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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
d0pa3l | Why are countries known under different names depending on what language they are said in? | I am aware that accent and pronunciation are difficult to nail by foreign speakers, but for example why is Deutschland referred to as Germany by English speakers and many other names in other languages? That isn’t a slightly different pronunciation of the country because of the restrictions of the English language but a totally different word. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezbbi26",
"ezbbj4t",
"ezbehev",
"ezbez35",
"ezbbm1h"
],
"text": [
"Usually because the plot of land has been labeled different things by different groups throughout time. So you have Burma/Myanmar, Deutschland/the Germanies, Iran+Afghanistan/Persia, etc. This is often easier to understand with cities, such as New York/New Amsterdam or Leningrad/St. Petersburg.",
"The reason that Germany is called that is it is an English name for the location. It is called Deutschland, is because that is the name for the region in the German language. Alemania in Spanish is because that is the Spanish word for that region. The words actually have different meanings. From Wikipedia Alamannia or Alemannia was the territory inhabited by the Germanic Alemanni peoples after they broke through the Roman limes in 213. The Alemanni expanded from the Main River basin during the 3rd century, raiding Roman provinces and settling on the left bank of the Rhine River beginning in the 4th century.",
"Usually it's Endonym which is what the people call themselves vs Exonym which is how other people call them. So if you take Germany for exemple have 5 main origin for their name depending on the language. So for almost all Germanic languages (German, Dutch and Scandinavian) the origin is the pto-germanic þiudiskaz which mean of the people. So Deustchland mean the Land of the People, Deustche being the people, the german people. So this is an endonym, that's how they call themselves. The second origin is Latin. The word most likely have a Gaulish origin, Remi (which are a tribe of Gauls) allies of Julius Ceasar would speak of the Germani, which were people on the other side of the Rhine. That stay in the Roman language as Germani was the people and Germania was the place. The two other origin are from two specific Germanic tribes, the Alamanni and Saxon tribes. The name of those specific tribes became representative of all Germanic tribes in those languages.",
"A while back I took a business trip to Poland. I had heard people talk about the name of this city we were going to and to my ears, it sounded like the words \"brought\" and \"suave\" said quickly together--Brotswav, or something like that. Now I am no linguist but I was aware different languages treat letters like W, V, R, and C differently. Still, it took me a while to figure out that what I heard as \"Brotswav\" is spelled \"Wroclaw.\" Then I go to change planes in Frankfurt and the gate says Breslau. Seriously? What the fuck is Breslau? Well, actually when a Germans pronounces \"Breslau\" and a Pole pronounces \"Wroclaw,\" they don't actually sound that different. The German name is, in fact, likely a cognate of the Polish name, but you can see how, over time, spelling and pronunciation can also lead to very different names for the same place.",
"In response to the exact example of Germany, the Latin term for the general region was Germania, and some regions (including England) continued to call it that over time. Sometimes, countries are referred to under different names because of misunderstandings, like how Americans called people from the Netherlands the \"Dutch\" -- they were misunderstood to be German, or Deutsch. Other times, the language sort of exerts itself in naming things. In German, France is called Frankreich, \"rule of the Franks,\" more or less. In Spanish, England is called Inglaterra, and in French, Inglaterre, which is still basically \"land of the Ingles/Angles.\""
],
"score": [
11,
9,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d0topl | I just learned via a map of the all of our planet's territories that the Armenian genocide is rejected in only 1 state here, Mississippi. What's the reason for this because that seriously confuses me? Is there some bizarre influx of Turks there or something? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezdfe9b"
],
"text": [
"They have not formally recognized it through legislation, that is not the same as rejecting it. But if you have evidence to the contrary please feel free to provide them."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d0zvwz | What is the point of middle names and why are they so common? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezftqu1",
"ezfumfk",
"ezfr765"
],
"text": [
"Their purpose is to better identify individuals. Your last name is shared by the whole family, and often others whose families held similar professions who are not at all related to you. This leaves only the first name as an identifier for individuals and that is rather limited. By having two names you greatly increase the number of unique identifiers possible.",
"Middle names are a cultural tradition, and cultures around the world have had different naming traditions for thousands of years. In Western cultures where middle names are common, the middle name is often the name of an ancestor, so that the baby gets their first name, then a middle name to honor their dad or grandma or a great-great uncle, etc. In Europe in the Middle Ages, people often wanted to honor a saint, so they'd give their kid a saint's name as their middle name. That way they could kind of honor their religion, while still giving the kid an individual first name. In Russian culture, it's long been common for the middle name to be a Patronymic, which is a modified version of the father's first name. So like if your dad was named Ivan Sokolov, if you're a girl your name would be (first name) Ivanovna Sokolov, and if you're a boy your name would be (first name) Ivanovich Sokolov. In ancient Rome people also had three names, except their first name was your personal identifier, the middle name was your family name (we use the family name as a last name in Western culture), and your last name would reflect which branch of that family you come from. This often only applied to men, though. Women often only had the first name and family name, and slaves might only have a first name. In Scandinavian culture, often there wasn't any middle name. it was just your first name, and then your father's first name with -daughter or -son tacked on the end. So if your dad's name was August, and you were a boy, your name would be (first name) Augustsen.",
"Names were often the profession or the location you were born so there might be quite a few John Smiths so in order to separate them out you add a middle name."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d18vob | Why are the penises of Ancient Greek and Roman statues so abnormally small? | I had a conversation with a mate a few days ago which eventually led to this question and it has been haunting me since. Did every notable male in history have a microdick? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezizerf",
"ezj1yiz",
"ezj2spq",
"ezlr3dr",
"ezkmpjo"
],
"text": [
"In greek society it was unsightly to have a large penis, a product of their social norms. Obviously not all men had small penises so most greek statues are carved with a very flaccid penis to simulate the ideal of the time.",
"It was an intentional choice. The Greeks and Romans idealises sexual restraint and believed horny men were little more than animals. They also believed that your body refected your true nature. So they believed symbolically a good man had a small cock. To quote aristophanes on the ideal man \"This is the right way for you, my lad, and if you do what I say you'll be eternally blessed with a strapping body, a gleaming complexion, huge shoulders, a tiny little tongue, big buttocks, and a small cock. Should you choose to follow the fashion currently in vogue amongst the young men of this city, then it'll be pasty skin, round shoulders, concave chest, an enormous tongue, no arse, a great hunk of meat, and a very long . . . turn of phrase!\"",
"Power. Notice the testicles are always enlarged. Sex was about spreading the seed of the heir. Only heathens have large penises, and hence were considered lesser beings.",
"This came up in a human sexuality class I was taking once. The professor responded something along the lines of the ancient Greeks thought big genitals were gross/distasteful. Girl who had established that she was married, raised her hand and said that the statue seemed big to her. Her husband walked her to class everyday and I couldn’t make eye contact with the guy.",
"The art reflects the social imagine that men with small penises were more intelligent. Stop if you ever see a statue of a man with a large penis it was the artist showing the guy was an idiot."
],
"score": [
36,
33,
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d1ab48 | How do websites like "Ancestry" work. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezjl1sa"
],
"text": [
"There’s a lot of new features getting rolled out all the time (like the genetic testing) but at its core, it works really similarly to Wikipedia. You can go in and put into your family tree all the people you can remember, or all the people you can find evidence of in your family records. When you and other people add enough people, it creates a huge web of family trees. Ancestry also hires people to do research and to scan people registries in historical libraries in order to increase the amount of documentation that they have on their site. I used to work in a historical library digitizing the old books, and there was a small Ancestry team there too who were digitizing the 19th century city census stuff. They expand their library of documentation through historical records and the genetic testing, you go in and do a search, you click the people who were related to you and add them to your family tree."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d1kdtp | how the general fashion sense changes every ten years or so and fashion repeats after every few decades? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezn12ku"
],
"text": [
"Fashion changes because some people want to be fashionable. They want to be different than others. Standard fashion starts with the rich and filters down. When the middle class starts wearing it the rich stop. This also applies to naming children."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d1siek | How and/or when did the Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings, etc came up with the name of their gods? | \*If these gods "existed" way before them (As in almost every civilization has primordial gods in one way or another), how or when did these gods received their names? \*Or are these names something archaeologists interpreted from discoveries regarding said civilizations? \*Are these names like Zeus, for example, a really accurate translation of their original names? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezpnycw"
],
"text": [
"The Greek/Roman/Norse/Germanic gods developed alongside the languages. The names similarly changed. We do have texts written about all those gods in a phonographic alphabet so we know how they pronounced the names. For example Dyeus Phater (Day father or Light father) would be pronounced slightly differently in different regions of Europe over centuries and would become both Dipeter or Jupiter and also Zeus Peter in Greek and Roman languages respectively. In Germanic languages however Dyeus became Tiwaz and then in Norse Tyr. This is just like any other words in the language changes over time."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d1x5q5 | why did western occupations of countries such as Germany and Japan succeed in establishing stable governments, while many attempts at this in Latin America and the Middle East Gail? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezqt8ob",
"ezrtsmo",
"ezsjlru"
],
"text": [
"Occupation of Germany and Japan followed the WWII and it was an agreement of the peace treaty. Occupation in other parts of the world was due to colonisation. In one case the old gouvernement agree —in some part—, in the other, it is without the will of the occupied.",
"I suppose a lot of this has to do with what the actual intentions of the occupiers were. In West Germany and Japan the goal was to facilitate the growth of strong capitalist states that could help to oppose the Soviet Union. In Latin America and the middle East however the goal has often been to secure western economic interests. There are countless examples of the CIA instigating the overthrow of democratically elected governments all over the world, almost always to keep the country's resources open to US exploitation. It's a huge part of the reason why so many middle Eastern and South American countries are unstable today.",
"The West had a vested interest in making sure Western Germany/Europe and Japan succeeded because of the Cold War. Your premise is that the West wants Latin America to have strong, stable governments. They want them to have the \"correct\" government (a Pinochet figure, for instance)."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d20j6m | Why did various cultures develop (and continue to use) their own languages but it seems the whole world uses the same number symbols in base 10? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezrw3nu"
],
"text": [
"Oh there are many cultures that do not and have never used base 10. The Oksapmin people of New Guinea have a base-27 counting system. The words for numbers are the words for the 27 body parts they use for counting, starting at the thumb of one hand, going up to the nose, then down the other side of the body to the pinky of the other hand, as shown in the drawing. 'One' is tip\\^na (thumb), 6 is dopa (wrist), 12 is nata (ear), 16 is tan-nata (ear on the other side), all the way to 27, or tan-h\\^th\\^ta (pinky on the other side). Tzotzil, a Mayan language spoken in Mexico, has a vigesimal, or base-20, counting system. Yoruba, a Niger-Congo language spoken in West Africa, also has a base-20 system, but it is complicated by the fact that for each 10 numbers you advance, you add for the digits 1-4 and subtract for the digits 5-9. In Alamblak, a language of Papua New Guinea, there are only words for 1, 2, 5, and 20, and all other numbers are built out of those. So 14 is (5x2)+2+2, and 59 is (20x2)+(5x(2+1))+(2+2) Ndom, another language of Papua New Guinea, has a base-6, or [senary]( URL_2 ) number system. It has basic words for 6, 18, and 36 and other numbers are built with reference to those. The Papua New Guinea language Huli uses a base-15, or [pentadecimal]( URL_0 ) system. In Bukiyip, another Papua New Guinea language also known as Mountain Arapesh, there are two counting systems, and which one you use depends on what you are counting. Coconuts, days, and fish are counted in base-3. Betel nuts, bananas, and shields are counted in base-4. Supyire, a Niger-Congo language spoken in Mali has basic number words for 1, 5, 10, 20, 80 and 400, and builds the rest of the numbers from those. In Nimbia, a dialect of the Gwandara language of Nigeria, multiples of 12 are the basic number words around which everything else is built. The number 29 is gume bi ni biyar ((12x2)+5), and 95 is gume bo'o ni kwada ((12x7)+11). However, as more dominant cultures have spread around the world (for example, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman empire, the British empire, etc) they've brought their languages and counting systems to new places, and as our world has recently becomes far more connected and global, people realized that we need to choose a standardized system that everyone can use, just so people in different places can communicate effectively. Kind of like how English has become one of the most accepted languages for business communication, we also needed a widely-understood number sytem. If you're interested in learning more about the various counting systems in the world, check out this link: [ URL_1 ]( URL_1 )"
],
"score": [
84
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentadecimal",
"http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/ts/language/number.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senary"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d22uu1 | Why is it so hard to talk to people we like, for the first time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezsguz3"
],
"text": [
"Because the easiest thing for every human to do is think the worst about themselves and dwell on that. We spend so much time worrying about our flaws we forget the other person is just worrying about theirs too much to even notice ours."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d26eo4 | What's it called when someone disagrees with a point that you have made, but instead of trying to refute it with logical arguments, they take the high ground, throw an insult, and say that it's beneath them to even argue this and you should know why they are disagreeing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezszlt4",
"ezszpu8",
"ezt03f1"
],
"text": [
"It’s the ad hominem fallacy. It means that they are attacking the person instead of their argument, which is an invalid way to argue/debate",
"It's sometimes called the \"True Scotsman\" Argument. Basically it goes like someone says no true Scotsman would put sugar in his porridge. When you provide them with evidence to the contrary, they would just take the moral high ground and say that's not a \"True\" Scotsman. This makes the argument basically Non-debatable",
"> they take the high ground To take the high ground means to *do* right rather than to *be* right. In your example, the person disagreeing with you would \"take the high ground\" by deciding your friendship is more important to them than winning the argument. They may concede the point or find another way to stop arguing. They would *do* right (preserve the friendship), rather *be* right (win the fight). IDK the word or phrase you are looking for in the remainder of your question. E: words"
],
"score": [
49,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d27opq | Why are the paintings of Picasso so popular? In the grand scheme of things they seem quite basic. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezt7opt"
],
"text": [
"A lot of people don't realize that Picasso spent [much of his early years doing realism]( URL_0 ). The non realism quality of his later art was through choice, not through lack of ability. What he did that set him apart, and set the entire art world on a different path, was abandon the concept of perspective. In his own words he painted things as he 'thought' them, not as he 'saw' them. In other words he was attempting to capture the spatial reality of objects by painting them literally from multiple perspectives at once. This led him to develop the style of cubism which had far reaching legacy throughout all art up to the present day."
],
"score": [
24
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://images.app.goo.gl/ZwPi7ZEeEv9dM6Rk7"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d2c4qa | Why does english have multiple letter combinations that produce the exact same sound such as F and PH? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezty09x",
"eztydlv"
],
"text": [
"Something along these lines: In Ancient Greek, the letter (phi) had a soft and a hard pronunciation. When this was translated into Latin, the different pronunciations were changed into F and PH. Over time, pronunciation began to go away and today we are left with the same sound.",
"Languages are like legos Some languages have pieces all from the same set. A set that was made to build the language. Some languages use the pirate minifigs on the medieval castles. English takes apart every set into individual pieces and then rebuilds them into something that looks good if you remember that the blue pieces are water, sky, armour, wallpaper and R2D2 and you just have to know what it is in each individual word."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d2ct1d | What's the difference between sarcasm and irony? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezu2e3h",
"ezu2kuk",
"ezugbfm"
],
"text": [
"Irony: A man steals €5 from someone. Later that day it's stolen from him. Sarcasm: A man steals €5 from someone. His friend asks if he's going to give it back. \"Yeah, sure, I'm totally going to give this back\" he says, with absolutely no intention of giving it back.",
"Sarcasm is a rhetorical effect that people utilise when speaking. Irony is a state of being of circumstances; it's not something people can do/say. Specifically, irony is a state in which something occurs that is the opposite or counter to the expected outcome. For example, if my dog is sick and I take her to the vet, and on my way to the vet I hit and kill a cat in the road, that's ironic (credit to Bo Burnham; listen to his song \"Ironic\") because I kill another animal while trying to save mine.",
"[Your Dictionary: Examples of Irony]( URL_1 ) 3 Types of Irony 1. Dramatic 2. Situational 3. Verbal **Dramatic irony** is used in movies and novels by providing the audience with extra details that the characters don't know. This leads to differences between percieved reality/events and the reality of what really happens. **Situational irony** is when the expected situation or outcome is completely different from what happens. **Verbal irony** is when someone says one thing, but really means another. It's often confused for sarcasm, but lacks being a witty attack or any kind of derogatory remark. [Your Dictionary: Examples of Sarcasm]( URL_0 ) **Sarcasm** is an ironic or satirical remark with humor. It's usually delivered with context and tone of voice for the audience to understand it's not to be taken literally."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-sarcasm.html",
"https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-irony.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d2napm | Why do many high-education-required jobs pay less than low-education-required counterparts? | I’d be lead to believe that many/most jobs that require Bachelor degrees or higher would pay more than jobs that require Associates degrees or lower, however it seems there’s many cases where the opposite is true. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezvs6rg"
],
"text": [
"It really depends on the details, you'd need to be more specific. A trade skill can be quite valuable if it's in demand and doesn't require a degree, so probably plumbers with no degree make more money on average than people with many kinds of humanities degrees. But on average across the whole population, people with degrees make more money than people without degrees."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d2txgv | why the key of a piece of music makes such a big difference. | I know next to nothing about musical theory. Torturous, mandatory participation in musical endeavors in youth taught me how to read music and the very fundamentals. Why does changing the number of sharps and flats in the key so dramatically change the entire sound of the piece? Why is the key so important that famous pieces of music are billed as “Such and such in G major” or whatever? I mean I know that some of the notes will be half a step higher or lower depending on what the key falls for. But I can’t imagine why that changes so much. I’ve heard songs like The Star Spangled Banner and other famous works played in a minor key and it completely changes the entire sound. How? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezwsp77",
"ezxeqrt",
"ezwszxg"
],
"text": [
"When you play a piece normally in a major key in a minor key instead, it completely changes the melody. You are changing *some* of the notes played, but not others. This results in a very different sound. You can also *transpose* a piece - that is, shift *every* note up or down by the same amount. An example would be playing a piece in C major in F major instead. This *might or might not* change the sound significantly, and the reason is tuning. Tuning is the relationship from one note to the next. Prior to the 20th century, many different kinds of tuning were in use. The distance from C to C# was *not* the same as the distance from F to F#. Thus, if you played a piece in C major in F major instead, you would once again be changing the melody because the relationships between the notes would be different. In the early 20th century, *equal temperament tuning* became almost universally used. This is a tuning where the ratio from one note to the next is always the same, no matter where in the scale those notes are. Thus, transposing from C major to F major would not significantly change the sound of the piece, because the relationships between all notes would be the same; the piece would just be played higher. However, playing a piece higher or lower than usual *can* change the sound a bit, because notes in a very low or very high register get perceived a little differently. A piece which is normally played around middle C would sound quite menacing if played several octaves lower, even though the notes are the same; and quite shrill and chintzy if played several octaves higher.",
"Changing between related keys, like G major to C major (known as transposing), won't actually make that much difference; It'll sound the same, just higher or lower than before, like when you play a song faster. This is because the distance between the frequencies hasn't changed. However, going from G major to G minor will definitely make a difference since you've changed the scale it's played on and thus, the distance between the frequencies. The way these frequencies interact (harmonize) is what makes them sound happy (major), sad (minor), etc.",
"When you hear music, you hear two things. The note, and the distance between the note and the next note (and next note and so on). Music written in a certain “key” will sound as it sounds because we hear the notes, and intervals, as they were intended. Changing the key, otherwise known as “transposing,” will change the note BUT WILL NOT change the interval between notes. Thus, the piece will still be recognizable. They “sound different” because the notes are different, each note having its own rich overtones and undertones. But However, when you change keys into a MINOR key (from major, or vice versa), you have changed (some of) BOTH the notes and the intervals between the notes. The piece of music will thus sound different. A half-decent ear could still “pick out” the original piece of music, as the original (especially if we have enjoyed it/listened to it many times) will still be in our memory. But the sound colour is fundamentally different."
],
"score": [
12,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d2yjky | Why does 9/11, out of all the tragedies that occured in the world and the US, have such a wide, lasting impact over the world? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezxkta2",
"ezxkd35",
"ezxkpul",
"ezxn7ah"
],
"text": [
"Because it was utterly shocking to watch this event play out before your very eyes, it was the first major attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, and the quality of TV and up to the minute reporting was much better than at any point in history. You’ve also got to consider how many people still remember 9/11. The only reason other events don’t seem as “important” is because most or all of the people who witnessed them are dead, so they don’t feel as impactful or important in the minds of those who are living. The holocaust, Pearl Harbor; there are only a few people left who were alive for those events, yet no one disputes how important and horrible they were, we just weren’t there to feel it and the emotions of it as it happened. 9/11 is imprinted on everyone who watched it happen on TV or in real life, and so many people lost loved ones on that day.... the short answer is really just because it is recent history.",
"9/11 happened at a time of unquestioned peace and security in the lives of most Americans (maybe “Western Cultures?”). No way is it on the scale of the Great War, or Holocaust—but psychologically, it was a shocking blow to the feeling of invincibility and security most of “us” had at the time after the break-up/fall of the Soviet Union.",
"It was a hostile act/act of terrorism that killed over 3000 civilians and actually left changes in a city's skyline. It was also the last such act that occurred before social media. With people having to rely on the \"old way\" of getting information such as TV, websites, and word of mouth, the whole of the United States was in a panic. The attack itself was unprecedented as well, due to the scale and the size of the target.",
"There were attacks on multiple fronts. The towers weren't the only target. The Pentagon was hit. A plane was crash-landed by civilians in a field in Pennsylvania and we don't even know where it was headed. It was fucking insane and terrifying, and nothing like those coordinated attacks has really happened elsewhere. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no examples.) I watched the towers fall from my living room when I was 14. I was 2,500 miles away, but everything I thought I knew about our world changed after that day: \\-Optimism about individual freedoms and livelihood. \\-The security of the US. \\-The security of the US economy. \\-The stoicism of western culture. \\-Much of the world hates the US and are willing to kill themselves just to hurt us. Damn. I guess other western societies felt it was a personal affront on them, as well. Like if the US could get fucked like that, ANYONE could. That day taught me that everything I was promised for my entire childhood (\"You can do anything with your life!\") was no longer true. I'm not sure why it caused such depression among pretty much every American, but it seriously did. For weeks, everyone lived in a daze. Even though no one I knew died that day, I've truly never been the same, and I long for the 90s when people were optimistic, happy, and free."
],
"score": [
16,
13,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d33noo | Why men are typically referred to as being “less emotional than women” but still acceptably dominated poetry for centuries. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ezyidcd",
"ezyjq8a",
"ezyl2pi"
],
"text": [
"A good poet's work will reach the masses, doesn't mean the masses are good poets. We used to not think of women as intellectuals and poetry was an intelligent hobby, women wouldnt get recognition for their work on that basis alone, thus we end up with more men being know for it.",
"There are some cultural explanations that definitely contribute, but I think sexual selection is the answer. Poetry for men is a form of peacocking and can attract the opposite sex. I’m generalizing obviously, but women are attracted to status and wealth, while men are more focused on looks. There simply isn’t the same reward in becoming a famous poet for a woman, so I would surmise that there would be less of an impulse to self-promote. There is probably a mountain of wonderful poetry written by women that went unpublished because it was written for enjoyment not recognition. To your point about emotional stereotypes, if that general trend is true then it would follow that the audience for poetry is in larger part female, which again points to the sexual selection answer.",
"Being ruled by feelings is a totally different situation than having control over them. I feel that as passionate as a young man is, most young men obtain amazing control over their emotions as they age. Women, however, have a historic reputation for an ability not to. Both are generalizations and not a rule, and neither is a moral judgement. With education, one can obtain an almost artistic/ sophist way with words. This beauty with words is what make so many good writers great. It is control, and the search for understanding that had made men masters at poetry. Men want the truth, and to accurately describe it, and will toil to no end to understand the philosophy of whatever has their eye. History also favoured the education of men which may have skewed this in ways unfathomable to myself. Poetry and the written word is unique this way. Now contrast that with the many talented female singers out there; they can literally channel their passion into their song. Some are so hauntingly beautiful that they can bring a brute to tears. Written word favors stereotypical male strengths. And when that meets the soul of a man with a deep sense of empathy and love, you get the potential for a great writer."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d3hpyk | Why are there different languages within sign language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f02t3xc"
],
"text": [
"For the same reason there are different languages within spoken language: they largely develop naturally, and change according to the needs of the people who speak them. There are also links between the words and the language themselves. In British Sign Language, for example, the word HAM is just [spelled out H-A-M in quick succession]( URL_3 ). That's great for English speakers, but would be entirely arbitrary if you were a French-speaking deaf person and your word for delicious pig-meat is actually *jambon*. As a result, they use a sign [based on the meaning of the word]( URL_7 ), rather than the word itself. (It also doesn't help that French Sign Language and British Sign Language use a different manual alphabet -- fingerspelling system -- which means that someone using the British sign for H-A-M wouldn't be immediately understood by a deaf Parisian.) For signs that are based on a *concept*, rather than a more 'translated' version, it's more common to have a similarity with other languages -- but this isn't always the case. The ASL for 'dog' is [halfway between a conceptual sign and a spelled-out sign]( URL_5 ); in BSL, it's [conceptual]( URL_10 ), but still *looks* sort of dog-ish; in LSF, as far as I can tell, it seems [pretty arbitrary]( URL_6 ). On top of *that*, there are also things like [tactile sign languages]( URL_0 ), which are further adapted for use with people who are both sight- and hearing-impaired. The language develops and evolves according to the needs of its speakers. The weirdest thing is where the differences and similarities between sign languages emerge. You might think, for example, that British Sign Language (BSL) would have quite a lot in common with American Sign Language (ASL) -- but in fact, French Sign Language (LSF) is a lot closer to ASL than BSL is. Why is that? Well, the first sign language academy in the United States, the [American School for the Deaf]( URL_8 ), recruited French sign language teachers from the National Institute for Deaf Children in Paris. American Sign Language, then, became a sort of blend between the signs that were already being used by deaf communities in the USA and the 'official' French Sign Language that was taught there. (The Americans who founded that school actually appealed to the most prominent British school for the deaf in Scotland, Braidwood's Academy for the Deaf and Dumb, and were refused; Braidwood's Academy [generally focused on lip reading rather than signing]( URL_4 ), and were apparently rather unimpressed with this young American who was trying to come up with a new method of teaching deaf children -- and who couldn't afford to pay the fees they requested in order to teach him.) By comparison, Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language are much closer to British Sign Language (so much so that they're often grouped together in what's known as the [BANZSL language family]( URL_2 )) You can see that there's a [geographic clustering of sign language families]( URL_1 ), but precisely which language is prominent where also has a lot to do with the individual schools that helped to standardise these languages in the first place. The impact of [Irish Sign Language]( URL_9 ) is much more significant than you might think, largely down to the practice of Catholic missionaries going abroad to found schools for the deaf in places like Australia and South Africa."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_signing",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language#/media/File:Sign_language_families.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BANZSL",
"https://www.signbsl.com/sign/ham",
"https://www.gallaudet.edu/about/history-and-traditions/thomas-hopkins-gallaudet",
"https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/d/dog.htm",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ5rw4DOdOM",
"https://www.elix-lsf.fr/spip.php?page=signes&id_article=178593&lang=fr",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_for_the_Deaf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sign_Language",
"https://www.signbsl.com/sign/dog"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d3ibkg | How do large museums acquire their collections and how does the curation process work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0325x7",
"f039lc8",
"f03wdpt",
"f03c55j"
],
"text": [
"Lots of things are donated by people or organizations, but some things can actually be purchased from regular people by the museum using grants/funds. Someone on r/flipping actually had a museum reach out and purchase a historic piece they had for sale on eBay. It took a while for the museum to make the purchase, but they did!",
"Not a direct answer to how large museums do it, but I get there: & #x200B; The experience I've had is that a lot of the process of accession (getting things) is passive. In one case, a medium-sized science museum, we obviously had a lot of science things on exhibit, but we also had a huge Native American artifact collection, a NASA space suit from the Gemini program, and a few other non-natural-science-related things because someone was pretty insistent about donating them to us. We had enough room that we just kept them all in the Collections area, and not even staff looked at them except on rare occasions for novelty purposes. I think the hope was to trade/sell/give them to an actual history museum that could display them, though I don't know if that ever panned out. & #x200B; There was also a lot of inter-museum loans, though almost (at least for us) it took the form of renting an entire exhibit instead of just adding one or two items to an already permanent exhibit for a specific amount of time for no cost. & #x200B; Tangentially, I worked in a small zoo that was attached to the science museum. (It was small staff-wise, but we still had tigers and primates and wolves and stuff. It wasn't just a barnyard.) Accessioning animals was much more proactive and deliberate in this case. We did get some animals that were temporarily kept - rabbits abandoned in our parking lot a few months after Easter or stray cats that showed up that were exceptionally friendly. We didn't get many wild-caught animals, because that's not the best ethics-wise, though it does help with genetic diversity for captive populations. Zoos also trade a lot with each other to help manage populations, even internationally (the planning that goes into this is like an hour talk in and of itself). Rarely, we'd take an animal from a breeder or private owner that didn't know what to do with it. (For example, we took a parrot from someone that had inherited it. Did you know parrots can live for 40+ years?) & #x200B; The other museum I have experience with is a small local history museum. This may be atypical, but I doubt it. The local history scene is pretty small, and typically everyone knows each other even if their interests range from architecture to local indigenous culture. In such a case, anyone that has a collection worth having is someone you already know, and when they die, they're going to want that collection (which they often view as a legacy) preserved. & #x200B; Alright, so how would this translate into larger museums? You may not know everyone in your 'scene,' but everyone knows you. And it's pretty cool/prestigious to donate to larger museums like the Smithsonian. They can take the passive route because it's super cool to have something you owned housed/displayed at a museum of that caliber. Also, they have the funds (through grants, endowments, and donations) to purchase rare and expensive items. & #x200B; Basically, it's mostly like if a private buyer were to try to acquire something, except you're rich, everyone knows you and likes you, and giving things to you can help establish a legacy. & #x200B; Finally, if you want to get a peak inside some of the insanely huge collection at the Fields Museum in Chicago, I encourage you to check out Emily at [TheBrainScoop]( URL_0 ). The playlist I linked is specifically about the BTS collections stuff, but the entire channel is worth checking out for science-y things.",
"Some of the big museums in the UK and France (such as the British Museum and the Louvre) straight up nicked stuff from countries that got invaded at some point. They refuse to give the artworks or artefacts back even when the nations in question are allies now.",
"IIRC the Field Museum in Chicago was pretty much founded because after the 1893 World's Fair most of the exhibitors didn't want to take their artifacts back to their home countries. Stanley Field was able to buy them all at a decent price and ended up founding a museum from it. To this day a pretty significant percentage of what's on display at that museum is from the 1893 World's Fair."
],
"score": [
22,
15,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhTvBv0ky2w&list=PLL8_5VpX9Txod-mtbVTdWVlzze3FgfIPn"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d3liml | Why is Japan's Declining Population viewed as a concern when geographically they are a small nation, and overpopulation is something that seems a like a global issue? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f03la8w",
"f03kib5",
"f03lovm",
"f03kt5x",
"f03lbvh",
"f044jop",
"f04a27a",
"f03lpvl"
],
"text": [
"Draw a triangle and split it in half across. At the top, draw \"the elderly\" and at the bottom draw \"the young\". This is the ideal society wherein the young people help to support the needs of the elderly. Since there are more young people than elderly, not much burden is placed on young people to support and care for their elderly parents/relatives. Draw another triangle, but upside down. This time, put young people at the tipped end and elderly at the top. You see that this triangle is unstable. There are too little young people to care for the needs of the elderly population. This is the current issue that a declining birth rate countries are facing. But that's for a personal level. On a state and economical level, there will be less people that will be able to work as time goes on, as many elderly become too sick to work/retire. As a result, there will also naturally be less consumption by the population. Thus, this means a general loss in government revenue since less people are paying taxes. The economy might also stagnate due to a lack of business in the country. As one commentor has pointed out earlier, it is a sign of a dying country. This is true; we have an excessive burden of young people in caring for the elderly, and a stagnating economy. This is why it's a big problem.",
"Outside of the cities in Japan, population density is still fairly low. Younger people move to the city for jobs, and older people stay in the rural areas. As they pass away, the rural towns risk becoming ghost towns (which is already the case in quite a few areas in Japan). If you don't mind the language barrier, you can get a house outside the cities at a pretty reasonable price in Japan.",
"Overpopulation is a drain on the environment. \"underpopulation\" is an economic/social problem. Both are problems, but different people will see one or the other as the more pressing issue.",
"Its bad for morale mostly, a declining population is essentially a dying country, regardless of other achievements. Ideally the population would remain steady. Theres a lot of other morale issues in japan as well as far as i know, which i believe insigates the population decline, thus making it a cycle. Not sure if thats the answer youre looking for but i tried. This is off topic but something that bothers me, \"overpopulation\" isnt an issue like people think it is. The world can sustain many more people than we have on it, we just have a very poor and innefficient use of food, resources, and space, leading people to think overpopulation is really the problem. I wish i could find it but when i took evironmental science we watched a pretty compelling documentary about how all of the worlds population could live in a compound the size of texas with reletively decent sized apartments. Not that anyone would want that. But it leaves a lot of extra space for agriculture, solar energy (and other forms of energy), as well as environments being sustained.",
"Hasn't the overpopulation theory been debunked? sauce: URL_0",
"Overpopulation is a made up problem or at least partially. The world population keep going up, but the percentage of undernourished people go down. Worldwide it was it 14.80% or 1.01 billion people undernourished, while in 2017 it was 10.80% or 820.80 billion people. If you look at the map of countries you can see that most (but not all) of them with high undernourished people are countries in wars. [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) Another problem would be just too many people in the same place, but Japan is less dense than Belgium, Israel, Netherlands, South Korea and Taiwan and those countries don't have any issues specifically link to higher density of people. The only realistic issue with overpopulation would be the production of greenhouse gases. The more people use energy, the more greenhouse gases are produce. But the real issue here is how that energy is produce not how many people exist. Finally, Overpopulation isn't really an issue worth talking about, because the World population growth is slowly down and most likely gonna stabilise by itself. That's because human tend to have less children when their live improve. So the Overpopulation have nothing to do with that, the geographical size of their country also have nothing to do with that, their density isn't near high enough to cause problem inside their country. So what is the problem with their decline in population? Well you have less new labour, so your economy doesn't growth that much. If you look at GDP growth Japan is ranked 163th in 2018, which is around the bottom 15%. But the biggest problem, other people said it, is the fact that there is not enough kids to take care of the ageing population. So the economic burden on the new generation need to be higher to take care of the elderly.",
"The reason why people outside of Japan are carefully watching its population is because Japan is seen as the leading edge of a \"demographic transition\" that many other Western countries may soon experience. Birthrates have been declining all over the world, and many European countries would also have declining populations were it not for immigration. There may be something unique about Japan that is causing declining population, or maybe there's just something about wealthy industrialized societies that makes people want to have fewer children. Out of concern that the latter is true, other countries are watching Japan closely to see how the \"inverted population pyramid\" plays out, whether their population decline will ever stop, and what policies are most successful for dealing with the issue.",
"The problem isn't now or in ten years time - it's in twenty/thirty years time when a sizable part of the population is wanting to retire but there aren't enough young people taking over their jobs. A smaller work force means there's less active workers to tax to pay for state pension and benefits for retirees. And if you are looking at private retirement savings well almost all of those are depending on investments in companies that can't perform as well anymore because of a declining workforce. Haha you say I have invested in property. Well good for you but to make money off of property to live off of you need to rent it out to persons or businesses or you need to run your own business from it which will need employees."
],
"score": [
48,
11,
7,
6,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348"
],
[
"https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d3mbie | Why are they called cell phones in the US but mobile phones most other countries ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f03pjz7",
"f03rxhd"
],
"text": [
"The name itself comes from the way that the total area covered by mobile phone signals is divided in to sections called \"cells\", each with \"cell towers\" to provide the signal for that area. As for why America uses a different name for a bit of modern technology... it's not really that strange. As a non-American it is quite stark when watching American TV programmes just how often they use a different word for something technology related. They say \"Xerox\", we say \"photocopier\". They say \"vacuum cleaner\", we say \"Hoover\". Similarly \"Airplane\" vs \"Aeroplane\", \"flashlight\" vs \"torch\", \"railroad\" vs \"railway\", \"gas\" vs \"petrol\", \"trunk\" vs \"boot\" and so on. Language is a funny thing, and usage drifts from place to place.",
"Well, first off the phrase \"mobile phone\" is used at least somewhat commonly here in the US. I see and hear it fairly frequently. It's just that the term \"cellular (or cell) phone\" is more common. Cellular refers to the way the wireless network that makes these devices possible works. You can read more about that here: URL_0 \"Cellular phone\" is a more technical description than \"Moble phone\". And I would bet the term was coined as a marketing gimmick at some point to highlight the new technology. Prior to the Cellular network, radio based mobile phones existed and were just referred to as \"mobile phones\". URL_1 So pointing out the new \"cellular\" network technology was probably the intent. Most other countries likely didnt have a pre cellular mobile service of any kind, so there was no need to distinguish."
],
"score": [
10,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Telephone_Service"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d3om9j | - what does it mean when someone says something is “Lovecraftian”? (I know who HP Lovecraft is, but never read any of his books) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0431fe",
"f043r38",
"f04532r"
],
"text": [
"URL_0 First line of this Wikipedia page. Lovecraftian horror is a subgenre of horror fiction that emphasizes the cosmic horror of the unknown (or unknowable) more than gore or other elements of shock The \"fear and awe we feel when confronted by phenomena beyond our comprehension, whose scope extends beyond the narrow field of human affairs and boasts of cosmic significance\". A \"contemplation of mankind's place in the vast, comfortless universe revealed by modern science\" in which the horror springs from \"the discovery of appalling truth\". A naturalistic fusion of horror and science fiction in which presumptions about the nature of reality are \"eroded\".",
"Your traditional monsters vampires, werewolves, zombies etc, all started out as human (there are a few exceptions to this but overall all started as human) so even though they are supposed to be \"evil\" each of them have something that we can relate to, for example feeling outside of society, unlovable, alone, all of those are things you as a human could feel that would make that monster in some degree relatable. A lovecraftian monster is something that is so foreign, so alien, that there isn't anything you can relate to with said creature. It is by nature undefinable to you. You can't comprehend what it wants, why it's there etc.",
"Lovecroft had certain themes in his books and people have come to refer to those themes when they appear elsewhere by his name as a shorthand. While there are many themes repeated in his work, Lovecraftian is usually understood to his special blend of \"cosmic horror\". The idea that the universe is a dark and scary place and that you are a very small and insignificant spec in the cosmos. You are in danger not because dark forces out there are evil and hate you, but because there are things out there that are just so alien that encountering them or even learning to much about them will drive you mad and destroy you. Whatever higher beings there are neither hate nor love you but are completely indifferent to you and your ideas about good and evil. The universe doesn't care about humanity. Alien creatures are vast and powerful and so different from us that our minds can't warp themselves around these ideas that they represent and trying to do so will just cost you your sanity. In practice it is obviously quite different to describe something so different from anything we know that simply learning about it might take away your sanity, so the works usually are a bit vague, rely on unreliable narrators (who often wrote down his notes as he was dying and being driven mad) and include placeholders of stuff that is familiar but still rather aliens looking like tentacles. Lovecraft collaborated with a number of other authors (like the guy who invented Conan the barbarian) in a sort of shared setting. Many others have since followed him to add either to the setting or something similar in their own. Not all authors captured quite what Lovecraft had been so good at. Just having a powerful alien or monster from the depth with tentacles does not automatically make things Lovecraftian. There is a required element that the world is not out to get you but will kill you nevertheless because it doesn't care about you and that you can't hope to win. The general them has been added to many other genres besides horror where in otherwise less hopeless stories they lurk on the edges of the setting, not as something to overcome but something to avoid. Sleeping elder gods in fantasy settings that can not be woken without risking the end of the world. Ancient tomes of cursed knowledge that you should never read. In sci-fi they may be a good reason why you should avoid traveling through hyper space. Even modern versions of biblical stuff. (Angels as described in the bible certainly fit the description in some regards.)"
],
"score": [
21,
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovecraftian_horror"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d3zs9t | What makes the original Lavender Town such a creepy theme? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f06fsro",
"f066g3c"
],
"text": [
"Musically speaking? The quiet ostinato in the beginning isn’t that weird, however it does use the tritone, which isn’t creepy in itself but it does weaken the established tonality a little. Then the melody and counter melody blast into the piece. The melody also does that weird thing where in never really lands on the note it’s trying to play. Both voices are dissonant with each other and the melody never actually feels resolved. The ear has no tonal center to hold onto and so the whole piece sounds like it’s stuck in this weird place. It builds a lot of tension because we want to hear those dissonances resolved and we want to hear anything that resembles a I chord but we never do. We’re left to sit in this cyclical state of unrest. We are uncomfortable and no matter how long we search for release we’ll never find it.",
"lol, I'm not sure if this belongs here. But its a very slow tune compared to the rest of the game. Plus, the area sets it up by being the town with the ghosts and graveyard tower in it."
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d4354p | How do graffiti artists tag ‘hard to reach’ places like motorway bridges? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f07d28s",
"f07b5tc"
],
"text": [
"That's the art of it: the harder to reach (and more public) the locale, normally, the bigger respect you get from other graffiti artists. But a more realistic answer is however possible: ropes, harnesses, friends, stupidity... Whatever works!",
"Here's a video of an artist balancing along the ledge: [Video]( URL_0 ) & #x200B; This is one way."
],
"score": [
20,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYhtRl97yig"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d46zis | Why is tip/gratuity calculated as a percentage of the price of your meal, rather than a flat amount per person? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f087sak"
],
"text": [
"The problem really lies in the fact that the resaurant owner/employer does not pay the worker a proper wage. The reason many waitstaff get upset for waiting on customers from Europe is they often do not tip. The reason they do not is it is not customary where they are from. And the reason for that is the workers are paid a proper wage over there, and not relying on the customer to pick up the rest of the workers wage. Enjoy those freedom fries. American workers are getting screwed."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d485cx | Why are most American astronauts who are legendary not really considered "celebrities"? | Aside from Buzz Aldrin, living legends like his teammate Michael Collins, Apollo 16 Charles Duke, who was also Apollo 11 flight controller and Apollo 17 astronaut scientist Harrison Schmitt are generally obscure and people wouldn't recognize them in public. How come most astronaut never became household names? Peggy Whitson, American woman who broke the record for longest time in space, should also probaby be more famous | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f08l4pk",
"f08n5uc"
],
"text": [
"They don't have a group of professionals dedicated to drumming up public awareness. Your face won't become well known just because you've done something amazing. Celebrities have an army of people who's entire careers amount to shining a spotlight on them 24/7. It's a ton of work and it doesn't just happen. Celebrities are manufactured. Not born by chance.",
"Fame is not an award. It is true that astronauts have achieved great things. They are categorically extraordinarily talented and hard-working people. They should be proud of their achievements and we should celebrate their achievements. But us celebrating their achievements is something different from being a \"celebrity\". Celebrities are not famous because they are great or talented people. Again, fame is not an award that we give to people. Fame is simply a side-effect of exposure in media. In our current society, the most prominent media are TV, film, and increasingly online video (such as YouTube or Twitch). The people who work in media are entertainers and performers (under which I would include professional athletes). If you work in entertainment/performance, you may become a celebrity. If you work in a different field, you won't. Many of the people in entertainment/performance may be talented and hard-working, but that's not necessarily the reason why they're famous and it's important to make a distinction between the two. They're famous purely due to exposure, not because of their achievements. You can be talented and hard-working and obscure. You can be untalented and lazy and famous. At the outset, there's nothing necessarily *wrong* with that because, again, fame is not an award. Fame doesn't inherently have any value in it, good or bad. It's not *good* to be famous. It just *is*. It's merely a neutral reflection of the fact that you work in media and people are exposed to you. Here's an analogy by way of example. I'm going to show you two pieces of architecture. [Here's the first piece of architecture]( URL_1 ) [Here's the second piece of architecture]( URL_0 ) Here's a test: do you know what those two pieces of architecture are? Spoiler: The first is a suburban house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The second is just a stupid phone booth somewhere in Long Island The first example is clearly better architecture. It had more effort and thought. It was created by a genius. It's not terribly recognizable, unless you're an architecture nerd. The second example is good enough. It had some effort put into making it good enough. It is something that people see every day. It is very recognizable. Almost everyone on the planet can recognize it. The second is recognizable not because it's a great achievement, but because of *exposure*. We become familiar with everything that we're exposed to on a daily basis. The more we're exposed to something, the more recognizable it is. Fame is just \"recognizable\" expanded over an entire population. It's not *good* that phone booths are more recognizable (\"famous\"); it's just reality. Astronauts are not entertainers. They achieve great things, but we don't see them every day. That's not because there's something wrong with us. It's wrong to think we *should* be watching astronauts every day. It's simply the nature of their work. The nature of their work is to spend a lot of hours and days training and doing research. That's not a spectator sport. Occasionally a big event happens and we celebrate that event, but we still don't become familiar with them and treat them as a celebrity, because we're not exposed to them every day. If you're still thinking of this in terms of \"should\", it might be because you're conflating \"celebrity\" with \"role model\", and that is a fair thing to do. It's natural for people (children and adults alike) to aspire to be like someone else. If we are exposed to Kim Kardashian on a daily basis, but we are totally unfamiliar with Peggy Whitson, you might worry that we will aspire to be more like Kim Kardashian than like Peggy Whitson, which would be a mistake. (I think I've heard from psychologists that it's healthier to aspire to be a better version of yourself, rather than aspire to be like someone else. But that's not really the point) I would argue the problem here is in thinking that role models should be celebrities and celebrities should be role models. They should be treated as separate things."
],
"score": [
15,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/uD5PKst.jpg",
"https://i.imgur.com/wkvK7Nr.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d4h63o | Did people stop believing in Greek gods overnight or was their atheism a gradual thing? Or was it replaced by another belief system? How quick was it's death? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0bylrq",
"f0ckcd2"
],
"text": [
"In a very oversimplified way: the Greek pantheon broadly got merged with the Roman one when the Roman Empire took control of Greece - Jupiter and Zeus or Neptune and Poseidon for example, they were considered comparable. After Christ, Rome for a long time didn’t tolerate what was then his fringe cult of Judaism but then emperor Constantine converted and decriminalised Christianity. Christianity then became the Empire’s official religion and, thanks to the infrastructure Rome had built up, the influence of it was able to spread from the Holy Land all the way up to France and Britain. A series of crusades brought Christianity to the northeast of Europe over the next centuries, and by about 1000AD Europe was basically totally Christian, save some parts of modern Spain. This isn’t really comparable to any modern decline in any religion. After the Western Empire fell and Europe fractured into smaller kingdoms Christianity had the home field advantage over more local gods. It had gotten around and had power on its side for a while, and over time its prevalence just stamped out those local deities. The Pope became the EU of the time with kings and dukes referring to him as the representative of God’s will and mediating certain disputes - he gave God’s blessing to the Norman conquest of England, for instance. Modern day though, humanity has come leaps and bounds in self sufficiency, resilience through hardship and understanding why things happen. We understand the processes behind plagues and disasters and can recover from them much easier now - this, plus access to information, has kind of displaced the need for a higher power. Faith will still live on, the major religions aren’t going anywhere for a while, but with understanding of how these things work we don’t really need a supernatural explanation any more.",
"Did it happen over night? nope took centuries of persecution, murder mutilations and a few crusades to Convert the empire. Atheism literally means a lack of the belief in the state gods of Rome when Rome Christianized the state god became the christian god. The Greek gods were co-opted to be Roman gods and they were all part of the empire. & #x200B; Long rambling over generalized 6 am account of history: & #x200B; Roman gods were officially changed, empire split between east and west as did the church. The death of Theodosius I in 395 caused a resurgence of greco-roman polytheism. Last hold outs of \"total conversion\" of the Empire were killed during a 4 year siege by emperor Zeno around 484. They slaughtered the pagan intellectuals so they called it a success! Centuries of repression rape murder continue despite \"total conversion\". Re-surged again - Islamic threat so meh deal with new guys on the block. in 804 the Hellenes of Laconia ( Mani Peninsula) resisted conversion and then the eastern Roman empire collapsed so let's bring on the Ottoman repression, rape and murder spiced with times of toleration to add on to the Orthodox and Catholic. Evidence of it still existing comes from the penal codes in regards to atheist and pagans - basically mutilation and death. Fragments survive. Crusade era - sent to wipe in the 12th and 13th centuries but these were for other pagan groups such as the Balts. Galindians, Curonians, and Yotvingians exterminated."
],
"score": [
99,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d4idm3 | What is the purpose (or former purpose) of the excessive pillows on beds? The long cylindrical one, etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0cm5fw",
"f0crw77",
"f0cvrr7"
],
"text": [
"The long cylindrical one can be used to 'cuddle' whilst lying down, which helps to reduce lower back twisting. They can also be helpful for pregnant women to get comfortable.",
"People with acid reflux or heartburn use additional pillows to prop themselves up while they sleep to minimize the effects.",
"People will often sit on a hotel bed more than they would at home. Extra pillows make this more comfortable"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d4lwqr | Why do Iran and Saudi Arabia have such an acrimonious relationship? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0e0v0g"
],
"text": [
"They both want to be the region's major power. However, they both agree that political power should be assigned along religious lines - but they are on opposite branches of the Islamic religions tree. It's like the Catholic vs Protestant wars that Europe fought. Neither country has any real reason to be the region's power. Both of them have very poor human rights records, so the world powers can't get behind either of them as a regional leader."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d4lx7j | Why did Neanderthals go extinct while Homo sapiens thrived on? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0e1g60",
"f0e1c9h"
],
"text": [
"I've read that the homo erectus didn't survive due to simple laziness. They didn't prepare for seasonal changes in terms of stockpiling food, firewood and such. They also preferred the easiest way to do anything. They'd use the simplest tools instead of improving the ones they made / discovered. They also didn't migrate elsewhere when the land started to change around them to things like draught. [Here's]( URL_0 ) an article on it.",
"The Sapiens were better adapted to their shared niche. Social adaptability turned out to be a differentiating factor, but it took a long time."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/63308-homo-erectus-laziness-extinction.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d4nuop | How do words lose their original meanings over time? | To be honest, I’ve been a very ignorant person when it came to slurs and I want to have a viewpoint that I can 100% support. So my question is, how did the word “dumb” become synonymous with the word “stupid” and how did other slurs such as “lame” become what they mean today? Were these words used so much they meant differently? Could the same thing happen to the “n-word”? For a word to lose its meaning would it have to be used out of context & freely? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0em4p6",
"f0enmhw"
],
"text": [
"Dumb was originally someone who couldn't speak, this then was associated with low intelligence since someone who couldn't speak couldn't express their ideas, this then led to dumb meaning stupid. Basically words like this slowly change over time depending on who is using it and the context.",
"Language is always evolving, so over time since we as humans began speaking (50,000-2 million years ago this is still debated) we first only grunted. Then we began to form words, there were different tribes which would make up their own languages. Through trade we would be exposed to different languages & cultures. We would steal words from each other. Ever since words have been created, meanings of words revolve around the times- even slang and slurs. History shows us that we dehumanize those who are different then us. I think one of the biggest examples of dehumanizing those who are different then us was the campaign in Nazi Germany to exterminate unwanted mentally handicapped or not able bodied people in the community. If you had a child with Down syndrome in those times you would send them to be boarded off elsewhere as to not embarrass your family. Slurs were used to bring shame to these families. These institutions would hold the crazy, the mentally ill, and the disabled. At first they were only sterilizing them so they were unable to reproduce and further infect the future populations. Then they were dehumanized so much that they were exterminated. My point being we separate ourselves from those who are different then us. We use our language to create slurs to dehumanize/separate us from “them”. Through slurs in the past people have used it to suppress and segregate."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d4upg1 | What is the point of cowboy hats? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0gmmd4",
"f0gmkik",
"f0gnsrt"
],
"text": [
"As far as I know it serves the function of hats throughout the world. Keeps the sun off your noggin, out of your eyes, gives you a bit of portable shade. Dunno if pics of people sticking stuff like bullets into hatbands really were a thing",
"To keep the sun out of your eyes on a long day on the range! Sunglasses didn't exist back when they became popular, also the curved brims are a modern adaptation, solely for the sake of fashion!",
"To keep the Sun out of your eyes **and** drain the rain off the back of your jacket **and** ventilate the air above your head to keep you cool. The perfect head wear."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d58mbk | Why does everyone agree on units of time (e.g. seconds and minutes) but not other measurements (e.g. feet and meters)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0kemew",
"f0kev74"
],
"text": [
"Time only became as important as it is now due to the industrial revolution. Before then, agrarian communities didn't really have a need for specific time keeping, but once travel times were being cut short and the world became more connected, it also became important to start keeping time uniformally. This ended up getting exported due to the rise of the west in the past few centuries due to a lack of competition from local measurements.",
"The two dominant systems today are the SI system (the metric system) and the US/Imperial system (which are mostly the same, aside from a few measures). And historically, they sort of expanded around the world from their countries of origin: France for the metric system and England for the US/Imperial. The British Empire covered a large chunk of the world, and so many areas adapted the Imperial system, and as the metric system spread across Europe, most of the rest of the world adopted it through trade with Europe. Here's the funny thing though: the metric system, in its early days as it was being put into use, created measurements for length, mass, and time among other things. Metric time was a thing that they tried to popularize - with a day broken down into decimal hours (10 per day) and those hours into 100 decimal minutes of 100 decimal seconds each. But unlike with weights and measures, which could be easily swapped out, decimal time never really caught on. Possibly just because people were set in their ways on a 24-hour day, but possibly because it's a lot more difficult and costly to manufacture new clocks than new rulers or weights. Anyone make a reasonably accurate 1-kg lump of metal or a 1-meter ruler without much expertise, difficulty, or expense. But building thousands and thousands of new clocks with properly timed action and a properly labeled face just wasn't an option for France, which was in the throes of its Revolution at the time. So eventually, the SI/metric system just adopted the second, minute, and hour, despite the fact that they don't really fit in with the rest of the metric system and its base-10 rules. And since the rest of the world eventually adopted those units, pretty soon everyone, metric or Imperial, was using the second/minute/hour system."
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d58vua | How does a city actually deal with a homeless problem? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0kgiwv"
],
"text": [
"Effectively? Good mental health services, free healthcare, affordable education, solid addiction and treatment programs, and an engaged community that cares about people."
],
"score": [
23
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d5lgq5 | why is it awkward when you walk back after you bowl in bowling? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0mkhab",
"f0mmsfe",
"f0mmym2"
],
"text": [
"It isn't? Awkwardness is just a made up concept in our heads",
"It's not awkward. Awkward is only what you accept as awkward. Do you feel judged by your friends as you walk back? It makes sense you're the only one up there and everyone is watching. If you bowl alone you may feel this \"awkwardness\" go away. If you find alot of things to be awkward or socially uncomfortable you should see a doctor or therapist. You may have some mild social anxiety. It's normal when you're young to have social anxieties. With time you will grow more comfortable with who you are and you will feel less \"judged\" as you walk away from hitting that gutterball. Just remember until then what Mr. Rogers told us: If only you could sense how important you are to the lives of those you meet. You are important and good enough and no one is judging you.",
"Because you are supposed to have pants on. Just because they require special shoes but not special pants is not an invitation to go bottomless."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d5r85k | Why is Italy not called Rome? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0nm0lm"
],
"text": [
"Why would it? Rome is the name of a city, Italy is the name of the peninsula which is the majority of the country. It's like how Germany isn't called Berlin or Aachen."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d60bb4 | Is there a reason why some Old Testament laws are followed by Christians and not others? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0p0tcs"
],
"text": [
"This is different for each branch of Christianity, but a good example under Catholicism is the explanation given by Thomas Aquinas. He basically said that the commandments could be broken down into moral and ceremonial commandments. The moral commandments were the enumeration of pre-existing natural law and therefore should always be followed, while the ceremonial commandments were given to the people of the time to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d6az48 | what mindtrick do you do when dancing 6 step rock 'n' roll to make it feel right, considering the music is in 4/4 time? | It means that your sequence of steps doesn't always start at the start of the bar of music, which feels wrong to a beginner like me (who is a musician and wants everything to start at the start of the bar). | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0rf23h"
],
"text": [
"Advice from a drummer: find the 1. Focus on doing the routine perfectly on-beat 2 times. After that, you’ll be on the 1 of the 4th bar of the song. Rinse and repeat. In general, if there’s a step for every beat, then find the least common multiple of the number of steps and the time signature (in this case, 12). This will give the point at which the routine and rhythm restart together."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d6p894 | I’d like to hear some simple explanations of the Bible. I’d like to hear from history buffs or Christians as well as people with other religions or none at all. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0uvls0"
],
"text": [
"The Bible is a compilation of various books, letters, and texts created over a period of several hundred years. Some dating possibly as far back as the 8th century BC but most from a period of 500BC to 300BC and 0AD to 100AD. The Old testament is older Jewish texts and histories, many of which were compiled in a time when Jews were living in exile in Babylon. The first 5 books are what are referred to as the Torah and contain the Jewish creation myth, The Jewish version of the flood myth, and the story of Moses' Exodus from Egypt including the 10 commandments and kosher law. Many of the stories contained within are loosely based on historical accounts and myths from Jewish history (Exodus, King David) and folklore (creation myth) as well as a number borrowed from Babylonian history and folklore (flood myth). The New testament is a compilation of letters and books written by the apostles of Jesus some time after his crucifixion. The various texts were compiled into the new testament. The completed Christian bible began to appear in the first and second century AD but it is unknown who was responsible. The Christians were persecuted by the Romans in this era so information is scarce. Emperor Constantine legalized and converted to Christianity in the 4th century AD and from there Christianity began to significantly spread throughout the Roman Empire and continued to spread throughout Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. Early bibles were written in the original Hebrew and Greek and then translated into Latin. Latin was used as a universal language by the priesthood throughout the medieval era, but by the time this practice started it was already a dead language and had to be resurrected. This resulted in 'church latin' having very different pronunciation than 'classical Latin'. The bible was first translated into other western languages much later such as 1382 for the first english version. Gutenberg Bibles were the first to be mass produced using a printing press, prior to this they were copied by hand. The translation into modern languages and the wide spread availability of bibles began to cause rifts in the Christian church as common folk began to read the text themselves for the first time and began to realize the dominant Catholic church was not following the very tenants written in the very bible they read. Splinter groups like the Lutherans began to form. There have also been modern translation attempts. The King James Bible of 1611 for example heavily edited the original text and translated it into english. The most accurate translation of the Bible is considered to be the New American Standard Bible which has was translated in the 20th century from the original Hebrew and Greek using modern understanding of the languages and translating it into current english vernacular."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d6q1vu | What determines when a new generation starts/ends? Who decides it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0v1ydb",
"f0v6jbm"
],
"text": [
"I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's all made up. Different organizations disagree about the cutoffs, but never acknowledge it. News source A says millennials start at 1982. Makes me a millennial and my brother one years older genX. But our parents are genX, and theirs were baby boomers. How can a person's descendants be in the same generation as the person is?? News source B says millennials are 1980+. Now both of my older brothers are considered millennials. But nobody ever tries to agree on a cutoff, and nobody ever acknowledges the disparity. It's just like \"this is true\" vs \"that is true\" but the two opinions are presented as if they're both right, because nobody says \"you're wrong,\" because they know they are also wrong. Everything started with baby boomers. That had a hard start date: end of world war 2, and lots of people start having lots of babies. It was a boom. Let's start calling these kids born in this period \"baby boomers\". Yeah that's legit. We just made up cool shit. Now the war generation can complain about how lazy and entitled baby boomers are, and how they're ruining potatoes and green beans in America. It's all made up. It *is* a good general way to distinguish generations, but it's not realistic to say somebody born in this second is this generation and the person born the next second in January 1st when the ball drops is the next generation. That means that the person A is a whole different generation than person B. In those cases, the people talking about them decide. Those two are boomers and boomers suck or those two are Xers and Xers suck. It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world, and absolutely everything we do is made up. Laws? We made them up. Words? Every word was made up at some point. Best practices in software development? Made up. Based on nothing but opinion. You could do it the \"wrong\" way but that way might actually be the best way for the problem you're solving. This is why when Rocket said, \"that name sounds made up,\" Thor didn't even seem to care and said, \"all names are made up\".",
"Nothing really, its not a scientific situation where every 20yr segment is a new generation or something. Its kind of arbitrary, though it *usually* is based on what media and culture is popular at the time and often the contrast between what the youth were into versus the old folks. Theres a reason we associate generations so much with music and media, because they are the points of difference between them and their parents. For this reason its kind of possible that the idea of generations is going to become less and less relevant going forward. Generations were possible in the past thanks to mass media, Disco was a defining music genre of a time period because it was popular, so it got on the radio, which everyone had to listen too because the internet didn't exist yet and media outside the mainstream was limited and expensive. But the internet does exist now and the cost to produce and distribute media is so low that functionally everyone can tailor their consumption, there is no mass media making that decision, so I reckon we are going to see generations speed up until its more of a continuous static of a roiling culture than like it was in the past where there were more defined shifts. > Who decides it? No one does, its generally a mass consensus kind of deal where all the different understandings settle over time and congeal into a commonly accepted one."
],
"score": [
39,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d6u95i | Why are white people called Caucasian even when they aren't from the Caucasus? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0vj29d",
"f0vjd0k",
"f0vj6ci"
],
"text": [
"That term comes from an old Viewpoint that divided Humanity up into three primary racial groups called Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. At the time, European scientists thought that white people probably originated more or less in the Caucasus region. We no longer see this view as valid, and now see the subject of racial lineage as far more complex than that.",
"In the late 18th century, a man named Christoph Meiners decided that White Europeans (and also the inhabitants of the Middle East, North Africa, and India) had originated in the Caucasus and the name stuck. Meiners was a polygenist, meaning that he thought all races had separate origins.",
"The Göttingen School of History divided humanity into 3 main “races”, the Caucasoid (europeans), the mongoloid (asians, Finnish & native Americans), and the Negroids (all of Africa + native Australians). Of course nowadays we know this is blatant racism, and genetic data show this partition is highly inaccurate for non-Caucasians. It was nothing more than a shallow division by skin colour."
],
"score": [
161,
36,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d7dxas | How did the word "fuck" get it's double meaning? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0zio9y"
],
"text": [
"Fuck ultimately comes from the Latin fuctere, which means, “to beat with a stick” “Fuck you” is basically short for, “you fuck you” or “go fuck yourself” It’s really all the same meaning, just widely used for many reasons and contexts"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d7l7bd | Why is it that many English-speaking countries (minus the UK) prohibit drinking in public? | I've noticed that it's not just the US that has the so-called "open-container laws", but Canada and Australia as well with similar policies. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f11bljj",
"f11ev1p",
"f11bwfk",
"f11c5uf"
],
"text": [
"Drunk people are annoying, tend to barf and often want to fight. Not-drunk people find this unpleasant to be around.",
"Drinking in public is a remnant of old Puritan laws. These are the same remnants that produce blue laws, and such laws requiring you to have any alcohol purchased be covered in a brown paper bag. However, the definition of a public(the original bar was a \"public place\" or pub) place has become quite hard to define, as you can drink outside in a bar without issue. & #x200B; However, most of the time, being *drunk* in public is not a crime, only when you are being a nuisance.",
"It tends to lead to other crimes. Think negligence, gross (anything), disturbing the peace, etc. In some places, depending on severity, public intoxication is a criminal charge, at least in the US. It, in some senses, is part of tradition. Think Prohibition-era laws.",
"Drunk people suck, keep it at home. No 14 year old serving you at Mcdonalds wants to deal with some drunk old man demanding you give him fries while waving his shirt around. It encourages drunk driving, jay walking and just general harassment. Plus it'd suck to be sitting on the bus next to a group of dude bros having a beer."
],
"score": [
19,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d7rfx3 | why is the day divided into 24 hours, and we tell that time in 2 increments of 12? have there been other time-telling systems and history, and if so why didn’t they catch on? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f145mtl",
"f13ydaa",
"f13tnx3",
"f145v5t"
],
"text": [
"12 was the natural incremental number particularly in ancient Egypt. Where as we mostly count in 10s, 1 for each finger across 2 hands, Egyptians counted in 12s, - 12 knuckles on 4 fingers counted by the thumb on 1 hand",
"The French tried it after the Revolution, along with revising the calendar. [Here's the result]( URL_0 ). Decimal time- lasted about a year and a half before they went back to the old way.",
"There has most certainly been more ways of telling time. If I remember correctly our time telling system has to do with Egyptian astrology. Originally it was 360 days, based of the 36 decans (their most important star constellations, 10 days for each) and then 5 extra days to keep the years even (I think they considered those days to be when their most important gods were born, so Ra added a day for each child). After that they considered the night to be twelve hours, the day 10 hours and then two twilight hours (when magic was extra powerful, fyi). There is something about the number 12 that was important, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but this is how I remember learning it. I think this caught on like most other stuff Egyptian/Greek, by the spread of European empires and trading with the rest of the world. Unsure if there has been others.",
"Even in relatively recent history, not all cultures have used numerical systems for keeping time. From a linguistic perspective, there are languages that did not tell time with numbers until contact with Western civilization. For example, time telling in Hawaiian was not traditionally done with numbers, but rather through a very rich day part vocabulary that referenced sun and starlight and their interactions with nature. Rather than naming an hour with a number, there were several words for morning, afternoon, and night depending on the amount (or absence) of visible daylight and the height of the sun in the sky. Here are a few examples: Po - when it’s dark enough to see the stars in the sky through the turning on the Milky Way Aume - the dead of night before the eastern sky starts to brighten Wana’ao - when the eastern sky starts to brighten enough to wake the roosters, and the sky gains a purple tint Kakahiaka - when it’s light enough to walk around with no artificial light This doesn’t answer the first or last parts of your question, but you can see that there are many timekeeping methods, even ones that don’t include numbers or time measuring instruments at all. Telling time with exactitude is something that is particularly engrained in Western mindsets, but has by no means been universal throughout history."
],
"score": [
38,
17,
14,
13
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://svalbard.watch/pages/about_decimal_time.html"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d7t7b8 | How are sports video game 'ultimate team' card packs not as hot of an issue as loot boxes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f14alqy",
"f14dm75"
],
"text": [
"I think they are, but sports games have become more niche and just don't get the spotlight.",
"Games like Destiny and Fallout 76 are targeted at hardcore players. These players happen to be much more vocal about what they don't like, so they were able to set the narrative. FIFA is targeted at more casual players, who either don't particularly care about the inclusion of those mechanics or aren't as loud about disliking it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d802ra | Where did last names come from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f16957y",
"f16et5v",
"f173nlt"
],
"text": [
"People have been using some form of surnames for thousands of years, and probably for far longer than we have any record of. Surnames can come from all sorts of places, depending on the culture. You may be identified by a tribal name that passes from fathers to sons, or mothers to daughters, etc. Your family might be identified by the place you live, like \"Hi there, my name is Bob Bend-In-The-River-Above-The-Rapids, son of Fred Bend-In-The-River-Above-The-Rapids\". Your surname may be related to a specific spirit that serves as you're family's or clan's protector. Your surname could be a modified version of your father's first name (This is know as a Patronymic, and is still common in Russia) Every human culture has come up with ways to identify individuals, interpersonal and/or family relationships, and tribe/clan affiliation. And yes, as mentioned by others, in England we began to see a tradition of people adopting or being given surnames that were their profession, like Baker and Tailor and Smith, but surnames absolutely were NOT invented in England or Europe. It's also worth nothing that while many of us in the Western world think the proper way to introduce oneself is 1. First Name 2.Middle Name (in some cases) 3.Surname But this is purely a cultural tradition, and many cultures present the surname (or other identifier of family/clan/etc) first, since that culture puts more emphasis on who your group is rather than who you are as an individual. In America, in some cultural circles the family name is considered more important because it identifies your social class and connections, but on average we still go with the first name first. In some cultures it's considered appropriate to adopt the name (or a modified version of the name) of a god or saint or other holy or supernatural figure. In other cultures a child may start out by being given the surname (or identifying name) of their family clan, and then later in life they might give themselves, or even be given by others, a new name that reflects the person's journey in life, or some great accomplishment (or failure), or some skill they are renowned for. They are still very much a member of their birth clan/group, but they are also allowed to build on that and add their own special name to reflect that they are an individual while still being part of the greater culture.",
"They really depend on the culture of the area you're from. In many places, the surname came from the type of work your family did. Hence a lot of last names like \"Smith\" (smithing is working with metal, like a blacksmith or goldsmith) or \"Fisher.\" In others, a surname tells you where the person came from, the city or region perhaps. In Iceland, your last name is formed by adding -son or -dottir to your father's first name. [So if you are named Leif, the son of Erik, your name will be Leif Erikson. If you are Harpa, daughter of Stefan, you will be Harpa Stefansdottir]( URL_0 ). This is an unusual type of naming convention because it means members of the same family will not have the same last name. Your father's last name will be based on *his* father's name. If you're Leif Erikson, and your grandfather's name is John, then your father's name is Erik Johnson. In Wales, a similar system used to exist, a man's last name would be the name of his father preceded by the word \"ap\" which meant \"son of.\" If your father's name was Ryan, and your name was John, you'd be \"John ap Ryan\". Sometimes grandfathers and even great-grandfathers (and sometimes even more ancestors beyond that!) would be listed, leading to extremely long names like \"Bill ap John ap Ryan ap Robert ap...\" which meant Bill, the son of John, who was the son of Ryan, who was the son of Robert, etc. The *reason* for all of this is simply that surnames add more information. If you only have one name, there's a limit to how many people can be distinguished. You can't have too many people named Bob, people would get you all confused. Adding a second name (or a third or fourth) adds additional information so you can all be distinguished. Bob Jones is a different person than Bob Smith. However this only becomes necessary as societies grow larger and more complex. If you live in a small village of less than 100 people, then it's probably not necessary to have more than one name. And indeed that's how it works in many rural places that have little contact with the larger society. People just have one name and don't really need a last name.",
"Being an Indian and observing such vast diversity of religion ,casts,races etc around me I used to wonder why do people use surname. Asking elders and doing some research led me to these few facts about Surname. People used to have certain surname because of 1-The area they used to live in. A group of people living near a certain river or Mountain started identifying themselves by the name or a derivative of the name of that geographical structure. 2-The job their family and ancestors did. It's quite common to have a surname of a certain job like blacksmith,farmer, Soldier etc 3-The God they worshipped. People started using certain surname that was only for those who used to worship a certain Deity. 4-The Gypsys and Unknowns. There were people who used to roam around and not associate with any group or religion or place. They started calling themselves specific names(mostly something that sounded cool) and then there were some those who didn't have a clue where they came from so society gave them certain pronouns as surname( rude words mostly to belittle them)."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d8acjo | How are the british grades organized | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f18teem",
"f18thdy",
"f18tryz",
"f1965ie",
"f199r4x"
],
"text": [
"Primary school is our equivalent of elementary school, from ages 4/5 until 11. You start in reception, and end up in year six. This is all free if you go to a state school. Some kids will have been to nursery before this. In year six kids used to sit SATs which I believe have now been got rid off to test reading, maths levels etc. However these are different to the American SAT tests. Secondary school is from ages 11-16, with years 7-11. This is also free for those at state schools though some go to private schools. In year 9, at 13-14 many schools will do tests to see which subjects children are performing in to determine which options they can take. In year 10 and 11, (14-16) kids study for their GCSEs or vocational BTECs dependant on which options they pick. Some subjects are compulsory - maths English and a science subject. Others are picked by the student though not all schools have a large range of subjects and some encourage their students into certain things. At 16 students can pick from sixth-forms or colleges for their last two years of compulsory education. Sixth forms are usually attached to secondary schools, whilst colleges are more independent places. Here they study A-Levels or vocational BTECS. There are also some technical colleges where full time vocational courses are taught. Education is free up to age 18 (or older with certain disabilities)",
"I really only know the scottish system, but i know a few parts about England /Wales. Primary in scotland is for 7 years and Secondary for 6. All education in Scotland (not england) including university and college is 100% free. You can leave at 16 however I think in england you’ll need a job or a place in higher education. England has GCSE’s as their exams which are becoming more and more complicated each year. These are graded with numbers. Scotland has National 5’s and Highers which are graded much more similar to the American system. Generally, students in their fourth year of high school take Nat 5’s and those in fifth and sixth years take Highers, however depending on your level this might change. Hope I helped!",
"Year 1 is 4 to 5 year olds. There are nursery years before this, but they are not really school. You don't legally have to be in education until 7 (and even then you can home school right through to 18). The last year of school is whenyou turn 18 (year 13). You can leave at 16, but only if you are in some other form of education (eg an apprenticeship), or employed. We have two formal levels where people are tested and get qualifications - at 16 (called GCSEs), and most people take 8 or more, covering maths, english, sciences, and choices such as history, geography, languages etc. At 18 (if you stayed in school) most people do A levels, and take 3 (occasionally 4 or more), which is what gets them into university if they want. There are other qualifications apat from A levels, but these are less common. All of this to 18 is paid for by the government, although you can pay for a private school if you want. Oh and Scotland is totally different!",
"3 years old: nursery. Play and socialising 4 years old: reception. Transition between play to some lessons. 4-11: primary school 11-16: secondary school 16-18: 6th form or college. There’s also the option to leave full time education and take an apprenticeship, which is what I did. These can take up to 4 years to complete and are privately funded by a company that you are classed as an employee of during this time. Further employment is dependent on performance. 18+: university. This is not a general education. You apply for a specific course, there’s no major or minor. You apply to a university for a law degree, you purely study law.",
"NI is different; Primary school is primary 1 to primary 7 (age 4/5 to 11) Secondary/grammar school is year 8- year 14 (age 11/12 to 18) and in years 11 and 12 they do URL_0 and years 13 and 14 are for A levels. Many primary schools have standard tests in primary 7 (p7) to determine what secondary/grammar school you go to. If students either wish to or dont get the GCSE grades to continue to a levels, they can leave and go to technical college. Some schools do have a separate 6th form to the rest of the school (years 13 and 14). The NI school system also does an additional year of key stage 1 (p1-p4) and 3 years of key stage 2 whereas I believe it's the other way round in England."
],
"score": [
88,
17,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"G.C.S.Es"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d8aw8j | How did cornbread become the staple of southern comfort food? | As stated above. As I understand it, corn originated in Mexico about 7,000 years ago and eventually became a staple crop. During the colonial era, I was told that corn became a very common part of the diet because it's easy to grow, especially in the Northeast. Now, my friends tell me that I can't have BBQ without cornbread (Korean so no experience in this regard). Why? PS: Also, what the hell is Texas toast and how is it different from other buttered toast? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f18wrd3",
"f18xj3j",
"f190shr",
"f18zbw6"
],
"text": [
"Corn grows well in that climate, better in many cases than wheat does. So it became a staple food.",
"Corn was a staple grain/source of calories in the American south, especially among the rural poor. Cornbread was such a staple, some form of corn would have been served at almost every meal (cornbread, corn cakes, grits, this could go on forever). Texas toast is just big, hearty toast, or a piece of toast “the size of Texas”",
"Southern stereotypical food is just the cheap food that was available around 1900 in the south. Corn, watermelon, greens, catfish, crawfish, and pecans were readily available and cheap.",
"Corn is a native crop to most of North America, not just Mexico. It being a staple crop means that it is commonly consumed in various forms. Bread is just one of the common forms. That said cornbread is not common with BBQ (at least here in Texas). It is more common to be eaten at just a general meal, or with something like beans or chili. BBQ is normally served with common white bread. Texas Toast is a specific preparation of Toast where the bread is roughly twice as thick as a normal sandwich slice. It is generally baked or pan fried as it does not fit in a traditional toaster (though it will in a bagel toaster), and you sometimes use spiced butter on it similar to what you would use to make garlic bread. Its name comes from being large."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d8lbja | The suspension of UK parliament my prime minister Boris Johnson has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. What’s going to happen now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1b41vn"
],
"text": [
"According to the Supreme Justice ruling, the advice given to the Queen, and therefore the order that was given based on said advice are null and void, and did not take effect. The Royal Commissioners, when they walked into the houses of Lords and Commons with the orders from the Queen, were effectively carrying blank pieces of paper. In effect, NOTHING happened. The members of parliament are able to return to the house of lords/commons and resume the parliament as if nothing happened. The Commons speaker Mr Bercow has already announced that he is in talks with the members of parliament in regards to them returning to sit at the Commons at the first opportunity. Unless something new happens, it is expected the Commons will resume tomorrow."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d8pjhd | Why was speed/cup stacking pushed so heavily on elementary school students in the early 2000s? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1bu4bp",
"f1bv53v",
"f1c31yc",
"f1cslek",
"f1c0jyb",
"f1c7nra",
"f1c3tvq",
"f1d2drq",
"f1d26gd",
"f1d41sm",
"f1cjv7i",
"f1d58lg",
"f1d6bty"
],
"text": [
"Indoor activity, small footprint, competitive, builds hand-to-eye coordination, low cost of materials, easy rules to explain, unlikely to cause injury - it's all the things you could want in a PE activity with two feet of snow outside.",
"Here in Texas in the 90s when I was in elementary it was not an official thing done in school, but it was a common game kids played at lunch or recess. It is a relatively fun game that can be placed indoors, helps develop hand-eye coordination, and is fairly cheap to provide the components of.",
"Everything that /u/WRSaunders explained. **Plus**, in order to get really good at it, you need to be able to work equally well with both hands. This forces not just hand-eye co-ordination, but hand-eye co-ordination *on each side of your brain* plus *between the two sides of your brain*. Apparently, developing these bi-lateral connections as a youngster leads to benefits in other areas of life. Can't find the referenced papers, but it was an odd-enough fact at the time that I remembered it.",
"I want to know if anybody else’s elementary schools had assemblies where people were selling stuff—late 90’s. I can remember an assembly with curly no-tie shoelaces and one with a baton thing that you juggle with two sticks. At least the baton assembly involved someone doing cool tricks, but an entire assembly that was a shoelace sales pitch? There were other products that I can’t quite remember. Why would schools allow people to try to sell things to elementary students? Did the schools get a kickback?",
"Maybe it's just me but I've never seen or known anyone who has participated in this. Is it a regional thing?",
"Hahahaha I was the school wide record holder for “the cycle” or whatever where you did all the combinations for speed stacking. First email account when I was 9 was speedstacker. That record held for years after I was gone too, now I just play osrs to achieve pseudo accomplishments. I miss having a legacy",
"Anyone care to explain what OP is talking about?",
"After we were done rolling around on those little scooters with the caster wheels, doing the \"pacer\", throwing foam and yarn-like balls at each other (instead of full on dodge balls), throwing foxtails as hard as we could to see if they can hit the gym ceiling, playing floor hockey, and doing that giant parachute thing, but BEFORE pickleball, we had competitive cup stacking.",
"I don’t have an answer but I remember my year five teacher thought it looked like such a cool game that she made her own cup stacking set and even drilled holes in them but it didn’t quite work. She went on to buy the retail set for our class like the legend she was. We thought cup stacking was the shit. I think nearly everyone wished to get their own set for Christmas.",
"Yeah, but did you do some white version of [tinkling]( URL_0 ) with pvc pipe in PE?",
"I remember doing this around 3rd/4th grade. Is it still a thing in schools?",
"lol we never did it in gym but i do remember always having them in class.. i would have been so mad if i had to stack cups for gym tho",
"I always thought that the baby boomers were so disconnected from reality that they thought to solve the drug problems with cup stacking, that’ll give those punk kids something to do"
],
"score": [
4725,
296,
187,
166,
74,
30,
19,
11,
8,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/dOEJK2Z1GDY?t=14"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d8tf1d | What made American muscle cars so special during the time they were popular relative to the other (imports, etc) cars at the time? What made "american muscle" so remarkable for the time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1cktvu",
"f1cksdw",
"f1cnqy4",
"f1ck23z",
"f1cvat7",
"f1cw7ba"
],
"text": [
"American muscle cars were cheap to make, run and maintain at the time. This meant that you got a lot of car for your money. So even a high school teenager had enough money to drive a big fast V8 mustang. Import cars were usually quite expensive and were not designed for big engines. Of course now it is hard to find the cheap labor you had back then and the price of fuel is much higher on top of added emissions tax.",
"They were fast and cheap at a time when Baby Boomers were in their teens and early 20's, meaning a huge market for fast and cheap cars. They were easy to work on and customize and cheap/easy to get parts for. They were way more practical daily drivers than the European roadsters of the era, that were tiny 2-seaters, low to the ground and mostly convertibles which made them not practical in rain/snow/cold.",
"The US is largely unique in that cars are seen as a necessity, most cities are layed out in such a way to make it difficult to get by without one. The US also enjoys cheaper gas, bigger roads, while having a greater need to drive long distances. In other developed countries, cars are either basic transportation or a plaything for the rich, while the US largely occupies the niche in between. That means US car trends are different than other places in the world. The muscle car trend was about cheap cars that could go really fast. They were big and has poor mileage, a poor choice for people looking for basic transportation. And while they were high-performance vehicles, they were pretty no-frills as far as other luxuries went, so not much for the rich to show off. But if you had some disposable income and wanted a car that has something special about it, it was right in your wheelhouse.",
"American cars didn't have to worry about fuel consumption or the cost of production as much as foreign cars. So American muscle cars had comparatively huge engines, even if they had some major drawbacks when used on twisting roads found in places like Europe.",
"They were fast, inneficient, loud, extremely dangerous, garishly styled, and oddly fun. Like Americans themselves.",
"Try opening the hood of a Fiat from the same year. A smaller engine that’s hard to work on and breaks down all the time. Usually connected to a small body that you couldn’t pile 5 (or six!) people into. Also, Because Super Sport."
],
"score": [
12,
7,
7,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d99qjm | Why is "how come" virtually interchangable with "why" in America? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1fkhu4",
"f1fkl9b",
"f1fmfgc",
"f1fo5o6"
],
"text": [
"Seems to me that 'how come' is short for: 'how does it come to be that...' or 'how did it come to be that...' or 'how has it come to be that...' Or in even shorter form: Why?",
"\"How come\" is a colloquialism. It's considered to be less confrontational than \"why,\" but it's a pretty casual phrase (You wouldn't use it in an essay.) No one corrects people because it's a valid colloquialism.",
"How come your so worried about people badly doing grammar?",
"This is unrelated, but it sort of reminds me of Spanish to English translations. Por que would be why, but it could also be considered \"For what?\" Which is essentially the same as \"why\""
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d9bqg5 | Why do humans feel a need to find an explaination for everything, and tend to give explainations to things they can't explain using things like religion and superstition? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1fzueb"
],
"text": [
"People crave a narrative that all fits together. Our brains are wired that way to remember and process things. So having stories reduces mental stress."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d9qzyt | Why are tattoos seen as unprofessional in job places. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1koy2q",
"f1kmcdn"
],
"text": [
"Unmentioned here is a tattoo side-effect that has as much or more impact than the 'unprofessional because it's a tattoo' theme. Most tattoos are selected by the wearer to present a message, either personally to themselves or, more commonly, to the viewer. Putting aside the impact of culturally edgy or offensive messages no business wants its employees projecting a message that is not the corporate message. This is virtually all companies in almost all industries. It is a part of your employment to represent the company in a positive light. Companies don't want to be in the business of determining the hidden meanings of a tattoo, or how a customer may interpret it. Therefore it is simpler to simple ban them outright. Some newer companies in newer industries where an independant minded employee may be seen as an asset are less stodgy about this. That said ultimately it is their money you are asking them to give you. Their money, their rules.",
"Prejudice born out of the origins of tattooing - indigenous cultures across the globe have practiced tattooing. The process of colonization introduced new views of what acceptable behavior included, leading to the near erasure of the tattoo tradition for many nations. In North America, tattoo culture has typically been adopted by the margins of society, from criminals, to bikers, to even the military. Its rapid acceleration into mainstream culture has not changed much of the cultural prejudice against them."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d9t89n | Why do the mid-late Roman emperors only have a coin portrait of themselves, but not statue like the earlier ones? | URL_0 | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1l84vo"
],
"text": [
"Several overlapping reasons: * Some didn't rule long enough to commission and complete statues. * Some had too many problems to care, but coinage attached to them personally was a necessity. * Artistic skills declined, so statuary became less flattering. * Of the statues that were made, there were fewer of them, making their survival to the present less likely. * Recent statues in the late Empire were liable to be destroyed in a short time by new regimes. * In many eras and places, Christianity looked askance at the implicit idolatry of Classical statuary, and some late Roman / Byzantine rulers wishing to seem pious may have preferred to avoid a lot of grandiose depictions of themselves. * Statues lost political relevance as the Empire became ever more tyrannical and less aristocratic. Public opinion of the Emperor meant little, and he was protected from it mostly by keeping him as an unreachable mystery rather than an idealized man as in the Principate (early years of Empire)."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
d9y97p | When and why did being overweight go from a status symbol of being generally wealthy, to being a status symbol of being generally in poverty? | You notice in the mainstream alot of wealthy people are portrayed as fit, active, and attractive. People in poverty are portrayed as on welfare, low income communities etc. Thanks | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1m0nm7",
"f1m61bo"
],
"text": [
"A lot of fashion revolves around being able to show that you are wealthy. So basically do the opposite of the plebs. For example when most workers were working out in the fields the fashionable thing was to be pale as this shows that you do not spend your days outdoors working. And when workers moved inside into factories it became fashionable to get a tan to show that you could spend your days out in the sun instead of in a factory. Similarly only the rich could afford enough food to become fat as the poor would be quite skinny. However now everyone have enough food and only the rich can afford to take care of their body and be skinny.",
"In the USA this happened around the 1970s, when due to government agriculture policies the supply of cheap, high-calorie food (like corn) exploded. Before then, poor people were often skinny since food was costly."
],
"score": [
36,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
da0fla | How can every western/central European person alive be a descendant of Charlemagne? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1me0oy",
"f1mfb5z"
],
"text": [
"A generation is, roughly, 20 years. Charlemagne was alive around the 800s, or about 60 generations ago. Starting with you, you have two ancestors in the generation before you (your parents) and four ancestors in the generation before that (your grand parents) and so forth. Generalizing, you have 2^(n) ancestors *n* generations ago. That means you have 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 ancestors 60 generations ago. If something seems off about that number, that's because there is. There are only 7 billion people alive today and this is suggesting you had 1 million million million ancestors over a millennia ago, when the population of the Earth was only about 250 million. How to resolve that discrepancy? Inbreeding. At some point in counting out your ancestors, you're going to run into duplicates. And basically how the math works is, once you go far enough back, *everyone* alive is your ancestor. Charlemagne is picked because he is a famous figure of that time period, but the real mindblowing statement is that *everyone* in Europe back then is an ancestor of every European alive today. Or, at least, it is tantamount to a mathematical certainty.",
"It's a numbers game. If you go back \\~1000 years, which is around 33 generations, you'll find that you have over a billion ancestors (2\\^33) because of how exponential growth works. It should be obvious that this is a gross simplification because there is nowhere close to a billion people alive at that time. By this logic, every white person is related not just to Charlemagne, but every other white person who lived more than about 900 years ago. This doesn't mean you share DNA with any of those people, though. While you do inherit 50% of your genes from your father and 50% from your mother, that doesn't mean you have 25% of each of your grandparents or 12.5% of each of your great grandparents and so on. The way gene recombination works mean you might share literally 0% with a great grandparent, even if you are related by directly by blood. You **probably** don't share a single drop of DNA with Charlemagne, even if you are a direct descendant borne straight out of his eldest son's eldest son's eldest son's eldest son's all the way down the line to you. Not even the tiniest fraction of a sliver of DNA."
],
"score": [
21,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
daa3mn | Why does cycling, as a sport, and Russia, as a country, have such a big issue with doping? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1oc205"
],
"text": [
"The real reason is that they do a lot of testing. (talking about cycling, not russia). Most major sports (soccer, football, hockey etc) have comparatively minimal testing, which is fairly easy to beat if you know what you're doing. Cycling appears to have a doping problem because they choose to expose it, rather than turning a blind eye. A good example would be the UFC, which used to use in competition testing only. Once they began using USADA, dozens of fighters tested positive of saw reduced performance."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dacucw | How does US school suspension work? Isn't education mandatory? Do you have to study at home? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1op4e2",
"f1oouos",
"f1op23w"
],
"text": [
"Education is mandatory in the sense parents are obligated to send their children to school Any particular school is not required to accept every student. Not only can students be suspended, they can be expelled. When that happens, the parents have to find a new school.",
"I think the idea is that it removes the student from the situation for a time, let cooler heads prevail. Its bullshit of course. Another aspect is parental punishment, if you get suspended your folks will (in theory) rake you over the coals. In reality it’s an outdated and flawed, ineffectual punishment",
"Out-of-school suspension is usually reserved for the most severe of cases, such as a student bringing in weapons and/or threatening to use them. The idea is generally that a student who has reached that point is such a hazard that they threaten the safety of anyone at school assigned to watch over them. Typical, for less serious cases, \"in school suspension\" aka assigning you to a single room all day in supervised silence or similar punishment, is used first."
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
damdqg | Why have some languages like Spanish kept the pronunciation of the written language so that it can still be read phonetically, while spoken English deviated so much from the original spelling? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1r93nb",
"f1qxf1b",
"f1rcygb",
"f1sa0o9",
"f1sajis",
"f1rwlxl",
"f1s9it0",
"f1rve90",
"f1sda9t",
"f1shw8f",
"f1rxhjg",
"f1s4voe",
"f1rgl9t"
],
"text": [
"English did not originally have fixed spelling. People would spell words however they thought it sounded. This means that spelling varied from person to person and region to region. Also, due to being made of bits of several languages all smushed together often retaining parts of the original language's rules, there's no consistency as to how words are pronounced or where you even get the spelling from. A man named Samuel Johnson eventually wrote a dictionary in which he spelled the words however he wanted to and because of how popular it became, that became the fixed spelling. Johson liked stuffy fancy spellings rather than simple phonetic ones and he set the idea of telling people the \"correct\" way to write instead of telling them how words were normally used. Webster eventually did something similar for American English, although he preferred simplified spellings, hence some of the differences between American and British spelling.",
"Spanish has an academy whose mission is to standardize and grow the Spanish language, so that helps Spanish to keep its strict pronunciation. English is, and has always been, a total shitshow, linguistically speaking. [ URL_0 ]( URL_1 )",
"A mix of historical change and language attitudes. English spelling was mostly standardised just before a [major series of sound changes]( URL_0 )happened, and the spelling mostly reflects the pronunciation from before those changes. Spanish hasn't had really much of anything quite so disruptive happen - it's been more a long series of much smaller changes. On the attitude side of things, English speakers have made a huge deal out of the concept of 'spelling things right', to the point that major change is largely unthinkable at this point - too many people have too strong of feelings about the current spelling system. (This might also be due in part to English's more major sound changes! It would take a massive reform to update English spelling, and it would have even if the reform had happened in 1600, thanks to the above-mentioned Great Vowel Shift - updating to account for even just that change would require a major change. Spanish on the other hand has largely been able to get by on a rolling series of small tweaks.) Plus, now English has different standard dialects in different places, and it would be impossible to achieve a Spanish-like level of one(ish)-to-one(ish) letter-to-sound correspondences in all dialects simultaneously without having different spellings per dialect. For some other examples, compare Tibetan - which has a worse spelling-to-pronunciation correspondence than English does - and Swedish and Norwegian, where Swedish has much less predictable spelling than Norwegian despite them being basically dialects of the same language (from a purely linguistic perspective). Norwegian has gone through a series of language reforms (not confined only to spelling) since Norway's independence from Denmark in 1814, in part as a way of asserting a separate linguistic identity from Danish; Swedish just hasn't ever had the same impetus to change. Tibetan went through a drastic change somewhat like English did, where several kinds of previous consonant distinctions got turned into tone distinctions all in one go; I suspect that's also part of why Tibetan hasn't been updated.",
"Ditto to everyone about the random spellings and eventual \"uniformity\" inspired by dictionaries and an increased number of literate speakers. I'm a L2 (second language learner) of Spanish and a native English speaker. Spanish only has 22-24 phonemes while English has 38-45. (World languages like these two have A LOT of speakers spanning a big portion of the globe). *Phonemes are distinct sounds of speech. We think of these as letters, but English doesn't have the same amount of letters to match the phonemes. English also has a lot more phonemes than Spanish so exponentially there are more combinations in English than in Spanish. Examples- English sound /zh/ or /ʒ/; this sound has no singular letter to represent it. Example words are azure, measure, Jacques (loan words/names from French), casual. So /ʒ/ can be represented as z, s, j, or s. This variation is confusing so many people believe that /zh/ could be an allophone of /s/ /sh/ /z/ or /j/. S sound, Sh sound, Z sound, or J sound (/dʒ/ for j sound) respectively. An allophone is a variation of a phoneme because phonemes change based on mouth position and the way your produce the sound (though teeth, throat, nose, etc.,,) Allophone example- Stop versus top. Say stop and put your hand in front of your mouth to feel if air hits your hand when you say the t (it shouldn't), but when you say top it should. These are two different sounds of /t/, but we only use one letter for these sounds. The two variations are the same phoneme or base sound. This happens a lot in any language. Allophones are everywhere, but we don't notice them because our brains steam line when we're in diapers. I could go on. Comment if you want more explanation.",
"It is important to note that spoken languages always evolve in the way that they're spoken. Spanish is no exception to this; 1600s Spanish is very different to the Spanish of today, and even among different regions and countries, Spanish is spoken differently. There are a couple of key differences between Spanish and English that makes it more 'phonetic': * Note that both languages use the *Latin alphabet*. The language for which it was most suited for is, by and large, Latin, which had five vowel sounds and some number of consonants. English has always had more than five; hence why we have to distinguish between the *long* vowel sounds and the *short* vowel sounds, and why two vowel letters like 'ew' make one sound. Spanish is also not quite a perfect match to Latin's sounds: letters like 'h' are pretty much obsolete as Spanish doesn't have this sound, and letters like 'b' and 'v' actually make the same sound in Spanish. So Spanish isn't as phonetic as it might seem at first glance. * Spanish has updated its spelling to reflect changing pronunciations. This is largely thanks to a central body governing - written - Spanish: the Réal Academia, which happens to be highly respected by education and the media, and so any decisions they make happens to eventually make it through to all parts of society. English lacks such a central body, and so it's much harder to convince people to spell differently. For all the rag that English gets, no one actually seems enthusiastic about a more phonetic variant. Quite a few Commonwealth speakers I know seem to scoff at the idea of adopting even American English spelling, even though it was born out of Noah Webster's (failed) attempt to make English a more phonetic language. * The pronunciation of Spanish has changed in a way that doesn't seem contradictory to the way it's written. For example, 'g' and 'd' have evolved to a much softer sound than we would say them in English. When a Spanish speaker says 'de nada', it's closer \"de natha\", but since Spanish originally had no 'th' sound to begin with, d just becomes associated with that 'th' sound; same with 'g', whose pronunciation is closer to the soft Dutch 'g'. Contrast this with English; the 'ea' in 'meat' and 'ee' in 'meet' where once pronounced differently, but these two sounds merged a few centuries ago to give the modern pronunciation. This, on top of no one being able to convince speakers to spell them the same when they started to be pronounced the same, creates a very much 'fossilised' version of English; a spelling of English that largely reflects its old pronunciation, while Spanish has, for the most part, managed to keep up the way it writes with the speaking populace. Side-note: There exists this big misconception that language use is dictated by the way it is written; this is very much false. In all regards, the way a language is written is subservient to the way that the people speak it. Written English (or written Spanish) is not the 'ideal' nor 'correct' way to use or speak the language; this is just a by-product of the way writing evolves: the elite and educated use writing, therefore how they do it must be somehow 'correct'. This is, of course, not at all reliable. When the French Revolution occurred, the way the bourgeois used French immediately became stigmatised, and the language of the revolutionaries became the 'correct' way. The point being, what happens to be considered the 'correct' way of writing or using a language has no objective reason; it's just that that version happened to be in vogue.",
"No language has “original spelling”. Languages are oral and evolve based on usage. Writing systems weren’t introduced until very late in the history of language. English spelling was standardised in the 1600s in the middle of something called “The Great Vowel Shift” where certain vowels and diphthongs shifted up (yes up, physically) in the mouth. For instance “House” used to be pronounced exactly as it is spelled “Hoos-uh”. During the great vowel shift the pronunciation changed, but the spelling never did. English has no central authority, whereas Spanish does, and it has so many dialects now that even if it did have an “English language academy”, which one becomes the “standard” dialect? I’m sure the 67 million people in Britain would *never* accept an “American standard English” spelling reform based on American pronunciation.",
"English is a MESS. The languages spoken in the British Isles first are various versions of Pict and Celtic. Britain was then invaded repeatedly. first invasion with a written record was by the Romans (and the Greeks tagged along). Various place names show signs of it, including any town called -caster, which suffix is derived from the Latin word 'castrum', which is a fort or castle. Eventually, the Romans left (the Roman Empire was in decline), and then various tribes of Germanic peoples migrated, taking their languages with them. This includes the Angles (where the word 'English' eventually formed), the Saxons, the Jutes, and probably a few other tribes. Eventually the Angles and the Saxons intermarried and mostly won out for the moment, hence the term 'Anglo-Saxon'. The Danes and other Norse peoples were a constant pain in the English backside, leaving behind all sorts of words (including most that start 'kn-' with the k being silent). In fact, the Norse invasion of 1066 drained the English King Harold's army's reserves badly, so when the Norman Duke William decided he wanted to force Harold to give up the throne (there was a lot of brute force politics involved), Harold's exhausted army couldn't withstand William's fresh one and Harold was slain. The Normans spoke French, and a lot of the 'fancy' English words are originally French. This whole mess has led to English being a mess, phonetically. It's also led to a pair of fun sayings. 1. 'English is the product of Norman knights wanting a little fun with Saxon barmaids, and is no more or less legitimate than any of the other results.' 2. 'English doesn't just borrow words from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them out with a club and goes through their pockets looking for loose vocabulary.'",
"English actually did enunciate phonemes that are no longer enunciated. For instance, in night the gh was pronounced, and the e at the end of “silent e” words was said as an “ee” or “e” sound. Many of these much more Germanic enunciation were spoken all the way through to at least Early Modern English, and sometimes even into late modern English. It began as a much more phonetic language, but the incorporation of Latin language aspects into its every day language, along with dialectical phonemic changes over time made it deviate from original pronunciation.",
"Short version: The Latin-based words in English haven't shifted much. Ditto, Spanish. The Germanic/Old English words *have* shifted lots, because they're not used as much by the posh people who controlled Standard English and therefore controlled the pronunciation of English. Also, the spellings *used to be* phonetic but they only reflected the pronunciations that the 1% used. So, from the very start, the spellings were all jacked up. English was given standardized spelling in the 15th Century by the Chancery, a government agency (king's court, whatever). The spelling was based on the way words were pronounced within the London-Oxford-Cambridge triangle, a chunk of England where rich, posh, well educated people lived. This led to two problems. 1. Other accents, other dialects (subgroups of English), etc. were ignored. 2. As pronunciation shifted, both inside and outside the London-Oxford-Cambridge triangle, spellings didn't keep up. Therefore, over time, spellings ceased to reflect the pronunciation. Spanish is heavily derived from Latin. So are Italian, Romansch, Languedoc, Romanian, French, and ... something else. That's why their spelling and pronunciation didn't shift all that much. They're Romance languages, which means they're balls-deep in Latin. (That's a technical term.) English, on the other hand, is primarily Germanic. It uses a lot of French and Latin because of the Norman Invasion and the Catholic Church respectively. Still, there's always been a tension between the two groups of words. Old English (AKA Anglo Saxon, AKA pre-1066 'English') words tend to be pronounced *very* differently from Latinate (AKA Latin/French/romance) words. If you look at the posher, more highfalutin' words, they're Latinate and their pronunciation hasn't shifted that much. Check this out. \"I desire to inquire as to the propinquity of my artisanal cutlery. Your concomitant reply is appreciated.\" It sounds pretentious because it's all Latinate. The bigger words' pronunciation hasn't shifted much because they're Latinate and share much with Spanish/French/etc. Now, try the inkhorn (more Germanic) version. \"I want to ask where my stuff is. Tell me. Thanks.\" Much more casual, much more 'common', and much more prone to shifts in pronunciation. 'Want' was *vanta*. 'Ask' was *ax* or *ascian*. Stuff was *stoppian*. Thanks was probably *tanke* or something. Compare that to 'desire' (French *desirer*, Latin *desiderare*), 'inquire' (French *enquerre*, Latin *inquirere*), etc. The Latinate words are so close to Latin that you can almost understand high-register English without studying it, if you know enough Latin. Now, consider this. The posh folks who controlled English spelling also controlled Standard English pronunciation, either consciously or unconsciously. (Think about Downton Abbey and how influential it is. Then, think about monks, politicians, and aristocrats. They control the schools, which produce the next generation of high-register English speakers, and so on.) So, not only do the 1% control the money, but they also control how high-register English (Latinate English) evolves. Pronunciation won't shift much, because spelling won't shift much, because the spelling of Latinate words doesn't usually *need* to change, because the pronunciation is already set by the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle. It's quite circular in reasoning and in feedback. Common English, AKA inkhorn English, AKA low-register English, can evolve much more and *does* evolve much more. There are 100 dialects, 200 regional accents, etc. and most of them contain words and phrases that pre-date the Norman Invasion. Fore example, Geordie contains a surprising about of Danish. Naturally, those words didn't make it into Standard English. Still, the spellings of inkhorn English could evolve in those communities because most people spoke two dialects anyway (Standard English and the local dialect of English). The 1% felt no need to regulate non-standard dialects, and hoi polloi felt no need to kiss the 1%'s ass by tweaking their own spellings. Eventually, as I said, the Chancery did standardize inkhorn spellings, but no one really paid attention to *speaking* in those spellings. The spellings *were* phonetic briefly, but they were standardized about the Oxford-Cambridge-London pronunciation! So, from the very start, the spellings did not reflect the way that most English-speakers talked. Matters worsened as the centuries passed, because English evolves... and whereas Latinate words' pronunciations stayed true to their roots (because the 1% tried super-duper hard to keep on speaking 'nicely'), the inkhorn words' pronunciations shifted all over the bloody shop (because that's what happens when normal people speak normal English in 200 different ways).",
"English didn't deviate from original spelling. Spelling adapted to the English language speakers throughout its history. And its why it gives so many secondary speakers a vocabulary pronounciation headache of its own. 😁 I wouldn't say Spanish has kept pronunciation for the same reasons above and below. It was adapted to its speakers. But Korean fits this description of being pronounced as written because modern Korean was constructed to be so. So why isn't English pronounced the way it's spelled? As logical as it would seem from convenience and efficiency in learning, languages don't always evolve that way. They become designed that way once speakers become aware of their sound and written language and try to find ways to standardize it so it's easier to educate others and make the population literate. This is what happened with Korean. The Chinese characters didn't exactly fit the pronounced language. So they designed a written language to fit their pronounced language (Korean characters literally tell you how to make the sound in your mouth) to make it easy for everyone to learn and be literate. But for a language to change like this takes strong influences, like an effective government and education system. But languages don't always turn out this way because native speakers get used to inconsistencies and inconveniences. People learn to adapt to the 'logic' of their language. And in the case of English, you just have to learn those awkward pronounciations ( thought, night, this, house, mice, exam ) because a lot of foreign influences over hundreds integrated into English. First there was the Celtic languages. Then the Romans came, left, then came back with Caesar and established some of the latin in our grammar and alphabet. Then Germanic groups like the Angles ans Saxons brought Old English, which is not too unfamiliar from Modern English. Then the Vikings raided and gave us some cool words like that start with sk, sky and skill. Then the Norman french invaded and slowly killed off Germanic Old English after making French the court language for awhile, which is why English has a lot of French vocabulary that trickled to the peasantry. (Colour, battle, castle) Apple used to refer to all kinds of fruit in general rather than just a Red Delicious or Granny Smith. It wasn't until around the Tudor era that Early Modern English broke out of the French from court. We also had the Great Vowel shift where our pronounciation of vowels in words went rose in the mouth. Colonialism and Exploration added some words from Dutch, German, Spanish, and Portuguese into English because of over seas trading. And by this point the printing press was made so more people started to become literate and read and write in English. But everyone had their own spelling and writing conventions. Dictionaries and rules of style to standardize English were slowly being established mostly in the 1700s by a lot of educated men who had their own ideas of what proper grammar and spelling for English should be, like Samuel Johnson for the British and Webster for the Americans. (This is why the British spell Colour and Americans Color.) Hope this explains why languages don't always pronounce as they're written.",
"Part of the issue here is that you're comparing apples and oranges. There isn't really any single set of phonetic rules for English to deviate from. Spanish is a purely romance language, so it's based on a single previous language. English is based on many, so any given word might have very different phonetics than another. English even borrows heavily from other languages like Spanish and French, so even though those are both based on Latin, they gave their own unique spin to the sounds, and English copies both.",
"Because English is a germanic language with a relatively large influence from languages of non-germanic origin, such as french and a plethora of other romance languages. In terms of pronunciation and spelling, germanic languages are more straightforward than romance languages. This particularly large french influence, however, can be traced back to the norman conquest of england. To illustrate how modern english has deviated from its early, germanic roots; Icelandic is, among living languages, the most closely related to old english. Seriously, I strongly encourage you to look into the similarities between Icelandic and Old English (anglo saxon). It is fascinating",
"There’s also the fact that as English has absorbed words from other languages, it sometimes stuck to the original pronunciation, but has more often anglicized it into something that sounds more like a word that’s English. Take the French word “foyer, “ which is pronounced in American English with a hard “r” at the end. Or the Japanese word “karaoke,” which I have heard butchered as “ka-row-kee” and “karry-okie” (not those spellings, just those pronunciations), when the Japanese pronunciation is “kah-rah-oh-kay.” But having those middle vowels is not an English thing, so the word gets pronounced like I showed. Those are recently absorbed words, but the same thing has been happening for centuries."
],
"score": [
6302,
299,
249,
119,
72,
33,
24,
22,
20,
6,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association\\_of\\_Academies\\_of\\_the\\_Spanish\\_Language",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Academies_of_the_Spanish_Language"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
darbob | Why is “Lean” pronounced the way it’s spelled, but “Sean” is pronounced “Shawn”? | I’m over here calling people “Seen” and they’re like nah fam it’s “Shawn” and I’m like well then spell it that way bro, lol. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1t0576",
"f1t0fjn",
"f1t3k1m",
"f1upcpd"
],
"text": [
"Seán is an Irish name, so Irish spelling rules apply. You pronounce it according to Irish rules the same way you pronounce Jean according to French and Juan according to Spanish.",
"From what I recall, Sean is a traditional Irish name (like, proper Irish, not English with an accent but a totally different language) and so the letters are pronounced differently from standard English. Likewise, I once had a teacher whose first name was Siobhan and you pronounce it something like \"Sha-von\". I think that one's Irish too.",
"Short answer: *Sean* is of Celtic origin, while the verb *to see* is Germanic. There is very little consistency overall in English regarding the way words are spelled and the way they are pronounced compared to other European languages. It's one of the things that makes English hard to learn for many people.",
"I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble, but not you, On hiccough, thorough, lough and through? Well done! And now you wish, perhaps, To learn of less familiar traps? URL_0"
],
"score": [
35,
20,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://spellingsociety.org/uploaded_misc/poems-online-misc.pdf"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
dazxwh | Why is it called "Getting high" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1wthga",
"f1wkng8",
"f1x0hmt",
"f1y9lp2",
"f1wmw8d",
"f1y6ac6"
],
"text": [
"It's pretty much related to feeling in a better or *higher* state compared to how you feel normally. Serotonin is the neurotransmitter that keeps you at that normal/calm state. A deficiency in serotonin can lead to symptoms of depression. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that makes you high/happy. A deficiency in dopamine can lead to symptoms of Parkinson's. **(this is wrong, I'm leaving it in for those reading)** Because dopamine is the how you feel \"high\", it's also contributed to the slang \"dope\" and \"doped up\". Hope this helped! **EDIT:** Didn't realize the dopamine/dope slang was wrong. That was something I've heard all of my life and I didn't ever reconsider it. I know dopamine isn't the prime reason for feeling high in all situations, there are way more chemicals and substances involved in feeling different things. I was mainly thinking about how dopamine is usually the activator. Sorry for the false information! Read Earl's comment for the accurate answer.",
"\"Getting high\" is always subjective. It can be a lot of things. For one, the euphoric feeling a drug gives can lead the user to feel an elevated sense of happiness, among other things. An elevated sense of certain perceptions is a \"high\". Also, if you look at the drugs uptake by the body as a linear graph, it looks somewhat like a mountain. You start at the bottom, then rocket to the top concentration of the drug in your blood (peak), then plateau there for a while. On a linear graph, your plateau is the \"highest\" you get. Then you come down on the other side. TLDR: Think of how people feel when at the \"high\" point in their life. High is associated with positive feelings.",
"Occams razoring this one: We call being sad \"feeling low\". So being happy would be synonymous with feeling \"high\" or \"floating above the clouds\" etc. etc. Drugs make you happy, thus they make you \"high\". Plus, saying \"Hey bro wanna go get happy?\" doesn't have the same ring to it. tl;dr: Its slang.",
"Most of the everyday ways we talk about our personal feelings use *metaphors*. This means that we describe things that don't really have a size, or weight, or color, or location, as if they did. It makes things like ideas and feelings easier to describe and compare. \"Being high\", \"getting high\", \"feeling high\" use positions in space as a symbol for an emotion and a state of mind. It matches with the \"up and down\" way we talk about other ideas/feelings, like happiness (\"I'm feeling *up*. My spirits *rose*. She always gives me a *lift*.\"), wakefulness (\"I got *up*. I woke *up*. I *fell* asleep.\"), intensity (\"*High* drama. The *height* of passion. *High* activity. *High* winds and *high* seas.\"), and general positivity (\"Things are looking *up*. We hit a *peak*.\") \"Being high\", describing a feeling you get from taking certain chemicals, was first used a few hundred years ago, when \"high\" could also mean \"violent, loud\" and \"uncontrollable\". A good description for someone roaring drunk on gin. Nowadays, \"getting high\" is related to orientational metaphors about fantasizing and day-dreaming like \"head in the clouds\", \"spaced out\", and \"down-to-earth\". But it's also connected to spiritual metaphors about awareness like \"higher consciousness\". TLDR: We symbolically describe good moods, intense experiences, uncontrollable activity, the world of fantasy and imagination, and spiritual awareness as \"up\". \"Getting high\" sits nicely among these metaphors and connects these concepts. - A lot of these examples, and the general ideas, are from [\"Metaphors We Live By\"]( URL_0 ) by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.",
"Drive up a mountain pass ( > 3km up), get out of the car and take a few deep breaths. Compare the experience with your drug of choice. Drive back down very carefully.",
"Sadly I don't have the time to do the research necessary to answer this question properly, but I think it's interesting. How did the word for \"tall\" come to mean \"intoxicated\"? Here's what I found: The Online Etymological Dictionary says that \"high\", meaning \"euphoric or exhilarated from alcohol\" is first attested 1620s, and of drugs, 1932. And it says this sense of \"high\" shares the same etymology as \"high\" meaning both \"physically elevated\" and \"exalted\" (one root, dual meanings). Compare a \"high mountain\", a \"high priest\". From there I can only speculate. Given the historical connection between religion and alcohol, my guess would be that this sense of \"high\" comes from the religious meaning rather than the geographical, but I can't say for certain."
],
"score": [
134,
107,
15,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books/about/Metaphors_We_Live_By.html?id=r6nOYYtxzUoC"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
db4scg | We all hear about the crazy psychological experiments that the CIA has done but we never here why they did them? So, why did they do them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f1y44y5"
],
"text": [
"If you're talking about MK-ULTRA, they were done because the CIA wanted to experiment with mind control and developing better interrogation techniques to get information from spies."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dbc3x9 | Where does the idea of Magic come from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2007xf",
"f20mk5v",
"f20x0oo",
"f20y9gl"
],
"text": [
"Magic is sort of the primordial version of science. You eat this and something happens. You do this and something else happens. You don't know *why* it happens because you're a cave man, but you have an understanding of cause an effect. So then, when something incredible happens like fire and brimstone pouring from the earth or electrical arcs ripping across the sky, what's causing that? Something supernatural? A witch? A god? Can normal people learn this power? You see the same kinds of early animist religion all over the world, where people seeking to explain cause and effect start concocting some elaborate \"causes\" for things and developing a magical mythology.",
"Human are great at [pattern recognition]( URL_0 ). So great that we [recognize patterns that aren't actually there]( URL_1 ). For example, a person might watch a sport while wearing their team's jersey, see their team win, and conclude that the jersey is lucky and in some way caused the win. Over time these beliefs can develop into more and more elaborate structures.",
"Belief in magic comes from magical thinking. Magical thinking is our naive way to understand the world, given insufficient data. It relies on several \"laws\" that seem intuitively right, but are factually wrong. * Sympathetic law: an effigy is equivalent to the original. This is where the voodoo or hoodoo doll comes from: an effigy of someone is damaged, in hope this will somehow harm the original. * Law of contagion: things that once were in contact remain united by an unseen bond. So a part can be used to influence the whole; this is what caused shamans and sorcerers to curse people using their stolen hair or fingernails. * Law of names: names have significance, especially true names. You can summon anything by speaking their name aloud. These laws were usually coupled with animism, a belief in spirits of all things. If these spirits exist, it must be possible to speak to them, or bribe them, or coerce them. From this, shamanism arises, an applied magical form of animism. As religion becomes more sophisticated, so does magic. When animism gave way to paganism, sorcerers became like priests, learned folk practicing primitive science and conducting sacrificial rituals. When paganism gave way to monotheism, magic took the form of Hermeticism, a belief system borrowing Abrahamic concepts of angels and demons and using elaborate rituals to speak with them. Our modern idea of magic as the \"science of throwing fireballs\" comes from the idea of magic aping science, rather than religion. Science is a knowledge that lets a human being harvest incredible energies from nature, without invoking any powerful entities. So the modern fantasy magic is the same: it borrows \"mana\" from the natural world, as science would borrow ore or crude oil, and transforms it into fireballs and lightning without help from spirits, angels or demons.",
"The foundation of human thought is narrative. We are hard wired to understand the world as a story (i.e. a series of understood and predictable causal relationships). We turn our experiences into stories and use those stories to predict the future. When a story doesn't make sense to us, when there are blank spots, we tend to try to fill those missing holes with the pieces we already have. One of my great loves is conspiracy theories, because they are a (relatively) safe space to examine how our normal thinking goes awry. If I tell you that a person walked on the moon and you have no pieces in your story kit to understand how they got there, you might start reaching for the pieces you already have. You might not have the story piece that says \"delta v requirements for trans-lunar flight,\" but you probably have the story piece that tells you (loosely) how a movie studio operates. Over time, you'll find that the wrong pieces don't fit right -- but you can cut up even smaller pieces and place them in the gaps. This is how conspiracy theories become more ornate."
],
"score": [
116,
26,
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(psychology\\)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dbi7em | Why do people often refer to buses, whales, football stadiums, etc. In documentaries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f21vww9",
"f21wjm6"
],
"text": [
"Because this is something you can visualize easily. Even if it's not exact, you see buses every day or you probably already went in a football stadium. It's always easier to compare to something you know. Otherwise, it's a bit hard to imagine big numbers. It's like the \"Banana for scale\" on pictures but for numbers, surfaces, volumes...",
"Because large numbers (heavy weights, large volumes, etc.) are difficult to comprehend without some comparison to well-known objects like the ones you listed. And just to add, when numbers get really really large, a common technique to aid in comprehension is to involve a rate into the comparison. For example when talking about the net worth of a billionaire, one might say, “if you earned $50,000 per year, it would take you 20,000 years to earn one billion dollars.” It just aids in the conceptualization of big numbers."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dbjl7h | what is the keto diet? Why is it so popular? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f2284io"
],
"text": [
"Basically all the kids except you have stopped eating sugar of any kind. Donuts, pasta, candy, ice cream, PB & J's, and more are out of the question. Your body has fat that just stays there until your body needs sugar again. Since you aren't eating any sugar your body starts to need sugar so it gets the fat, chops it up and there is a mix of fat and sugar in there. In that process you start to hypothetically lose fat and weight. The reason it's popular is because of the same reason and diet is popular. A few celebrities got on it and tell people that it works and in theory it does, but it is not good for long term dieting. Hope that helped."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eibkhx | What caused the sudden and dramatic shift from predominantly hands-off parenting in the 50s and 60s to the overprotective, helicopter-style of parenting we see today? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fcos9q7",
"fcos6d3"
],
"text": [
"I would say more access to media and awareness of crimes against children. We also have shifted to the “mind your own business” mentality. Back then all neighbors knew each other and kept an eye out for each other’s kids. Nowadays neighbors, at least in my experience, keep to themselves mostly. We’ve lost that village mentality.",
"The 24 hour news cycle and the Baby Boom In the 50s and 60s, there were only three or four channels on TV, a handful of radio stations, and the newspaper for news. So even when bad news came out, it was slow to travel across the country and didn't impact people very much. Couple that with the fact that there were more children and less adults, and sprawling suburbs, made it far safer to allow children to go off on their own. By the time the 80s and 90s came out, there were more adults out there, and news became easier to consume thanks to cable. This new news cycle made it easier to see when serial killers were active, and hear about when kids were abducted. As for the suburbs, they slowly became more dangerous as more adults were out there driving cars, leading to more chances for kids to get hit on the street 30-50 years ago, it wouldn't have been odd to see kids playing hockey or soccer in the middle of the street. Even bringing out goal nets. Today, it's all but unheard of."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eigho5 | Why are mass shooters never forward and upfront about their motives? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fcprt9p",
"fcpyj8k",
"fcq0c7v",
"fcq062l",
"fcq02om",
"fcq004q",
"fcpxfz6"
],
"text": [
"You’ve actually made a pretty interesting distinction. It could have something to do with the profile of mass shooters. They are generally loners who suffer from severe mental illness whereas a lot of serial killers are seeking attention and notoriety.",
"I think that some do. The shooter who attacked the mosque in New Zealand wrote out a manifesto, the Isla Vista shooter uploaded a video before his attack. There may be others, this is just the only two that I know of off the top of my head.",
"Mass shooters sometimes have a manifesto. I read the new zealand shooters manifesto. It was erased from the internet rapidly. & #x200B; I just wanted to understand, but actual motivations for mass homicide is something that just doesn't get reported these days.",
"Elliott Rodger and Anders Breivik wrote long treatises explaining why they did what they did.",
"My guess is that shooting a gun is a lot less personal than serial killers. The motive might be a lot more abstract and less planned than perhaps a serial killer's. It seems to be that mass shooters often go on rampages due to frustration, anger or being bullied rather than a deep psychological issue or fetish like a serial killer. That's not to say that a mass shooter isn't psychologicaly damaged, but it seems more reactionary behaviour rather than obsessive and calculated.",
"I would guess the reason for that is simply sample size. I think the subset of serial killers like Daher who are so willing to share their life stories is pretty small. But over the years there have been hundreds and hundreds of serial killers, so theres are a few willing to talk. The number of mass shooters is a lot smaller, even more so if you only consider the ones that got arrested and can actually be interviewed. & #x200B; Keep in mind that this is only my thought process and I cannot prove any of this.",
"I suspect that the distinction has a lot to do with the mindset and execution of the act itself. With serial killers by and large, they take single victims they have selected with specific traits, often with meticulous reason and attention to detail. They have a clear and reasoned approach to the selection of victim and method, developed over years. For these minds, the selection of the target is the result of years of buildup, usually starting with the torture of animals, and built up from there. They are usually lacking in empathy to a high degree, all that matters to then is themselves. These kinds of minds are also usually highly organised and intelligent, if bent to a horrifying purpose. These minds may not initially want the infamy, though they are often prepared for it. Whereas with most mass shooting scenarios, the target isn't so much a single person or even group of people, but people with a shared trait that are gathered in large numbers in a specific place to maximise casualties, usually in response to a real or imagined slight. For these perpetrators, there is little buildup in psychological terms. They may or may not have a specific reason for their target location choice, but most of them just want their 15 minutes of infamy to spray their screed to all who may hear it. They often do not expect to survive their actions, and if they do are not prepared to face down the media they so deliberately wanted their actions to inspire."
],
"score": [
57,
53,
14,
13,
6,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eigq7s | why does the new year start when it does? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fcpv6vx"
],
"text": [
"Celebrating the New Year probably started around the time of Ancient Rome. The month of January is named after the Roman god Janus (the God of beginnings \\[and doorways\\]), who had two faces. One face sees the past, and the other sees the future, which is probably why January was chosen to celebrate the coming of a new year; it's a time of reflection as well as a time of speculation and hope. As for why the New Year begins in the middle of winter (for us Northern Hemisphere dwellers), it's when the nights start becoming shorter and the days start becoming longer. This is incredibly important for agriculture, which is the basis of even modern human civilization. And, although older cultures didn't really know it, January is when the Earth is closest to the Sun, so it kind of makes sense to celebrate New Year at this time."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eikb53 | Why does the States hold on to the tipping culture? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fcr5ex0"
],
"text": [
"Because in the US, you're allowed to pay people stupid amounts of money that they cannot survive on, so that business owners can bring in more money for themselves."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ejbp2r | Why is something or someone deemed unimportant referred to as being “just a footnote” when footnotes tend to refer to significant earlier works that support an argument? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fcwr17f"
],
"text": [
"Something actually important is likely explained in the main text. The footnotes are those things that yeah, need a line or.two, but dont warrant taking up full space in the main text."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ejsfrs | How were the letters for local TV/radio affiliates decided upon? E.g. WLW 700 AM, Channel 5 WLWT? Are they all randomly assigned, or do they stand for something? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fd0c8s7"
],
"text": [
"The letters are known as [Call signs]( URL_0 ), and are given out by the FCC. Originally, they were given out randomly, with the only rule being that transmitters in the west half of the US started with K and the East half started with W. That rule still stands, but stations are allowed to choose the rest of the letters now."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_States"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ejvs9d | How come 500 million animals died in the australian fires? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fd202vv"
],
"text": [
"They took the density of all animals over certain areas (an estimate) (not including bugs/insects) x area affected by the fires then they got to that number. The actual number might be much higher or much lower. Here's a summary of how they got the density in the first place: [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) They took samples in an area for various purposes over the years and estimated how much of each animal is present in that area, no one actually knows the real numbers of course."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-statement-about-the-480-million-animals-killed-in-nsw-bushfire.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ek847x | How come the English word for Spanish is Spanish and not Espanol? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fd76gqn"
],
"text": [
"By that token, why is the Spanish word for English *inglés* rather than English? Because the names of foreign languages are still words. Everyone language has its own word for what the language is actually called, but the names for other languages also need to make sense according to that language's phonics and alphabet. Good luck trying to force the Mandarin word for Mandarin into the English language. But actually, the two words Spanish and Español *are* related, even if distantly. When the Carthaginians settled the region of Europe that is currently Spain, they named it for the Carthaginian word for rabbit. Ispania: The Land of Rabbits. Maybe they had a lot of rabbits? Either way, when the Romans took it over from the Carthaginians, they kept the Carthaginian name and over time, the Spanish language evolved so that they started using *España* instead of *Ispania*. But English evolved too in a completely different geographical setting and English-speakers needed a word in their own language to describe the language of the people of Spain, so they stuck with the older root and the word became *Spanish*."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ekaedm | Canadian here. I'm having a hard time understanding the term 'deep state' as referenced in American political commentary. Can someone break down what that means or implies? Thank you. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fd8frtz",
"fd8qps5",
"fd9640n",
"fd8fy3g",
"fd8qxx4",
"fd93jf3",
"fd8sr8p",
"fd8x4uy",
"fd8rodz",
"fda35g4",
"fd98zmw",
"fd94nia"
],
"text": [
"The term was made up to describe a problem with trying to negotiate with a country that has an elected legislature and high turnover -- I believe the original example was Turkey, in the earliest years of their democracy. Who do you even call to negotiate *with,* when whoever you call might not even be there two years later? The answer? The bureaucracy. All of the mid-level management who stay in the same jobs in the foreign ministry, the defense department, and so on even when the legislature changes hands, the people who work one level down from the political appointees. And because they're below the \"surface\" of the democracy, they defined them as the \"deep\" state, as opposed to the \"surface\" or elected state. *In its original usage, it wasn't necessarily sinister.* But it rapidly came to be interpreted in sinister ways, because narrow interest groups have always complained that when their coalition or party gets elected, having promised them the moon and the stars, they do not get the moon and the stars. And sometimes it is, in fact, because elected politicians went to the department of whatever and the department of whatever said, \"we physically, literally cannot give them the moon and the stars\" or \"it's illegal for us to give them the moon and the stars\" or \"we can, but it'll cost a billion trillion dollars and take a hundred years.\" And usually, if they say that, it's because it's true. But whether it's true or not, the politician then goes back to his voters and says, \"I promised you the moon and the stars, and having voted for it and won, you deserve the moon and the stars, but I was stopped from giving them to you by those unelected 'elites' in 'the Deep State.'\"",
"Deep state in a nutshell refers to bureaucrats and lifelong unelected officials in government that are not subject to being removed by voters and push government policies and practices in the directions that they want.",
"Canadian example: Trudeau is the leader of Canada, and gets his power from the people voting for him. The Commissioner of the RCMP, the Director of CSIS, the President of CBSA (and the list goes on), are not elected and instead appointed. Deep State is a term used to describe power structures maintained by unelected, unappointed people within the government. If a deep State did exist, it would likely be made up of a small group of highly ranked employees who could subvert or influence policy decisions without the public's knowledge.",
"As stated already, it's typically used to refer to some sort of shadowy secretive cabal that operates outside of public view that controls the policy directions of the visible government. Whether this is actually the case in the U.S. and to what degree can't really be said. But I think it's important to understand that an actual 'Deep State' needn't be visualized as defined above. It is quite possible for the un-elected officials (bureaucrats) that outlast elected governments to function as a 'Deep State' without explicitly meaning to. Especially those involved in foreign policy decisions, as decisions made in this sphere typically have consequences that will span the multiple terms of different elected governments. There was a bit in the JRE podcast interview with Edward Snowden that I think is pretty relevant: [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 )",
"The Deep State is the unelected part of the government which has its own agenda which runs alongside the public face of the state. Politicians come and go, but the institutions that buy and sell them have a longer view. A good example of how the Deep State functions is the recently revealed scandal about how US military deceived the US government and the American people about The War Against Terror:[ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) Pretty much what confirmed tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjob Dwight D 'Ike' Eisenhower referred to as the 'military/industrial complex'. [ URL_1 ]( URL_1 )",
"Well, I'm pretty late to the party, so OP, if ur still around... FDR didn't order the oil embargo that led to war with japan. No elected official did. No one responsible to the American people made the decision that led to us going to war. Thats a fact, aaaaaaaand that's why people say theres a deep state",
"Deep State basically means a country is controlled by others. People who pull the strings from the shadows. Doesn't matter who the president is, or who controls government. Instead a group of people hidden behind the scenes who control it. So a PM/president/etc and the elected body actually take orders from these people.",
"Consider a country like Pakistan. A large portion of executive control remains with the military-intelligence apparatus. If they don’t like the party in power, they can get rid of them easily. The PM can be killed like Benazir Bhutto and her father or they can undergo kangaroo court corruption charges, like Gilani and Sharif. So the country is effectively ruled by an unelected and unaccountable deep state. Demagogues use the term to malign anyone in civil or administrative service in the government. These are people who carry out policy in their positions, regardless of whose government it is.",
"Government workers who, ironically, are apolitical by definition. By this I mean they have their own political views, but these are not discussed at work, and they do the work of the state, answering to the government of the day. They work through various administrations, but generally this doesn’t impact the overall mission or day-to-day. Pentagon, FBI, CIA etc. Trump has used this term because he is annoyed he can’t fire people who aren’t director-level political appointees, and feels these organisations are against him. In actual fact these people are often patriots who could be earning more outside, and who work for the best interests of the country as signed for as part of their job. TLDR - Trump thinks he should be able to control every aspect of the various apparatus of government, like a dictator could in Russia or China. He can’t, by design, so he made it sound conspiratorial and blames it for the checks and balances blocking him from doing stupid/illegal stuff.",
"It's an Americanism for the Establishment: a shorthand for the very real oligarchic influences on democratic government, generally via senior civil servants, advisors, consultant bodies and the ilk. Kind of laughable to have the Republican party talking about it, as they are the very fountainhead of oligarchy.",
"Basically it refers to what happens behind the scenes in politics. The people you don't know or hear about, the meeting you never knew took place, the agenda that you never knew existed. The deep state implies that the government is not controlled by who we elect but instead by powerful people with connections and resources to make things happen.",
"They mean, and I'm being serious here, \"The Jews\". Aka (((THEM))) They of course don't mean actual Jewish people. That is people who are Jewish Through blood and or religion or however they choose to sew define themselves. Nor do they mean the state of Israel, its government, or Israeli citizens. Those folks just have to bear the brunt of being associated with (((THEM))) What they mean is the secret cabal of nefarious individuals who actually pulled the strings of government. America seems to have this weird thing where we always think there's some sort of cabal of individuals controlling everything. The current term tends to be deep state, international bankers, Soros, or any variation on the three. They are all variations on the Jewish global conspiracy. Which is itself A variation on the Jesuit conspiracy. Which was related to the Masonic conspiracy. And somehow the Illuminati conspiracy is involved in there. Both one that came out hundreds of years ago and the other one that arrived more recently."
],
"score": [
2297,
65,
21,
18,
17,
10,
9,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/efs3QRr8LWw?t=6871"
],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/17/those-who-ran-afghanistan-war-lied-they-must-be-held-account/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ekc9ww | I've seen images of a very westernised Middle-East in the 60's and 70's, how did this region become so conservative and radicalised? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fd94rtc",
"fd95mwv",
"fd9d5wf",
"fda9pyl",
"fd99ump"
],
"text": [
"USA took out democratic elected leaders in fear of them becoming too communist. The leaders the CIA put in there place were mostly corrupt. So the general public lost the faith in democracy and supported religious leaders wich took down the corrupt leaders and made more backwards religious rules. (This happened in Syria but other countries experienced similar things.)",
"Not just middle east, much of the Islamic world back in the 60's and 70's was quite liberal, westernized. Then Afghan war happened. In order to beat USSR, USA relied on radical ideology to create Jihadists. With money flowing in from USA and much of the groundwork for creating nurseries of Jihadists at the hands of KSA, this in return gave so much money and power to the Saudi funded seminaries that states were almost helpless, no rather helped them in spreading the Salafist mirror. My country is one example. Now KSA funds seminaries across the Muslim world and the governments despite knowing the dangers and extremism these seminaries are spreading, can't do much. Also, the USA has always found extremist Islamic regimes more favourable to it instead of an open democratic government.",
"Every comment here about US meddling is mostly wrong. They overestimate US influence. Salafism, Wahhabism, and political Islam in general, began around WW1. Those images you saw represented very small, urban, secular subsets of the population for most of those countries. Secular dictatorships were the norm in ME in those years. But the population at large never really was secular, and they were certainly VERY conservative. Of all those secular authoritarian regimes, only the one in Turkey succeded, at least partially.",
"Here is the thing, nothing really changed. Those images you see were of a minority that happened to live in cities in that given timeframe. Urbanization was kind of a new concept to those countries at the time. Maybe up to %90 percent of the population lived in villages/small towns. So it was an illusion basically, that represented maybe %10 of the general population. Then the actual %90 also joined the fun.",
"Before WW1 it was fairly authoritarian, and during the Cold War it went back to being authoritarian."
],
"score": [
178,
61,
35,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
elqfqe | How would the world develop if we don't have governments anymore? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdjklum",
"fdjkrsg",
"fdjnt1n"
],
"text": [
"People would probably make a government. Whether it be for pure tribalistic reasons (that guy has all the food, so I should work for him) or civil reasons (we need people to run stuff) having some sort of hierarchical civil structure is just needed to run anything more complex than a simple family unit.",
"Like a communalist world? Where we have small communities. We would probably a lot of tyrants, warlords, bandits and pirates. As all people are capable of evil and good. Some land is uninhabitable without government or foreign trade.",
"What do you mean by a government? Most (all?) countries have many layers of management, from the top level that decides whether to go to war down to the bottom level which decides what day your bins are collected. If you got rid of the top level, not a lot would change. Belgium, for example, managed to run quite happily for years without a functioning government. If you got rid of all the levels, you'd have to build something equivalent again pretty damn quickly before you drowned in uncollected rubbish."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
elwluc | we wear coats,jackets, sweaters etc and much more as uppers on a dress (whatsoever the purpose is). Why there is nothing to wear upon pants or trousers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdkp7zn",
"fdkp93c",
"fdkpol7"
],
"text": [
"I suspect this has less to do with culture and more with biology. Anything worn on the torso is, essentially, protecting your vital organs. Your body spends the majority of it's energy maintaining your core temperature, so wearing garments that help it do so makes sense. In addition, your core warms blood, which then circulates to your legs and keeps them warm. A garment that extends to your thighs to keep them warm is also easier to remove than a garment that goes over your legs. Imagine the ease of removing a coat vs the ease of removing your pants every time you walk indoors. On top of that, if you're walking around, the muscles in your legs generate warmth in their own, whereas your torso is doing comparatively less movement and thus doesn't keep itself warm in the same way.",
"Ski pants, wind pants, baselayers. There are many types of clothing designed to add thermal layers over your legs. Personally I wear a base layer under my pants and snowboarding style snow pants overtop when I work below freezing.",
"So as a side note - there totally is. Ski pants and the like are layers meant to be worn over other layers, plus there are long-john type under garments. But anyway... So here's the thing about limbs - they aren't as critical to immediate survival. Your arms, hands, legs and feet are important to your body but that don't actually contain anything that is mission critical. Hence why someone can have all more limbs amputated and live. So why don't we shelter our legs from the cold as much as we shelter our torso? Because they don't need it. Maintaining your core's heat (where all the important organs are) is vital to survival, maintaining your leg's warmth... not so much. On top of that, the legs have a number of large muscles (particularly in your thighs and calves) which conveniently create generate a lot of heat when used. So not only are you legs not as important to protect, they also protect themselves!"
],
"score": [
16,
13,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
elzz3m | what does Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepping away as senior royals really mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdlemea"
],
"text": [
"It just means they will not be making public appearances, as much or at all for that matter, on behalf of the Queen. The Queen actually has work she has to do but the other royals do charity work or appearances or state visits. Harry is now sixth in line for the throne so no chance he will be king one day so he is stepping away to just do what he wants."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
em7i6d | Why are pickles called pickles and not pickled cucumbers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdn2ctw"
],
"text": [
"Language is used to share information. Generally speaking, we try to use as little language as possible to share information. When I say pickle, almost everyone knows I mean pickled cucumbers. Where as, \"bake\" or \"poached\" doesn't share useful information. Furthermore, by far, the most common pickled item we eat is pickled cucumbers. So it's just easier. There are so many examples of this in the human language. Steak (beef as opposed to salmon), chips (potato is dropped but yam, veggie, etc is added), bacon (side vs back), crackers, mash (mash potatoes), tortilla's (wheat, we add corn if necessary) - same with nacho chips, milk (pasteurized instead of non-paseurized), eggs (chicken vs duck/some other species), burgers (beef vs chicken) and so on and so on. You can even see it happening in our current language. Look at something like bread. Traditionally, when we said bread, we meant whole wheat bread. Now, when we say bread, we mean white bread and have to clarify \"brown\" or whole wheat bread (or rye or sourdough) when we go to restaurants. Ice cream generally means vanilla unless otherwise stated. It's about using as few words as possible to share the most amount of information. Or, in true ELI5 fashion: \"Can I have that toy?\" is a lot easier than asking \"Can I have that toy that is made with plastic in some third world country to resembles my favorite movie character from a movie made in the early 2000's with Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and Annie Potts that is a story about toys that come to life when the kids aren't watching and who go on this big adventure that involves....\""
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
embpr0 | How does a mosh pit actually work? Like do people actually just get in there and start throwing fists or is there some commonly accepted etiquette? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdnihep",
"fdni9zc"
],
"text": [
"Typically not fists, but fully mindless body weight flinging is what's expected. Also, pushing people with all your arm strength, but without leverage, so mostly you're just jostling yourself around. And if anyone falls, you pick them up immediately. That's what I've seen and enjoyed mostly. Full on brawls occur at minority cult gatherings, rather than the average slayer show. That's what I've learned through personal experience anyway",
"Never been in one but have always seen and heard of there being etiquette. For example: generally punching/kicking aren’t accepted and is frowned upon. Most people in a mosh pit just wanna bounce around and off of people, not swing on and beat others to the soundtrack of a concert. Some bands will even stop playing if they see a mosh pit get out of control."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
emdqrx | What impact does Prince Harry "stepping back" have on the royal family? What does this even mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdnxtdh"
],
"text": [
"Prince Harry cannot become a king under normal circumstances, as royals such as Prince Charles, Prince William and his son, George, precede him. I believe he is 6th to the throne. The main impact is that the decision affected the cohesion of the royal family as an institution and, if rumours are to be trusted, on a personal level, as the decision was not discussed with the necessary depth with Her Majesty. This may affect the way the British public sees and deals with the royal family and cause controversy, especially if Prince Harry and his wife continue receiving money from taxpayers (for security purposes) while living abroad."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eme8nn | Why are salt & pepper most commonly used together as opposed to salt and garlic, or other spices? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdo3b18",
"fdo336e",
"fdo4z3y"
],
"text": [
"Salt because it's a mineral that is essential for life, and we developed a specific taste for it. Pepper because of France, and French cuisine, and everyone wanting to emulate French cuisine. FYI, in Hungary, paprika is often in place of pepper.",
"I'd imagine because they can easily be dried and stored at room temperature. You could do garlic salt, but that is mostly salt with some garlic in it. I'm not sure that garlic would dry and store well by itself.",
"Salt is basically a necessity in food - the human body requires some of it, and our senses have evolved to find it delicious. Since it improves the taste of basically any food when used properly, it's very common in cooking, although there are other ways to improve flavor without using much of it in cuisines around the world. Pepper is most common in Western cooking, but not quite as popular in other cuisines to sit on the tabletop. But it's popular because it's a mild flavor with a small amount of heat (if used in the right quantities) that tends to go well with meats and fish. The key is that it's mild - it serves as a good baseline spice that can be added to nearly everything without overpowering the flavor of the food itself, unlike stronger flavorings like garlic, which is delicious but can overpower more delicate foods. Black pepper is used around the world, but on the table, other cuisines often use red pepper, pickled chilis, paprika, etc. to fulfill the same purpose - adding a small amount of heat and flavor that goes well with most dishes."
],
"score": [
29,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
emiir1 | What's the difference between: Jam, Jelly, and Marmalade? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdoxm1e",
"fdoxja4"
],
"text": [
"Jam is made with chunks of fruit Jelly is made with the juice of fruit Marmalade is made with juice and peel of citrus fruits.",
"Jam has fruit chunks in it. Jelly is fruit juice that has been allowed to jellify by adding pectin. So you can start out by making jam, but if you strain out the fruit chunks and just leave behind the juice, that's how you get jelly. Marmalade is a preserve made with the juices and peels of citrus fruits - usually oranges"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
emn2l6 | What makes the mona lisa so special | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdps1bo"
],
"text": [
"Scandal and publicly, 100%! Thats it. Nothing makes the painting 'so good' (other than it being a good painting from a famous artists), its otherwise, incredibly unspecial. The Mona Lisa was an interesting, but otherwise uninteresting painting. *However!* It was stolen in 1911, causing a worldwide media storm. Everyone knew it after that. It was eventually recovered and by that point had become the most famous painting in the world from the endless media attention paid to its whereabouts and theft. But to be fair... lots of art because famous for reason unrelated to the art itself, and Mona Lisa is just a prime example of this."
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ene38l | How did smiling become a friendly gesture in humans? Is it learned behavior? Why is that different from all other species? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdyxlv5",
"fdyz678",
"fdyxa6u"
],
"text": [
"Smiling is an indicator like most other facial expressions. It shows people around us that we’re friendly to them and won’t rip their faces off like someone might do during the early periods of humanity. Unfortunately some animals aren’t like that.",
"Most primates bare teeth as a signifier of submission (as well as to convey other non-aggression based displays). Humans smiling to each other is (generally, there are exceptions) a non-verbal way of displaying non-aggression and submission. Some humans use smiling as a means to intimidate but this is usually accompanied by other non verbal cues which together clearly convey threat. Lip eversion may be unique to primates as a function of oral and laryngal development which is crucial in language for our species but which is also crucial for non-linguistic oral communication in other primates. Other mammals don't need the ability for full lip eversion because their oral and laryngal anatomy does not require the characteristics for speech or even the non-linguistic orality we see in chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc. despite having some level of non-linguistic communicative capacity (dogs bark, cats hiss, elephants trumpet and grumble below human auditory capacity). With so much focus on lips and tongue and mouth it makes sense to develop a non-verbal means of submission signalling that is exclusive to our mouths as well as other non-verbal signals conveying other meanings such as threat, distress, joy, pain, anxiety (biting lips, baring teeth in a grimace, sticking tongue out, popping bottom lip out).",
"In some cultures it can be used to convey embarrassment or confusion. Even though baring teeth can be aggressive in many animals it's not universal in animals. Macaques use an open mouth display to show playfulness"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eneefa | why have Jewish people been persecuted for so long? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fdypert",
"fdypy61"
],
"text": [
"Not the only reason, but in early Christianity, Christians were forbidden to charge interest on loans. This means very few Christians were bankers, because what's the point? And thus when someone needed a loan, they had to go to a Jewish banker. This resulted in a lot of Jews that were rich, and a lot of people owed money to. Having a group of \"different\" people that have more money than your people and make that money by doing \"nothing\" but charging interest on your people is a good way to end up with poor relations.",
"They are often a close-knit community. They keep to themselves for the most part. They don't try to actively convert people. They are known for working in banking and finances. Many teach their kids about finance and business from a young age. They have a weird love/hate relationship with Christianity, depending on when/where you are, for being God's chosen people, but also forsaking Christ. You end up with a sort of culturally isolated group that is blamed for economic downturns, various conspiracy theories about world banking and government, and also religious discrimination. For a long time, they didn't really have their own place to call home. They were perpetually \"outsiders\" in whatever place they called home."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
enmf3l | Why are white Americans not referred to as European-Americans? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fe1nx5l",
"fe1nvdt"
],
"text": [
"First, don't put a hyphen in Native Americans. For the most part, the {location}-American term is used by those who immigrate to the US after the independence of the nation (the primary exception being the descendants of enslaved persons). However, when it comes to Europe, we tend to use Irish-American, or Italian-American, etc. if at all.",
"Because for us, European-American is the default and we're the majority ethnicity. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. [Trevor Noah has a good bit on this.]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/Ig_OuhBtUfs?t=130"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
enue9j | The English Royal family news. I have no idea what it all means. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fe5b7g2"
],
"text": [
"Imagine Fiona met Shrek, they fell in love and they decided to live in the woods because living in the castle is not as fun as it sounds."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eod0mt | Why is "coloured people" insensitive but "people of colour" correct? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"febprlv"
],
"text": [
"Historical usage of the first term by racists, and \"people of color\" puts the person first, not their color. \"Colored people\" also implies that they are not the norm; that they are as if someone took a 'normal' white person and applied color to them; that they've been colored."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eoerdx | What is the real/original purpose of laugh tracks? I get that originally it's to simulate the feel of a live taping. But why is it still used nowadays? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fec9pkg",
"fec9gf3",
"fechc8j",
"fecrcca"
],
"text": [
"It's always been used to prime an audience. Humans are empathetic pack animals and our brains tend to mirror the inputs around us. By adding a laugh track it tells our brain that people around us find this funny so we should enjoy it also.",
"because research has shown that people watching on tv laugh with the laugh tracks. it's like a cue for a joke so the director can stress laugh points.",
"Fun fact to add to this: Many shows use laugh tracks recorded in the 50s and 60s still, so many of the laughs you hear are now deceased.",
"As social creatures we respond well to certain social cues. Laughing is kind of contagious, when other people laugh we aare more likely to laugh ourself and the laughing itself releases certain neurotransmitters and hormones that make us happy/feel good. So by using a laugh track, they trick you into enjoying it more. We're complicated creatures and those social cues may be ignored for different reasons, but it influeces us a little. A show without a laugh track may not be that funny to us, but hearing others laugh encourages us to do the same."
],
"score": [
21,
8,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eogu93 | How is an "Oscar snub" different from a movie just not making the cut for nomination? Who decides if it was a snub or not? Is it subjective? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fecpy93",
"fecre8h"
],
"text": [
"100% the writer of the article's opinion. Others may share that view but it's all subjective opinion. As is any award that isn't based on hard facts like tickets sales or home runs, etc.",
"It’s totally subjective, elaborate, and expensive. Jockeying for Oscar position can begin years before a movie is even released. Notable studios, producers, directors, writers, or actors can create “Oscar buzz” by mere rumor or suggestion, and fans and critics are ever-vigilant. But ... such treatment only applies to a select few of all movies released, so failing to nominate a “non-buzzy” movie isn’t a snub; on the flip side, there’s always room for one or two “dark horse” contenders to slip in to the mix ... but not much room."
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eokpmb | What exactly is the power and role of the British royal family? Why are they still enjoying such a huge status? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fedb8gm"
],
"text": [
"The British Royal Families role is pretty ceremonial these days HOWEVER the monarch actually technically still has a lot of power. The UK can only go to war with their say so, laws are only enacted with their assent and they can technically fire the Prime Minister (although they can no longer dissolve parliament thanks to the fixed term parliaments act of 2011). The reigning monarch also has the power to dismiss the entire Australian government. Not that any of these powers have been used in a long time, the last time a UK monarch ousted a UK prime minister was 1834. The last time they fired an entire Australian government was 1975. Most of what the monarchy now does is act as a visible and constant figurehead who welcomes foreign dignitaries on state visits, boosts tourism and presides over the maintenance of some fairly extensive country estates."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eoqu2n | Why are arrest records and mugshots made publicly available before a guilty conviction is determined by the courts? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"feegttc",
"feeu1yc",
"feevu16",
"feepsua",
"feew3x6",
"feet1h5",
"fef3u1b",
"feeuzjv",
"feeqeei",
"feew6hw",
"feeyvdj",
"feey2zr",
"feewv83",
"feex0iz"
],
"text": [
"It tells what the government is doing. You wouldn't want the government arresting people secretly.",
"In the UK they aren't, we have a concept in law called \"sub judice\" (or to roughly translate \"under justice\"). If the press report anything between charge and guilty verdict which risks prejudicing justice they can find themselves facing criminal penalties.",
"Trial by media is the downside of this. An unexpected one at that when the news travels faster than the conviction, nowadays. The big, big, big upside? No black bags. You WANT all of this information public because it tells you exactly what the government is up to. When the police go start rounding up all the protestants, you want to know and CNN will make a shit show out of it and riots will start. When everyone starts getting a black bag over their head 'for privacy', all of the sudden we don't know who is getting taken away, why, if that's really the right person. Rich pedophile? Yea, we saw him get walked out of his house with a black bag over his head and taken to jail. Everyone saw it, but it wasn't actually the pedo. It's not the media that needs to be fixed. If people want the media 'fixed' from the court of public opinion, stop gossiping in the damn breakroom about Casey Anthony. The news provides it because people are demanding it.",
"As other comments have noted, this is the preferable option of the two. You don't want the government secretly arresting people. It's just unfortunate that our society is too damn stupid to understand that being arrested doesn't mean that you were convicted.",
"I somehow have to miss something... I read all the answers regarding government transparency, but how does this stop the government from arresting people in secret without releasing their mugshot? What is the advantage of taking the decision whether their arrest should be made public (for example via their attorney) out of the hands of the arrested person?",
"Newsday on Long Island use to publish mugshots For every dwi arrest very quick before the court dates . Someone finally sued because of the whole innocent until proven guilty thing and forced them to stop publishing mugshots",
"Counterquestion: why do we stigmatize having an arrest record so heavily that it ruins people's lives? Public arrest records wouldn't be so much of a problem if people weren't being harassed for that record.",
"Making those records public is actually more about PROTECTING the person arrested. In places like China you can be arrested on mysterious charges, snuck away in the middle of the night, and never be seen again. Of course the modern prevalence of information has certainly made things a bit more complicated on finding an uncontaminated jury, but realistically for 99.9999% of crimes the average person isn't going to have read up on the topic enough for it to infringe upon the rights of the accused.",
"If you are referring to the US legal system, there is a difference between federal and state cases. For stale-level arrests, this is something that is decided on a state-by-state basis, and some states allow this information to be freely available (e.g. Florida, the source of the \"Florida Man\" meme because they are one of the few states that allows this information to be public), while many states do not. To be more clear, some states consider arrest records (including mugshots) and considers them public record, but many do not. Those that do make these records public consider it a public service as ultimately you're talking about a state agency funded by taxpayer dollars, however the states that do *not* make those records public do so with the reasoning that there may be a perceived risk to those individuals arrested as while they are innocent until proven guilty, the public doesn't always feel that way. Federal arrests are considered public record ostensibly for the \"greater good\" as well as the DOJ being publicly funded by taxpayer dollars as well and all non-classified federal government information is typically available, at least in particular ways (e.g. openly available or available via filing a request).",
"It also allowed the public to see what you’ve seen arrested for. It stops being from spreading rumours about why",
"Thank fucking god I'm Finnish. Privacy laws are quite different from the American shit. Our system has actually proven to be more effective against crime",
"Trial by media is a risk, but the government having the ability to take people away with no info on what happened to them sounds worse.",
"It's a catch 22. On the one hand you don't want the government covertly arresting people, on the other hand people form their opinion that you're guilty immediately and even if you're acquitted, depending on the crime, your life can be ruined.",
"The more the government conducts its business in the open regarding its citizens, the better. You dont want any government anywhere at any time in history prosecuting its citizens in secret. Save the if/ands/buts...things have veered off of the path a while ago."
],
"score": [
3813,
69,
31,
25,
10,
6,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eot586 | Why are US government service facilities (ex: DMV, Social Security Office, Etc) only open during hours most people work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"feewpmr",
"fef0e6d",
"feeze5k"
],
"text": [
"Because there's no competition, so they have no motivation to improve their product to meet the needs of their customer.",
"Some do have extra hours. Most DMV offices in my state have one late night where they are open until 7 or 8 PM. Municipal courts often have evening sessions. Not as good as a commercial business, but some agencies try.",
"Well it’s also a problem with U.S. employment law. If you have to do anything official, have a doctors appointment you have to take one of your very valuable vacation days. Don’t get vacation? Tough shit. I work in Europe. Official things and doctors appointments are excused absences, no vacation time needed. This is not an employer thing, it is by law that these absences are excused."
],
"score": [
33,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eouex0 | Are shrunken heads real or a myth? If they are real, how on earth do you shrink a skull? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fef5ocl",
"fef5c3i"
],
"text": [
"Its real but the couple of stone-aged tribes that ever did this never shrunk the whole head. They removed the skin off the skull, in as much as one piece as they could, and shrunk that. Real 'shrunken' heads are actually filled with sawdust or other desicant type material to absorb moisture and further shrink the skin...",
"A lot of them were faked. There are a few real examples though, you peel the skin off, sew the orifices shut and preserve the head. It shrinks when it's preserved."
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
eoxx6d | What rules govern what people from specific countries are called? | I was thinking earlier how weird it was the people from, say, Canada are called Canadi-ans, and not something like Canad-ites. Other examples I thought of were how people from Portugal are called Portug-ese, and not Portug-ans. What determines the suffix for these words? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fefvgkz"
],
"text": [
"There really are no solid rules, even just within English. It's primarily just down to tradition, and what their government decides people from the country should be called."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
epa4ge | How do war crimes get reported? How does anyone know who did what during war? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fei547w"
],
"text": [
"UN has investigators. They receive reports from embassies, refugee camps, and health groups like Doctors Without Borders, World Health Organization, or Red Cross. They investigate scenes of bombings, chemical attacks, mass graves, etc. and observe medical and forensic evidence to determine whether victims were tortured, raped, murdered, etc. How does anyone know who did what depends on the crime, the motivations, whether there were witnesses, whether victims provide first-hand information...same as any crime. I think a more interesting and confounding question is how and when international law can be applied and enforced."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
epqfqr | How did veganism end up connected to holistic/anti-modern medicine communities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fel40hy",
"fel3yf7",
"fel7sx8"
],
"text": [
"Most Western cultures come from a background where access to meat was considered a sign of luxury. Going back a couple hundred years, often only nobles could afford to put meat on their tables. Eating meat became such an engrained part of European cultures that to not eat meat is seen as strange and incomprehensible. Since veganism runs counter to this, it's very appealing to counter-culture folks who try to be different. And this means they're more likely to embrace *other* counter-culture ideas as well, even if there's no real correlation.",
"It’s just the kind of people and their reasons. Veganism and holistic stuff/antivax stuff aren’t necessarily connected at all, it’s just that the types of people that don’t want to eat animal products for ethical reasons are also commonly the type of people that buy into that kind of stuff. The topics aren’t necessarily connected at all. It’s like how hippies tend to be environmentalists and stoners. Pot and environmentalism aren’t connected at all, it’s just different facets of what that type of person tends to be into.",
"Because a lot of vegans don’t do it for ethical reasons, they do it for “spiritual” or “health” reasons. These are the same types of spiritual searchers who latch on to all sorts of nonsense like energy healing and crystals, etc., and generally assume that whatever the masses are doing is wrong (to justify their sense of otherness, and build the self esteem they lack) Also, the health justifications require the same level of gullibility and scientific illiteracy as antivax, homeopathy, etc., and give people the same sense of being more woke than the sheeplike masses (though it’s technically possible to be healthy and vegan, just extremely difficult)"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
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.