much in the past 10,000 years. If you were to pluck an Ancient Egyptian out of their time at a very young age they would probably grow up like any other child in our time. Nutrition is a big factor. Having easy access to high calorie food makes it easier for us to think. But the biggest factor is actually spare time. Children at the turn of the century were much more likely to leave school at an early age to help the family and work. Modern schools are also much better. Teaching techniques and technology have improved. Small rural schools with multiple grades in the same class slowed learning because the teacher couldn't concentrate on the same age group like they can now. Religion is also another factor. The local culture and the prevalence of religion can significantly effect what children are taught.",
"Not harder at all. The big difference isn't there ability to grasp the concept but that there's is an entire framework of ideas they didn't have that people are now exposed to from a young age. And most people really don't understand the science at all. They simply know the rote rules. But take the idea of electricity. People frequently talk about it flowing, charging, positive and negative, opposites attract, this feeds into matter being made of atoms, discrete and pure, but still made of parts (protons, buttons, electrons). Things like \"opposites attract\" are in the common language, and a lot of the conceptual framework is laid out just learning that. The reason these ideas didn't exist in the past is often an issue of creating instruments that can gather the evidence needed. How do you price the existence of an atom, an object that even today can't be imaged directly in a way a human can see. And do it before we even invented the microscope for seeing cells. Btw, we were confident about atoms before the microscope! So that shows you how clever, logical and persuasive scientists back then could be! It's also a bit easier to teach the material now, as generations of teachers have homework to concepts, diagrams and explains to focus on on the biggest ideas with the most leverage. And we have all sorts of specific materials, chemicals, and devices to result and reliably demonstrate or measure the concepts being taught."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b3kyxi | Why is it so much easier to make hyper realistic art nowadays? | Today it’s not at all unusual to see in your feed that somebody has created yet another painting that looks like a photo, to the point that hyperrealism starts to feel boring. My question is, why is this type of thing only appearing now, and not in the last few centuries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej0cvtm",
"ej0jwrc"
],
"text": [
"There is a phrase: \"Standing on the shoulders of giants\" Basically every discovery enables people to use a higher skill baseline when learning for themselves. When they expand and grow it is from a higher baseline than those before them, making their end result objectivly more advanced. In other words: kids learning to art aren't starting off with only the knowledge of cave painting available to them, they have the a large chunk of the world's sum total of art knowledge to work from.",
"Back in the old days, being able to create complex, realistic art wasn’t easily accessible, or even known at the time. They had to figure it out themselves. Nowadays, people know how to draw hyper realism, because those before hand figured it out."
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b3ldid | Why do people answer questions on here with such gusto and uncertainty, even if they are have no idea what they are talking about? Every thread contains a wide variety of answer, with the consensus depending on the time of day being occasionally reckless and irresponsible. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej0g6fz"
],
"text": [
"I'm going to assume you meant \"certainty\". 1.) Many (most?) people think they know more than they do. 2.) The most interesting questions have multiple reasonable answers. One of those responders that you assume is clueless might actually give you the right answer. Others might be responding in good faith but not fully understand the issue at hand. 3.) The whole point of ELI5 is to make an explanation crisp and clear. I'm not sure how you do that EXCEPT with \"gusto and certainty\". 4.) The goal is not to \"reach consensus\". The fact that many people THINK an explanation is correct does not actually MAKE it correct. You have to read all the responses and decide for yourself."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b3n7d0 | The switch from BCE to AC | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej0rqzt",
"ej0rurh",
"ej0rtg8"
],
"text": [
"First, it is BCE for \"Before the Common Era\" and CE for \"Common Era\". Or prior to that it was BC for \"Before Christ\" and AD for \"Anno Domini\" or \"in the year of the Lord\". AC is for air conditioning or alternating current. > but how did they measure the years at the time? It depends on who you were talking about, but many would just record it in reference to whoever was ruling at the time. So it might be the 13th year of someone's rule, or the 130th year of a particular dynasty, etc. > And when was the BC and AC calendar adopted? AD 532 is the year it was invented, but when it was adopted varies depending on who you are considering.",
"A.D./B.C. is not a calendar. It's just a way of numbering years. Our current \"global\" civil calendar, the Gregorian calendar, is just a refinement of the Julian calendar, which has been in use in Europe and North Africa since 45 B.C. Our current numbering system using B.C. and A.D. was proposed in 525 A.D. by a Byzantine monk named Dionysius Exiguus, but it wasn't widely adopted until the 9th century. Prior to that, different places had different year numbering systems, frequently based of the regnal year of a king.",
"Different cultures all had their own calendars, and counted years separately based on different historical events. For instance, according to the Chinese calendar, this is actually the year 4717 or so, not 2019. They count going back to the founding of Chinese civilization. Europeans, who were mostly Christian, agreed upon using the birth of Christ as a starting point for year 1, and have since spread that calendar around the world."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b3odcw | Why has there always been so much more population in China or India than in,for example, Europe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej0yxu5"
],
"text": [
"less harsh climates. western europe as is, owes a lot of its livability to the north atlantic current bringing warmth to those northern latitudes"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b3zecy | the difference in usage between "coming" and "going" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej3967i",
"ej3mqsn"
],
"text": [
"I get this one a lot in my ESL classroom. \"Coming\" means toward you, \"going\" means away from you. & #x200B; So if you are at home now, you can say you *came* home at 5 o'clock. If you are still at work/school now, you can say that you will *go* home at 5 o'clock. & #x200B; If a cat is moving away from you, it is *going*. If you are calling it and it is moving in your direction, it is *coming*. & #x200B; Compare the phrases: 1) Come here, please. 2) Go away! & #x200B;",
"It's a difference in perspective. If Dave is going from point A to point B then people at point A would say that Dave is going whereas people at point B would say that he is coming. From Dave's perspective he is coming and going."
],
"score": [
15,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b44ks3 | Why does it seem like the public is becoming more susceptible to believeing in things that contradict science (like flat earth and anit-vax) these days? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej4a6ke",
"ej46jiu",
"ej4i0lx"
],
"text": [
"It's always been there, just in the background, unheard. But thanks to the internet, ironically, the spread of misinformation is easier now, and these idiotic theories can spread just as fast as actual fact.",
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that \"my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.\" * [Isaac Asimov]( URL_0 ), Column in *Newsweek* (21 January 1980) And as American influence spreads…",
"Think about this: how many flat earthers do you personally know? Probably zero. Most of these people you hear about through social media sites like reddit where people love to point out how stupid they are but that also gives them visibility. Decades ago there were still these various conspiracy nuts but the general public didn’t have visibility to their crazy. All media, not just social media tends to overrepresent these minority outlier groups because they are an interesting novelty and they get people riled up and coming back for more stuff about them which means more ad views or for reddit, people post about them again and again for karma and to bash them and feel superior."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b45fkg | How can changes in rules of chess in the 10th-15th century be accepted by people, when it has no governing body to consider the new rule as official? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej48v0h",
"ej4inpr",
"ej4914g",
"ej4ipec",
"ej4imu1",
"ej4ld09",
"ej4j3uk",
"ej4yyzl",
"ej49set",
"ej4x0av"
],
"text": [
"Because people can accept things without some organization or \"governing body\" telling them to accept it. They use their reasoning capabilities to evaluate it themselves and make an individual choice. Usually, if enough people independently agree on a rule change, and it reaches a tipping point, people who don't accept the change will be forced into a position where they either accept it begrudgingly or find themselves with no one else to play with. In many, many, cases, there usually isn't a consensus and you end up with two different games or at least a game with lots of different variations.",
"Oh man, I am so happy you asked this because there's a very minor stirrup in the chess community [right now.]( URL_0 ) & #x200B; The history of chess is actually really interesting. As other Redditors have pointed out, variations of the game go way back. Chess is a very old game. [Ancient, in fact.]( URL_1 ) Tracing chess history back far enough results in a sort of \"Ship of Theseus\" type situation-- at what point are we looking at a game that we can no longer consider \"chess\"? But let's say for the purposes of answering your question that we're mostly interested in chess as we understand people in the 1100s to have played it-- checkered board, with distinct pieces with distinct movements. How did that game's rules change into the game we know today? It essentially goes down like this: * We have a monochrome board (no alternating squares) and roughly 6 or so distinct pieces on each side with distinct movements. One of these, the Bishop, only moves one space diagonally. There's no set rule on who moves first, so everyone flips a coin. Stalemates (all pieces taken except the King) are considered victories. The pieces are red and black, because those are the most common inks available right now. * Over time (a hundred years or so) it becomes very trendy to start using checkered boards. Someone notices the aforementioned Bishop never leaves its colored square. Someone suggests that the Bishop should move two spaces instead of one. Many people like this variation, and it catches on. The Queen, which previously could move two spaces, is now demoted to moving only one space, to make her distinct from the Bishop. * Games take too long. A few other changes are proposed among the very busy nobility to make the game go a little faster. Pawns now move two spaces on their first move and Bishops can move any number of spaces so long as they stay on their original colored square. In the same spirit, the Queen is now allowed to move any number of spaces in any direction. This was actually really popular in Spain in the 1300s, and people called it \"Mad Chess\" because of how dramatically different it made the game. * Shortly after this, people start writing books on how complex the game is. On how strategically valuable it is. There is a minor scandal with a Pope for playing the game, as it was considered a type of gambling. This brings more attention to the game, and as it becomes more widely known and written about, the rules become more solidified. * Timers are added to the game to make it go by faster. It had become trendy in the 1700s or so to play for days on end as a kind of intellectual flex. And nobody really liked that. Early timers are hourglasses, which are super inaccurate, and are eventually replaced with clocks. * Because books have been written about the game detailing its theories and strategies for hundreds of years, the rules are largely stable now. Especially since reading is common, and books are easy to obtain. In the 1800s, people stop flipping coins for who goes first and decide it will be the Red pieces. Eventually, Red becomes White by convention, as it draws a sharper contrast to the Black pieces. & #x200B; TL;DR: So the shortest explanation is the game came from somewhere else (almost certainly India), people liked it, started playing by house rules, and as the popularity of the game spread there was a period (1400s) of rapid rule changes based on how the Nobility played their games. Then people started writing about it, and the rules remained relatively stable after that with only minor tweaks and changes. Bonus fact: In 1851, two chess masters played a particularly exciting game during the first ever organized world tournament. Adolf Anderssen (German) and Lionel Kieseritzky (Russian) were both big names, and Anderssen made several very exciting and counterintuitive moves that ultimately won him an unexpected victory. It's still highly studied to this day and is known as \"The Immortal Game.\" The relevance of this game to your question is that in this game, Black (Anderssen) moved first. Though it's often annotated and studied as though Anderssen played White in order to stay in line with modern conventions of the game. EDIT: Holy shit, my first gold! Thank you, kind stranger! EDIT EDIT: *Platinum?!* I am blown away! This post got (at the time of this edit) three silver, a gold, and a PLATINUM! I've been texting my irl friends about it all day, and never ever thought I'd be this proud about the approval of random Internet strangers. Thank you guys so much.",
"Like any sport or game, there were local \"house rules\" played in various locations at different times. You can trace the specific lineage of the game that we play today, but that's not the only permutation that existed. It's just the one that ultimately became the most popular. For an extreme example, consider that all the various permutations of rugby/football/soccer share a single root sport. The local rulesets all developed unperturbed in the far corners of the British empire to eventually create multiple distinctive sports.",
"Most games have a way of playing that is more enjoyable and efficient to the majority of players and this becomes the most common way the game is played. A very strange anomaly to this concept is the game Monopoly. In almost any home you play Monopoly, the “house rule“ is that if you land on a property and choose not to buy it, the property remains with the bank and the next player takes their turn. However, according to Monopoly's official rules, when you land on a property space and you choose not to buy it, the property must be auctioned off by the banker, and the other players can bid on it. It's a simple rule that changes everything. First, it speeds up the game, saving players a ton of time. Second, the game becomes much more dynamic than just the luck of a die roll and landing on a space. Strangely, the rule set that makes the game more about luck and much longer ( and thus less enjoyable since one of the critiques of monopoly is how long the game takes to play from a losing position) is the rule set that most people have adopted. A favorite [bit about Monopoly]( URL_0 ).",
"Kind of related. But remember how everyone blew into Nintendo cartridges to get them to work? This was before the internet was a popular thing. But everyone knew about it/how to do it by word of mouth. It spread like wildfire. I imagine it’s the same concept.",
"Look up any rules for beer pong then go to anyone’s house to play said beer pong, now wait 500 years. Its like a game of telephone and preference over many years.",
"Kinda like how people put money in free parking in Monopoly. Not a rule, just a thing that happened and a lot of people follow suit.",
"If enough people do it the \"wrong way\", it becomes the rule. Take language as a perfect example.",
"Word of mouth and try and error and snowball URL_0 said let's try the game this way. His friends will say oh that's better so they tell their friends and so on. If the change is better soon everybody will adapt and the former rules die. Sometimes there are different schools of thought and different games developed over time. Like in poker or pool. Also organisations determine and influence the legitimacy of rules. If a huge tournament is played on a certain set of rules others will follow",
"How did the rules change for pinatas? I mean in the 10th century they used a donkey and cooked it after. Without a governing body it became cardboard and candy."
],
"score": [
2617,
1694,
106,
37,
24,
10,
7,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-and-giri-campaign-for-racial-equality",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess#Origin"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/My31lwuhvko"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"system.sb"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b47t9h | Why is Satan tempting Eve with the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden seen as a bad thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ej4sry5"
],
"text": [
"Because God said not to eat the fruit. God is the source of all goodness and happiness in the world (if you believe Abrahamic orthodoxy). God created paradise for humans, and in exchange all he asked was that they not eat this one particular fruit. Satan came along and basically said, \"That God guy is just keeping you down - eat the fruit and you can be Godlike yourself\". Adam and Eve defied God and broke the _one_ rule that existed because they wanted even more than what God had given them. God punished man by introducing suffering into the world. If God is by definition \"good\", then defying the order of God is by definition \"bad\"."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b52hfq | What caused the differences between British and American english? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejaq72x",
"ejb1g7b"
],
"text": [
"Being separated by an ocean before rapid travel was the norm. People were already crossing the Atlantic by the time of the colonies, but it was not something the average person would do several times. That considerable separation led to cultural and linguistic quirks that soon became distinct, because while they both started out English, they grew apart. It's similar anywhere with a core population and a diaspora. European French versus French Canadian comes to mind.",
"As always, there is more than one reason for this. Other users have pointed out some of the main ones as time and isolation. One other factor that is also very important comes down to one man, [Noah Webster]( URL_0 ). His dictionary is the reason for a lot of the differences in spelling in American English."
],
"score": [
13,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster#Dictionary"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b55adt | Why do people instinctively put their hands on their heads to express stunned disbelief? (Like your team losing on a buzzer beater, etc.) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejbc7rf"
],
"text": [
"Putting arms out over your head supposedly comforts your mind when stressed and opens up your lungs making it easier to breathe. It’s just instinctive - you’ll notice it when marathon runners finish a race or more interestingly something interrogators look for to catch someone who might have lied."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b57tjo | Why do people associate certain colors with different moods, feelings, ...? | I'm just curious because it seems so random. Did someone at one point just decide that this color means that and everyone just went along with? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejbrlci"
],
"text": [
"Well if it helps any the color pink has been scientifically proven to provide a more relaxing environment. There was a prison, that I can’t remember which one but it was on the news, they painted the cells pink to help alleviate inmates from any aggression they felt. I actually think they did see progression, they ended up having a lower rate of re-offense if I’m not mistaken."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b5fhmj | Colour Blindness - is it possible that your perception of colour is based on what you were taught ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejd72w9",
"ejd2w7c",
"ejd7hjy"
],
"text": [
"Others have pointed out that the *names* of colors is indeed culturally defined, i.e. comes from what you were taught as a child. And there is a lot of evidence that ability to perceive different colors is related; cultures that distinguish between two fairly-similar shades are in fact able to visually distinguish those shades better. But that's different from color blindness. There's a reason that color blindness tests are not \"Point to the green square,\" but rather asking you to [see the hidden number in a field of dots]( URL_0 ). This is a fairly-reliable way to test for color blindness even regardless of what the child was taught about color.",
"There is some argument for cultural differences in colours; IIRC Russians tend to be more perceptive of blues and greens than Americans.",
"You would still see the full spectrum of colors, you just wouldn't have words for parts of the spectrum. Before the color we now call \"orange\" was named after the newly discovered fruit, it was mostly referred to in Europe as \"red\". It was just a lighter shade of red. Just like how a child would call burgundy or maroon \"red\". Still, had you painted, let's say, an orange letter onto a red background, people would have been able to read the letter. Whether they have a different word for that color or not, they see a difference. If you have a type of color blindness it means you can't differentiate between certain colors. E.g. if you're red-green blind you see both red and green as a brownish beige so if someone were to draw a red letter onto a green background it would just look like a uniformly beige plate to you."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://i.imgur.com/mXxsxPI.png"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b5hfdk | What is collusion? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejdhcik",
"ejdieph"
],
"text": [
"It's basically sharing information to give an unfair advantage. In poker, it would be like having a friend at the table intentionally building up the pot by raising just to force other people to give up, and then folding to you regardless of if you had a good hand; probably done with the expectation that you would split your profits after leaving the game.",
"Back near the end of the 2016 election, some emails were hacked and released. These emails proved that Hillary had been working with the DNC to keep Bernie Sanders out of the running. This scandal broke a lot of public trust in the Democratic party, and because of this, people assumed that Republicans (specifically the Republican candidate) may have had a hand in releasing these emails to the public. It was later discovered that the emails were hacked by WikiLeaks via Russian intelligence. IF Republicans had a hand in releasing the emails, that would also make them guilty of *collusion* with Russia, which would be treason. Collusion, in this context, essentially equates to cooperation and working together. While the Muller investigation turned up quite a bit of corruption, it ultimately determined that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. **OPINION:** This is a huge blow to Democrats, who have insisted for years that Trump was guilty. Most redditors will still insist so, because it's frankly embarrassing to insist on something for years then be told that you're wrong. 99.9% of people are far too ignorant of the facts to express any opinion that isn't an echo of mass media (that goes for Republicans too), and most of the media has been trying to force a narrative."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b5io88 | how is it that the Suicide rate in developed countries is much higher than in developing countries Even though the later have way worse living conditions | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejdq47i"
],
"text": [
"I think people in developed countries have a lot more time on their hands in a lot more time to worry about things that really don't matter. Whereas people in developing countries are worried about where their next meal is coming from not their Facebook status"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b5m8vl | Why are a lot of old games (Halo, WoW Classic, etc.) starting to re surge and be re released after 10+ years from when they were made? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejekpzc",
"ejef81s"
],
"text": [
"Nostalgia tends to work on a decade cycle. There's a grown up now who remembers playing Halo, etc as a kid. That grown up now has free money he can spend however he wants. So he remembers having fun as a kid, and the companies give him the same thing he played as a kid just updated. So the grown up has fun, and the company makes money.",
"It's easy money for game companies and the companies that own them to have them rerelease games with a few gimmicks added in order to make more money for other projects. Or just more money for money's sake. It's a way to prey on the nostalgia of past generations while attempting to get new generations hooked in attempts to possibly reboot a series or add to it."
],
"score": [
21,
15
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b5nu0y | This Quote: "Your preparation for the real world is not in the answers you’ve learned, but in the questions you’ve learned how to ask yourself." | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejengpt",
"ejeo250",
"ejevqjv",
"ejenwsj",
"ejf3du9",
"ejet8pf",
"ejf4nfw",
"ejf35r0",
"ejf2yj7",
"ejez18b"
],
"text": [
"Your ability to think critically and ask the questions that you need in order to learn are more important than knowing that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell",
"Some answers cannot be given, they have to be rediscovered by each individual through their own experience. But each one's capability to find those kind of answers depends on their inquisitiveness. You choose how deep you want to explore, more depth involves more challenge but also higher satisfaction. However the really good questions are those that do not agree with your view of the world and yourself. Those questions are the enemy of ego and therefore we tend to ignore them. Growing is learning to ask the questions you need to face over those that agree with what you already think.",
"I can probably remember about a tenth of the material I learned at university. But that's not terribly important, because the material you cover isn't the medicine, it's the spoon. Doing a degree teaches you how to study, how to analyse, how to critically evaluate, how to prioritise and schedule, how to cope with large projects and tight deadlines, how to bullshit, how to recognise bulshit, how to filter large amounts of irrelevant material to zero in on the information you need, how to carefully read requirements, how to know your limits and work within/around them, how to deal with bureaucracy, how to take on far too much work at once, how to push yourself until you bleed getting deliverables in on time, how to take notes and summarize, how to condense large amounts of knowledge into understanding, how to organize and outline a jumbled mass of details into a coherent, directed structure,how to quickly familiarise yourself with a set of texts bigger than your fucking genome, how to problem-solve and troubleshoot, how to ask useful questions, and a hundred other skills. And it makes you practice them until your brains damn near fall out of your head, under truly excessive amounts of stress. *That* is the valuable part of doing a degree. Along the way, you might even pick up some knowledge and experience in your field of expertise - but that's very much a bonus if so. For most part, the actual material is just a means to an end.",
"I don't know the exact context of this quote, but I've seen lots of variations of it with regard to education. Things along the lines 'the goal of education isn't about picking up facts so much as teaching you how to think.\"",
"I don't think any of the other responses have quite nailed it yet... To me, the key word is YOURSELF. Dumb people don't ask questions, they just do whatever. Average people ask questions of others, then do what those people say. Smart people ask questions of THEMSELVES, continually challenging their own understanding of a situation, or their prototype solution to a problem, or the extent to which they should trust an authority figure. This issue is highly relevant to me right now as I am working to finish up a sci-fi novel. The hard part isn't writing the actual prose, it's continually challenging myself to make sure the novel is firing on all cylinders - plot, characters, action, dialogue, etc. etc. etc. - and not to get lazy and write the first thing that I kinda sorta think should work. THAT ability I've only been able to hone through years and years of getting my earlier writing attempts stomped on by my readers, learning how to integrate their feedback into my own internal filter, then always using that filter to challenge whatever I am doing. It's exhausting and difficult, but as far as I can tell, it's the only way to write at a truly professional level.",
"The quote is about critical thinking. It's basically saying that the more you learn about things the easier it is to surmise things you don't know based on context. As an example. Why do pot holes form in early spring? We might not know exactly how they form, but we do know some key things. Water freezes at 32 degrees F. It expands when it freezes. This leads us to understand that during spring the temperature hovers around 32 degrees F some days. Now we know that water is going to freeze/melt over and over at around this temp. Since we know that water expands when it freezes, we can surmise that the expansion of water in cracks in the pavement is what causes pot holes to form. During the warm daylight hours liquid water will leak into cracks in the pavement. During the colder nighttime hours, the water will freeze, expanding and causing the pavement to buckle. Then in the warm daylight hours it freezes again, leaving busted asphalt behind, and then the water re-freezes at night. This cycle continues and that's how you get a pot hole. Knowing enough about how the world functions allows you to ask yourself questions and then reflect on your disparate knowledge about related things and cobble together an answer to something you don't specifically understand.",
"For a programmer it's more important to know how to google problems rather than knowing by heart how to solve everything.",
"Tutor here. I find most people know how to do what they need to do. They just can't put all the pieces together. I generally just ask questions. What do we need to do? What pieces are preventing us from doing that? What do we change first? How do we change it? Over time they begin to ask themselves these questions and sometimes I work myself out of a job.",
"My interpretation: > Memorizing facts isn't bad, but if you want to be successful in the real world, you need to know how to learn — especially about yourself. That's especially true in today's fast-moving society. If you know how to ask yourself the right questions (\"Why is this important?\", \"How will this impact others?\", or even \"Why should I react the way I do?\"), then you can keep growing and adapting to life. To put it another way, self-awareness is more important than regurgitating answers someone else came up with. It's not that being able to say, \"2+2=4\" is a bad thing! But it's more important to be strong enough to ask yourself, \"Why do I struggle with math?\" & #x200B;",
"Adults who are good at adulting know how to think for themselves."
],
"score": [
2343,
140,
36,
33,
18,
12,
9,
7,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b60685 | Why did/do countries honor Switzerland’s neutrality in times of war? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejh54hk",
"ejh7dj8",
"ejh910t",
"ejh5nih",
"ejh7nes"
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of reasons. Generally though, here are the main ones. & #x200B; There is very little to gain(or at least, has been in the past, I can't say for it's current state), from attacking Switzerland. It had few people, few resources, a small army, and wasn't great topographically(how the land looked/was set up.) & #x200B; Along with these reasons for no real need for invading switzerland, (I'll use Germany as the example) countries with the ability to invade it have \"bigger fish to fry,\" in the sense that there's not only more valuable people to attack, but there are more dangerous people for them to handle. & #x200B; This last part has no true factual basis, however if the Germans had succeeded in their plans to take over Europe, it's MORE than likely that switzerland would have gotten swept up too. They wouldn't have put up a great fight, and would have been absorbed eventually. & #x200B; Separately, to TRULY answer your question, there's no real reason to honor a country's neutrality other than the fact that they're neutral. That's literally it. There's no reason to mindlessly attack a country you're not at war with. Making more enemies for yourself will only make your life harder and your enemy's life easier.",
"In war when someone declares neutrality you'd usually count that as a good thing because you have to worry about them declaring war on you and usually fewer enemies is better than more. An ally would be better of course, but when they don't support you you'd rather they'd be neutral than support your enemy. Switzerland specifically has a long track record of staying neutral so in times of war the parties involved were relatively sure of that neutrality, and there were no advantages to be had ignoring it rather than actually being an advantage itself. Additionally, being a landlocked, mountainous country with a small population and relatively little resources historically it really wasn't that strategically important. And aside from that it was pretty cut off from the rest of Europe due to its geography and the few roads and railways going into Switzerland could be easily defended even against a larger army. Other nations fared far worse with their neutrality: The Netherlands and Belgium were neutral states in both world wars yet both times it was ignored and they were invaded. This is because they are strategically important both geographically between Germany and France as well as being trade hubs with large harbours and industry. This is highlighted by the fact that even though they were aligned with France and England when Germany opened the western front in WW2 the allies pre-emptively invaded Belgium without Belgian cooperation for a better geographic position to fight. Both the Allies and the Nazis had plans to invade neutral Norway to control the iron ore from Scandinavia and their ports and airports for greater range/control over the North Sea. Germany acted first to secure it and while doing so also took neutral Denmark on the way just to be sure. In the end it really comes down to a calculation whether it might be strategically beneficial to honor neutrality or not.",
"Switzerland would be one hell of a nut to crack, so to speak. Basically, it's built into the Alps and surrounded by and made up of mostly mountainous terrain. Very few armies could conquer it and none of them could do so without an immense cost in money and effort and time. Combine that with it having no strategic value means that there's little to no reason to try and conquer it. Lastly, the Swiss believe greatly in their neutrality, thus giving very little political reason to try and conquer them. In MMO terms, they're a well-geared tank sitting over there by himself, not bothering anyone at all. Best to ignore him and go around him.",
"Aside from the fact that every male citizen is required to serve some time in the army (women can volunteer) and they all get to keep their guns at home? There's little to be gained from physically overrunning the country that you couldn't get more easily by just trading with them. They're hilly ranging to mountainous, and one of the major ways in is via the Alps, which has literally only ever worked for Hannibal. There's nothing on the other side of them that you couldn't just go around them to get. They've also been neutral for so long that nobody has a treaty requiring them to chip in to help an ally under attack, yet attacking the Swiss will piss off everyone else who's making/hiding money by respecting their neutrality. In short, it's not worth messing with the armed and heavily fortified rich kid who has no interest in your outside squabbles.",
"If you and another guy get into a fight at the pub, neither of you is interested in attacking the guy who's holding both your beers. Having a neutral party is very useful to both sides in a conflict."
],
"score": [
27,
13,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b62mki | Now that Article13 has been voted; what is going to change for me, a random european person on the internet? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejhj4wv",
"ejhihv5"
],
"text": [
"First, nothing will change in close to two years, as this is just a directive - not a law. What that means is, that each EU country has to interpret the directive and make their own laws that abide by it - and they have up to two years to do that. Second, what will change will depend on each individual law. However, as the internet doesn't stop at borders - it will most likely be more up to the strongest regulation amongst each country, as I personally doubt that plattforms will want to implement a different filter for each country, as just building one will be close to impossible and way to expensive. Third, it will be down to the individual plattforms on what they will change. They will now be liabel for copyright issues that their users cause. So depending on how they assess that risk, they will react. They will try to get good deals on licences from the big rights holders - however the rightsholders will have the ball in their court. If they can't get all licences (which will be impossible probably) they will have to implement upload filters. Filters, that will have to be fairly strict, so that they dont get hit by lawsuits. Since these filters wont be able to understand fair use etc. this will lead to a lot of headaches. This will hit small companies especially hard. They will probably have to buy the tech from Google or similar companies, making Europe even more dependent on the Valley. There is also the alternative, like YouTube has suggested, that User uploads could be shut down completly, giving the rights to upload only to big YouTubers, companies, media companies, MCNs etc. However, everything will be up to national laws and the individual plattforms reaction to the financial risk that comes from that, so all of this is just speculation. As a random user, that doesn't upload content yourself, all this could probably change, is, that in two years you might get less content to watch or less pictures to see on plattforms like YouTube, Twitch, Facebook or Instagram.",
"Likely nothing. Like most laws governing the internet, it is largely unenforceable. Remember when they tried to crack down on pirate torrents? A couple people got arrested, a couple websites for shutdown, a few people got warning letters from their ISP, but in general, most people carried on as usual."
],
"score": [
32,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b6ay08 | Why is “POC” (person of color) being used in the US today while “colored person” is historically regarded as very offensive? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejj8w8x",
"ejj4t1e",
"ejj7fab",
"ejjh7sp",
"ejjfmah",
"ejjhifv",
"ejj9ec8",
"ejjjw2k",
"ejjima0",
"ejjlxg9",
"ejjj9ut",
"ejjn0v0",
"ejjl32e",
"ejjnzhb"
],
"text": [
"It’s a way to have more person-first language. In my school, I am encouraged to call one of my students “a student with autism” instead of my “autistic student.” It’s not the only feature that defines that person, it’s just one of the many that make them up.",
"This is the standard \"conveyor belt\" for terms describing disadvantaged populations. Every new term is non-offensive for a while, then gradually takes on a condescending tone and has to be replaced, again and again. Consider also: crippled - > handicapped - > disabled - > differently abled - > person with a disability",
"Far from an expert, but logic seems to indicate: Homeless or Homeless Person stresses 'homeless' so it migrated to Person experiencing Homelessness. Disabled Person stresses 'disabled' so it migrated to Person with Disabilities. To some from a logical perspective the migration shifted to Differently-abled to reduce the sting of the 'dis' marker. But it seems that [Person with Disabilities]( URL_1 ) is the preferred nomenclature. Similarly 'Colored Person' (initially referring to those with African ancestry) stressed 'color'. That shifted to the more inclusive Person of Color, and that has since shifted to '[Racialized]( URL_0 )' to clarify that there is no default melanin content and the distinction (to some) my have an automatic separation/distancing involved.",
"The term \"colored\" was created by white people and was historically used to discriminate against them. The term \"people of color\" was coined by POCs so avoid referring to themselves with reference to white people, e.g. \"non-whites.\" The \"people first\" aspect is true, but that is more about why it was coined. The actual reason it is not offensive is that the people who it is used of coined it themselves, and thus don't consider it offensive. They recognize a difference, and thus \"person of color\" doesn't carry with it the racist connotations of \"colored person\" or even \"colored.\" Ultimately, that is how it always works. A term is offensive due to the people it is used against associating it with bigotry, and the least offensive term is one that the group coined for themselves. The exact forms this takes don't actually matter. ^() ^(*Edit: Small grammar fix*)",
"\"Colored person\" wasn't regarded as offensive historically (i.e., when it was being used), it's regarded as offensive today because of the history it represents.",
"Language is a mutable thing, and the \"pure meaning of the word\" or the dictionary meaning is not the only defining aspect of a language. Colored people were use a lot for the more segregated of USA ( colored people bathrooms, colored people places in the bus, and many other things), and it was more commonly used for black people. People of color was an alternative that activists believed would bring more of the \"I'm not only defined by race yet it is part of my history\". So, as most of our language, it's just how the history played out.",
"I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I think the phrasing \"person of color\", as opposed to \"colored person\", is supposed to emphasize the fact that the person being referenced is first and foremost a person, and then is a person who is not white as well. \"Colored person\" constrains the person's identity to only \"colored\", whereas \"person of color\" suggests that the person isn't totally defined by their race/ethnicity, but that their race/ethnicity is just one part of their identity. & #x200B; The same applies when speaking of a person experiencing homelessness (as opposed to \"homeless person\"), or a person with disabilities (as opposed to a \"disabled person\"). These terms are also kind of up to the people of disability/homelessness/color (or at least should be) and their own preferences.",
"When our nation was still figuring out integration we had used the term \"coloreds\" to refer specifically to blacks. Not Mexicans, native americans, Chinese etc. It was specifically in reference to blacks. Chinese, Mexicans, etc all had their own derogatory name that they could still quite openly use, as they were not a sensitive subject, and in many ways still are not. & #x200B;",
"Because the people who those terms are used to describe generally find one of those terms offensive and generally do not find the other one offensive, and they get to decide what offends them. It doesn't really matter if someone else thinks they are similar phrases or didn't understand the distinction. There are a lot of possible answers to both halves of your question, but ultimately all that matters is what the people the words describe feel about the description.",
"Follow-up question: In languages where the order of the words is reversed from English (noun verb), like French, is the equivalent of *person of color* used too, or do they use their normal *personne couleur*-equivalent?",
"It's because \"colored person\" was historically used in offensive and often violent ways. People of color have generally chosen not to reclaim it and instead ask that we use POC, so that's what we use. It's not quite on the same level as, say, the n-word, but it's still very bad form to use it.",
"i think of it as POC being an agreed upon choice of a descriptor while colored person was used degradingly against POC and now carries that negative connotation.",
"POC, even saying out the words, still sounds 100% stupid. I work with folks from like 7 different countries, and everyone saying white, black or asian, otherwise short/tall, if they are wearing a neon blue hat...whatever is easiest to quickly point out who they are talking about.",
"I work in a place that is probably 80% black people, and never *once* have I heard the term used by a single person. When I brought up the subject to one of my coworkers, they explained that both of them are pretty offensive. In his words, “we’ve been away from using ‘color or colored’ as a descriptor in the US for a looooong time.” I think the only people who use the term at all are liberal college kids tbh."
],
"score": [
2095,
254,
241,
80,
14,
14,
13,
10,
7,
6,
6,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialization",
"http://www.unitedspinal.org/pdf/DisabilityEtiquette.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b6bmfi | Why is the English language so phoetically inconsitent? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejja8vk",
"ejjeipr",
"ejl2jx8"
],
"text": [
"It becomes much less 'Phonetically inconsistent' when you spell the words correctly. /s The primary reason is because English borrows so many words from other languages. It borrows from Latin, French, Spanish, etc. It also has the problem a lot of languages have when words are invented all of the time; the way language was used is ever changing but people were inventing new words hundreds of years apart from one another, there was never a just one 'author'.",
"The British Isles spent most of early history being invaded by all sorts of different people with their different languages. Bits of those languages stuck around in the proto-germanic language that was originally there. So the structure of English is a lot like German, but most of the words are from old Latin or old French, some are from other Germanic languages, some were just made up, some are *neo*-Latin neo-Greek (basically words that were invented from existing words in a different language), some are nordic, it's just a mishmash of sources, a hodgepodge, a menagerie, a smorgasbord, hopefully the point I'm making is getting across.",
"English is no different than, and is just as consistent phonetically as any other language. The \"difficulty\" of English is that writing today does not match speaking, as it did at one time. Spelling is not language. English is actually a very simple language, morphologically speaking. That is, there is very little inflection... nouns, pronouns, determiners and verbs do not change very much based on their usage. Consider how highly inflected Latin, Greek, Russian, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit are. Learning the correct forms in Sanskrit are, in a word, a bitch. This is considering that my name, for example, can have 24 different forms depending on how it's used. Learning to ***speak*** English is quite simple; reading and writing are the problem."
],
"score": [
15,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b6tjg8 | How was Lil Pump’s Gucci Gang music video produced? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejn2zgn"
],
"text": [
"Is there really much of a mystery to it? They rented out a school, hired a bunch of extras to dance, and added in a CGI tiger."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b6tot2 | Why are humans so drawn to the Water? (SRivers, Seas, Ocean,...) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejn3yo0"
],
"text": [
"I don't think its so much the view that attracts people as it is the activities available there. Fishing, boating, jet skiing, sunbathing, parasailing, seafood, swimming, the wildlife, the list goes on and on. The change of scenery is nice every once in a while. If you live in a big city with the constant traffic, noise, hustle and bustle, the allure of seeing something calming and different is something we all experience at some times."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b6uodp | Northern Ireland Backstop in relation to Brexot | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejn8qrj"
],
"text": [
"Northen ireland is a complex issue. Im not irish or from the Ulster so my understanding might be lacking but i will try. The thing is that Ireland was a British colony for a long time, and one thing you have to understand is that when Henry the 8th declared independence from the Catholic church to fund the church of England basically turning protestant alienated Catholics. And when Ireland was part of the UK it was mostly catholic, There were laws against Catholics and wide discrimination apart from the Irish independence movement and resentment towards the crown, from wars fraught to the British policies that lead to and during the Irish potato famine. The thing is that while Ireland gained its independence the Ulster which had a Protestant majority due to converts and English immigrants remained part of the UK and that has lead to years of terrorism and social infighting between Catholics and Protestants in northern Ireland. Now with the good Friday accords in which most unionist and nationalist militias handed over their weapons and agreed to a political solution combined with the UK and Ireland both being in the UE which meant that the border between the UK and Ireland was basically non existent for practical terms. Ireland was \"united\" but still the Catholics were under Catholic rule and the protestants were under the rule of the UK and the Ulster was self governed. Now with brexit the problem is that all political and economic borders with the UK and EU member states will be restored, meaning that the northern Ireland border with Ireland will be enforced again and will require travel visas meaning Ireland will be divided again. So part of the Brexit deals which were negotiated were to leave Northern Ireland as a open border for irish citizens so brexit would have a lesser impact on the political stability of northern Ireland, but since all brexit deals have been rejected that seems unlikely and its probable that Brexit will bring more conflict to northern Ireland."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b6xkeu | Sometimes movie trailers show shots that are then reversed in the actual film, why is this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejnpsp1"
],
"text": [
"Many times, they want disparate clips in a trailer to appear to be part of the same scene when in actuality they have nothing to do with each other. Manipulating these clips with editing (such as mirroring the clip) can help create that illusion."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b762tx | if you need to have signed consent to audio/video record people, how do cops and investigative journalists not get sued for secret cameras and wire recordings? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejpigow"
],
"text": [
"1 - These laws vary by state. In some states it's OK for one party to record the other without informing the other party (called \"one party consent statutes\"). In 2014 there were 38 states and one federal district that had such laws. 2 - If a police is recording someone without informing them, then it is almost guaranteed to be a part of an investigation where that collection method was authorized. 3 - Even in \"all party consent\" states, they might specify that the recording is prohibited over telephones or internet calls, for instance, but in person recordings might be tolerable. If you're having a conversation at a cafe with someone, for instance, it might be allowed to record them without their knowledge because it's a public place where one would not have an expectation of privacy."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b79uyd | Why is "imposter syndrome" so prevalent now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejq8njr",
"ejq6olz"
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of reasons, but I suspect social media is one of the main culprits. We are constantly being deluged with the \"best\" parts of other peoples lives (what they want us to see) and assuming that is their average. We know how bad our worst is, and so it brings down what our internal average is. So we think other people are doing better than they are, we are doing worse than we are, and are totally worried other people are going to realize how poorly we are doing. So we double down on proving to others how well we are doing, and the more we do that, the more worried we are that they're going to find us out. Meanwhile, we're putting on our best face so the other poor sap sees how well we're doing, knows how poorly they are doing, and can't let anyone else see that, because then we'd realize how poorly they are doing. So they double down on proving...",
"First of all, almost everything is machine made, so most of what we create will never live up what a machine can make. It's become easier to buy something than to make something so we've lost our drive to create, engineer, and build. Secondly, we have created a society where nothing is concrete anymore. Men and women are expected to change, so many people already hide 'who they really are' because they don't want to be chastised. We've made a society of social media where people's entire self worth thrives on internet points. It's this combination of knowing we can't make anything, hiding who we are, but wanting to be amazing for the internet attention that's created imposter syndrome."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b7fsbt | Why are Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. considered "real religions" while ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Greek polytheism considered mythology? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejref26",
"ejrekjr",
"ejrd702",
"ejrdkcs",
"ejrh163",
"ejrfoyv",
"ejri26a",
"ejrg5yi",
"ejrh8xq"
],
"text": [
"Because it still has active believers. If Christianity had died out a thousand years ago we’d see it the same way we see the Norse gods. Jesus could have been a member of The Avengers if history had played out a little differently.",
"From a sociological perspective, it's not so much about the \"credibility\" of the scriptures as it is about the people who practice them. There are very, very few people who observe the rites and rituals of the ancient Egyptians, Romans, or Greeks; and there are billions who observe those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. A religion becomes mythology when there isn't a significant community that really believes it anymore. From an objective perspective, the body of the myths are just as powerful (or just as ridiculous) as the scriptures. There is tremendous beauty in any religious text, but you're more likely to feel compelled by a particular text if you were raised in a culture that appreciates it and uses it as a frame of reference.",
"Question: Is Hinduism considered mythology? It’s been practiced FAR longer than all the other mainstream religions. Also Not an answer but, In 2000 years there might be a new widespread religion that overtakes the Abrahamic ones and cast them into the realm of Mythology.",
"Well, mythology is part of a religion. The mythology is the writings that are the basis of the religion, religions have many more components than just the mythology. They have rituals (Praying 5 times a day towards Mecca, Communion, the observance of the Passover), the mythology, and the believers. The confusion comes from the fact that we commonly only study the mythology of these ancient religions- because they're the only things left- and this has led to the word colloquially referring to those whole religions, and used to demean religions as a whole or other religions that you want to insult. If you study just the stories, you study the mythology. If you study how these stories affected the lives of people in ancient Egypt, then you're studying the religion.",
"Mythology is the beliefs and stories, and Religion is the rites, rituals, and practices that living people today participate in. Christianity/Islam/Judaism DO have mythologies, they just also have living people to do the rites, rituals, and practices that make up their religion. Terms like \"Real\" religion are emotion-based words that aren't logical nor factual, and wouldn't be useful in an actual discussion of this subject, btw.",
"Mythology didn't always mean what it means now by context... Instead mythology was more inline with being like a story or a legend/tale, meaning it didn't have this connotation of being fake persay as a legend or tale could be either fact or fiction. A lot of stories got referred to as myths and it kind of stuck while how we used the term myth started to shift towards a fictional tale. At least this is what answer (shortened) that I got when I was asking one of the English professors (a lot of his classes are covering things like Homers Iliad and historical writings and stuff) at my school.",
"They're all religions. The older ones are dead. They're all also mythologies. The difference is that religion is an organized practice of worship, whereas mythology is the collected stories and characters told by a culture, usually but not always attached to a religion. Samson is part of judeo christian mythology, but not their religious practices.",
"Because current historians follow current religions and not dead religions. If they accepted that dead religions were religions, it would diminish the one they are following: calling the dead ones \"myth\" is a way to put them down, which raises the stature of their own in comparison. People like to distinguish between the supernatural beliefs they hold true and those they hold false. This is one way to do that.",
"Ancient Greek polytheism was considered mythology by many of its own adherents. You really wouldn’t find an educated Pagan who held the stories were an accurate reflection of divine agency in the cosmos (see Plotinus, Plato, for two examples)—that’s why folks like Julian tried to revive a Neoplatonic Paganism that had the intellectual vitality to respond to Christianity. That’s why Plato can talk about the age old feud between philosophy and poetry. In brief, the chief failure of Paganism was the fact that civic officials and educated gentlemen would go and perform sacrifices then write polemics criticizing the practice once they got home. That’s why we consider religions of that ilk ‘myth’—they weren’t taken seriously in their flanderized form even in their own day. Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, were able to compel at once the poor man and the philosopher."
],
"score": [
635,
131,
40,
26,
22,
8,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b7obad | What is grey area rape and what is a specific example of it? | While I’m familiar with the term, I still can’t see how it would be applied to a rape case. A common interpretation is that it applies to when one person is to intoxicated to consent but to me that would just be straight up rape since the person is incapable of consent. Another definition of grey rape I’ve been given is the regret after a sexual encounter. In this instance I feel like this is not rape since consent was established. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejt69xq",
"ejt0lk5",
"ejt0zt4"
],
"text": [
"Regret afterwards does not make it rape. It's about the consent at the time of the act, not afterwards. & #x200B; A few things to consider: & #x200B; \\- Consent must exist at all times during the act, and for all activities. \\- Consent can be withdrawn during the act and it must therefore stop immediately. \\- Consent may be limited to certain acts, but not others. \\- There are other aspects of consent (e.g use of a condom / stealthing) that must be respected. \\- Consent must be given freely. Coercion, blackmail, threat of job loss etc don't constitute consent. & #x200B; There are also concepts such as \"playing hard to get\" and \"reluctance\" and the \"art of seduction\" (convincing someone to have sex) that are accepted culturally as a normal part of the process. & #x200B; It's not a one-dimensional sliding scale from \"honeymooners shagging like rabid weasels\" to \"physical stranger rape\" upon which you can place a red line and say \"everything after THIS point is rape.\" It's more like a two or three-dimensional thing. & #x200B; Each aspect of consent also has a sliding scale. \\- Owe your friend money, and they want you to 'pay another way'? Sure, if you want, but do you see that as playful and sexy, or coercion and threatening? \\- Met a rich person in a bar? Make the beast, then find out they are not rich? Well, so you were lied to, so was your consent invalid because it was based upon a lie? Or did you have dollar signs in your eyes, which might be confused with a much, much older profession... \\- Got a little drunk at a costume party and dragged your boyfriend (who dressed as a gorilla) upstairs for a bonk... Then you find out you grabbed the wrong gorilla... Is your consent invalid because you consented to sex with your boyfriend, not this other person? Or because you were drunk? Or is 'mistaken identity' a basis for a rape claim? What is the 'wrong gorilla' knew that they were benefiting from mistaken identity, and that you would not consent if you knew it was them? (Ohio revised code 2907.03 (A) (4)) & #x200B; Trying to write laws around the nuanced dance of human courtship is is exercise in futility. The best they can do it take broad strokes at outlawing certain types of thing based upon age, upon power disparity, upon ability to freely consent etc. The rest of the detail will come by way of court precedent as the more precise questions are asked. & #x200B; & #x200B; TL;DR Any time you hear of a case that you can't immediately place as \"obviously consensual\" or \"obviously rape\" falls into that grey area. & #x200B; & #x200B;",
"Let's start with that regret after a sexual encounter has never and hopefully will never have anything to do with rape. Personally what I imagine is that there are scenarios where person Y and X are in a situation where social norms dictates that both are down for some action and often alcohol is involved. (By this is mean flirting and going home to one of the two) When they finally get to the bedroom (or any other place) one of the parties is too drunk to signal that they no longer wish to take it further. Mix that in with the other person too intoxicated to read the signals given. Another example could be a tenant and landlady. The tenant can't make rent this month, so the landlord suggest a more \"natural\" solution and they have sex. Unrealistic scenario I hope. But one could say that the consent the tenant gave was due to pressure of not wanting to live on the street. He didn't want to have sexual intercourse with the landlady. It's a difficult question to answer and even harder to make a reasonable law. Grey rape is cases where we as a society don't agree.",
"Those scenarios are grey because consent is unclear, just as in any other verbal agreement. Think of it like buying something at the store, with no upfront exchange of cash. You get something different than what you thought you signed up for (demeaning sex for instance instead of something tender and sensitive). That person feels like something was done to them that they didn't consent to. On the other hand the other person understands that consent to sex was given and sex happened, no body said anything about what type, so how can that person now be at risk of criminal liability? On the other side, take the example to a bar with a drunk patron. The person is stone sober when they buy the first drink, by the last drink they clearly we're not in a sound state of mind, and the bartender just billed a whole keg to drain their credit card. Nobody would let a charge back on the first drink, but the bar would have a real hard time justifying the keg sale. How does either party to that sexual encounter derive where the consent line is? A thought here:. The contract consent framework usually used for consent in law is kind of messed up given the stakes of rape, and that few people are really thinking about intimate relationships in contact terms. Marriage has the same issues."
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b81bu4 | Why are there letters/alphabets | Why aren’t all written languages pictorial? When did letters get invented and why? And who decided the order of letters in the alphabets? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejvaovd"
],
"text": [
"Because it's easier to convey the sound of words when you have pre-approved phonetic sounds linked to letters or letter combinations. Writing is a biproduct of verbal language in almost all cases and it's useful because you can convey both objects and concepts, as well as names, without needing to create separate images for each. It's easy to draw a tree instead of the word tree, but drawing \"happiness\" is more difficult, and having a unique symbol for every word can get very messy and complicated, as is the case in some pictoral languages (Which in turn is why such languages often use the same symbol for several words with context determining usage). As for it's creation; each language has its own origin, but \"English\" has been in development for centuries. It has elements of Latin, Greek, Arabic and even Runic symbols. Incidentally, this is also why english has elements of each of these languages in its spoken form as well. The reason for the order is, essentially \"Because we've always done it in that order\". The exact order likely formed naturally and arbitrarily as the language was developed and keeping it in a roughly formal order just made it easier to communicate and teach. An old monk named Byrhtferth produced the first known writing of the alphabet in its true \"order\" in the early 11th century, although it wasn't exactly the same as english we know now: > A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z & ⁊ Ƿ Þ Ð Æ notice that J, U and W are all missing, while we have several unused letters like Ampersand ( & ) now just written as \"And\" as well as ash (Æ) which we see occasionally in words like \"Anæmia\", but isn't commonly used. This order, however, seems to have stuck, even as the exact alphabet changed over the last thousand years."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b82xmb | What is this so-called 'virtue signaling' and why is it considered a bad thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejvi8jx",
"ejvkdyt",
"ejvific"
],
"text": [
"That's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot today. It's basically when you make a big show of doing or saying something good but really you're just doing it so that everybody sees you doing something good and thinks you're a good person rather than doing it to just be a good person.",
"It's supposed to mean that someone is only publicly speaking out against something bad done against someone else because they get something out of it. And sometimes that might be so. Most of the time, it's something people say when they don't believe that anyone *ever* does anything for someone else without wanting to get something out of it, because they can't imagine that anyone ever would. It's an accusation that says more about the person making it than it does the target.",
"Virtue-signalling is when someone in the dominant group for a given identity category (race, gender, gender identity, class, sexual orientation, disability, etc) expresses outrage over a perceived slight to a non-dominant group as a way of showing how informed or caring they are. (That is, they are signalling their virtue.) Sometimes in doing so, they inadvertently screw over the group they are ostensibly trying to protect. For example, if someone posted a question in AskReddit that began \"Queers of Reddit,\" and a straight person commented, \"Queer is a slur, and you really shouldn't post that,\" that might be virtue signalling. It's particularly a problem in this example because it's uninformed, in that many people self-identify as \"queer\" including, perhaps, the poster. It's considered a bad thing because it isn't totally sincere and is often about brownie points."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b878mv | Why is the abbreviation of Thursday "R"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejw83kt"
],
"text": [
"Personal preference. I’ve seen Tuesday abbreviated with Tu and Thursday with Th on the same calendar."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b8behq | Why and how did Old English change to the English we speak today? | Additionally have all or most languages shifted similarly? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejwwzhm",
"ejwxbkh"
],
"text": [
"All languages mutate and change over time. Modern English, in a form that we can understand is around 500 years old (give or take). Before that we had medieval English which composed of a mixture of English, medieval French and Latin. Before that we had Old English as it's called. This was primarily a mixture of Germanic dialects, old Norse and some French and Celtic influences. Old English to Medieval English came because of the conquest of England and the implementation of French as the language of nobility and Latin as the language of the written word. Medieval English changed to Modern English with the invention of the printing press and the Tyndale bible which allowed the general population to learn to read in their native tongue and introduced the written word to a wider audience. Language is an ever changing and adapting being, whether it's borrowing words from other languages or changing the meaning of words or making up new ones. If you want any more proof, just speak to a teenager nowadays.",
"It's like how language is changing now, just over hundreds of years. Phrases get misheard (\"for all intents and purposes\" could become \"for all intensive purposes\"), memes catch on (maybe \"yeet\" will be added to the dictionary one day), regional dialects separate and come back together, we borrow from other languages, etc"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b8itbf | why does months have names and not just number? | Title | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejy0doz",
"ejy372y",
"ejxzo97"
],
"text": [
"Some of the names are actually just numbers, September, October, November and December mean the seventh, eighth, nineth and tenth month. Some of the other months are named after roman gods and emperors. Over time, some emperors changed the calander a bit (and named a month after themselves) which is why the numbers are no longer correct.",
"In Japan the months are simply numbered. 4月2日 is April 2nd. 月 is moon or month 日 is day Works perfectly. In China weekdays are simply numbered from 1 to 7.",
"Imagine how difficult it would be to say just numbers for months. \"I'll see you on the 10th of the 9th.\" Would be really confusing. Have a name for months and numbers for days makes a lot more sense."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b8j7z3 | How do victims of facial disfigurement prove their identities? | I always had this question and every once and a while it would pop back into my mind, but I was never able to figure it out. What would happen if you had a massive facial disfigurement that would leave you unrecognizable – Failed suicide attempt, massive trauma, burn victims, etc – and you had to travel or provide evidence of your identity, how would you prove that the person in the ID card you have is you? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejy201c",
"ejy6gyk"
],
"text": [
"Surely you’d just get new ID with an updated photo?",
"Modern passports and IDs (depending on your country) have biometric data in them. Also you can always get a new ID with a new photo. But this reminds me of my last trip to USA, I asked one of the customs officers when he was scanning my thumb, that what would they scan if they couldn't scan that finger or person had no fingers. He said: \"We'll always find something to scan\"."
],
"score": [
15,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b8jwbe | how is the neo nazi movement treated in modern day Germany? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejy743s"
],
"text": [
"Non-parody, non-historically educating displays of Nazi imagery in Germany are completely illegal. If you go out with a swastika on your arm, you are the one that will go to jail. While there might be some slapwrist charges for people that attack you (and there will be) you will be the one in deeper shit. But don't quote me on how much trouble the others will be in."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b8q0gp | How do camera crews filming with or hunting along side jungle tribes communicate that they want to film a documentary and go about setting it up? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejzed90"
],
"text": [
"They likely have a local fixer to communicate. You have to understand a crew is many people you don't every see on camera. Hell, there's probably even a PA dragging a cooler full of water and snacks there."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b8u9h0 | Why do Americans seem to plant flags and political messages in front of their houses? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ek08bp8",
"ek09ic9",
"ek08hcc"
],
"text": [
"flags are just a statement about having American pride, something instilled into us from a young age that many never grow out of. political signs probably fall under the same light, as people tend to have a lot of pride in which side of history they're on.",
"My family always has a flag out (except in winter and late fall) even when we don't support the current government because we support the foundation the country was found on...in terms of political statements on signs, that's for the crazies, normal Americans don't post their believes on their yard and if you do then you are on of the crazies",
"I’d say it’s about a 50/50 split, and for the half that does it it’s usually only for special occasions—U.S. flags on Independence Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, etc. and political yardsigns during the leadup to an election. It’s very rare to see anyone just have an American flag and a Trump sign outside every day of the year, but those obnoxious folks do exist. (In my experience though, religious signs are more common—the “Thank You Jesus!” yardsign is extremely popular in the south where I live)"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b977wo | Where does the English term "Bloody good" come from? or more specifically what "bloody" means in the language context for euphemisms.. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ek2ttat",
"ek36zb6"
],
"text": [
"It's like \"that's fucking great\". \"Fucking\" here emphasizes the word great, there's no sex happening. Bloody was historically a rude word so got used in a similar way.",
"According to Wikipedia, there’s no clear origin for “bloody” as an intensifier word. But there are some possibilities: URL_0"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
b9cpyk | How did denim become so popular? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ek3lf1m",
"ek3q0sq"
],
"text": [
"In 1849 when gold was discovered in California, the miners who flocked there to see their fortune just wore normal pants, and they wore out too quickly. An enterprising tent maker saw there was a need and started making very heavy duty pants out of the excess denim he didn't need for his tent making business. They sold better than the tents, so he eventually gave up the tent business and started making jeans full time. His name was Levi Strauss. So jeans have always been the go to pants for tough and dirty jobs, but as time went on people began to wear them for everyday use. Then they started to make other stuff out of them, jackets, etc.",
"Actually, Levi Strauss was just a successful dry goods wholesaler and not a pants maker. The original blue jeans creator was a tent maker named Jacob Davis. Davis went into an agreement with Strauss as a way to get help patenting the riveted pockets in the durable pants he created for Nevada mines. The riveted pockets were one of the main reasons the jeans held up so well, and it was this that made them popular as well as stand out. Levi was successful in getting the pants patented and he and Davis both became very successful due to Levi's honest nature and business savvy."
],
"score": [
7,
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.