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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8adcy8 | Why are chips on credit/debit cards supposedly more secure than swiping? Also, how does the bank, business, and card reader share information? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dwxqy76",
"dwxqz1r",
"dwxrban"
],
"text": [
"Ooh, long story short, chip cards only protect you in the event of someone trying to make a fake card with your number and use it at a store. With magstripe cards, the data from the stripe could very easily be copied to another card (even a hotel card) and used at a store with no problem. The chip in new cards is a mini computer that generates a unique code for every transaction, that the server validates. That unique code can only be generated by that card, and the chips cannot be duplicated like a magstripe. Chip cards, however, don't protect you at all for online transactions, as the chip is bypassed completely... New tech in the industry like Apple pay is starting to shift the paradigm for these types of payments.",
"The short answer is that EMV chips are a lot harder to clone (i.e manufacture duplicate cards) than magnetuc strips. They also cant be read by skimmers (devices covering insert slots on ATMs or other devices that read thw magnetic strip). However these are not insurmountable obstacles for thieves. US really needs to catch up withe Europe and institute Chip and Pin so the purchaser has to both have something and know something to access your account.",
"All the information on a magstripe can be easily read and therefore easily duplicated. A chip contains a secret code that can't be read by anyone so it can't be easily duplicated. Chips work by using their code to transform some challenge message sent to them. This way they can prove they have the code without ever revealing what it is."
],
"score": [
13,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8akjxk | How does wind work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dwzc9o7"
],
"text": [
"Air moves from areas of high air pressure to low air pressure (water and other liquids also do this). That movement of air is seen and felt as wind."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8alsbi | Why does hearing your own voice through a recording sound so much different than how you hear/perceive your voice when speaking in general? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dwzm0o5",
"dwztjza",
"dwzposj",
"dwzy1fg",
"dwzm2xt",
"dx035b0",
"dx00ayt",
"dx01j3j",
"dwzpkf0",
"dx01c45",
"dx07kgm",
"dx014my",
"dx01pkv",
"dx0a6o3",
"dx0491c",
"dx038mw",
"dx006t9",
"dx00qtz",
"dx020is",
"dx01m9h",
"dx020s5",
"dx03b7a",
"dwzzy3l",
"dx0jd2j"
],
"text": [
"When you speak, you hear your own voice as it sounds vibrating through your head (for lack of a better way to say that). When you hear your voice through a recorder, you're hearing your voice without that vibration. Edit: Had I know so many people would see this, I would have tried explaining a lot better than I did here but thanks either way!",
"I've always wondered how great impressionists do it. If you can't hear yourself correctly how can you impersonate someone else correctly? I know my Michael Cane impression sounds perfect in my head, but when I hear it recorded it sounds way more nasally.",
"Related question: Can you hear someone else’s voice the way *they* hear it? If so, how?",
"Slightly different question, why does hearing your own voice through a recording always sound bad? Why isn’t anyone ever pleasantly surprised at how their recorded voice sounds instead of disgusted and horrified??? Edit: it appears some people do in fact like the way their recorded voice sounds! TIL!",
"When you speak, you are hearing your voice from multiple pathways. One is out your mouth, outside your body, and into your ear, and this is how others will hear you. But competing with that is the path from inside your head, from vocal cords to cochlea. The structure of your head enhances the lower-frequency vibrations, and so what you hear is a mix of the the two sounds (internal and external). On a recording, you only hear the external. Source: URL_0",
"One of my favorite parts of speech training! A long time ago, when your grandpa was a little boy and dinosaurs still roamed the earth there was a toy that children made out of two tin cans and a length of string--you've probably seen this in a cartoon. The way this works is that your voice makes the first can vibrate, the vibration is carried along the string which makes the second can vibrate, THAT can makes the air vibrate and you hear the speaker coming out of the can... That's basically what's happening when you listen to a recording of anyone, including yourself. But \"what if\" instead of two tin cans you used 1 tin can and a pie tin. A pie tin isn't very good at vibrating the air like the tin can was so I'm not sure if you'd be able to hear it very well... UNLESS you held the pie pan tightly against your ear... then you'd hear it really well! Even better than you did with the tin can. That's basically what's happening when you listen to yourself speak without a recording. In the first example you heard the voice as it vibrates through air, in the second example you heard the voice as it vibrates \"through pie pan\". In the real world that \"pie pan\" is your skull.",
"Is there a way to simulate how your friends voices sound through them?",
"That’s gotta be weird for people that sing for a living. You hear yourself on the radio and may HATE your voice.",
"It's been posted many times before, but we all have three voices: 1) the one we hear in our head 2) the one we hear when we talk aloud 3) the one everyone else hears",
"One more thing I want to add from what everyone else is saying. The microphone also affects how different your voice sounds. You voice sounds a lot worse wen recorded through an iPhone, as opposed to a high quality microphone.",
"So I am a Voice and Speech teacher ( from a theatrical background rather than a medical one - think Geoffrey Rush's character in The King's Speech). This is what I tell students - imagine you were confronted with your own image (a photo or a mirror) when you are either a teen or an adult for the very first time. At first you would probably reject the reflection - you have no relationship to it, how can it be your own face... the very concept of having a relationship to this reflected thing is foreign. It's only with continued exposure to that image or recording that we can begin to have a relationship with it. Secondly the mechanics of hearing - when you speak normally you are listening to your own voice from two sources at once - through your ears (your brain automatically adjusts your perception of your voice to be lower in volume than it is so you don't overwhelm your hearing - which is why we can scream and not hurt our ears much) AND through the internal vibrations of the larynx and resonates through the bones of the skull. That is when you take much notice of your voice at all. Thirdly! A recording cannot pick up the warmth of the human voice - with all the strides in digital recording it is no substitute for a live human voice that is not amplified or distorted through a Mic or recording device (a recording or amplified voice will always sounds slightly \"tinny\") All 3 reasons are why we reject our recorded voices so violently when hearing them the first time. But anyone who is in the entertainment industry will tell you - that goes away and you can start listening to your performances and start to know how to adjust them so they sound better outside your head once you have a working relationship to your voice. (That sounds like an Ad! Heh heh)",
"Lots of good answers but they don’t explain why when I hear someone else’s recorded voice, it sounds different than how I hear it IRL.",
"I’m on the radio weekly. It used to freak me out but now that I know how I sound I play the role of the person I hear. It’s like I know it’s me, but I’m playing “me” as others hear me. Truth be told it’s pretty liberating.",
"The important thing to remember is that despite our disgust at hearing our voices, whenever anyone new hears us talk they're not vomiting at the sound of it.",
"So do the majority of people who hate listening to themselves when they hear a recording of their voice, hate it because they are so used to how they would naturally be hearing themselves speak? I mean if I’m so used to hearing myself speak on a daily basis, then I am confronted with a recording of myself where my voice is completely different to my perceived norm, I wouldn’t like it either haha",
"Am I weird for liking my recorded voice?",
"When speaking in general, there are two ways by which sound reaches your ears. Firstly, the air in your larynx (voice box) vibrates, reaches out and hits your tympanic membrane(ear drum) and from there converted to electrical signals and perceived as sound. This is Air conduction Secondly, sound from the voice box travels through the bones in your body (your skull bones, facial bones) and directly reaches an organ in your inner ear called the cochlea. Cochlea is the organ that is responsible for converting sound(or any vibrations) to electricity. When you listen to yourself speak, both these ways are there. When you hear it through the recorder, you only hear the first pathway i.e air conduction only. And it sounds different because the other pathway is 'missing' from the recorder. With some people their voices may sound so different from a recorded sample that they may not recognise it as their voice.",
"Semi related question. When you plug your ears Your singing sounds worse. Are you actually worse, or are you just hearing how you actually sound?",
"What's crazy to imagine is only in the last 150 years or so did humans even realize they sound different than what they hear. I can't imagine we would have known before sound recording was invented by Edison.",
"Related question: Podcaster I listen to says he gets expensive microphone equipment so that he sounds the same way on recordings as he does in his head. Doesn’t this mean the whole skull vibrations thing is more complicated than that?",
"As others pointed out, what you know as \"your voice\" is how your brain percieves your talking, not how it actually hears it. In a sense, you get kind of a *preview* of your speech because the sound echoes directly into your own ears as your brain predicted. If you want to actually hear yourself, take two folding papers or magazines, just about any hard flat surface larger than your head will do. Place a pair, one for each ear, against your face covering your ears at a 45° angle. Speak casually as you would, that's how we hear ya.",
"In a nutshell, bone conduction. Sympathetic vibrations in your skull cause you to hear your voice differently in your head.",
"Your voice is speaking inside your body (like talking in a room by yourself) and as it goes out the open doorway of the room, it is no longer amplified by the walls of the room. That's why your voice sounds different.",
"When we talk we hear the air that comes out along with the vibration of our bones. It’s called Bone Conduction, other people or devices don’t pick this up so we always sound different to how others hear us, typically we sound deeper or lower pitch to ourselves because of the bass-y effect of our bones vibrating. I think if you use a really good microphone, it can pick this stuff up but your typical one on a mobile or headset won’t."
],
"score": [
6501,
2395,
843,
672,
343,
87,
82,
77,
63,
51,
31,
23,
22,
13,
13,
11,
11,
7,
7,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-my-voice-sound-different/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8b6q3p | How do we know universe is approximately 14 billion years old? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dx4czb3",
"dx4cy03"
],
"text": [
"The first method is to use the current expansion rate and work backwards to find out how long it took for the universe to expand to its current size. The second method involves looking at stars. Imagine there is a stopwatch somewhere in this universe that says it has been running for 13 billion years. The existence of this stopwatch means that that universe is at least 13 billion years old. The oldest stars act as this stopwatch, by finding out the age of the oldest stars we can find, we can find out the youngest age the universe can be. Since both methods depend on different things, if both methods give roughly the same answer, we know that it's likely to be correct.",
"IIRC, it’s because the universe is expanding at a set rate. If you know how long it takes for two bodies to move away from each other, and you know the rate at which they are moving apart, you can calculate back to the point where those two bodies were in the same spot."
],
"score": [
26,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8bh1tq | How does buying and selling stocks work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dx6mvz3"
],
"text": [
"You should try [this post]( URL_0 ) for some good explanations."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oot71/eli5_how_does_the_stock_market_work_who_are_the/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8brhpj | Why is the sound of rain so soothing? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dx90pkq",
"dx95mrb"
],
"text": [
"It's the original white noise. To much for your brain to process so it sort of shuts down and becomes part of the audio enviroment.",
"My unqualified guess would be that it is not too unsimilar to the soothing effect sitting around a campfire has. Prehistoric people would feel protected from predators around fire knowing that most predators feared fire. Similarly, if they are sheltered from a heavy or steady rain, they assumed that their predators were seeking shelter as well. Therefore they enjoyed a brief respite from needing to be constantly vigilant and alert."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8ccip4 | How do “safety tabs” prevent erasing content on a cassette tape? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxduxsb"
],
"text": [
"Cassette recorders have a microswitch to detect the tab. If the tab is detected, it allows recording. Breaking the tab off is the same as hitting the write protect switch on an SD card. It tells the recorder to not record. Nothing a little scotch tape can't fix!"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8ceg96 | When their is no reception and get "SOS Only", How come emergency services can be contacted but no one else? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxeaktv",
"dxeabcr",
"dxeajtd",
"dxegr7a",
"dxead6z"
],
"text": [
"Emergency service has special rules. It has reserved capacity on the towers, so you can use it even when you couldn't make a call otherwise. You can also use it even if you don't have balance, an active account, or a SIM card at all, and the call will be accepted by any tower capable of communicating with your phone. Provider restrictions don't apply for emergencies. If you have a normal, working phone and an active account, then the most likely reason is that you're outside your operator's area of coverage.",
"That generally means either your phone can see a network but not your own carriers network or you have an inactive SIM (disconnected, out of credit etc)",
"In SOS mode any nearby towers (regardless of network) will treat your call as a top priority, even if it means dropping other signals or 'boosting' your own. It's similar to cell boosters (highly illegal) they draw more 'attention' to your connection, where as SOS mode informs the tower you require more attention.",
"When you make a normal call it is done at normal power levels with average priority to a cell tower associated with your phone company When you dial 911 or equivalent the rules change. Your phone will do everything possible to connect to the nearest tower of any network, that tower *must* take your call and *must* shed load if necessary to ensure your call does not get dropped. Emergency calls are higher priority than any other traffic on a cell tower and the tower *must* keep that call connected even from an inactive phone or a phone from another provider",
"\"No service\" means that you don't have a strong enough connection to any towers belong to your carrier to operate under normal conditions. In an emergency, you'll connect to other networks, use more transmit power, flaky connections and stuff like that."
],
"score": [
12,
6,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8cjbep | Where does fat mass go and muscle mass come from? | I’ve lost 75 pounds over the past year and I’m wondering where all the fat mass has gone and all the muscle mass came from | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxfeui4",
"dxfe4v0",
"dxfdut8"
],
"text": [
"It mostly goes into the CO2 that you exhale into the air. Plants then get most of their mass from that same CO2, not the ground that they’re in.",
"Fat cells are stored energy so when your body runs low on its energy systems it will use the fat as a resource to fuel the body. This is why you should consume less calories to lose weight so your body can expend fat for energy. Muscles, unlike fat, does not come or go. It gets bigger or smaller through swelling of tissue after repairing microtears from lifting weights or putting stress on a muscle.",
"Food, water, and breath go in, pee, sweat, poop and breath go out. What used to be fat mostly left as breath and pee, but you can't track it in detail."
],
"score": [
12,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8cmkx1 | How does a petrol pump know when to stop filling? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxg2px5",
"dxg2tz9",
"dxg2mz8",
"dxg2o4a"
],
"text": [
"There is a smaller tube inside the pipe that goes in your tank. This is the \"sensing pipe\". The small tube connects to a valve that shuts off the flow. When the tank is full, fuel reaches the end of the nozzle, this pressurizes the small tube which activates a valve which shuts off the flow of fuel. URL_0",
"At the tip of the nozzle is a small hole. As fuel is flowing the pump sucks air up this hole (leading to a tube that connects to the manual linkage of the handle) due to the Venturi effect of the flowing gasoline. When the hole in the tip is covered by fuel, the degree of suction changes markedly and it trips a linkage in the handle to cut off the fuel. This is why when you often first start pumping fuel the nozzle may cut off a few times but by repositioning the nozzle it will suddenly work-what happened is that in this situation you placed the nozzle in such a position that the suction hole was covered and the handle sensed it as a full tank.",
"It has a little sensor tube at the end of the nozzle, and somehow it can sense backpressure, so when that gets to a certain point it cuts it off. If you look closely \\(usually on the underside\\) you can see the sensor tube.",
"Air is being pulled through the pump, so when the tank is full of gas it blocks the suction and a sensor detects the change, which stops the gas from flowing"
],
"score": [
31,
12,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dispenser#Automatic_cut-off_in_fuel_dispenser"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8csxxo | Why are train tracks surrounded by rocks? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxhk61i"
],
"text": [
"It's called [ballast]( URL_0 ). It's to provide good drainage and distribute the weight of a train out from the railroad ties into the ground. And it means that you don't have be perfect about getting your subgrade completely flat and level."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_ballast"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8drjxg | When you hold a sea shell up to your ear, what is the "ocean" noise that you can hear? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxpgb51"
],
"text": [
"The shell itself acts like a resonance chamber, allowing sound waves to bounce around, amplifying some frequencies. The ocean sound is simply ambient sounds such as the wind or even the sound of blood flowing around your ear being resonated by the shell."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8ea37s | Why do space rockets need to travel at such a high speed in order to break free from Earth's gravity since gravity decreases the further you get from the center? Also, in the first seconds after launching they move at a relatively slow speed and are still able to achieve lift off. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxtn0i2",
"dxtlhly",
"dxtnht9",
"dxtybvf"
],
"text": [
"Source: I've played Kerbal Space Program. Imagine that you threw a ball up. It would constantly decelerate until it some point, it would stop moving, and then started to fall back down. Unless you threw the ball at high enough speed that gravity becomes weaker faster than the ball slows down. The tipping point is called escape velocity. And as it turns out, the most efficient way to do this would be by just getting to that escape velocity instantly. The reason for that being, that way you spend less time near Earth where gravity is slowing you down a lot. If you do slower acceleration, you're wasting fuel fighting stronger gravity. This gets complicated by atmosphere though, as it slows things down too, but basically to save fuel, the moment you are out of the atmosphere, you want to have that target velocity. At lower parts of atmosphere you may want to avoid too high speeds, but you also want to clear from atmosphere pretty fast, so it's kinda complicated. Rocket fuel basically can give certain total change in velocity for your rocket. You can release that change quickly, or slowly. Let's say you have the fuel to accelerate 500m/s. If you accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, you won't rise up at all. After a minute, you've ran out of fuel. If you accelerate at 20m/s^2, you will only spend 25 second accelerating, but you gain 10m/s in speed every second. You'd reach about 3000 meter height at 25 seconds, having 250m/s in speed. After that, you'd slow down and get to about 6000 before falling down. And if you just blew up your fuel tank to gain 500m/s instantly, you would take 50 seconds to slow down to zero, ignoring gravity weakening. You'd reach 12,500m before falling down. This means, there is certain minimum change in velocity you need to gain to reach a specific height through use of fuels propelling you. To reach orbit around Earth, you specifically need to reach height of at least 100km. But for orbiting, that's not enough, you also need some 8 kilometers per second of horizontal speed to keep missing the Earth as you fall down. In cartoons, you could totally do this with two explosions, one at launch site propelling you upwards at roughly 1km/second, and then at the highest point of your trajectory launching you instantly sideways at 8km per second. But such explosions would destroy real world equipment and kill humans, so we need to do it slower, and therefore requiring more fuel. But we also don't want to do it unnecessarily slowly.",
"There is a common misconception that rockets need to fly at escape velocity (42,000km/h or 25,000 mph) to escape Earth's gravity. This is only true if no additional trust is supplied, as if you were to shoot it like a bullet. When you can apply trust through exhausting fuel, you can move at pretty much any speed you like. As gravity gets weaker as you go higher, the escape velocity drops as well and you will be able to escape at much lower speeds. For fuel efficiency however, it is better to accelerate as fast as possible.",
"The spacecraft will never break free of Earth’s gravity. Gravity does get weaker as you get farther away, but a spacecraft in orbit doesn’t come anywhere close to this. Instead, what they are trying to do is achieve orbital speeds so that they can circle the planet rather than fall into it. Gravity still pulls them down, but they are moving so fast laterally that they “miss” the Earth rather than smack into it. Essentially, an orbiting spacecraft is falling “past” the Earth every second, so that it always falls but never actually strikes the planet. And this is good news for us! If a spacecraft could actually “escape” the Earth’s gravity by flying high enough, we would have no satellites, no moon, no ISS, nothing. It would all just fly off into space and never be seen again. As it is, they need to fly WAAAY farther to “escape” the gravity. Even then, Earth’s gravity still affects it and the other planets in our solar system, even if only minimally. As for why they move slowly, that’s called inertia. When you get in your car and press on the gas, do you immediately jump to 60 mph? Of course not. Your engine has to apply power to overcome your inertia and you accelerate over time. This is also good news. If your car went from 0 to 60 immediately, your body would basically be experiencing a 60mph collision. Likewise, if the spacecraft immediately leapt from zero to orbital velocity, the astronauts would die horribly. Be thankful we have inertia, because that acceleration over time is what keeps us alive.",
"They don't break from earths gravity. Orbits are only dependant on horizontal velocity, and everything in orbit is still trapped (or parked) in earths gravity well, and every different combination or horizontal velocity and altitude gives a different orbit - *no matter the weight of the object!!* So to visit the International space station, you need to go exactly as fast as the station making your orbits identical, you cant just make your path go by the station and then drop off supplies when you pass by."
],
"score": [
23,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8es2rt | How does multi-colored toothpaste always come out in seperated colors? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxy8gv3",
"dxyc33i",
"dxybkjz",
"dxycfph",
"dxyfk5g",
"dxy9uwx"
],
"text": [
"Wow. So many wrong answers. The colors are just injected in stripes then the tube is sealed. If you squeeze and smash the tube a lot the colors will blend. There are no smaller tubes inside, and there are no special nozzles. Here is a frozen tube that's been cut open URL_0",
"So no one has addressed WHY the colors come out evenly. The stripes are indeed injected into the tube, which can be seen from tube cross sections. However the **reason** the stripes come out so well is due to the mechanics of **laminar flow**. This [video]( URL_1 ) is a good example of laminar flow in action. [Here is a video showing tube filling with laminar flow.]( URL_0 ) If you have any other specific questions just let me know! Source - Mechanical Engineer with fluid mechanics experience.",
"[As you can see from this picture]( URL_0 ), all three colors are injected into the tube from the back, with the delivery nozzles configured to produce the pattern when extruded; the colors aren't separated by internal walls. it might seem that the external pressing and distortion might move the stripes around, but, due to the way that very viscous fluids flow, the stripes never really move around much from where they should be to produce pattern pretty closely to what it should be.",
"To add on to u/AtomicFlx's comment, toothpaste in a tube would have a low Reynolds number. Basically this just means the flow would be *laminar*, meaning not easy to mix (not *turbulent*). This just related to its high viscosity and geometric constraints.",
"In the factory, the differently coloured batches come through different pumps. The tubes go through the same attachement and everything is pumped into the final tube at the same time. This way, there is no room for the paste to blend. Here is a video with clear final tubes: URL_0",
"I vaguely remember back in the 80s Aquafresh was one of the only or first to do the strips. I also remember the nozzle did have separate channels for the different colors. Obviously this not the way they do it today but I do remember the different channels and the way the toothpaste came out was separate streams. Could have just been the Pump version but I swear I remember the tube was the same. You can kind of see the separation in the commercials. [Aquafresh Pump]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
3067,
226,
30,
26,
9,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://i1.wp.com/beachpackagingdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/boxvox/6a00e54f0014bd8834015391a6d021970b.jpg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFm8IxLwaoI",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p08_KlTKP50"
],
[
"https://i1.wp.com/beachpackagingdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/boxvox/6a00e54f0014bd8834014e8b9a87e1970d.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/g9aD3BpxEAY?t=238"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQqnjhDUbQ"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8f81kd | How does money laundering work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dy1kiev",
"dy1cduf",
"dy1caw9",
"dy1iday",
"dy1iu73",
"dy1j9qq",
"dy1jdrz",
"dy1klli",
"dy1kvvv",
"dy1cd2c",
"dy1iboo",
"dy1e7w3",
"dy1jjv5",
"dy1cee3",
"dy1kqhq",
"dy1mj0m",
"dy1kqrw",
"dy1mls6",
"dy1lxw1",
"dy1skkj",
"dy1mlpk",
"dy1olmx",
"dy1nvqa",
"dy1cdcf",
"dy22819",
"dy1txyd",
"dy37vti"
],
"text": [
"You stole $5 from Mom. Mom will definitely know if you buy something from it. You tell Mom you walk the neighbor's dog for the weekend. You walk the dog, earn $5. Tell Mom you earned $10 walking the dog.",
"So let’s say you have a good amount of illicit income like selling drugs, guns, sex trafficking, hitman, whatever. Now you can’t really live a lavish lifestyle without throwing up some red flags. Like where do you get the money to buy these nice cars, houses, pay taxes on these things etc. what you do is you have a front such as a car wash, laundromat, somewhere you can really fake profits (it has nothing to do with actual cleaning of money, it’s cleaning the paper trail). So how is the government gonna know if your laundromat has 10 or 50 customers each day? Basically you fake your dealings to have clean money to spend.",
"To be short , someone makes a “business” and claim to make **X** amount of money, but in reality they are making wayy less than that . Now you claim your drug money came from the business , so you have a clean paper trail accounting for the money you made .",
"I saw some answers that are good but didn't see any I liked or that cover some of the other aspects. There are a few different types of money laundering, mostly depending on what you're doing with the money. The first is disguising the source of the money. This is used when you sell something illegal, drugs are a classic example. The money is converted into cash somewhere, the cash is then spread out to avoid triggering investigations, and then all that money is deposited in a centralized receiving account. Simple examples of this are things like someone else posted about the construction contractor that bills for work not done. Mid-sized examples use night clubs and bars, places where mark-ups can vary widely and cash is king, this allows the club to mark as sold thousands of drinks, entries, or sometimes even entire full night events that never actually happened. I expect that right now there is a rise of using cryptocurrencies to do this because the volatility can hide a lot of bad things. For large accounts the money generally goes international using a large number of international transfers to hide the money source, the money then goes through a combination of the large and small areas to reach the goal. For even larger amounts you build something. Say a large building or complex of buildings in a really tacky gold color. Everything is built super cheap, but for some reason buyers pay over market rate, and your investors somehow make massive returns. You then brand yourself as a real estate genius thinking you're amazing at making deals, when really you're just the patsy. The second reason is to hide the destination of the money, this is actually how some of my clients paid me, even though everything I did was legal. For this the business will often generate a fake theft. \"Someone\" skimmed the money coming in, embezzling it, the money finds it's way into a duffle bag, and that duffle bag of cash is used to pay people. This is the same basic method that is used to pay people under the table. For larger amounts a charity is setup, the company makes donations and the charity sends the money along. In my case I eventually worked through a family trust account, my clients hired the trust, the trust paid me, this is so much easier than trying to find a way to deposit a duffle bag full of cash without raising suspicion. Since my work was legal I didn't bother laundering, but my clients thought I was laundering through the trust. The third category is simply to disguise what you're actually doing, and this can often be legal. Maybe you need to pay a pornstar to not tell everyone you like to be spanked with a magazine. For this you generate a false business. An intermediary consultant is hired, the consultant is paid an exorbitant rate, usually many times the normal going rate for their work, the extra is paid out. This leaves clean hands for the person paying and the recipient knows exactly where the money came from. Like I said this can sometimes be legal, sometimes it isn't.",
"A lot of people are mentioning businesses, but that's usually for low-level, small time crime. Let's say someone makes $100k, but also makes $50k illegally somehow on top of that (maybe selling something illegal on the side), this is common with EU truckers for example, who often smuggle cigarettes on top of their normal stuff across borders. Now this $50k is 100% illegal income, they can't really pay taxes on it otherwise the government might ask questions (how did you make $150k when every other trucker made $100k?). You can't really spend the $50k, because again, the government can be like (you made $100k, how did you spend $150k last year?). So some of them open up mostly sham businesses that they don't care about, like a small coffeeshop, and then claim it makes $50k when in reality it makes way less. A single coffee shop making $50k is completely reasonable and nobody will ask questions. Boom, now this truck driver can use his illegal money. However, for wealthy, more impactful people, it's different. Somebody worth millions of dollars, suddenly opening up chains of businesses and ensuring each one of them lie about their income is a nearly impossible thing to pull off, especially in the EU. So, one way wealthy people money laundering is through 'fake' purchases that don't raise suspicion. Let's say I'm selling you $5m worth of illegal goods. You can't give me that money in cash as a gift, otherwise I'd have the same problem as the trucker earlier. So I sell you something else. Like a stupid fucking painting that's worth nearly nothing. And you buy it. Boom, you get your goods, I get my money, and the stupid fucking painting was the middleman to make it a legal transfer of money. You can replace the painting with anything, even businesses or houses or whatever. (I'll sell you the title of this shitty, crumbling business for $5m). There's other ways as well, including putting the money into Bitcoin, withdrawing it in foreign banks that have little regulation, claiming it came from investments, etc.",
"You are rich drug lord and earn millions of dollars. You want to buy a house and fancy cars, but you need to pay through a bank. You can't deposit more than $10000 without drawing suspicion on where the money comes from. So you start up Mattress Firm, a scam mattress business with rip off $3000 mattresses that sell to 1 out of 100 suckers. But you tell teh IRS that you sell hundreds of mattresses every month, making millions. Now you deposit those millions, thats where they came from!",
"There are many ways, but many people have covered them. Sometimes, where I'm from, it's as simple as putting the money into poker machines, redeeming the cash and then claiming you just get lucky via gambling. It can be super hard to prove otherwise.",
"Imagine a scenario where you were given a large sum of money, but it wasn't a gift from a rich uncle or something. Or, more likely, you find yourself having to handle a large amount of money on an ongoing basis [ex. you're a spy, or sell drugs, or something]. This works whether someone is paying you [drug lord scenario], or you are paying someone else [you screwed a pornstar and are buying their silence]. The mob made this a science, though there are a lot of ways to do it. * Step 1: spend a few hundred setting up the paperwork for a business selling food, or doing drycleaning, running a casino, or renting apartments. Or whatever, but those are the easiest. * Step 2: hire a buddy who's in on the game to manage the business for you. Cut them in for a percentage. * Step 3: fake sales. If you bought an apartment building, set up fake accounts in a few of the units, rent the rest for real. Move the empty units around occasionally. If unit 1 is empty right now, move someone in after the person in unit 3 moves out. Keep unit 3 empty in real life, but occupied on paper. You can even furnish it and throw things around once in a while if you want it to look occupied. * Step 4: Ditto for a pizza joint, casino, or used car sales. A few real clients and a lot of fake customers. It helps a lot if you're bad at paperwork and records, or if no paperwork is necessary. * Step 5: A laundromat is useful because there isn't even much to track in terms of inventory, if an investigator shows up to ask questions you just say \"the customer brings their own soap, I just keep the machines running!\". A casino is useful because large amounts of cash comes and goes, and there is no way to prove a particular round of poker did or did not happen--it's just a line entry saying \"so and so lost $5000\", if that. * Step 6: Take your real money from your fake clients that was earned via a real business to the bank and call it good. Vary the amounts slightly, but keep them within the bounds of what an actual business of that sort would have to do in terms of cashflow in order to stay open, but not so much that it looks suspicious. * Step 7: count your Benjamins, pay a little tax, be the rich uncle.",
"Ok suuuper simplified. There are three phases: Placement - getting rid of dirty cash by depositing it in an account, taking it to a casino, buying money orders etc. Layering: this is what most people think of when they think laundering. In this phase you're trying to obscure the source by converting the forms of monetary instruments. You could open up a front business, or even buy a life insurance policy, cancel during the trial period and ask them to mail you a refund check that appears clean. Lots of things you can do here. Integration: by this point it's hard or impossible to tell dirty money from clean, so you go ahead and buy yousself something nice. Maybe a condo or cigarette boat.",
"There are different schemes for laundering money of varying complexity, but the basic idea is you take money that you obtained illegally and pass it around to make it legitimate. A simple way to do this is buy a business and use the dirty money to make purchases at that business. Then if the IRS asks where you got that money, you can show them your business and that businesses finances.",
"Just to add on a bit more that people didn't cover If you have a ton of money and decide to use a mostly cash business to make it seem legit, you can still get caught. For example, if your laundromat's utility bill for electricity or water is extremely low compared to the booming business you're supposedly doing. Or the water bill for your car wash is low or the same as other car washes, and you claim to take in a ton more money, without having high ass prices Or your pizza joint/sandwich shop has few expenses for bread, toppings, etc., but supposedly is selling all these pizzas made from nothing Or they check with your supplier of dough, and see that your figures are wildly different Or your bar doesn't buy much alcohol, yet somehow sells a ton of drinks. They aren't that watered down! So while the process is simple, you can still be caught easily too.",
"Just another more detailed example, I know a person who does construction cost estimating who had done small \"washes\" for people. (Laundered small sums.) If they have 5k, he might bill them for a few jobs he estimated, which is a job that only involves labor, and if he was ever questioned, he has legitimate estimates he could produce to show as the work he performed. He has a business set up as his own company with himself as the sole employee which isn't strage for an independent estimator. He deposits the checks he received or cash as payment for the job, accounts for it as business income then slowly over the next few weeks withdraws money from his business account as his pay or business expenses or whatever. Eventually he gets the cash back and returns it minus his cut. Edit: gives the cash back either as payment for services or some other business transaction.",
"So in breaking bad they laundered money by making sales of carwashes that never happened, up charged ones that did but have them the basic carwash. All these sales turned the drug money into clean legit money.",
"You take an enormous amount of illegal cash and spend it at a business you own. The traditional business of choice was a laundromat (hence the name), but any heavily cash based business works. They have too many customers that just hand over cash to be expected to know where it all came from so it is the perfect place to make your illegal money suddenly appear in a legal way.",
"Money laundering is taking dirty money and making it clean. The idea is to hide the dirty money as \"legitimate\" income from a clean source. Pretend you are a criminal trying to launder your money. Open a legitimate business. Don't waste your money on advertising, quality equipment, or a good location. You only need it to be good enough that it attracts enough customers to make it seem like you're not doing anything suspicious. Once you've got that covered, you start claiming that you're doing more business than you really are. You claim more customers than you actually got, with the income you claim is from these fake customers is in reality from your illicit doings. Now you've got clean money that you can give to a bank, use on a credit card, or (and this is a very important step) pay your taxes. Al Capone wasn't convicted of most of his crimes, it was the tax evasion he went to prison for.",
"Money laundering is disguising where you get your money from. Say you grow drugs and sell them to a dealer. You live in a fictional world where you, the only drug farmer grows all the drugs and sells them all to a dealer, who is the only dealer and sells them all to customers. So, you're making a fuckton of money, and according to the government, don't have a job (or if you have one, you make $50k a year and spend 50 million). The government won't be happy if they find out, because you're not paying income tax, and also committing crimes. You need to make it look like either A: you're not spending the money that you're spending or B: you're getting their money from a legitimate source, like a job that you have or a business that you own. The easiest ways are to either open a bunch of fake businesses, and then have a lot of fake transactions as income, or to just move it around in really complicated ways until nobody can see the original source. The second method is easier to explain. Checks and wire transfers clearly show the original bank and account, so a dedicated law enforcement official can backtrace them with a warrant (or not with the patriot act). So, you need a transfer that they can't backtrace and also can't say is illegal. Typically this is either a wire from a country that won't cooperate and tell them who sent the money, cash deposits, or money orders deposited and paid for with cash. This is why the US government requires banks to fill out a currency transaction report for any customer who exchanges, deposits, or withdraws more than $10,000 in cash in a given day. It's also why people scrutinize transfers from the Cayman Islands and Switzerland so much. The cash deposits thing is obviously much simpler, a cash deposit is inherently untraceable (assuming you can't just match amounts). This is why some banks (like Chase/JPMorgan) require you to give them ID when you deposit cash into your account, or just won't let you put cash into someone else's. The first method is more difficult. Say you open a chicken shop. You have 10 customers per day, who spend $10 each on a bucket of chicken. Well, you're a money launderer so all of a sudden, your accounts book says that each client spent $100 on chicken. Or, maybe it says you had 1,000 customers who each spent $10. Either way, you are now taking in cash that you didn't actually earn from chicken, and did earn from drugs. Since you own your chicken shop, you pay taxes and that money is now yours to do what you want. Or, you can then do method one to be extra sure the feds can't find out how you make your money. Hope that works guys, I tried. I'm a bank teller so I can answer any questions you have about currency reports or some basic questions about the other parts of this.",
"There's a gas station across the street from me that has literally never changed it's gas price since I moved here in August. Never see anyone buying any snacks or drinks there. Sometimes I buy cigarettes but like 50% of the time they're just out of them. Totally convinced it's a front.",
"Financial crimes investigator here. There are three main stages to effectively launder money: placement, layering, and integration. Basically, dirty money stemming from drug sales, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc. is deposited into a bank account as cash. Deposits will be kept below $10k in order to circumvent the filing of a Currency Transaction Report. The money will also likely be deposited at many different bank branches using several different individuals (\"smurfing\") in order to avoid suspicion. That money will then be moved to a number of different deposit and investment accounts and can also be used to pay bills and fund regular living expenses. After the money is moved to external accounts, it can be withdrawn again as cash (clean bills from a bank branch/ATM) to purchase more drugs. Additionally, debit cards and personal/cashier's checks can be used for further living expenses as well as the purchase of luxury items like cars and property. If the launderer is smart, the banks where his money is stored will never see the whole scope of the activity that's occurring and will likely not look into his activity too closely.",
"Is there a good free introductory course on forensic accounting?",
"You get money from something illegal, the tax man sees your money and says \"hey, where'd you get that money?\" And then you're busted and get in trouble. But if you have a business, you can lie and say \"tax man, I got this money from my business!\" No more trouble. But tax man is smart. Tax man knows all the businesses and how much money each one usually makes. He says \"Show me every single time your business made money, and from where, and ill add them all up. If there's lots left over, you're in trouble\". So you need to lie more, and write down people who didn't buy things at your business, so you can tell tax man that the extra money you got from illegal stuff came from them. But if you tell tax man your lemonade stand made sixteen million dollars last month, he can figure out that you lied to him, and you still get in trouble. So you need to be smart too. You need to own businesses that can make lots of different amounts, a few thousand one month, many more thousand another month, even of you didn't do anything illegal. Tax man might believe you if you say the money came from there if it's a believable amount. But what if you do LOTS of illegal stuff and make LOTS of illegal money? More than any lemonade stand would ever make? Well, you need to buy lots of businesses with lots of different money amounts, an write down lots of imaginary people in all of them. Sometimes tax man will try to find the imaginary people, so be careful. But wait, what if you don't HAVE lots of businesses to write fake people in? You only have a lemonade stand, and you did SO MUCH ILLEGAL STUFF that you know tax man is going to get you and tell the police, what can you do? Well, there are some big smart people in suits who already own lots of businesses and are very very good and writing down fake names, you can go to them and say \"please make my money look like it came from your businesses\" and they will say \"ok, but we get to keep some of it\". And that is money laundering. This is why [HSBC bank are bad bad evil people]( URL_0 ), because they are some of the big smart people in suits who do this to help very nasty people who do nasty things to nice people.",
"The entire province of British Columbia has been used for money laundering. Casinos, real estate, supercars, it's stuff bought with grey- or black-market cash, no questions asked, and it's unclear at this point how complicit the former government was in the expansion thereof. URL_1 URL_0 URL_2",
"If you're actually looking for an easy way to clean your dirty money OP, then I recommend gambling with it. Most slot machines are programmed to provide a set return over time (usually 70 to 80c per dollar spent in them, which is why they're so profitable since the house is essentially making 20 to 30c per dollar gambled) and while you're ultimately losing 20 to 30% of your money, you are able to claim the rest as legitimate winnings.",
"Not a full answer by any means, but I can give a quick and easy example which I have first hand experience with: I used to work in a high street bookmakers (a sports betting shop in the UK, which are very common here but as I understand it not very in other countries). We would often have the following problem: People would come in and put dirty money in the betting terminals, place a few very low risk bets to feign legitimacy, and then print off a value ticket and claim it at the counter. This way they now have clean money from behind the counter, as well as a receipt to \"prove\" where it came from. It was a bit problem for a while, and also very difficult to spot at times (though, very obvious at others).",
"Image finding a ton of money like 5 million dollars. If you were to go spend it Uncle Sam would notice and start wondering where you got it and why he didn't get his cut. So to avoid questions from Uncle Same you would open a business and take your dirty money and put into the business as if people were buying stuff even if you haven't had any customers. So that there will be a paper trail, and when Uncle Sam looks he sees you have a business and it makes money.",
"So, let's say you tried stealing fractions of pennies from a company by always winding down and depositing the remainder into your own account. Now, your software working buddy misplaced a decimal point (always happens) and you have a very noticeable chunk of money. Now, you could ask an ex crackhead who's selling magazines about money laundering. No info there. You could choose to give the money back. Or you can ask Reddit and learn to launder. Ideally, you'd want to have this setup before you come into money that needs laundering. Using a service based business allows you to conceal actual sales and costs. Saying that you made more legally allows you add cash flow from illegal transactions into a legitimate business.",
"Hey I did two dissertations on money laundering, I’m gonna keep it as simple as possible. The goal of money laundering is to place cash in the financial system with the goal that that illicit money will emerge clean. Actually, part of the reason why it is called laundering, as years ago laundromats were used frequently as a front, because they were a cash incentive business. (Fun fact) Anyway, so there’s three stages of money laundering; placement, layering and integration. Placement: placing the money into the financial system. Layering: this is essentially creating complex transactions to create distance from the original source of money. Some methods of this include making small deposits of money in various account. Integration: money has emerged clean into the financial sector. This is the most simplistic version of money laundering that I can explain to you. But with developments in crypto currencies and mobile e-money the face of money laundering and terrorist financing is changing. Any other questions please feel free to ask and I’ll do my best to answer them.",
"Money laundering is when illegally obtained money is put through various cash flow channels to make it appear as though the money was legally obtained. For example, a drug dealer cannot deposit $50,000 per month into a bank account each month without incurring a severe risk of being caught. For example, the bank is required to report certain money transactions to the government. The bank is required to report interest on the account to the IRS for tax reasons. When it comes time to file taxes, the IRS will notice a person who is making $600K per year, and interest on that money at a bank, yet receives a tax form from that person indicating that the person is not employed (hard to say you're a drug dealer without going to jail). So, one way that drug dealer might deal with the problem is as follows: They might, for example, setup a neighborhood pizza shop. The dealer will setup a legal company, set himself as the owner of the company, and \"pay\" the pizza business with drug money (as if it was revenue from making and selling pizzas) to make it look to outsiders that the pizza business was selling pizza and making money. Then, the drug dealer could legally pay tax on that drug money, once it appears as revenue to the pizza business, and then pay himself a salary with the profit. Once illegal money (from drugs) now looks like revenue to a legal (and thriving) pizza business. The drug dealer's salary is explained, the source of the money is explained, and the drug dealer can fly under the radar without the IRS immediately seeing something shady. The drug dealer now has an explanation for his expensive house, car, and other goods - he has a successful pizza business."
],
"score": [
21250,
6382,
1383,
775,
706,
196,
107,
56,
49,
27,
27,
18,
16,
16,
13,
13,
10,
10,
9,
9,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive-resigns-senate"
],
[
"https://globalnews.ca/news/4087440/money-laundering-crackdown-bc-budget/",
"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/globe-investigation-into-money-laundering-in-bc-real-estate-will-lead-to-new-rules-ag-says/article38018921/",
"https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/03/28/vancouver-supercar-dealerships-next-target-in-bc-money-laundering-crackdown.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8freim | Why does the urge of going to the bathroom drastically increase the closer you get to the bathroom? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dy63vlx",
"dy6it7y",
"dy6bbe8"
],
"text": [
"It's a trained psychological response. We have trained ourselves that the toilet is a safe place to let loose. It's the same reason people will fall asleep if they lay down on a bed, even if they are not tired.",
"It's behavioral and has to do with the minds awareness. In adults, some part of the mind is always aware of when it is appropriate to use the restroom, and when it's not. This keeps us from wetting the bed, and other awkward social situations. When you know you're about to get relief, the body starts to relax and commit to it, and there is no turning back. You probably read about Pavlov, and his work with dogs, when you were in school. When the body involuntarily performs an action, in anticipation of something, we call this a Pavlovian response. People usually talk about salivating at the thought of food, but I find it funny that thinking about sex, and the resulting 'ahem' changes that result, are in that same realm. An interesting thing is the same thing happens with breathing and free divers. The most dangerous time for people who ocean dive without oxygen, is when they are about to break the surface. These people drop off into the water with a weight and sink great distances, then release the weight and swim back to the surface, all on a breath of air. The danger, is that if they stay down too long, as they get close to the surface, the mind anticipates the air and it becomes increasingly hard to prevent taking a breath, and people can drown as they start breathing water before breaking the surface. There is also anecdotal evidence that people who learn to urinate in unusual places, also have problems with urgency when they are near those places. For instance I read about a person that used to pee in their dresser when sleeping, and even when awake, they would have a similar sense of urgency when near the dresser as they would a bathroom in spite of not wanting to consciously urinate in it.",
"I realized that it is a trained psychological response, so I think about something else important as I get closer to the bathroom, this makes the urgent need to pee go away. Then when I am standing before the bowl, I allow myself to remember that I really need to pee, and all hell can now break loose."
],
"score": [
23,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8fvkcr | The difference and jurisdiction between police, sheriffs, state police, FBI, highway patrol; who handles what? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dy6suky",
"dy6t8ii",
"dy6syr3",
"dy6t5p3",
"dy7cjd0"
],
"text": [
"Very simply: Police = City Sheriff = County State Police = State =P Highway Patrol = State highways, interstates. FBI= Country Wide - Federal crimes",
"Police have Jurisdiction within a city or town. Sheriff's Departments have jurisdiction within a County. That technically includes cities though they normally defer to the city level police and focus their actions outside of city limits and in towns too small to have their own police, as well as crimes that happen both inside and outside of a city or in multiple cities within a county. State Police, Highway Patrol, etc have jurisdiction within an entire State. Some departments are focused on specific things, such as highway patrol being focused on traffic safety on highways. Others like State Troopers or the Texas Rangers deal with crimes that happen in multiple counties and deal with the transfer of prisoners across county lines. National level police such as the FBI, US Marshals, Border Patrol etc are also fairly specialized. They have jurisdiction in the whole US but have specific jobs. Border Patrol, or ICE deal with immigration and customs imports into the US. US Marshals deal with witness protection, transport of prisoners across State lines, deal with crimes on Federal lands such as national parks, and deal with some crimes on Native American Reserves. The FBI deals with crimes that happen in multiple States, specialized cases such as serial killers, and the like.",
"And aren’t sheriffs in the US elected officials (I’m Canadian - we don’t have sheriffs as such)?",
"It's area based mainly.. Police have jurisdiction inside the city limits.. Sheriffs Deputies have jurisdiction inside the county.. State and then so on.. but yes, some small towns don't have a Police force so the county has jurisdiction.",
"Many think that the US policing system is a mess, and without a doubt I would say it’s complicated but very orderly in that every jurisdiction has its own entity. Others have mentioned that Australia is much simpler, with Federal police, and then state authorities taking care of local policing, ambulance and fire. Very clear cut. In Canada it’s a bloody mess. At the federal level you have the RCMP, and various other agencies for specialized areas, though the RCMP often have jurisdiction in these areas too, ex. CBSA is our customs and immigration agency, yet RCMP has jurisdiction over patrolling the physical land and sea borders. At the provincial level, you also have the RCMP taking care of provincial crimes ONLY if said province chooses to opt in for RCMP service. 3 provinces opted out (Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland) and as such have the Ontario Provincial Police, Sureté Québec, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary taking care of their own provinces’ crimes. On the municipal level you again have the RCMP but ONLY if the municipality has opted in. Otherwise, municipal police services can be organized (e.g. the Toronto Police). But municipal forces derive their authority from the Crown at the provincial level, giving them authority anywhere in said province. In the territories up North, sovereignty/border integrity is again taken up by CBSA and RCMP but also with the Canadian Army Rangers - essentially dudes with red hoodies, hatchets and Lee Enfield rifles. On Indian reservations, some have Indian police services and others have RCMP - unfortunately I don’t know the distinction. While I’m not very knowledgeable about this, I have heard that some treaty lands have the ability to refuse entry to federal authorities. In other words, we need some help from the UK and Australia!"
],
"score": [
155,
36,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8g51a6 | How does UV light kill viruses and bacteria? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dy8zvc5",
"dy92v2o"
],
"text": [
"UV rays can create thymine-dimers in your DNA which if done in high enough quantities, will make your DNA unreadable. When this happens, basically your cells' instruction manual gets peices of it scratched out. So when this happens to bacteria, it's like getting a sunburn on every cell in your body, being that you are a single celled organism.",
"For viruses - viruses don’t retain water very well, so a UV boop usually means a virus that’s so low on water it’s basically useless. Bacteria keep their water to a better extent, so they usually die of DNA mutations, as the other guys said. Eventually, all the proteins are weird and the bacteria dies from failing cellular processes."
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8gjv9x | if a bullet is shot directly into the air, can the results be fatal if it strikes a person in the head on the way back down? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyc8k4s"
],
"text": [
"Yes, people die every year from stray bullets. It’s honestly pretty tragic. At terminal velocity coming back down, bullets are still very deadly."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8gva0o | How come when it’s hot out, and your turn your AC on to say, 68 degrees, it feels good.. but when it’s cooler outside, and the AC is still on 68 degrees, you feel cold even though the temperature in the house has been regulated? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyey38o"
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the humidity. When it's hot, the humidity is usually higher, making your body work harder to regulate it's temperature by trying to cool. Turning in the AC removes some humidity from the air, making it easier to be cool. When it's cold, the humidity is usually lower, making it easier for your body to cool itself. In these cases, you body then tries to wash itself."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8he6hv | Why is the sky blue during the day when space is black? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyj3a0w"
],
"text": [
"A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look towards the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colours because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight."
],
"score": [
19
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8heqtf | - Why do almost all people with down syndrome have the same facial structure? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyj7ss5",
"dyjbjo4",
"dyjnb4c",
"dyjiqku",
"dyj80cb"
],
"text": [
"Genetics determine appearance. If you have a group of people who all have a similar genetic pattern it stands to reason that they would display similar characteristics. Genes present within the 21st chromosome result in a person with trisomy of that chromosome (third copy) having those physical traits. It's not just the facial traits either, Downs also causes a much higher rate of congenital heart defects.",
"Can someone explain to me where to extra chromosome comes from? Also is it a chromosome or a chromosome pair? Does there have to be both a sperm and egg with an extra chromosome or is it a mutation during gestation.",
"Someone explain to me: Can people with down syndrome have offsprings? If yes, would the child have down syndrome too?",
"I am not sure how, but the chromosomal trisomy somehow affects either the differentiation or migration of neural crest cells. These then generate a number of structures troughout the body, but mainly nervious tissue (they are vital for development of the brain), pharingeal arches (which derivate into jaw; incus, malleus and stapes; hyoid apparatus) and several skull bones and cartilage (yes, this inclues facial bones and cart, giving their distinctive facial featuees). Additionally, neural crest cells also originate a heart valve (dont remember which) which tends to develop abnormally in downs syndrom patients and is partly why they seem to have more heart problems than usual. TlDR: abnormal neural crest cells.",
"It's an aspect of the condition. The extra copy of chromosome 21 or parts of it in the people with down syndrome results in significant changes to body and mental growth and function, because its directly changing the way their DNA goes about creating and directing all the parts of putting someone together."
],
"score": [
635,
71,
55,
13,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8hrsu6 | The Iran Contra scandal. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dym0x7l"
],
"text": [
"The US used to basically own the Iranian government (The Shah was very \"friendly\" to the US). In 1979, Iranians had a revolution, and deposed The Shah. They replaced him with Ayatollah Khomeini. When this happened, they took US citizens as hostages. Because of that, the US embargoed Iran (not to mention sold many weapons to Iraq so they could fight Iran). You couldn't trade with Iran. Period. Except the US government (under Ronald Reagan) didn't like the government in Nicaragua. It was very leftist (Socialist). They wanted to support the Contras in Nicaragua so they could overthrow the government (The Sandinistas, who had overthrown the previous government in Nicaragua in 1979). So the US government sold weapons to Iran and funneled the money to the Contras in Nicaragua (who failed to overthrow the Sandinistas). This was totes illegal! Luckily, President Reagan was super old, and decided to tell everyone that he didn't remember ANYTHING. Oliver North was thrown under the bus (he volunteered) and blamed for it instead of the Reagan administration."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8i4fpc | How come it gets harder to pick up a new language as we grow older? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyotlgg",
"dyp1bos"
],
"text": [
"It's not. That's a myth. What IS true, is that your ears have closed themselves from sounds that aren't in the languages you learnt when you were a child \\(usually your mother tongue, but if you had bilingual parents for instance, it could be several languages\\). There IS a way to open your ears \\(=brain\\) to the new sounds : being able to pronounce them. The same phenomenon happens in music, when at first you're unable to hear articulations, but when you can do them yourself you become able to identify them by ear. The PROBLEM here is that 99 & #37; of language teaching puts the emphasis on grammar and not on pronunciation, so you DO struggle, but it has nothing to do with your age and all to do with the way you're taught those new languages.",
"There's a region of the brain responsible for picking up your first language(s). Learning a language is pretty much an instinct in Humans, but that instinct (and that region of the brain) go away when you're fairly young. It's still possible to learn languages, but it is more work since that specialised region has done it's original job and doesn't work that way any more."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8ipxat | Why does rubbing your eyes cause flashes of random colors? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dytnsdz"
],
"text": [
"I'm sure someone will be able to explain it better than myself, but I believe it has something to do with your optic nerves misinterpreting the pressure as visual stimuli, so your brain tries to make up what you're seeing. Edit from Google: Phosphenes are most commonly introduced by simply closing your eyes and rubbing them or squeezing them shut, tightly; generally the harder you rub or squeeze, the more phosphenes you'll see. This pressure stimulates the cells of the retina and, thus, makes your brain think you are seeing light."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8iu6l0 | why is it so hard to find a cure for cancer despite the money that has been poured into cancer research? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyun80k",
"dyun4o7",
"dyunmlc",
"dyunjn4",
"dyutxod",
"dyuxytl",
"dyupiig",
"dyuvm63",
"dyusxdf",
"dyuywxi",
"dyunpb8",
"dyun5q2",
"dyuyob7",
"dyuof19",
"dyuxys1",
"dyuwwzj",
"dyuynle",
"dyuzdh9",
"dyuvto2",
"dyv085l",
"dyuzkax",
"dyuy5k4",
"dyvkxiq",
"dyvgalv",
"dyuxcfh",
"dyv793x",
"dyuynej",
"dyuvm1u",
"dyuw7n2"
],
"text": [
"Because there are many, many cancers. Saying 'a cure for cancer' is about as reasonable as saying 'a cure for physical injury'. There are as many different kinds of cancer as there are ways and places that a person could be cut, bruised, broken or burned. The research, tests and trials are constantly discovering, testing, and bringing into full production treatments for different cancers. As a result, the outcomes for people are getting better all the time. Some cancers that were a death sentence just a few years ago are now routinely cured, and as we gain deeper insights into the genetic causes, this can only get better. But it will always be an area where more research will be needed, as there will always be less common cancers that need new treatments, or more common cancers that could have better treatments.",
"Because cancer is not a disease like smallpox or anything else we've cured so far. It's your cells that turn into cancer cell because of whatever reason so there is nothing to cure from the outside. Oh and there are a lot of types of cancer so that makes it even harder",
"Because it's your own cells going haywire and taking over your body. It's like trying to stop an enemy that hides among innocent civilians. Yeah, it's easy to kill them if you have overwhelming firepower, the hard part is doing so without killing all the innocent bystanders. The innocent bystanders, in the case of cancer, being your healthy cells you need to survive. The methods we use to kill cancer, chemotherapy and radiation, also kill your healthy cells. It's hard to find a method which distinguishes between healthy cells and cancerous cells, whereas with something like a bacterial infection, you just flood your body with chemicals (antibiotics) that kill bacteria without affecting your human cells. Because of slight differences between our cells and bacteria cells, there are chemicals that kill bacteria while leaving us alive. There are slight differences between your healthy cells and cancerous cells, such as the cancerous cells being slightly weaker than your healthy cells, so they can be killed with a certain concentration of poison that leaves your healthy cells alive (chemotherapy). If the cancerous cells are all located in one spot that can be operated on, you can simply cut out the blob of cells, or target it with radiation. Unfortunately, there's lots of types of cancer, and sometimes they aren't weak enough to be killed by these methods or they've spread throughout the body and can't be killed without killing all the healthy cells, or originated in an inoperable area where surgery or radiation would kill some vital organ.",
"Because * It's parts of your own body killing you by doing a perfectly normal and desired thing *too much* - so your immune system usually won't' help, and chemicals that destroy cancer cells will generally also destroy healthy cells and kill you. * if you don't get every single cancer cell, it will just gro again, possibly much worse if you did something where the surviving cancer cells got into your bloodstream and spread around your body. * Cancer is really not jsut one disease, it's hundreds, because different kinds of cells behave quite differently when they become cancerous, and even in a single tumor you can often find different strains that are effectively separate diseases.",
"A cancer cell is like a car that just keeps going and won't stop. So we want to make this car stop, right? Maybe we fix the brakes, maybe the problem is the brakes aren't working, so let's design a new brake system to install on the car. Except, how do you design one that fits EVERY car (BMW, Toyota, Chevrolet)? You would have to design one for every car. So we do that, and we fix the brakes, only to discover that the gas pedal is the problem, it's giving the engine full throttle despite the brakes, so we go back to the drawing board, and we come up with a fix for the gas pedal, again, requiring a different one for every car. Only to find out, from travelling so fast, the car is all bent up, and hood is pressing down on the wire to the gas pedal, so our new system isn't working. The idea of a \"universal cure\" for cancer is the same as the idea of a universal mechanical part that would fix any car. In the same way that we can brand a car as \"BMW\", \"Toyota\", \"Chevrolet\", and then as \"1992 model\", \"2007 model\", and then \"Sport ZX trim\" or \"SS V8 model\", we can do that with a cell - \"lung cancer\", \"neuroendocrine lung cancer\", \"ER+ PR- breast cancer\". In the same way that each car would need a special part, each cancer would need a special drug to fix the particular thing that is broken in that cancer cell. Beyond that, each PARTICULAR car has its own story and its own unique pattern of damage, same as a cancer cell, so even the specific part for that specific car model may not actually work in that particular car given its damage. The mutations in every person's cancer, will be different from another person with what is called the same type of cancer. On top of all that, we don't have 1 broken car, we have 1 billion of them, and the ones that we failed to fix, they reproduce and generate new, differently broken cars. Some of the exciting stuff they are doing with cancer now it's going to the immune system, the auto mechanic, and telling it to destroy these cars. The cars are telling it \"hey, stay away, it's all good\", so we try to mess that up. These are, for example, PD-L1 inhibitors in lung cancer, and they can work miraculously, but they don't always work (since every cancer is different), so people can once again point their finger and say \"no cure\" Some cancer research money goes into better understanding the cancer (the blueprint of the car) to understand which parts are malfunctioning. That research, one hopes, will lead to a new type of car part that can fix that problem. We are also doing a lot with this immune system stuff too. But the war on cancer, it's a game where we are slowly whittling, whittling, whittling, collecting parts, building an arsenal. We likely won't ever have \"the cure\" but rather slowly increasing chances of survival year after year. Most drugs now, your hair doesn't fall out. Back in the day, the first generations of cancer drugs, your hair falls out because the stuff we were giving just knocks out any cell that reproduces a lot - such as your hair follicle cells. With the car analogy, this is like we put spike strips on every road for any car going over 40 mph. So this knocks out our broken cars well enough, but the normal working cars going 45 mph also hit the strips and get knocked out too. Because these drugs or \"replacement parts\", they don't go on just the broken cars, they go on EVERY car - they effect every cell in the body, not just cancer cells.",
"You'd be shocked at how much money raised for cancer actually makes it to research. Most charity money funds the charity, not the cause.",
"Cancer isn't a disease, but a *type* of disease. There are many different types of cancers, and all of them have their own name - you may have heard of leukemia, melanoma, and/or common names like cancer of the colon, skin, eye, brain, etc. Finding a \"cure for cancer\" means finding a cure for each and every different type of cancer (or, possibly, a way to prevent it from occurring to begin with.) Cancer is what happens when cells malfunction in a certain way. You see, the cells in your body reproduce by splitting into copies of itself. This is how your body grows and heals. The copying process itself isn't perfect, and small mistakes happen all the time. Mistakes made when copying stuff like proteins or ribosomes or whatever don't matter that much - the bad copy doesn't work, but that's fine because the DNA master file is still undamaged and a new copy is made from that. When a mistake is made while copying DNA, or the DNA is damaged by radiation or something, the problem is a bit more serious. Fortunately, your body has several mechanisms to fix this sort of error - there are special proteins that can sort of \"quick-fix\" tiny bits of damage - they sort of comb small knots out of the strand. For more serious damage, more complex sort of processes exist - I'm not going to go in to too much detail, but every cell has multiple copies of the same code - two on each strand, for a total of four on each chromosome. These processes can replace damaged bits of code by making copies of the undamaged versions, like restoring from a backup. There are some types of damage that can't really be fixed, though, not correctly. There's even a self-destruct function built in - when too much damage occurs, or certain other conditions are met, cells die in a process called apoptosis. Cancers happen when cells stop self destructing, and continue growing. Different cancers exist because there are so many different types of cells in the body, which even normally all act differently in order to perform whatever function the body needs them to do. Their rate of growth and replacement, how they move through the body, and the sorts of conditions and nutrients that help them grow all play a part in how they behave when they become cancerous. Neurons, for example can't really reproduce and make copies of themselves. A neuron might have the exact same damage done to it that would cause another cell to become cancerous, but we'd never know the difference. Skin cancers, however, are much easier to spot, and the easiest cure is to remove the cancerous areas of skin. Other cancers, like glioblastomas, can be a death sentence depending on where they occur in the brain - sometimes they're in a location like the brain stem and can't be removed without killing the patient. Many cancers are treated with chemotherapy. Since a cancer is a specific type of cell, all you do is take poison that's more poisonous to that type of cell than others - hopefully you kill the cancerous cells and still have enough regular cells left to live. Fuck cancers. Fuck.",
"There are heaps of cures. A few of my friends and family members have had cancer previously, they do not have cancer now. Why? Cured. The thing is these cures don't work on all patients, so we're still looking for all of the cures. The types of cures? Some types of chemo, radio therapy, early detection and surgery. It works really really well. URL_0 has a nice graph down the bottom highlighting how well all the current cures work.",
"There's no money in cures. If you cure a disease or make a phone that doesn't crap out after a few years, your customers won't have to pay you anymore. Chris Rock once said, \"The government curing AIDS? That's like Cadillac making a car that last for fifty years... and you know they can do it! But they ain't gonna do something that fucking dumb! Shit! They got metal on the space shuttle that can go around the moon and withstand temperatures up to 20,000 degrees. You mean to tell me you don't think they can make an El Dorado where the fucking bumper don't fall off?\"",
"Let's not forget that big companies see the money pouring in and skim most of the money off leaving a small portion going to actual cure research.",
"It's a lot of reasons. People can have a lot of different kinds of cancer. Some for your skin, some for your blood, everywhere. Each of these cancers form slightly differently and affect your body differently. Cancer is difficult to study because most people don't realize they have it until they get really sick. Because of that, a lot of medicines are made for stopping cancer after it becomes dangerous and not before cancer forms at all. Stopping something that is already formed is much harder than stopping it from forming For cancer that has been studied a lot (such as breast cancer), medicine for cancer is harder to make. Very simply, cancer is just a normal cell that doesn't know when to stop growing. There are hundreds of different checks in cells to stop these uncontrolled growths. If one of them fails or a combination, it could be the cause of cancer. It's very hard to find. Some cancers are not well known at all and receive little money to study so you have even less knowledge on how to find a cure. Testing the medicine takes time., about 10 years of time. 4 stages of testing has to be done and if even one part fails, you start again from stage 1. This costs a lot of money and many companies don't really want to try because of how many medicines have already failed. Tldr; lots of parts make cancer something difficult to cure. There are different kinds of cancer, it's hard to study and not easy to make medicine for.",
"Cancer is a mutation and not a single illness. As such we can treat types of cancers, but a one-size fits all treatment is very difficult.",
"You can put all the money you want into it, but it the technology isn't there then it's just not there. Cancer is a genetic inevitability, not something like a common cold (which there is also no cure for, due to its genetic variation) Your cells mutate all the time, and your body is constantly killing off cancerous cells. The mutations aren't always the same, so when cells go cancerous and haywire, they can do a number of wild things. So a cure, in a sense, would be the ability to build something better then your body's immune system at detecting and killing these mutations. And if that were easy, we would all be living happy and healthy lives right now.",
"Cancer is a copy error. Your cell divides, just like billions of cells in your body are doing all the time, but it gets the copy wrong. The next time that copied cell divides, it's even more wrong. Soon you've got a snowball effect spreading to other organs and systems. It can happen to anyone, at any time, though obviously some activities like smoking or radiation exposure increase the chances for copy error. If you live to be 200 and nothing else kills you, eventually you WILL get cancer, in the same way that even the most reliable car will eventually run out of oil. We can find activities that contribute to cancer and stop doing them. We can diagnose someone with cancer and kill all the cancerous cells with things like surgery and radiation... though often that stuff is every bit as bad for healthy tissue. But without some kind of miraculous breakthrough, on the order of solving the aging process itself, we can't \"cure\" it in the same way that we can cure an injury or an infection. Cancer is, in many ways, a byproduct of just being alive. That being said, don't feel like cancer research is a waste. More and more types of cancer become survivable for more and more people all the time thanks to all that money and effort. Fifty years ago, \"he's got cancer\" was practically a death sentence. Now it's something you have a very real chance of beating.",
"The treatment of cancer is very profitable, so why cure it? People gotta die from something, so...if a global pharmacy corporation us making billions from cancer treatment...do the math, and follow the money.",
"I'm probably going to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but whatever, I'll say it anyway. My step-dad was a scientist, he worked with other scientists. A few of them came up with a few things that would eradicate a normally common problem. The problem was that when you create a permanent solution for something, it'll essentially bankrupt companies that deal with those problems temporarily. Most of them and their ideas were bought out for a large sum. Now, I'm not saying that this applies to cancer research, and I'm sure we have very capable people working on a solution, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Anyway, I'm just trying to put out a different perspective on things, also I'm sorry I didn't explain it like you're five (first time here).",
"I'm an MD PhD student studying immunotherapy for osteosarcoma. First off, plenty of cancers ARE cured every day. Many of them childhood cancers. Second, cancer cells have mechanisms by which they can evade the immune system. Third, many cancer cells look very similar to normal cells, so they can be very hard to target specifically without causing damage to normal tissues- often, organ toxicity is the limiting factor with chemo and radiation. Fourth, many cancer cells divide rapidly and erroneously allowing for new mutations to constantly occur and the ones that develop new drug reistant traits can therefore survive and stay one step ahead of targeted treatments. Fifth, many cancer cells can lie dormant and therefore be unaffected by the majority of cancer drugs targeting rapid proliferation, only to reactivate later down the road.",
"So disappointed to read all the nonsense conspiracy theories! I am in Oncology drug development as a senior researcher and have been in this general field for about 15 years. As others have put it, Cancer is not a singular disease - between people and even within a patient. This is called cancer heterogeneity which is one of the biggest issues we face. Often our targeted therapies can kill one variant of the cancer cells, but leave behind a few cells that are resistant this is because the drug wasn’t designed to kill those resistant cells. You will see now there are a lot of combination therapies that give multiple drugs to the patient in an effort to cast a wide net and kill as many variants of the cancer as possible. Even so, some patients are left with tumors that acquire mutations specifically to the treatment they have been given (and worked) - EGFR therapies are a great example of this. So now many of us are working on medicinal chemistry efforts to specifically target cancer cells that have these mutations. What many people don’t think about it is what we call the Therapeutic Index. This is, how safely can we administer the treatment and still maintain a good response. Most cancer therapies have a very very narrow therapeutic index because of the nature of the drugs - selectively killing cells and avoiding killing your normal organ is very hard. We have a lot of drugs that kill cancer very well, but you know what happens if you take it - you die. They are too lethal and would obviously be deemed unsafe by the FDA. I just ask that people try to learn more about the disease from credible sources - Pubmed is your friend! Undermining the years and hard work from those of us who have decided to spent our lives on finding a good therapy is really disheartening (but not demotivating!). Anyway, I have one of my drug discovery efforts make it to a Phase 1 clinical cancer trial now so fingers crossed we can make it to our predicted human efficacious dose without hitting our predicted toxicities first!!",
"Like the disease itself, it's terribly complicated. One factor is that cancer isn't a single disease, it's a group of diseases where some are similar to eachother and some are different, some are usually curable with the right treatment and some are almost universally a death sentence, variants may have different drugs they respond to and so on. Then, there's dealing with the actual problem at a physical level: killing cancer cells is easy. Killing cancer cells without killing off a *lot* of other cells you need is... not easy at all.",
"Because a good portion of that money doesn't go to research. It goes to throwing parties for the rich so they donate more money.",
"Lots of reasons Cancer has a lot of kinds: Each type of cancer (lung, liver cancer, etc.) can have several types, subtypes, further classification and so on. Each can have their own characteristics and only some drugs work on some others. Research, money, time, and drug development has to be spread out instead of a focused on one kind. Cancer is microscopic: Cancer is microscopic so we literally don't know if we got all the cancer. If we don't it will probably come back and possibly worse (it got more resistant to the drug, spreading to the body, etc.). If there was some way to go \"Oh here is every single cancer cell in the body\", cancer would probably be cured. Cancer treatment is crude: Cut it out, poison it, or irradiate the area. Sounds like war right? Well it's even worse because since everything is tiny, we have no choice but to do some collateral damage. Our tech just isn't good enough yet. Chemo is basically poisoning everybody in a village, but hoping it kills the people with faster metabolism first. Irradiation is basically bombing a suspected terrorist area. You'll never know if you got them all, or if you created more extremists through irradiation. Currently our best bets are target therapy or stimulating the immune system to attack it. Problem is, we're still not very good at either yet, either because we lack the tech or we lack the knowledge. Also targeted therapy will only work on a specific cancer since each cancer is different. And if the cancer mutates to something no longer targeted? Well good luck because our current tech isn't good enough to make a new target therapy drug that fast, let alone personalize target therapy.",
"Cancer is an umbrella term for many different diseases that result in malignant cell production.",
"Too much money is involved. A lot of the cancers we see can be attributed to the approved chemicals we consume and the environment we are in.",
"Cancer has been cured for almost 10 years. It's not profitable. There's no money is curing people. Whereas there are billions upon billions to be made through chemo and radiation and medication",
"Plenty of cancerS have been cured or become treatable There are literally hundreds if not thousands of varieties, breast cancer is not bone cancer is not prostate cancer is not leukemia is not skin cancer is not lung cancer There's no single cure for a spectrum of disease",
"A lot of people have chimed in on various facets of the issue. I'll leave you with a simple word: variability. About a year ago, we were testing a drug for metastatic pancreatic patients. One patient, miraculously enough, was found to have no residual disease. She was shocked to hear the news. We laughed. She cried. We hugged. It was a great day. Other patients on this treatment...not so much the case. Same disease. Same drug. Different people. Its a shitshow most of the time.",
"My wife works in a lab funded by cancer research grant money. Her specific study is on how cells migrate. Mutant cells vs normal cells. She's spent the last 3 years studying what look like hairs sticking out of the cells and how they affect movement, and now she's ready to publish her findings. It takes a long ass time to collect data on just one aspect of cell behavior. And these aren't even cancer cells. You have to generate enough data to study, then you have to find a pattern, and then you have to publish the data in order for it to be studied further.",
"Part of the money is also going into improving existing methods to make them more effective or just making things easier on the patient, or a more assured diagnosis. My department is going to be trialling a more efficient form of Mohs processing so that people who require what we call ‘slow Mohs’, which will typically take 24 hours rather than the hourish turn around normal Mohs takes, will have that sped up, so they don’t have to go home and come back in the next day or the day after. Better for the patient, gives them a higher chance of clearing in one day. I know that doesn’t really answer your question, but I just wanted to add the money is going to other research aside from cures.",
"Explaining cancer as if you were five: Every cell in your body has instructions. We call it DNA. Those instructions tell every cell to do three fundamental things: Eat, work and grow. Bad things can happen like sun burns or chemicals that hurt the cell’s instructions. So let’s pretend one of those functions is broken and doesn’t work. If a cell can’t eat, but tries to work and grow anyway, it will simply starve and die. If a cell can’t grow but can eat and work, it will be fine for a while but all cells die of old age if they can’t reproduce(grow). If a cell can’t work but can eat and grow, it doesn’t help your body. But it will keep eating and growing. It even grows faster because it doesn’t waste time working. Those last kinds are cancer cells. They steal your bodies resources and don’t perform a function. And since they look and act like your own cells(because they are), your body can’t identify or stop them. This makes finding treatments very difficult."
],
"score": [
4010,
636,
205,
81,
74,
25,
17,
9,
9,
8,
8,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://rebrn.com/re/i-always-hear-that-a-cure-for-cancer-is-misleading-because-cance-551955/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8jgkj1 | What is a 401(k) and how does it work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dyzhqpp",
"dyzi4ue",
"dyzi5jc",
"dz0lgfu"
],
"text": [
"It's a type of tax-advantaged retirement account available in the US, set up by employers for their employees to use. The employee controls how much money gets put in, up to a certain amount ($18,500 for this year). The money is withdrawn straight from their paycheck to deposit in the account. The money is usually invested rather than just sitting in a savings account. In some companies, the company will match part or all of an employee's contributions to the account. You have to pay a penalty if you withdraw money from the account before you're 59.5 years old. There's two ways to put money in: either traditional (you don't pay income taxes on the money now, but you do pay taxes when you withdraw the money in retirement) or Roth (you pay income taxes now, you don't pay any income taxes on the money when you withdraw in retirement).",
"As a society, we think it is a good thing for people to save and invest money for retirement. In fact, we think that it's such a good thing that the government tries to incentivize people to save. The government says \"if you agree to save money from your paycheck now - and not touch it until you retire - we'll give you tax discounts on that money.\" The specific part of the tax code which allows this is defined in section 401 subsection k.",
"It's a form of tax advantaged retirement fund that an employer can contribute to. Let's break that down. Tax advantaged: You don't pay taxes on income earned from assets in the fund. Suppose you buy a government bond. Normally, when that bond pays out, you have to pay income tax on your profit. But if the bond is in a 401(k), you don't. Similarly, you wouldn't have to pay tax on stock dividends, or capital gains. The idea here is to encourage people to set aside money for their retirement, and most of your assets in a 401(k) will be in the form of investments that would otherwise have tax implications, rather than just being in cash. The \"catch\" is that you have to pay income tax when you take money out of it after you're retired. However, because most people earn less money when they're retired than when they're working, they'll be in a lower tax bracket, so the income tax their paying will still likely be less than what they would have payed without the 401(k) Retirement fund: Money you've saved away for retirement. You can take money out of a 401(k) before you retire, but there's a big tax penalty. So don't put money away that you aren't OK doing without until you're over 65. Employer contributions: Employers are allowed to contribute funds to the 401(k)s of their employees. This is general done by matching contributions up to a limit - that is, if you say \"I'm going to set aside $100 from each paycheck for my 401(k)\", an employer would make that contribution for you come payday, deducting it from your pay from that period, but then would *also* throw in $100 additional. So it's a nice perk for attracting and holding on to good talent.",
"You'all suck at ELI5. What kind of fucking five-year-old knows what a \"tax-advantaged retirement account\" is? Lets give this a go. -------------------------- Lets pretend that you help your friend Tom with his parents' lemonade stand and they gives you a cut of the money they make. However, for every dollar that you make at the stand, your big brother (David, not Rick) takes 40 cents from you, you know, because David is a dick. A 401k is like having your own piggy bank that Tom's parents can pay your money to you directly (instead of paying in cash). The beauty of this is that David can't touch a penny of it until you crack open the piggy bank. Additionally, you have awesome parents who want to teach you to be good with your money, so for every dollar you have saved at the end of each week, they will give you a penny. Now, while you can't crack open your piggy bank for a long time (until it's full), you're getting a ton of penny's from your parents because your dick brother David isn't stealing like half of your money first. And, while David is still going to take his cut when you crack open your piggy bank, you end up with WAY more extra pennies in the end. There's also Employer Match. Tom's parents are in cahoots with your parents and they like the idea of you not blowing all of your money on candy/toys, so for every dollar you put into the piggy bank, Tom's parents add a second dollar to the piggy bank."
],
"score": [
118,
39,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8jltxy | Why, after a poor night of sleep and subsequent all-day fatigue, do I get a “second wind” of energy that night with no interest in going to bed? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dz0pbbt",
"dz1n55r"
],
"text": [
"It's the adrenaline and other stress hormones! First, your body is all, \"Ugh, I'm tired. I wanna go to sleep. I'm so sleepy.\" But you say, \"Too bad, body, we're not going to sleep now.\" Then, eventually, your body is like, \"Dang, we're staying up all day/night, there must be a good reason for it! Like some kind of threat! We better be super alert!\" Your body doesn't realize you're just playing video games or whatever you do if you pull an all-nighter (for example), it just knows you're awake when you shouldn't be and thinks there must be something important (i.e. dangerous) that requires being awake. So it responds by releasing adrenaline.",
"Holy shit I know why this is a thing! Okay so the jist of It is that man evolved a chemical mechanism by which more dopamine(a neurotransmitter that stimulates your reward centers and can boost wakefulness) is released into your brain. Basically your brain is trying to shift up to 11 because it thinks you're stalking a wooly mammoth or running from a saber tooth tiger, when really you're just grinding out those 99's on runescape. The reason why you can't repeat it is because all that dopamine can disrupt normal brain function over a prolonged period of time, leading to that dopey heavy sleepy feeling. It also fucks up your metabolism, which can lead to weight gain. Fun fact, this is pretty similar, albeit less intense, to what happens when you take certain drugs. A dopamine rush followed by a plateu and coming down from the high. If you get great sleep for a long period, then miss a night, you'll feel it again, trust me guv."
],
"score": [
106,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8jvx58 | Why do the vast majority of political cartoonists all use extremely similar (almost identical) drawing styles? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dz2xmqw",
"dz2u026",
"dz3hza4",
"dz35h7w"
],
"text": [
"A lot of them are emulating Thomas Nast who is history's most influential political cartoonist. Nast was the first person to depict Republicans as Elephants and Democrats as Donkeys. His influence is akin to Jack Kirby's kinetic comic book drawing style that revolutionized super hero comics.",
"There's a lot of variation when you compare them side-by-side. That said, they're all caricatures. To sell a desired message, you exaggerate certain features to emphasize whatever it is you're trying to emphasize. It let's you say a lot with just one or two images.",
"I found a big difference when moving to the UK from France (which had a closer style to USA). The UK draws characters in a much more gruesome way, pointy features, baggy eyes, sickly skin colour, and much more attacks on personal clothing, physique, and symbols. (Communist Corbyn, Theresa may with leopard shoes and a belly...). Where France and the USA made them look much more friendly and would make a caricature of the ideas instead: By exaggerating their position, or words they say rather than attacking the person themselves.",
"A lot of them are not very good to be honest. I would say the majority are satirists first and cartoonists second. I think the style of the cartoon suits the media though, all inky and scratchy and serious looking. Almost as if they are so angry they can't hold the pen properly. Graffiti but serious and grown up. Most likely it has a history of court sketches, and how images were printed onto metal sheets and pressed onto the newspaper. You will find there is a style common in most shared media, for example architectural illustrations have the same shakey ink scribbles too."
],
"score": [
340,
43,
26,
19
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8jxhvj | Cardio gets the heart working which ultimately makes it stronger. So why do recreational drugs that do the same thing cause harm to the heart? | Shouldn't cocaine, for example, help improve the cardiovascular system? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dz3cl9i",
"dz3bmy9",
"dz39bwz",
"dz3estd",
"dz37n5e",
"dz4bk26",
"dz3nbfu",
"dz3g44n"
],
"text": [
"when you exercise your whole cardio vascular (heart,lungs and arteries and veins) system adjusts to get more oxygen into your muscles, and also more waste out. All the components are working in tandem, increasing, decreasing and stabilising as required. Its a very nicely synced system when you take cocaine its JUST your heart that increases. its now out of sync with rest of the system, even pushing against it and making your heart strain. That's the problem. I suppose the cocaine case is a bit like having one formula-1 wheel on a car: its out of sync with the rest and you're gonna have a bad time.",
"Higher heart rate alone is dangerous for the heart. Higher heart rate with higher oxygen levels in the blood (due to exercise) is what’s preferred to obtain a healthy training of the heart :)",
"I used to think the same thing about panic attacks. \"I have heart palpitations! My heart is getting a great workout!\" But the stress hormones associated with panic attacks isn't good for the rest of the body. And the damage to endothelial cells of blood vessels from high blood pressure isn't good either.",
"When you do coke your blood vessels shrink up and the heart beats faster to push against it. Fighting against pressure. Thickens walls of heart, reduces pumping capacity. With exercise its more about flow, and you have more blood coming back to the heart. Increases stroke volume which lowers heart rate when resting. This is why endurance athletes have low as fuck heart rates.",
"Exercise stimulates the heart to increase in a regular and proportionate amount, some drugs can cause an erratic and very rapid heartbeat.",
"Increased heart rate is a side effect of cardio, it is not the goal of cardio. The goal of cardio is to increase your heart's efficiency at delivering oxygen to the body. Simply increasing your heart rate does not increase it's efficiency, it increases its workload, which is not desirable over extended periods of time.",
"Cardio gets your entire cardio vascular system working, not just your heart. When doing cardio, veins and arteries expand to receive more blood because your entire body is demanding it. A stimulant that increases your heart rate only does not do this, so your heart is pumping like mad through veins and arteries that are not expanded and calling for it putting a lot of strain on them. EDIT: Added a word.",
"Nope. If you have any condition that makes your heart work harder for a long time , you'll trigger some cellular pathways on your cardiomyocyte (muscular heart cells) that will make them grow from the \"inside\" of the heart and eat up the space reserved for blood in the ventricules. Your heart will be able to send less blood to the heart and wil try to adapt by beating faster and stronger and so on till cardiac failure. If you have your heart work harder for a while buy doing EXERCISE (or anything that'll stimulate exercise), it's different. During exercice, you'll produce growth hormones, growth hormones will inhibits the pathways making your heart get bigger from the inside and will instead favorise the cellular pathway making your heart \"expand\" : Your heart will get a bit bigger, ventricular cavity will get a bit larger and you'll be bale to send more blood with less heart beat : That is why athletes have low heart rate."
],
"score": [
628,
234,
39,
34,
10,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8jy17j | Yanny Laurel debate | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dz3c7lj"
],
"text": [
"This is an audio troll. They masked a high pitched \"yanny\" over a low-pitched \"laurel\" and which you hear depends on the output bias of your listening device (ie: if your device tends to be tinny and have little/no bass, you'll hear \"yanny\" and if you have a bass-heavy EQ mix, you'll hear \"laurel\")"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8jyam3 | Why does 60 degree air feel decently warm, but 60 degree water feels super cold? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dz3eqbm",
"dz3escr"
],
"text": [
"The secret lies in a property called conductivity. Air conducts heat very badly. So cool air cannot transport your body heat away very quickly, your heat stays with you, you do not feel cold. Water is way better at conducting heat, so it quickly takes your heat away, sometimes quicker than your body can produce it. So you feel cold. That also is why you experience hypotermia much quicker in water.",
"When you feel cold, what you're feeling is heat being transferred out of your body. Some things can do this better than others. Example: Sit (naked) on a metal bench vs. a wooden bench in the same place. The metal bench will feel colder, even though the material is the same temperature, because it's a good conductor of heat. Water conducts heat more effectively than air."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8ldbwi | ; If the court orders your to pay a ludicrous sum ($37m) that you blatantly cant afford... how do you pay it? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzenosg",
"dzenoi2",
"dzf2iya",
"dzffceu",
"dzfjlok",
"dzewuuv",
"dzevaq4",
"dzfgj71",
"dzf68ol",
"dzengru",
"dzfmusf",
"dzfy0bh",
"dzfop0x",
"dzfiiiq",
"dzfn6kj",
"dzfm1f4",
"dzfprbz",
"dzff8rr",
"dzfn4xl",
"dzfjuwq",
"dzful3i",
"dzfx4zp",
"dzftttq",
"dzfuglk"
],
"text": [
"Typically the court establishes a payment plan based on your income and expenses that requires you to pay much of your disposable income towards the judgment but leaves you enough money to live at a reasonable standard of living. Also, in this case: > [And after 10 years, if the boy successfully completes probation, doesn't commit additional offense and complies with the payment plans, the court can grant full or partial satisfaction of the restitution judgment.]( URL_0 )",
"In the US, depending on the order they can take property (normally not your house or primary car), take savings, garnish wages, and take any other liquid assets you may have. The garnishing of your wages can last for years if not the rest of your life.",
"First of all, if there's a judgment against you in the US, the court doesn't care if you can pay it. You either pay, or you don't pay. Depending on why there's a judgment, you might be able to declare bankruptcy and get rid of it. Secondly, if you really can't pay, then you can still negotiate with the plaintiff. \"You know I can't pay you $37m. But, how about this: I pay you $10 a week for the next 20 years. If you don't accept that, then you're going to have to execute on the judgment, which will cost you time and money. And, if you try that, then I'm just going to declare bankruptcy.\" Third, the plaintiff can execute the judgment. He/she can order the bank to give him the money in your account, get the sheriff out to your house to grab your TV and your car, garnish your wages, etc.... (The exact remedies depend on what state you're in and how you got the money. Garnishment, for example, is typically limited to a percentage of your income. Social Security benefits are immune, etc....)",
"If you owe thousands, you’ve got a problem. If you owe millions, they’ve got a bigger problem.",
"Is this in reference to the Idaho teen sentenced to pay $37.5 million in retribution for a forest fire?",
"I assume you are talking about the gorge fire kid? The court did not order him to pay $37M. The actual outcome is that he’s going to pay a garnishment that is set based on his income for a maximum of ten years. If he can make it ten years without legal trouble the rest of the amount will be waived. If he gets in trouble his paychecks will continue to be garnished up to a maximum of $37M.",
"They can do a wage garnishment up to 25% of their disposable income. So they calculate poverty and then garnish 25% of every dollar after that. So realistically, if he were making $40k a year, he'd be garnished like $6k-$8k.",
"At some level, it's just the point of it all. No one expects payment on the $37m. Not the judge, not the prosecutor, not the bailiff, not the court clerk, not the insurance companies, nobody in the city, and nobody reading this on reddit right now. Nobody. It's just to let people know. It's like the entire USA is shaking their head at the person, \"How can you be so fucked up, there's nothing we can to do the level of your fuck up.\"",
"you... don't. there's a reason \"judgment proof\" is a phrase. you can't squeeze blood out of rocks. but that judgment is going to hang over your head for at least a very long time so say goodbye to any ability to accumulate wealth.",
"You become bankrupt, the crown takes all your possessions, wealth, and any future income to pay the fine. You're going to live a life of poverty, living on what the government deems livable. If you get a job and make money, you'll only see a small part of it.",
"My brother is an excellent civil personal injury attorney. He often has potential clients come to him with tragic stories where the person who committed the tragedy doesn't have any assets or meaningful insurance. For example, a 23 year old man was texting and driving and ran a red light into my brother's potential client, who ended up losing a knee and a hip as a result. The 23 year old only had basic collision insurance and no real assets. My brother had the terribly unfortunate duty of letting him know that it would be very expensive to sue that man and that it was almost certain that he would never see any of the money from a judgement. My brother often says that having 0 assets is an excellent defense to a personal injury lawsuit.",
"My former boss (restaurant owner) always foolishly waited until the last minute to pay his local taxes which he paid in cash. (Again very foolish) The lady who took his money gave him some sort of fake receipt or made it so the other side of the hand written carbon copy was blocked and then filled in a smaller amount later. Anyways she stole over $14,000 in tax money paid from him. So naturally he gets audited years later and by the grace of God he has this receipt. If he didn’t have this receipt he would have been RUINED. Tax evasion all that crap. Well she finally got caught and you know what her sentence was??? Restitution of 1 dollar a month, 3 years probation and an apology letter... they calculated that it would take 1,235 years before it was paid back...",
"If you owe someone $10,000, you have a problem. If you owe someone$1m, they have a problem.",
"Should probably add a little more detail, like the person being a mid-teen, but thanks for asking ive been wondering this too, I was thinking maybe some special federal insurance grant type deal, where those agencies can \"write it off\" and get an insurance payout.",
"Now, 37m is absurdly high, thus I would assume it's related with some sort of damage claim (like, blowing up a gas station on accident or something). In Germany, you are legally mandated to have a \"Haftpflichtversicherung\" (~Foreign Damage Insurance). It kicks in whenever you, without malicious intent or severe neglegience, end up being sued for damages of any kind. Even the most basic of those insurances cover up to 20m easily, and cost like 5 bucks a month (if you don't get sued, afterwards they might uprank your payment plan). Otherwise you'll likely be forced to declare bankruptcy, which forces you to make all your finances visible to the court, paying as much money as fair and possible (i.e. if you own 2 cars, you will definitely be forced to sell 1, but you can keep the other if it's evident that it's required for your job). You will then have to remain in that state a number of years (5 or 7), not allowed to save any money past a minimum. After that time period, all other debts are legally nulled.",
"Are you the kid who started the salmon creek fire and is now ordered to pay 36 million dollars?",
"Wow. Pretty much **zero** of these answers are even close to accurate. I can speak for the process at the federal level. The answer is that once the court issues a judgment, it goes to [Asset Forfeiture (a very dirty word on reddit).]( URL_0 ) Asset Forfeiture will enforce on any forfeiture money judgments and record liens wherever you may have property and will continue to do so for the next twenty years (not “the rest of your life” like most commenters are claiming—statute of limitations at state levels exist for varying lengths). Forfeiture money judgments basically seize any assets you might have to pay toward that restitution. In spite of the tinfoil hat levels of conspiracy on reddit that surface anytime asset forfeiture makes the national news, we don’t take your house. [Believe it or not, we actually do some good from time to time.]( URL_1 ) Once Asset Forfeiture has done all they can, the case is filtered down to Financial Litigation. Financial Litigation will file a lien wherever we think you have property, probably send you a demand letter for payment (yes, even if we know you can’t pay—we have to show we put you on notice), and we’ll send you a sworn financial affidavit (or to your probation officer) to fill out for your file in our office. That’s more or less a very simplistic explanation of the process. We periodically review your file, send you a new financial affidavit to fill out, run your credit, and send out the occasional bank subpoena to make sure you’re not lying on your financial affidavit and after 20 years from the judgment date (or when you get out of jail) the debt just goes away.",
"How was it starting a huge forest fire?",
"Did you see that ludicrous display last night?",
"Wasn't this the forest fire sentence? Some 15 year old kid..",
"You quit working and live off welfare. Your life is ruined either way. If it happened to me I'd move to Guatemala or something.",
"You pay what you can afford every month. It might just be ten bucks a month, forever. Or don't pay because they can't squeeze blood from a stone, but there will likely be consequences.",
"There’s a huge loophole. If you rent your house, lease your car, and get a tip based job such as waiter or bartender you can get away with never paying. Source: I personally know someone who owes $1m for getting caught up with fraudulent mortgages back before the recession and he still lives an amazing life.",
"In Texas the debtor often simply doesn't pay any amount. There's a saying in the law, \"you can't get blood from a turnip.\" Most judgement debtors are turnips. People that commit horrible torts often don't get sued because the suit is costly and the judgment is just a piece of paper so the firm and the plaintiff would end up wasting money establishing liability. There's not supposed to be debtors prison in this country so there's few legitimate consequences for not paying a judgment especially if the debtor is the kind of person who deals in cash and doesn't own real estate. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the law."
],
"score": [
2659,
506,
289,
168,
163,
113,
26,
25,
21,
13,
9,
7,
6,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/22/613374984/judge-orders-boy-who-started-oregon-wildfire-to-pay-36-million-in-restitution"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.justice.gov/afp",
"https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/nys/pressreleases/June09/madoffforfeiturepr.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8lzwtn | What happens to air trapped in space? | Let's say a spaceship has a breach and the ensuing vacuum sucks out all of the air, what happens to it once it's out in space? Where does it go? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzjq3su",
"dzjq4x6"
],
"text": [
"> Where does it go? Everywhere. It expands in all directions becoming less dense with great rapidity. Each individual gas particle will continue on its way until it hits something. Generally speaking this will probably occur from the gravitational influence of some large body such as a planet or star if it happens at all. Where exactly it ends up really depends on where the spaceship is when it is breached. If in orbit around Earth then the gas will end up falling back to Earth eventually as the gas particles eventually drag against the outer edges of our atmosphere. If in interstellar space then the gas is probably there for an extremely long time.",
"Air that was trapped is now free to move wherever. Matter will fill in empty space. ELI5: when you fart the smell spreads throughout the room until it gets so spread out it doesn’t smell anymore. Air in space will do the same thing except the room is as big as the universe. So don’t worry about farts, they too will pass."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8n2g1s | How do we know that a number is irrational? For example Pi = 3,1415.... and it lasts forever, how do we know that it's forever? | Sorry for my bad English. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzs9zox",
"dzsf5p4"
],
"text": [
"\"Lasts forever\" is just one property of irrational numbers, it's not what makes them irrational. A number is rational if it's the quotient of two integers, so we prove they are irrational by showing that they can't be the result of dividing one integer with another. [Proof that pi is irrational]( URL_0 ) is unfortunately way too complex for ELI5, but there's [a simple proof that the square root of 2 is irrational]( URL_1 ).",
"We know because pi is an irrational number. More to the point, we know it is not a rational number. (warning, math ahead) A rational number is one that can be represented as a ratio of two integers. For any repeating or terminating decimal out there, you can do a little math to express it as a ratio. With a terminating decimal, it is pretty easy: 0.123 = 123/1000 Repeating decimals require a little algebra: n = 0.123123... 1000n = 123.123123... 1000n - n = 999n = 123 n = 123/999 = 41/333 What does this have to do with pi? It means that either a) pi can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, or b) pi cannot be represented as a terminating or repeating decimal. If we can show there is no way to express pi as a ratio, the only remaining possibility is a nonrepeating decimal. In 1761, this is exactly what Johann Heinrich Lambert did. Unfortunately, his proof, and others like it, require advanced math we'd rather not get into. Lucky for us, the proof that √2 is irrational is pretty straightforward: assume a and b exist, such that a/b = √2, and a and b have no common factors a^2 / b^2 = 2 a^2 = 2 * b^2 therefore a is even, and there exist a k such that a = 2k (2 * k)^2 = 2 * b^2 4 * k^2 = 2 * b^2 2 * k^2 = b^2 therefor b is also even However, we assumed a and b had no common factors, so they cannot both be even. This contradicts our original assumption, which proves it must be false. There are no such numbers a and b, which means √2 cannot be represented as a repeating decimal, and must be irrational."
],
"score": [
26,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proof_by_infinite_descent"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8nfnvb | How do honeycombs and beeswax form nearly perfect hexagons? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzv6dsd",
"dzvcm34"
],
"text": [
"The hexagon is a very spatially efficient shape which uses less material. Try this experiment: wash your hands with soap, and spread the lather out on a flat surface. The bubbles will spontaneously acquire hexagon-like shapes and arrange themselves neatly. You see the same patterns in basalt columns and mudcracks because it fills the space using little energy.",
"Actually, they sort of don't. The bees actually make circles, but as they build the hive the pressure of the circles on each other presses the sides flat against one another. If you get a circle and surround it with other circles, then press them inward, they will flatten the edges where they contact. This happens to the whole hive wall as it is built and produces hexagons, which are fortunately an incredibly strong shape so the bees kept making the hive the same way."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8nnmxa | Why phones can have 8 cores and sometimes more but even most high end computers half only 4 cores. | It would make sense that phones would need less seeing a computer, which needs more processing power can have fewer, and there can't be that much of a difference in (potential) processing power, surely? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzwxd6w",
"dzwv4pd",
"dzwwr8u",
"dzx57w0"
],
"text": [
"Even sub $200 processors like the i5-8400 now have 6 cores while AMD offers desktop chips with 16 cores/32 threads (on the server side you have Intel offering 28 cores with 56 threads) so part of the answer is that you simply don't know what is in desktop computers these days. Then there is the fact that while phone processors might advertise 8 cores that doesn't mean 8 *equal* cores. A big reason for having multiple cores on phone processors is not for speed but for energy efficiency. Only the core(s) needed for a specific task are powered on while the others are asleep. This leads to specialization with only a few cores being strong general purpose ones like you might expect. Finally there is the issue of what is practical. More cores means more heat and more cost to build. On the desktop there are usually limits on how much of that power can actually be used - most games for example show very little improvement beyond 4 cores (in fact 2 cores with 4 threads is actually the sweet spot right now before you start seeing large performance losses). While more cores are useful for some productivity tasks (like encoding video) many desktop users aren't taking advantage of that so a chips single thread performance has a much bigger impact on how 'fast' their computer is. This is reflected in processors like Intel's budget i3 line which boasts some extremely respectable single threaded performance but tops out at 4 cores, giving it the maximum bang for the buck for most average users.",
"More cores does not mean more processing power. It means more simultaneous processes. Phones and other mobile electronics are often used to do several tasks at once (play music, navigate, web browse, run background apps, etc) while home computers generally are not. A home PC is more often used to run one or a few very processing intensive tasks (like gaming). So it benefits more from having a smaller number of more powerful cores.",
"All cores are not created equal. The cores in phones are generally ARM-based cores, which are optimized for small size, low cost, low power consumption, and OK processing power. In a PC, they are x86-based cores, generally optimized for processing power. In addition to the correct answers given by /u/rhomboidus and /u/ameoba , I'll point out that most PC cores are dual-threading, which (kind of) means that they act like two cores in one. So a PC with 4 cores can handle as many processes as an 8 core ARM device, but the x86 cores will do their jobs more quickly.",
"The arm processors uses the Big.Little model. So they pair a low end core with a high end core. Each pair shares an immediate local memory. They don't run at the same time. You get either the low end core or the high end core. So effectively only 4 cores at a time. The advertising still counts each core as independent, i.e. 8 cores. The Big little model, lets the phone use the low end cores to focus on power saving, but switch to the High end cores when high end processing is need i.e. games. The way the low end cores save power is by using a lower voltage, which means less power is consumed, but lowering the voltage slows down the speed of the cpu. The High end cores increase voltage which increases the speed of the cpu but uses more power. The PC processors accomplish the same thing by using the same core, but dynamically raising and lowering the voltage of the cpu. So when you need the horse power, they raise voltage, which increases the speed of the cpu and the power consumption. When the PC processor needs to save power, it dynamically lowers the voltage, which reduces the speed and reduces the power consumption."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8nt5qn | How do huge stores enforce a customer ban? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzy3nx9",
"dzy5i7g"
],
"text": [
"I used to work in retail and the answer is poorly. We can't possibly track any given customer across hundreds or thousands of potential stores. The ban really has two purposes: - It is a deterrent - many customers are too afraid of consequences to show up at the store again. - _If_ we do recognize them, we have justification to call the police and have them arrested for trespassing, because they have gotten formal warning not to set food on the property.",
"Through the threat of criminal prosecution. There is no effective way a store like Walmart can prevent a banned person from returning to one of their stores. However, getting kicked out of a store means you got *caught* doing something to get you kicked out of a store. If you get caught again, you are looking at a criminal trespass charge. If you don't get caught, you probably aren't causing trouble anymore, which is pretty much all the store wants."
],
"score": [
15,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8o7lre | What is actually happening when people "see stars"? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e01b1d8",
"e01c3kq"
],
"text": [
"One instance of seeing stars is when you close your eyes and see what looks like \"TV static\", that black and white snow storm of noise. Your eyes take in an incredible amount of information. Shapes, colour, movement. What am i seeing, is that fur, is that a dog, i love dogs, how far is it, its coming closer, looks like a Labrador. All that information is then processed by your brain in a heartbeat. When you close your eyes, your brain doesnt have to process any of this. The neurons in your brain are used to firing almost non stop. It fills in the blank with a sort of visual static, or stars.",
"There are a number of tiny extraneous objects in you eyeball, mostly dead cell fragments. A blow or even things like a fall, handstand or rapid shake of the head can stir more up from where they've settled to float around in your field of view. Because they're tiny and not in focus, you get surrounding bright and dark rings as light coming into the eye diffracts round them. Because of this they show up more than they otherwise would based on their size."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8ozyln | When glancing at a clock, why does the first second after glancing at it sometimes feel longer than the rest? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e07btq8",
"e07c0fy",
"e07ljb5",
"e07msbp",
"e080ojl",
"e08o9c1",
"e07qu4r",
"e07mgme",
"e07tvn0"
],
"text": [
"An interesting phenomena, it is because the brain doesn't store what you saw during the time your eye spent moving, instead the brain fills in this time with what you saw when you stopped moving your eye. Wikipedia has an article on [chronostasis and the stopped clock illusion] ( URL_0 ) if you want to read about it.",
"When you move your eye or blink the images from your eyes are just blurry or dark and therefore quite useless for your brain to interpret. So the brain use the information from the view before and after the eye movement to fill in the blanks. So if you move your eye to the clock as the second hand is moving your brain does not see the second hand moving and interprets it as if it have been standing still during the entire time you moved your eye. So the first second looks longer because your brain makes the wrong assumption.",
"I will try to explain this step by step. First, you are looking at something that *isnt* the clock. Your brain is focusing on making that image make sense and be clear, with detail, color, etc. Then, you move your eyes to the clock. It takes a few milliseconds for your eyes to actually move there, and once they land on the clock, your brain has to \"stabilize\" the image, which takes a few milliseconds as well. Because of those few fractions of a second it took for you to move your eyes and find the details of the new object you're looking at, your brain just decides to fill that space with the new thing you're looking at, instead of making everything blurry and unclear. So, when you look at a clock, your brain is filling your vision with the image of what you moved your eyes to, instead of the blurry eye-motion that it would've been. That image is whatever time was on the clock when you looked at it. This makes that first second look/feel longer. It **is** longer. Your brain is literally telling you that it is longer.",
"Basically, it has to do with a phenomenon called \"saccadic masking\" where the brain selectively blocks visual processing during eye movements so that neither the motion of the eye (and subsequent motion blur of the image) nor the gap in visual perception is noticeable. You can \"observe\" this phenomenon yourself by looking at your eyes in the mirror; look back and forth from eye to eye and you'll notice that you cannot see your eyes move, even though you know they're moving and an observer would be able to clearly see your eyes moving. The process works like this: in the beginning milliseconds of your eyes moving, a signal is sent to your brain to start this process of masking and your brain starts receiving significantly reduced information from your eyes. When your eyes move to the clock, your brain also receives the message, \"hey, a little bit of time just passed there and we didn't send you any information\" so what the brain does in response is actually backwardsly fill in the period of time that you \"missed\" with what your eyes refocus on. So, when you refocus on the clock, your brain receives basically \"extra\" visual information of the clock with the second-hand at whatever time it's at which can make a second seem extra-long.",
"Your eyes fill in the blank time that it ignores while your eye moves. The reason it ignores that time is because otherwise our eyes would blur like a video shot by a shaky handed camera man. To avoid the blur your brain has 3 choices. Completely blind you while your eyes move, continue to show you what you were looking at prior to moving, or extend the time you see the thing your eyes moved to look at. And of the 3 your brain chooses the last one because being blind is a disadvantage in nature, and if you look toward something its best to have as much time as possible to process whats going on before its to late. If im picking berries and a wild animal comes to attack me its better to see them quicker and longer then the berries.",
"Your brain blurs out what you see in the time between looking down and looking at the clock, so instead of your “frames” going 1-2-3-4, with 4 being the clock, it replaces that 2-3, with 4, making you “see” 1-4-4-4, and appear longer. Vsauce has a video on this :) URL_0 Edit: link to video",
"Because each time you do a saccade (a rapid movement of the eye), you are technically blind. Your brain retroactively fills your memory with the first thing it sees after the saccade, so that’s longer. Your brain is weird 🙈",
"When you looked at a clock for the first time, there will be “frames” missing for a very short amount of time, instead of making those missing frames black, your brain fills the missing frame by making the second “longer” than it should be",
"On top of what everyone is saying about the eye movement, the brain also pays more attention when it sees something novel, and relaxes back to the laid-back glide when things go as expected. You can see this with short videos: the first watch-through seems slower and appears to take more time than the following repetitions."
],
"score": [
8130,
619,
282,
52,
12,
9,
8,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/nNBTLbw1_2Q"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8pusfc | In real life we can create a green paint from the combination of blue and yellow paints. Then why is it different in the electronic world where green is considered the primary colour, and yellow is the combination of blue and green? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e0e6suj",
"e0ec5mx",
"e0e7c6l",
"e0e9932",
"e0eo675",
"e0ef6n7"
],
"text": [
"You are comparing pigmentation with light. They are different. Pigments filter light out (absorb it instead of bouncing it off). When you mix all primary pigments, you get black because they are filtering out all colors of light. When you mix light, you are adding lights to each other. When you mix all the primary light colors, you get white.",
"ELI5: Let's say you want to create a sculpture. Mixing paint is like starting out with a big chunk of rock, and having to remove some rock to reveal a figure inside of it. Mixing light is like starting out with an empty table, and having to add clay to get the figure you want. Paint is like removing chunks of rock, while colored light is like adding chunks of clay. To our eyes, both seem like just simple colors, but in reality the two work in opposite ways: one removes color, the other adds color. ----- There are two mistakes in your assumption. In paint, you mix Cyan (not Blue) and Yellow to get Green. When mixing light, you combine Red (not Blue) and Green to get Yellow. [These are the rules]( URL_0 ): * White = Red + Green + Blue * Red + Green = Yellow * Red + Blue = Magenta * Blue + Green = Cyan * opposite of Red = Cyan * opposite of Green = Magenta * opposite of Blue = Yellow When we say we're \"mixing paints\", we *start out* with white paper so we already have all the colors there before we even do anything. Therefore, you must *remove* colors to get other colors. Paints act like filters as they remove colors. When you mix Yellow and Cyan, you are not actually mixing two colors, but you're really *removing* two colors. Yellow paint removes Blue, Cyan paint removes Red, which leaves you with the only color left: Green. Remember, White = Red + Green + Blue, therefore White - Blue - Red = Green. When we say we're \"mixing light\", we *start out with darkness*. This means you have to *add colors together* to get anything. So you simply add whatever colors you want. You get Yellow when you mix Red and Green light, Magenta when you mix Red and Blue, and Cyan when you mix Blue and Green. And of course White when you mix Red, Green and Blue. Computer screens mix light because when you turn them off, they're black. So they start out black and therefore can't remove color because there is nothing to remove. Printer ink and paint must remove color because they start out with white paper and already contain all colors, so they must remove some colors to \"gain\" other colors. There aren't really two models for mixing colors. The confusion comes from the expression \"mixing colors\" that is equally used for both light and paint. When mixing paint, we're not mixing colors, we're actually subtracting colors, because paint acts like a filter.",
"it’s called additiv and subtractive colors.. if you mix all physical colors you get some kind of black. If you mix all colors from light it’s white",
"In addition to the difference between light absorbing pigments and frequencies of emitted light, there's the fact that your eyes have red, green and blue sensors in them that absorb those frequencies of light. Yellow is figured out by your brain based on the amount of light being absorbed by those sensors. So in the electronic world, light emitters attempt to fool the sensors in your eye, as opposed to pigments, which just absorb whatever frequencies they absorb and reflect the rest back to your eye.",
"Okay so let's talk about paint and how it makes colors. First of all, you've been taught colors wrong in art class. The primary colors for paint (aka the primary subtractive colors) are Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta. Not Blue, Yellow and Red. BYR is just a more normal and \"natural\" set of colors for artists to use. (Fun fact, many printers use CMYK (the K is for black) because it can produce all the same colors as BYRK, and more) Our eyes can only see Red, Green, and Blue light. (Sidenote: it can see yellow light, but that's because yellow light is interpreted as a bit of green and a bit of red) White light is essentially all colors of light mixed together, although since our eyes can only see Red, Green, and Blue, white is _really_ just a mix of those three colors. Why aren't those the primary colors for paint though? Paint works by absorbing light, and then reflecting other light. Let's let CMY be the primary colors and then see what it's like if RGB were the primary colors. Cyan light to our eyes is a mix of green and blue. So Cyan reflects green and blue, and absorbs red (as far as our eyes care. Magenta light is a mix of Blue and Red, and absorbs Green. If we mix Cyan and Magenta, the cyan absorbs the red light, and the magenta absorbs the green light, leaving only Blue light for our eyes to see. Now, let's try using RGB as primary colors... Red is red, Green is Green. If you mix red and green, the red absorbs a lot of the green light, and the green absorbs a lot of the red light, leaving you with some gross colored paint (probably a dark brown, gray, or some other gross color) Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow are known as the subtractive primary colors. this is because when you mix two of these colors, they absorb (subtract) different colors of light, and the ones that each of them don't absorb gets let through, making a new color. (What I was explaining earlier) Red, Green, and Blue are known as the additive primary colors. This is because when you mix two of these colors together, they combine (add) to make more colors (ie Red plus Blue makes Magenta)",
"First of all, what is light, what is paint, and what is color! What it light? Light is a wave in the electro-magnetic field... but it does not matter here. Light is also made of photons... but it does not matter here either. Light is an addition of multiple frequencies, and it can be decomposed in what we call a spectrum... or a rainbow! Ah, now we are talking! And if you want to understand color, you of course want to look at rainbows. What is paint? Paint gets its color from a dust that absorb some color, and reflect some other: pigments. The more selective/picky is a pigment, the more colorful it looks. What is color? Well, your eyes are actually not so good at seeing color, we are almost color blind, and of all the infinite different colors of the spectrum, we can only distinguish three groups: the blue-ish, the green-ish, the red-ish. But don't worry, our brain are there to help, and they can reconstruct an idea of the actual color, from those 3 information. So, what about yellow? Well, your brain see yellow if it see green-ish and red-ish but no blue-ish. Because, pure yellow, in the rainbow, appear like that to your eye. That mean we can trick the brain into seeing yellow: add green light and red light and you get yellow. Ok, that's the way your screen works, but it does not work with paint. Actually, you can't mix anything and get yellow, you actually need yellow in the first place. The primary colors of paint is yellow, cyan and magenta. Why? Well, paint do not produce light, it reflect or absorb it, and you have to put white light on it to see it. Yellow paint is a paint that absorb blue, and reflect red and green. Cyan paint is a paint that absorb red, and reflect green and blue. Magenta paint is a paint that absorb green, and reflect red and blue. So, if you want green paint you need to absorb red and blue light. If you put in cyan, you absorb the red, and you add the yellow, and it absorb the blue. And tada, only green remains! That is why we consider paint as substractive-coloring. If you mix all paints, you get black. While light is additive-coloring. If you mix all lights, you get white."
],
"score": [
1088,
143,
32,
7,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.infinity-printing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AdditiveVSSubtractive.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8sba3x | Why's it easier to turn a car's steering wheel when the vehicle is moving compared to when it's stationary. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e0y87tc",
"e0y04m8"
],
"text": [
"When the car is moving, the wheel can \"roll\" into a new angle. When the car is parked the wheel has to \"slide\" into a new angle. Rolling is easier than sliding - imagine pushing something along the ground, versus rolling something on the ground.",
"Also keep in mind modern vehicles have power steering, if the car is stationary you might be moving a wheel on a turned off car, which gives no assistance to turning the tires."
],
"score": [
19,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8t0flj | Who manages the internet, and how does it work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e13ojdo",
"e13o3pw",
"e14a2mq"
],
"text": [
"It really depends on what you mean. The machines that make up the Internet are all owned by independent entities. Nobody manages the whole thing. Each network decides on their own if they want to connect with other networks (and how), and as long as there's some route between two different hosts, they can talk to each other. The protocols are largely managed by the IETF. The protocols are the \"languages\" by which computers on the Internet can talk to each other. The name system is ultimately organized by ICANN. If you want to get or resolve a domain name, like URL_0 , you're interacting with systems ultimately governed by them. ICANN also maintains the IP address space and a number of other components that are involved with unique identifiers on the Internet. For the most part, though, there isn't really a central Internet authority or anything like it. It's a cooperative endeavor among a lot of different groups of people.",
"No one, really. The internet is just a bunch of private computer networks linked together. ISP's run networks more or less specializing in connecting all the networks managed by individuals and organizations together, but they don't \"manage the internet\" in any meaningful way.",
"A lot of people are answering the first part of your question and ignoring the second, so I'll try to tackle the \"How does it work\" part. The internet is a complex beast, but at its core, it is just two computers talking to each other. When you surf the web, as you go from one website to the next, you are just switching which computer you are talking to out there. There is a lot of complexity that controls how you find these computers and how the routes are setup, but once you find who you are looking for, its just you and one other computer (and a bunch of routers/switches) moving your messages back and forth. So, how does your computer find the other computer in this huge network of computers? Lets compare this to something similar like mailing a letter. Every computer/phone or other device hooked up to the internet has an IP address (ex: [192.168.0.1]( URL_0 )) just like every house/business has a street address. If you want to talk to another computer, you need to know their IP address, just like if you mail a letter you need to know the street address of where you want it to go. But wait, I don't know reddit's IP address, how am I talking to this website? Something called DNS (Domain Name System) helps with that. Basically there is a server (many actually) that is responsible for holding a database of website names correlated to an IP address. Your computer asks them for help when looking for a website. Think of it like looking somebody up in the phone book to find their address. Okay so I have the IP address, now what? The internet is not just a bunch of personal computers and servers, there are also things called routers on it. You probably have one in your house. As their name might imply, they help to route internet packets to the right location. Think of them like your local post office. They may see some addresses and say \"Oh that's a local address, put it on tomorrows mail truck\" or \"Oh this address is in a different country, send it to our central shipping hub!\" In a similar way, your router (and all others on the internet) will help distribute traffic either to other local computers on the same network, or up to your ISP (Internet Service Provider) so that they (just more routers really) can send it to the appropriate location. IP addresses are setup in such a way that it is easy to divvy them up. This helps with the routing. So for example, one ISP might own addresses from 1-500 and another might own 501-1000. When you purchase internet service from them, they might give you address 45 to use. If you are a business, you might get a range, like 350-400. So if you are address 45 and you want to talk to address 547, the first ISP knows it needs to send the message to the second ISP because they own that address and they will know who they sold it to. Of course, this is a gross simplification of the process, but this explains the gist of how two computers find each other on the internet and start talking to each other. Keep in mind everything I wrote here usually happens in less than a second and current estimates suggest that over 24,000 Gigabytes of data are sent over the internet **per second**."
],
"score": [
89,
24,
24
],
"text_urls": [
[
"reddit.com"
],
[],
[
"https://192.168.0.1"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8t8loi | Why do stars "flicker"? | Just looking up into the night sky and wondering, what causes stars to flicker in brightness? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e15kdek",
"e15kcvr"
],
"text": [
"On a clear, dark night, our eyes can see about 6,000 or so stars in the sky. They seem to twinkle, or change their brightness, all the time. In fact, most of the stars are shining with a steady light. The movement of air (sometimes called turbulence) in the atmosphere of Earth causes the starlight to get slightly bent as it travels from the distant star through the atmosphere down to us on the ground. This means that some of the light reaches us directly and some gets bent slightly away. To our eyes, this makes the star seem to twinkle. You will notice that stars closer to the horizon will appear to twinkle more than other stars. This is because there is a lot more atmosphere between you and a star near the horizon than between you and a star higher in the sky. Credit: URL_0",
"I've searched tha seven seas fer an answer. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why do stars flicker / twinkle? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [ELI5:Why do some stars flicker while others are stable? ]( URL_1 ) ^(_32 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why do stars \"flicker\"? ]( URL_6 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [Why do stars appear to twinkle and flicker but the sun does not? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_2 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why do stars appear to 'twinkle'? ]( URL_5 ) ^(_2 comments_) 1. [ELI5: why do stars flicker with different colors and patterns? ]( URL_4 ) ^(_3 comments_) 1. [eli5: why do some stars seem to flicker with different colors in the night sky? ]( URL_7 ) ^(_2 comments_) 1. [ELI5: What causes the stars to flicker when im looking at them? ]( URL_3 ) ^(_5 comments_)"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question26.html"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q9nmj/eli5_why_do_stars_flicker_twinkle/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5017ey/eli5why_do_some_stars_flicker_while_others_are/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3zhos1/why_do_stars_appear_to_twinkle_and_flicker_but/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29d4r1/eli5_what_causes_the_stars_to_flicker_when_im/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uxr48/eli5_why_do_stars_flicker_with_different_colors/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5djwc8/eli5_why_do_stars_appear_to_twinkle/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23n6rq/eli5_why_do_stars_flicker/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sssh6/eli5_why_do_some_stars_seem_to_flicker_with/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8txghb | Why does popping my ears allow me to hear better sometimes? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1b069w",
"e1b0bbg"
],
"text": [
"Part of your hearing involves the membrane that is your ear drum. It helps to transmit vibrations to the inner ear so you can hear. When there is a pressure differential, or one side has a higher pressure than the other, the force of the higher pressure prevents the ear drum from vibrating. By equalizing the pressure, as in popping your ears, you have equal pressure on both sides, allowing the ear drum to vibrate better and make hearing easier.",
"ELI5: Ear drum needs to wobble to hear properly, if you hold it still with pressure from inside, it doesn't wobble or wibble. Pop your ears, and the pressure goes away."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8udmx2 | Why is our vision blurry underwater without goggles, but clear with them? | Surely the only difference is that the water is touching our eyes. Why does that small bit of air allow us to see clearly? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1eley0"
],
"text": [
"Humans are land-dwellers, and our eyes evolved to see in Earth's atmosphere. Water bends light differently from how this mix of gases does, so what we see is blurred in water compared to air."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8usjc4 | How exactly does inflation work? If I held onto £50,000 now and did not earn a penny more for fifty years, for example, do I STILL have £50,000, or does it’s “worth” depend on other factors? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1hrjd2",
"e1hrt1s"
],
"text": [
"If you had a pile of 50,000 one-pound notes, in 50 years, you'd still have a pile of 50,000 one-pound notes. Neglecting the possibility that they would be more valuable than their face value to collectors, they would still be worth 50,000 pounds. But those 50,000 pounds would have less buying power; where you could (for example) buy a nice car for that now, in 50 years, you would only be able to get a cheap car.",
"You will still have 50,000, but you will be able to buy less with this money. In 1980 loaf of bread was worth 0.715$, now it costs 1.966$. And such trend goes for everything. So your amount of money is the same, but you will be able to buy less with it. Source for prices: [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) EDIT: correct link"
],
"score": [
12,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8uv57u | What's this whole thing about CO2 shortages in Europe? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1idsha",
"e1idk6w"
],
"text": [
"Pure CO2 (under pressure) is injected into drinks to make them bubbly, used in fire extinguishers, and apparently in certain types of baking. It’s naturally produced by yeast in baking and alcohol production, but for a number of reasons, it’s easier to add more. While the atmosphere has more CO2 than we wish it did, and it’s produced in many ways, it’s not easy to grab (only) CO2 from the air and pack it into a can. It’s not brain surgery but it requires machinery and materials. If companies aren’t making enough of it, maybe because people want more of it than they did before, you end up with a shortage. This happens all the time with all sorts of goods, but usually resolves after a little while. Because people *want* to buy it, making and selling it provides a good opportunity for profit. But it takes time for people/companies to start producing it.",
"CO2 is produced as a byproduct of some factory processes, that's the cheapest source for beverage use. It's summer, beverage consumption is up and factory workloads are low. This causes a supply low every year, but this year is worse that the recent past."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8va7in | Commercials for live events? | How do ads play for live events like award shows if they are suppose to be live? Days before live events I see commercials for them and I don’t understand how this is possible if the event is suppose to be live, and they don’t look like last years either. I’ve always been curious about this. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1lq5b5",
"e1lqaha"
],
"text": [
"Many of these events are recurring or there are similar events. So for example if it going to be a sports event, they might use last-years footage to spice up that commercial. If it going to be something new, the commercials usually feature participants or previously taken footage of participants with some generic background content such as applauding masses, cheering fans, generic doode in winner pose (these clips are like the stockphotos of tv commercials). Or they show the actual location, like the concert hall, the stadium, or whatnot.",
"Some like the MTV movie award is not live but was broadcaster 2 days later and is likely cut down in time to make it better TV. So they can use real footage for 2 days. Other like the academy awards is live. So you cant use any real footage for the event. A important part to remember it that the nominees are public in advance and host i known and the stage is likely finished many days in advanced. So you can in advance film segment with the host and also include the well now nominated stars in the. So the answer is there can't be any footage from the ceremony if it is live but you can shoot special segments for the commercial that look like the show in advanced. You can also use old footage because it is not oblivious that it is not new. For sport you can use footage from games earlier in the year."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8vc34d | why do bicycles have to be on the road instead of the side walk? | I understand how a bicycle can be seen as a vehicle; but all I can keep asking myself is: would you rather have a cyclist hit a pedestrian or a car hit a cyclist? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1m6c76",
"e1m6uoi",
"e1madn3"
],
"text": [
"I live in a city where people walk long distances to work from where they park. I can’t stand when bicyclists are on the side walks. When they’re on the roads at least they can go a closer speed to a slow car. But on sidewalks, bicyclists go so much faster than the average walking human, people have to jump out of the way, it’s horrible. They should definitely only be allowed on the roads.",
"Where I live in Indiana there's hardly any sidewalks at all, let alone bike lanes, so I would assume that's taken into account with the laws about using a bike as transportation",
"It actually depends where you live. I live in Austin, TX, and as far as I know, we are legally allowed to ride on most every sidewalk, with the exception of a few in the downtown area (high foot traffic) and around our university campus (also high foot traffic). Other than that, I can ride on any sidewalk I choose, and I regularly do, depending on where I am and how dangerous I judge the street to be. I just keep my speed MUCH slower when pedestrians are present and make sure to let them know that I'm coming around them, when I pass. Now, if there are a LOT of people on a sidewalk and I don't care to ride in the street, I'll usually just stand on one pedal and coast slowly with the pedestrians, and simply hop off and walk, if it gets too crowded."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8vkmjs | Why does liquid stay level on a plane when the plane turns? | I was just on a plane, and as the plane turned, the drink in my cup on the tray table stayed level. Why is that? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1o2ihv",
"e1ou1xl"
],
"text": [
"Because the G-forces are still \"down\" from your perspective in the seat. If the plane rolled, the water would spill, but the pilot has a lot of experience doing this and is pulling a \"1G turn\" meaning that gravity appears mostly unaffected to passengers. It's accomplished by turning rolling and pitching (one wingtip down, nose up) to turn and using appropriate rudder to keep the plane from slipping or sliding in the turn.",
"Attempt at ELI5 answer. Imagine you are in a car driving around a bend and you are holding some sort of pendulum. It could be a yo-yo, a conker, basically any weight on a string. That pendulum will swing out a certain angle (depending on your speed and the tightness of the turn). An aeroplane simply rolls its body to the same angle, so that the weight force always acts straight down from your point of view sitting in the plane."
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
8wmj53 | Why do cars make that clicking sound when you turn them off? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1wn6sa",
"e1wnrdp"
],
"text": [
"As the hot metal parts cool they are shrinking microscopically. Since they are all bolted together this process can be a bit noisy, that's what the ticking sound is, or at least that's how it was explained to me.",
"Engines get really hot from the combustion (explosions!) of compressed gas vapour and oxygen in the engine. Heated metal expands (gets bigger). Turn the engine off and the engine cools. When it cools it contracts (which is the opposite of expanding). Not all parts cool at the same timetime. Some parts cool faster than others. But all these parts are bolted together. This contraction of the different metals makes a pinging, or clicking sound as the pull on each other. Redditkind, feel free to correct or clarify."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
8yfs9s | what makes our veins greenish blue when our blood is red ? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e2ak896"
],
"text": [
"Yarr! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why do our veins appear blue? ]( URL_5 ) ^(_15 comments_) 1. [ELI5: So if blood isn't blue inside the veins because of lack of oxygen then why is it that veins seen through the skin sometimes appear blue? ]( URL_1 ) ^(_18 comments_) 1. [ELI5: why do our veins appear blue/green through our skin? ]( URL_3 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why is blood red but do our veins look blue? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [ELI5:What are these blue looking veins under my skin? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_16 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why are my veins blue and green if my blood is red? ]( URL_4 ) ^(_7 comments_)"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r5f4e/eli5_why_is_blood_red_but_do_our_veins_look_blue/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j1kj5/eli5_so_if_blood_isnt_blue_inside_the_veins/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o7zpb/eli5what_are_these_blue_looking_veins_under_my/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u609b/eli5_why_do_our_veins_appear_bluegreen_through/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rofvp/eli5_why_are_my_veins_blue_and_green_if_my_blood/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b1ip1/eli5_why_do_our_veins_appear_blue/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
90b2ho | Why are you not supposed to mix old and new batteries in a device? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e2p4dvt"
],
"text": [
"If you have a device which is pure resistive, or close, it will continue to draw current until the voltage goes to zero. The total voltage will be the sum of the voltage across all batteries. Let's say we have 3 new batteries and one old one. If we leave the device on, the total voltage is soon 0V. The three new batteries are 1.5V each. This means that the old battery is at **minus** 4.5V. It's going to corrode triple-time, and leak damaging liquid all over the battery holder."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
90ivph | why does yellow seem brighter than other colors? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e2r20sm",
"e2r1ptk",
"e2r1v32",
"e2r4a5d",
"e2r9sao"
],
"text": [
"You have 4 basic types of light receptors in your eyes. Rods, Red Cones, Blue Cones and Green Cones. The Rods are used for night vision and edge detection, and the Cones detect the color they are named for. Different cones have different sensitivities, and the Green Cones are most sensitive, followed by Red, followed by Blue. Yellow colors activate the Green and Red cones, which are the most sensitive and 2nd most sensitive cones and they add together, generates the largest signal given the same number of photons.",
"It always doesn't. But we don't realize it. Same with orange. It has to do how we categorize colors. When you have green and make it darker, you have dark green. When you have red and make it darker, you have dark red. When you have blue and make it darker, you have dark blue. When you have purple and make it darker, you have dark purple. But when you have yellow and make it darker, we don't consider it dark yellow. [We consider it olive green.]( URL_1 ) Yellow in RGB is R: 255, G: 255, B: 0. So halving the brightness of yellow gets you dark yellow. R: 128, G 128, B: 0. It appears olive green to us. Not yellow. We don't consider olive green to be yellow, even though it technically is dark yellow. And when you have orange and make it darker, we don't consider it dark orange. [We consider it brown.]( URL_0 ) Orange in RGB is R: 255, G: 128, B: 0. So halving the brightness of orange gets you dark orange. R: 128, G 64, B: 0. It appears brown to us. Not orange. We don't consider that brown to be orange, even though it technically is dark orange.",
"[Eyes happen to be most sensitive for green and yellow]( URL_3 ) But why?!! [That curve closely matches the light from the Sun that reaches the ground.]( URL_0 ) But why do they match?! Because it is practical to sense the strongest light the best. [Actually our eyes have also night mode. Called scotopic vision. With WAY more sensitivity for blue.]( URL_1 ) But it only kicks in when there is very little light. That is why everything seems blue when it is dark. Why blue? This happens because oxygen in atmosphere changes the direction of blue light, so even when sun isn't visible, some of the blue rays arrive to us, after many changes in direction. Finally, on screen yellow will look extra bright, because it is created by lighting *BOTH* red and green. [A picture of magnified LCD. Step back to see yellow emerge from green and red.]( URL_4 ) ^^^^^Original: URL_2",
"There are some good responses so far, but I haven't seen one of the simplest: Contrast. The highest contrast color pair is yellow and black. (Followed by yellow and blue, followed by black and white, then blue and white.) You'll see this expressed in license plates, for instance: NY is black/yellow. California used to be black on yellow, then yellow on black, then yellow on blue and now blue on white. Yellow \"stands out\" against a world of mostly darker colors. I am not sure if you mean yellow seems \"brighter\" in general, but our rods and cones process visual information relatively, looking for contrast between objects (and their colors) to aid in pattern recognition, which helps process information more efficiently. I know all of this only as a layperson because my work is about processing visual information.",
"It has to do with how we classify yellow as a color, as well! Not often do we see \"dark yellow\" because it just turns into a different color. Speaking from the art perspective, if you shade yellow (that's adding black to yellow), you get a color that has more of a green hue. When you tone a yellow (that's adding the complementary color to yellow, and in this case, it's purple), you get a brown color. The only real way we can mix yellow with something and keep its yellow hue is with white, but doing so will desaturate it. Moreso, yellow is a primary color. You cannot mix colors to make yellow. So simply speaking, yellow is brighter than other colors because we call it something else when it ISN'T the bright yellow we know it to be."
],
"score": [
1457,
181,
97,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/X7XS5l7.png",
"https://i.imgur.com/yT5FEOc.png"
],
[
"http://www.handmadeinpa.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SA_sun_550SA.jpg",
"http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/lumeff3.gif",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28s1fd/eli5_why_does_yellow_look_brighter_than_red_or/cie05cl/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eyesensitivity.svg",
"http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7253/6899963862_52c45a38df_m.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
91ngoj | How were hand-drawn cartoons transfered to newspaper printers before scanners were a thing? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e2ze51r",
"e2zes71"
],
"text": [
"There was a thing, coincidentally called a \"scanner\". Gadget inventors put all their imagination in the gadget, names not so much. You put the picture on one drum and a thin piece of metal on another drum. Then you turn the drums and the scanner looks at a spot on the paper. If it's white, nothing happens and if it's dark a little hole gets drilled in the metal. The process was called screening or half-toning. Some very fine line art was probably etched or lithographed, but the run of the mill newspaper had a scanner so that they could have art in ads.",
"This was one of my first jobs on my college newspaper just before we went digital using desktop layout (early 90’s). Photostatic cameras were used to take a picture of them on film, but at the same time they would, through the use of filters, turn the darker areas into a series of dots. At the same time they could be sized up or down based on how far the camera was positioned for the subject image. Think of these basically like a really big, low magnification microscope with extremely bright halogen lights shining on the image and a lens at the top with photo paper you’d expose. The resulting photograph would then be ready for the printers. (Edited for late night grammar)."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
924ejg | Why are FM radio stations only found at odd decimal places...? | e.g. 88.5, 101.1, as opposed to 88.4 or 88.6...? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e338980"
],
"text": [
"Presumably this is a decision by the FCC in America, its not the case elsewhere. Eg here in the UK we have odd and even decimal frequencies. Obviously adjacent frequencies are not in close proximity, but they're not fixed to only odd decimals."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
925m1w | How can a single fiber optic cable(or other data line for that matter) carry multiple signals at the same time? What keeps all the information being transmitted from mixing and turning into data gobledygook? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e337pjr",
"e337r3x"
],
"text": [
"Imagine Morse code. It requires just one color of light to signal information with it. Now imagine many different colors of light flashing different Morse code messages at the same time. Despite them being together, you can analyze which colors of light are blinking when, and decipher that specific message. It’s like a different Morse code language for each message. So computers at each end of the fiber optic cable have designated a certain stream of data with a certain color of light. They can communicate forwards and backwards, and multiple messages all at the same time.",
"1. Different colors of light carry different channels — just the way different radio frequencies can carry different stations. 2. Each channel is divided into brief \"packets\" of digital data, one after another, and each packet starts with a numeric \"address\" so they can be sorted by recipient."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
92cgd4 | How are males and females born at such an equal rate? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e34m7i3",
"e34mgue",
"e34qz1e"
],
"text": [
"When a child is conceived, the sperm cell and the egg cell each contribute one chromosome. If the child gets two X chromosomes, it becomes a woman and if the child gets an X and a Y, it becomes a man. The egg cell, coming from a woman, can only give an X chromosome. The sperm cell, coming from a man, can give either an X or a Y. This results in a 50/50 chance, and over a large sample size, a 50/50 split of male and female at conception. EDIT: Keep in mind there are sex-based happenings after conception that can affect whether that embryo makes it to birth and out of infancy. In real life the ratio isn't exactly 1:1. There are also some cases where the person ends up with too many chromosomes, for example, having three chromosomes is the cause of Downs Syndrome.",
"Natural selection often favors birth rates near to equilibrium. Consider if some species has a preference for female births. So you have more females than males. This means any given male has a better chance of passing on his genes than any given female (since he has more opportunity to find more mates and produce more offspring, there's ladies all over the place and not much competition!). So the male is more likely to pass on his traits. This means that selection will favor any traits that bias births in favor of males, as that would result in more males which in turn results in more opportunities for those traits to be passed on. However, as the ratio approaches 1:1, the advantages of those male-preferential traits diminishes, since their overabundance of opportunity shrinks. TLDR: If there's a lot of one sex, then the best opportunity to pass on your genes is to make a lot of the *opposite* sex, since then you are taking advantage of the opportunities, instead of fighting the competition. So traits that favor this will tend to win, pushing towards 1:1. STLDR: If everyone wants bread and milk, and everyone else is selling milk, you should sell bread.",
"[Minute Earth]( URL_0 ) Did a pretty solid video a few years back explaining this rather well but also [It’s Ok to be Smart]( URL_1 ) did one to explain the animal kingdom balance and why it's the way it is"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/3IaYhG11ckA",
"https://youtu.be/C3dCWxxVhVc"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
92kjll | Why do movies shot in 24 fps seem so much smoother than 24 fps? | For example, if you run like a video game or a animation in 24 fps then it's studdery as hell. But movies and tv shows appear smooth. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e36egcd",
"e36u1mr"
],
"text": [
"Short answer: blur. When you shoot a scene at 60 fps, you get faster shutter speed and less blur. When you shoot 24fps, you get slower shutter speed, and more blur in the shot. Play back a scene at 24 fps which was shot at 24 fps, and there is more visible motion in each individual frame. Blur. Play back the same scene at the same rate which was shot at higher speeds, and each visible frame is sharper, making it seem as though it's stuttering.",
"Cameras capture their scenes by opening a shutter for a period of time, exposing a film or image sensor to capture information about the scene. Each frame represents a period of time and moving objects will be shown as a blurry smear across the frame. Computer renderings are made of a calculated theoretical instant. As a single instant there can be no motion and moving objects are as clear as if stationary, and are only in one place. So you see a frame from a computer rendering contains less information than that of a camera, and the disconnects make it look jerky. A normal camera at least connects the ends of motion blurs while the rendered frames just jump from place to place."
],
"score": [
13,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
934jwg | How does vegetation grow on volcanicly formed islands if they're just mounds of rock? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e3aimv9",
"e3ajb95",
"e3aje6o",
"e3aiux1"
],
"text": [
"Wind blows dust to the islands accumulating soil overtime from continents near and far. Seeds catch a ride on birds, floating wood, or debris making the journey across the ocean.",
"Jesus christ Marie, they're not rocks, they're minerals. Volcanic rock tends to have plenty of iron, zinc, and other important minerals to support healthy soil. Once moss / lichen / other rock-loving flora and the like start covering the island, and errosion builds a layer of soil, what you're left with is an extremely fertile soil filled with extra minerals. This isnt a quick process. We're talking up to thousands of years before the minerals break down enough, and plant matter decomposes in large enough quantities that the topsoil is deep enough to house large flora that you see on many older volcanic islands. And for those who might wonder how the plants get on the island, there are many ways. Some straight up have seeds / spores ride the air currents. Some ride on migratory birds, float on the ocean, and so-on. Survival of the fittest favors the adaptably creative.",
"What led me to ask this was the island of Pulau Tiga. Formed from a volcanic eruption in 1898 so only 120 years ago. Yet the entire island is covered in thick vegetation. Just thought it would take a lot longer to get to that stage",
"It can start with lichens or moss or even some species of plants that can grow off nutrients from rainwater, volcanic ash, or other organic matter that has accumulated over time on the rock. These plants then eventually die, leave behind their organic matter and eventually over hundreds or thousands of years or even longer bigger plants can eventually grow."
],
"score": [
47,
19,
18,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
93lqvz | How are speed limits determined? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e3e7z51"
],
"text": [
"They are determined in the US by safety factors, and 85 percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is, in the area of question, the speed in which 85% of cars do not exceed. The safety factors are risks that put people in danger like road curve, uphill and downhill speed, etc."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9592no | why do pennies exist? Considering that the cost of producing them surpasses their value, aren't we just wasting money? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e3r075p",
"e3r0htr",
"e3qz7op",
"e3qy2gt",
"e3qxx53"
],
"text": [
"The production of physical currency by the government is not primarily a money-making enterprise. Instead the desire is to provide a medium of exchange of value for the population to use, facilitating economic activity. Pointing out that a specific unit of physical currency costs more to produce than its face value is entirely irrelevant to the issue of if it should continue to be produced. It is sort of like noting that traffic police don't take in enough in issued tickets to pay their wages. Even if that is true, so what? Traffic police are not a for-profit enterprise.",
"So, lets get the Jared Zinc conspiracy theory out of the way. Jared Zinc is the main zinc producer in the US (and pennies are predominantly made out of Zinc). Jared Zinc spends < $200,000 in lobbying every year, last year it spent $20,000. The most it ever spent was $340,000 in the 2012 Presidential election. These are absolutely trivial sums. To put this in perspective, the coal industry has historically spent in excess of $25 million dollars a year, and peaked at over $40 million in the 2008 Presidential election. A lot of the claims surrounding Jared Zinc center on the fact that it in 2006 it tried to publicized a report that it created which showed the \"benefits\" of the penny to the American economy. Of course nobody took this report seriously except for the handful of people that want to claim that some grand zinc conspiracy is behind the retention of the penny. The real reason that the penny is retained is because it doesn't cost much to make and there are very real costs in abandoning it. Every year the mint \"loses\" about $30 million dollars on the raw materials used to produce the penny. This may seem like a lot but you have to keep it in the context of the mint, which is self funding and designed not to make a profit. Despite losing $30 million on the penny, the mint makes approximately $600 million on currency production, most of which comes from the quarter. But again, the mint isn't designed to make a profit, so what does it do with that $600 million in profit? If you think it goes to the government you're wrong - the mint uses that money to produce collectible coins which it then sells to the public at a loss. So if the mint got rid of the penny, you wouldn't see the government suddenly get $30 million richer. Rather, all that would happen is you would see the price on US mint produced collectible coins go down a bit - which you can buy [here]( URL_0 ). And again, there are very real costs to getting rid of the penny. Every vending machine in the country would need its coin system either replaced or, if the machine allows, updated. Stores would also need to update their registers to round to the nearest 5 cents. And the government would need to generally educate the public on the fact that the penny is going away. Then you have the fact that the mint is generally cautious about making any currency changes after the $1 Sacagawea dollar - which was the mint's attempt to produce a $1 coin to replace the dollar. They produced billions of dollars of the coins, and then everyone complained and no one used them. The lesson that the mint took from that is that people are generally happy with the currency currently available and are highly resistant to change. So at the end of the day the only benefit of replacing the penny is that the price on US Mint collectible coins would come down a bit. Conversely, replacing the penny would entail imposing *some* costs on society and may very well generate sufficient backlash to force them to reintroduce the penny anyways.",
"It costs more than 1 cent to make 1 penny, but it's not a one shot item. A single penny gets used over and over and over.",
"The simple answer is lobbying. One company, Jarden Zinc Products, supplies the US Mint with all of their zinc, and spends lots of money to keep the penny.",
"They are a waste of money, but they continue to exist because of government inertia. It would require an act of Congress to get rid of pennies, and Congress isn't capable of doing much of anything these days besides cutting taxes for rich people, so it doesn't get done. It would also require some time and expense by businesses who would have to adjust to the new practice of rounding all transactions to the nearest 5 cents, but still, getting rid of pennies would probably save businesses money, by not having to waste time and fiddle with them anymore. Ideally we'd go ahead and get rid of nickels and quarters too, and just use dimes and 50-cent pieces, round everything to the nearest ten cents. Nickels cost more to produce than they're worth as well. And when the half-cent coin was abolished in 1857 (for being worth too little to bother with), it was worth the equivalent of 10 cents today. There are other very low-value coins in the world that probably ought to be abolished too. The Brazilian 5-cent coin is worth about 1.1 US cents (notice they already got rid of their 1-cent coin). The Japanese 1-yen coin is worth about .9 US cents. The half-rupee coin in India is worth .7 US cents, and the 1-kopek (1/100 of a ruble) Russian coin is worth just .16 US cents."
],
"score": [
13,
8,
7,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://catalog.usmint.gov/on/demandware.store/Sites-USM-Site/default/Default-Start?_ga=2.2486004.536427201.1533625936-799552922.1533625936"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
95zsxu | I just bought a 20-year old bottle of Brandy. How is this economically viable to the producer? How do these companies even start when they can't sell their products for X amount of years? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e3wobsy",
"e3wpb7l",
"e3wpj4r",
"e3wvb7k",
"e3wqli8",
"e3wszaz",
"e3wrc4r",
"e3wnw17",
"e3wsqzq",
"e3x2dk5",
"e3wte4e",
"e3wphrc",
"e3wrwp0"
],
"text": [
"By having a wide product line. Start by making 100 drums of fresh unaged. Don't sell any the first year. year2, sell 90 of those as cheap stuff, produce 100 more drums of fresh unaged. You now have 10 of 1 year old, and 100 fresh. Year 3, sell 90 of 1 yr old as cheap stuff, you now have 10 2yr, 10 3yr. Produce 100 more fresh. Somewhere round 5 year. You can start selling 1-2 barrels of medium grade 5 year stuff. Leaving you with 7-8 barrels to keep on aging Repeat for 30 something years",
"Most new distillery operations will start off making non-aged spirits like vodka, rum, or gin these can support the business while they age their other products.",
"Many distilleries will come to an agreement to buy aged products from other suppliers until they've made their own.",
"I don't know how common it is, but a whiskey destillery in Sweden used and alternative I have not seen here yet. They basically did \"pre orders\" and made the aging process a part of the product. They sold small (like 5-10 liter) casks and put it in storage. Then they let the owner (and whoever they brought with them) come in and taste it something like every 6 months to experience how it matured. Then they bottled it and put on a label you choose when you thought it had mature enough. It seemed like quite a hit among hotels and bars in the local area as well as whiskey enthusiasts. They made all the money directly, and the small casks gave a matureing time of about 2-5 years so the customers did not have to wait forever.",
"It's actually a really good long term investment because of inflation. They are getting a huge profit margin on these by manufacturing at 1998 prices and then selling for even higher than the standard 2018 prices for the non-aged bottles. They typically don't set aside ALL of what the produce for 20 years, just a small percentage, and then they sell the rest, so it's kind of like a retirement fund, and they could theoretically shut down the factory and continue selling from storage with virtually no overhead",
"The other answer is that the person who starts the company is rich by other means and it was an investment for their wealth.",
"You're getting a lot of good answers, but a related topic to consider (as far as long startup times) is that a grafted pecan tree (the faster way to do it) takes 4 years to even start producing, and doesn't reach full production until 7-10 years. The reason both can be done is partly that there is a balance between risk & reward. It's a risk starting an orchard of pecan trees, and it's a risk setting aside a barrel of brandy for 20 years. This is balanced, however by the expected reward. People are generally happy to spend much more to buy pecans than peanuts, and people are generally happy to spend much more for aged brandy than for vodka.",
"I’d guess that they start out making things that they don’t plan to age and then once they see some growth or success they begin putting in the time capsules or whatever you want to call em",
"To answer the second part of your question, new companies buy other company's already aged brandy and rebrand it as their own. Typically from a mega-distillery.",
"There are private equity funds that buy the rights to a certain vintage or type of alcohol and pay the producer upfront and wait those many years to collect revenue. Example : URL_0",
"A whiskey distillery I went to in Scotland upped their income buying the odd barrel from other distillers - some individual barrels can be VERY expensive. They can buy a 30 year old barrel anytime, so even in your first year you can sell other product that will keep you afloat.",
"It takes a lot of money and time to start a business that sells aged products. Mostly, you have to be able to eat the costs of production without any revenue for a few years. You can make a little money doing work for other established companies & selling unaged products (eg - vodka) but you've basically gotta go 5 years before you can ever sell anything.",
"Not an expert in alcohol production but a little bit of critical analysis: Most of the costs will be labour, plant, distribution and advertising. As somebody else pointed out they don't sell all of the produce at 20 years so the sunken cost of the material to produce the significantly lower quantity of aged stuff will be negligible compared to the 3 or 5 years product cycle. You will likely use the same distillation process for the same product except for the aging duration."
],
"score": [
1339,
283,
92,
59,
22,
17,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://bacchuswinefund.com/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
965lzf | Double Slit Experiment. | I have a question about the double slit experiment, but I need to relay my current understanding of it first before I ask. ___ So here is my understanding of the double slit experiment: 1) Fire a "quantumn" particle, such as an electron, through a double slit. 2) Expect it to act like a particle and create a double band pattern, but instead acts like a wave and causes multiple bands of an interference pattern. 3) "Observe" which slit the particle passes through by firing the electrons one at a time. Notice that the **double band pattern returns, indicating a particle again.** 4) Suspect that the observation method is causing the electron to behave differently, so you now let the observation method still interact with the electrons, but do not measure which slit it goes through. Even though the physical interactions are the same for the electron, it now **reverts to behaving like a wave with an interference pattern.** ___ My two questions are: **Is my basic understanding of this experiment correct?** (Sources would be nice if I'm wrong.) and also **HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE AND HOW DOES IT WORK? It's insane!** | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e3xwkqj",
"e3y7ort",
"e3xx1z2",
"e3yaiqz",
"e3y2ugk",
"e3y4for",
"e3y631g",
"e3y8wg0",
"e3z378g",
"e3y4s9o",
"e3yjbkg"
],
"text": [
"Typically a photon is used rather than an electron, since that makes figuring out the wavelength (which determines the pattern) a lot easier, but otherwise you got it right. As far as why it works that way, we have no idea. Well, we have lots of ideas, but no solid answers. We do know that if you split a photon into two entangled photons (each with half the energy) you can observe effects that appear to violate causality, in that measuring one particle ***after*** the other has gone through a double slit experiment changes the result of the experiment retroactively. Unfortunately it does so in a way that makes it useless for sending messages to the past. When someone figures it out that's pretty much a guaranteed Nobel prize. Edit: \"appear to\"",
"You're close but a little bit off: - If you fire a bunch of electrons one-at-a-time (like your point #3), but you make no effort to figure out which slit they went through, you will see the interference pattern start to form - The only way you get the double-band is if you try to \"measure\" which slit the electrons went through, even retroactively (IE you measure them *after* they would have already passed through the slit) - What's even more mind-blowing is the idea of what-they-call \"Delayed-Choice Quantum Erasure\" Here's a quick explanation of Delayed-Choice Quantum Erasure: So let's say you fire photons one-at-a-time through the slits at some sensors. You get wave interference pattern because you're not trying to determine which slit they went through. So you add polarized filters *after* the slits. Now you can tell which slit the photon went through based on whether it has up-down or left-right polarization. Well now your sensors will only detect particles. Cool so far, right? But maybe the polarization itself messed up the wave behavior, right? Here's where it gets weird... If you \"forget\" the information about which slit it went through, it goes back to being a wave again! So in the above example, you place another filter in each path that \"scrambles\" the light polarization again. Now the double-band turns back into a wave, because you once-again have no way of knowing which slit it went through. And it works even for huge distances! So it's like the universe is somehow able to know that you will *eventually* be able to determine which slit it went through, and so it collapses to a particle. But if it knows that you will *eventually* \"forget\" that information, it stays as a wave. EDIT: [Here]( URL_0 ) is a link to a PBS SpaceTime video that explains it, although definitely not ELI5...",
"Also, might be a dumb follow-up, but what does \"observe\" mean in the context of this experiment?",
"You missed the crucial point! Even if you fire one electron at a time, you still get the multiple-band interference pattern: Each single electron will produce a single point on the screen, but after you have fired many electrons, one after the other, all the points together form the wave pattern. The fact that each electron forms one point shows you that they are particles, i.e., very small objects that are at a specific location in space. However, the spacing of the wave pattern depends on the distance between the two slits. So, how can a single electron \"know\" that distance? As a small particle, it cannot \"see\" or \"feel\" the other, far away slit, when it went through one slit. Clearly, the electron has \"spread out\", filling the whole space, hence \"sensing\" both slits, and \"interfering with itself\". This shows you that the electron has passed through the slits as wave, i.e., as a spread-out entity which is not at all at one single specific location in space. Only when reaching the screen, and thus getting \"observed\", the electron wave \"collapses\" to a single point that lights up on the screen. If you only look at the case of many electrons fired at the same time, you might argue that some electrons went through one slit, some through the other, afterwards they met, affected each others flight path, and thus somehow produced the specific interference pattern with it curious dependence on the distance of the slits. But once you notice that the same happens with only one single electron present at a time, you can no longer deny that it is really both a wave and a particle, both everywhere and yet a single point-like thing.",
"Yep you've got it right and the reason it's such a big thing is because nobody knows why yet. Theres lots of theories but no sure answer. But hey, If you can figure it out there'll be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.",
"This experiment is a good example of the scientific method at work. There's a theory, an observation and then an experiment to confirm the theory. The experiment does not seem to prove the theory, and therefore we test again to develop a new theory. So you state a theory, that a photon is a particle or a wave. You test that and find that it displays indications that it is both a particle and a wave. or that it's neither a particle or a wave. Also, there's an indication that observing the experiment affects its outcome. > HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE AND HOW DOES IT WORK? It's insane! That's just it. The experiment indicates that we don't really understand what's going on at all. It's apparent that the photon acts as both a particle and a wave. So it's either some new third thing that we don't understand or us observing it changes it between a particle and a wave, but we don't understand how that could be happening. This is the basics of how science works. We've observed, something that we don't understand how it works. We have a few ideas but they don't appear to be correct and it's easy to disprove one idea or another about what's going on. Now we need to develop theories about what we've observed. Since our existing knowledge about the universe seems counter-indicated by this experiment, it means that there's something we are missing. So it leads us into the study of quantum particles and why they don't conform to our known \"laws\" of physics. Do the laws need to be adjusted, is everything we think we know actually wrong or is there some kind of other explanation.",
"1. Yes, but your concept of observe is incomplete. Firing an electron one-at-a-time doesn't really help you know where the electron went. To observe which slit an electron went through, you'd shine a light just behind the slits, and the electron would collide with a photon which is detectable. 2. Nobody knows, we just have theories. This is one of those things that, if it doesn't blow your mind, you don't really understand it. The way I tend to think of it is that they travel as probability waves, and events can occur which cause them to collapse back into a single point again. Then they'll travel as a probability wave again. Probability waves can interact with themselves and each other, hence the interference pattern when it passes through two slits. So when an electron interacts with a photon in the case of us \"observing\" them, they collapse into a point, then go back to traveling as a new probability wave from that point. So if you cause them to collapse back to a point on the other side of the slits, then you lose the interference pattern caused by the slits. Note that in my internal idea of what's going on, the speed of light or the direction of time is being violated. The entire wave of probabilities collapses at once, no matter how large it is. So either it happens at infinite velocity, or something is going backwards in time and removing the rest of the probability wave.",
"There is actually a simple deterministic explanation for it that is easily simulated with oil droplets. It's just standard interference patterns on vibrating particles that is explained with pilot wave theory (De Broglie-Bohm theory). URL_0 No wierdness involved. Many are still clinging to the wierd explanation required if using the Copenhagen interpretation because it is a more complete theory. I say, the simplest explanation is the most likely one. So the pilot wave explanation.",
"It is a bug in the source code. The source code has clearly defined that any particle can behave as wave but since certain features are disabled when no one is there to watch (to save processing power) such as sound and exact location this leads to this strange behavior. When someone is observing the slits the need to display location overrides the hard coded wave-particle duality.",
"When a particle is emitted it is said to be coherent, it is basically a wave-like system that radiates out. The wave interferes with itself which is why we see the pattern. When you measure the particle, you affect the system, and you cause decoherence, that is when the system is not \"in sync\" with itself anymore. After decoherence the system takes a very long time to re sync itself. As to your questions there is a debates as to what exactly constitutes measurement. Clearly there are some things, like gravity, travelling through non-vacuum space, hitting the divider in the double slit experiment, etc. that do not seem to be enough to disrupt the system. What we do know so far is that doing something to the system that would localize a particle is enough to cause decoherence. Your last question is a little confusing, like i said above anything that can localize a particle is enough to cause decoherence. It's not about knowledge, it's about physical interaction, which i think you understand. Like i also said above, there are forces that impact the system, not capable of localizing the particle, that do not cause decoherence but still have sort of effect on the system.",
"Via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can’t know the position and velocity of the electron at the same exact time. Think about taking a picture of a running man. The picture will blur the man, so an observer can tell that the man is moving and can infer his speed by the amount of blurring that took place. But, because of the blurring, we don’t know his exact position. Now, have the camera be moving at the same speed as the man. The picture will not be blurry, and we can tell exactly where the man is, but we do not know anything about his speed. When the electron is moving toward the double slit, it is behaving as a plane wave, that is, it has a well defined wave length. This wavelength is proportional to its velocity via the principle of matter waves proposed by De Broglie. That means that the electron’s velocity is well defined, so it is impossible to know anything about its position. The electron could be anywhere. This is what we call a delocalized wavepacket. There are a bunch of different possibility states the electron can occupy, and superimposing these forms a wavepacket. When single electrons head toward the double slit, they can appear to go through both somehow because they are occupying multiple possibility states. The act of measuring exactly which slit it’s going through fundamentally changes the experiment because it collapses the electron delocalized wavepacket into a localized one. This causes the electron to occupy only one possibility state, and go through only one slit. This phenomena led to the Copenhagen interpretation, which stated that 1) quantum systems do not have definite properties before being measured 2) the act of measurement changes the system I hope this answers your question somewhat"
],
"score": [
441,
292,
263,
68,
28,
26,
21,
7,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
97i8yg | How do people who crack games get said games to crack ? | How do people who crack games get the games before they crack them? How do they get the source files on their pcs so they can crack them ? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e48qj6s",
"e48j2tu",
"e48e5bw",
"e48iaw5",
"e48friv",
"e48rnhm",
"e48d9e3",
"e48crlk",
"e48g8rv",
"e4919dx",
"e499dkx",
"e48w8fx",
"e49jqtr",
"e48g9qk",
"e48pkxm",
"e48naba"
],
"text": [
"A man is reading a list of instructions on what to do. Let's say this particular list of instructions tells him how to let you into a theme park. As he goes through the list of instructions he asks you for your ticket, but you don't have one so you can't get in today. After his shift you know where he keeps his instruction list, but it's in German! And you don't speak German. But you take a copy anyway. Tomorrow you try to get in, and you follow the man along as he's reading the instructions, and when he gets to instruction 52, he asks you for a ticket, and then turns you away for not having one. After his shift, you go to where he keeps his instructions and cross out line 52. The next day you get into the theme park because he didn't check for your ticket.",
"There's actually an awesome history of cracking groups. We won't go into it, but one of the most valued positions within a cracker group was often the person who could get access to games. In the early 2000s cracking groups would have people lift games from deliveries to their gamestop store. In fact, if you pirate on console you'll find those games are often out before the game itself. That's usually why. Someone works at gamestop and literally took a disc. For PC it gets more complicated. Whereas consoles tend to try and lock their console and leave their games unprotected, for PCs its often the other way around. And then you have Steam and online and blah blah. What PC games, especially on steam will do is either a) not ship the CD physically. The gamestop employee can just get the download code - not useful and very easy to trace that its been stolen. The game itself is often downloadable. or b) when they do have the files on the disc or predownloaded, they often are missing a key to unlock the files. This means day 0 on PC is pretty rare now. Not unheard of, FFXV was cracked before release because the demo exe had files they used, but for everything else it is often 3 months. So how do they get the games to crack em? Honestly? Probably just buy them and download them from steam. Then its something called reverse engineering. It used to be simple, there was a part of the exe file for a game that would check the cd was in the drive. All they'd need to do to crack it was remove the cd check. These were called no cd cracks! These are still invaluable for a lot of older games. Now though, you have something called Denuvo, and rather than simply putting in one line of code that can then get taken out, they add thousands if not millions of lines of code, woven into the code for the game. That makes untying all that and reverse engineering time consuming. Lots of people have hailed it as the end of piracy, and it has slowed it down. But it hasn't stopped. The problem with denuvo though is that its a lot of security through obfuscation - that is, it works as long as you hide how it works. This is great - until someone finds out how it works. Then literally all of your security becomes instantly useless. This has happened to Denuvo a few times. Each time it happens, its harder the next time to make your stuff secure. Because the crackers are onto you now. tl;dr - they used to have someone steal them, either from gamestop, or sometimes by someone within the developers. Less possible for this to happen on PC, but on console they still do it this way. Another way is the use of demo exes. Developers release a demo, and that demos exe contains the code that can be used to convince the program its legal.",
"Indeed they don't have access to the source files. They have to work with the released binary EXE file as it is. To help crack they typically use a debugger application to step through the raw CPU instructions while the program is running, then editing the file once they find the exact location of DRM check. It could end up as simple as changing just a few bytes which correspond to a single jump instruction. Of course, things can get a lot more complicated with different types of DRM.",
"ELI3: You get the program walking (like running, but slower, step by step) until you see it check if it's original. You follow him through all those steps until the check steps are over. You then make a bridge from right before the check to right after the check. The program can now run straight and never hit the check. Sometimes programs are designed to mislead you, walk in circles, do many checks in different parts, etc. That is what makes it difficult and challenging. --- Edit: Just to give a quick and simple perspective of how slow the program walk: If you have a somewhat common processor (running at let's say 2.5 GHz) that means that when running, a program is taking approx. 2,500,000,000 steps a second. Edit2: oopsie, missed 3 zeros.",
"Back in the old days, we buy the game, crack open the cd casing and burn the disc into an ISO image for IRC XDCC file sharing. Today, we hex the exe files to figure out what the game does on launch and what to disable in order to bypass the \"disc/file detection\" portion. That is why you always get a modified exe file as the crack as said crack has the detection disabled, thus allowing for no-cd gameplay as well. The funny thing is back in the old days...even when we own the real game physically, we still download a no-cd crack for convenience lol. Ah the good old days. Mech Commander, anyone?",
"They typically have a source where the DVDs are pressed or where the first copies are couriered. These people sometimes get paid money for early copies or access to group servers with free software as a reward for their services. Next the cracker had to figure out what type of copy protection is being used. If the game asks for a serial number it's fairly simple. You'll need a so called debugger which is a program that loads the file and executes line by line so that you can find the exact spot where the game asks for the serial. In that location will be a jump point to calculate if the serial you entered is valid. This part is an equation somewhere in the program like a + b = c just more complex. Once that equation is found you can make a key generator. This is a very simplified explanation. If the program needs a license like a physical file to be present it can be trickier. You can sometimes make the game think it's there by removing the parts that check for the file. Other times it's as simple as setting something from \"no\" to \"yes\". Then there's the situation where entire parts have to patched with additional code. There is no one size fits all solution, but the main steps remain: Identify protection Locate copy protection Remove/fix protection. There's debuggers that show the code as the program is executed, which tell you where to go in. Hex and other editors to modify the file. They use programs to freeze the game/software in order to locate jump points. And other programs to hide the cracking software being used as some games/software checks to see if certain prisms are running and just shuts down if it detects them.",
"Often times they get the executables(binaries) directly from the CD/DVD or digital downloads. Then they will use a utility, like hexrays to attempt to decompile it, or reverse assemble. At that point they are looking for a way bypass the activation method or software security.",
"The software is being cracked by reverse engineering already compiled product(game executable) and enabling the person to reach to some parts of the product which would enable him to change vital binary codings and override the protection. Not the simplest explanation, but i hope u get the idea.",
"They often have sponsors or have the games gifted to them to crack them. They dont have the source code, but they decompile the installed files and pick through the memory of the running application to look for and disable the protection, then they write patchers to apply the changes to the executable.",
"There almost HAS to be a patient zero nowadays for PC cracking. Most of the time it's someone who just legitimately buys the game and then distributes the game files. Unless there is an insider willing to dish out free copies to someone, which is also a method I've heard of. But that's risky. Sometimes it's by mistake, or through malicious efforts, such as compromising a studio and stealing the files. That's much more rare, but not unheard of.",
"Back in the late 80's and into the 90's it was far easier. People who worked at software stores in the mall would simply take em home at night, make a copy (using just about any utility that could make an image of the disk) and then bring it back in the morning and reshrink wrap it. The reason was that there was no internet to validate things and serial numbers could easily be reused over and over again. In the 80's with Commodore games - it was even better - you'd just buy the game, use some software to copy and defeat the copy protection and then return the game. Since they didn't think you could copy games then and returning a game would just get re-shrunk wrapped - an opened game wasn't a problem like it is today. But of course I heard this all thru second hand conversations... :)",
"Sometimes, they get leaked versions of the game from someone on the dev/testing team... maybe not directly, but indirectly they get access to early builds, or even retail ready versions pre DRM, or just early access to the normal version we all get. Also it should be noted that there are only a handful of DRM \"Types\", breaking it once will often make it very easy to break it again, and if you've already broken most of them out there, and new games release with the same old protections on them...sorry this isn't eli5 enouph... If a thief breaks into a vault, once inside he can clearly see all the weak points, and some vualts won't fix how he got in the first time, so he can just keep getting in until they come up with something new, at which point he either uses one of the other weak points, or starts over getting past the new thing.",
"Post probably won’t get read but from personal experience. Back in the AOL/CompuServe days, over 20+ years ago, groups were cracking and releasing software. A lot of the software came from the software developers or beta testers. Having a Microsoft beta tester access was a golden ticket to any online group, you would download the beta/final versions from a FTP server using your unique login and password. Other software had beta tester, ie: Starcraft and a lot of software were released that way. & nbsp; You then have the workers that work at the dvd/cd manufacturing warehouses. They provide a lot of the RTM/Golden Copy software releases or movie rips. Screeners/academy award/press/etc would get copies to watch before the official release and rip them. I still remember titanic was send to academy award reviewers with vhs and a classmate was using copies to score points with girls. & nbsp; Same with music, inside people who manufacture the CDs. Some of this involves triads/yakusa/etc once you go down the Asian manufactures. & nbsp; Production companies started to label each movies with special numbers to identify who leaked it, require special serial to unlock the software, movie screener played in color and randomly switch to black and white, cd required to run the software was adopted, dvd decryption code was adopted, serial numbers adopted, etc. & nbsp; Now cracking involved a lot of math to take multiple serial numbers and finding a pattern to create a serial generator. I still remember the calling for all the windows keys to help the group come up with a pattern and the key gen was created. Then online activation came and that was fun to crack. Hexing a file to look for certain codes like how the DVD movies was cracked because the software developer didn’t encrypted encrypt the decyper key. It gets technical. & nbsp;",
"Back in the day, and probably still happens, the gold disk would go to production in advance of the release. Workers at the production facility would steal a disk and post the binary files.",
"I've cracked a program before, but the process is similar. Granted this is for super simple most likely older games. What you do is download a program like ollydbg and then watch a bunch of Youtube videos. The short of it is that you search the binary for any strings and then it gives you a list. You look for one that talks about the license not being valid. Then you open up where that is in the binary and look above it for a jump (jmp) and then try changing it to something else and see if that lets you skip the license check. If not, try another jump. Keep on going until you get the result you're looking for.",
"Easy... By buying them :p It's like with scanlation... The scans don't just magic them self... Someone had to spend money on them... **OR**... They were leaked by a third party(review copy)/inside job/etc..."
],
"score": [
9458,
8367,
676,
377,
184,
68,
64,
37,
13,
12,
12,
9,
7,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
9cfsej | The Great Filter | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5acruu"
],
"text": [
"1. Statistically, the universe must be full of aliens 2. The universe is not full of aliens. 3. There must be something that all aliens face that stops them from taking over stars and galaxies. 4. We did not yet reach that something, but we inevitably will -OR- we already passed it, which is incredibly unlikely. That something is called the Great Filter."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9fn5ah | What is angular momentum? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e5xqh2c",
"e5xqgdi"
],
"text": [
"Yarr! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: What is angular momentum? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [Eli5, angular momentum ]( URL_1 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Angular Momentum ]( URL_6 ) ^(_5 comments_) 1. [ELI5: What exactly is angular momentum and how does it work? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_5 comments_) 1. [ELI5: The physical meaning of angular momentum and how it relates to angular velocity ]( URL_3 ) ^(_2 comments_) 1. [ELI5:The conservation of angular momentum ]( URL_5 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [ELI5 Angular Momentum and Velocity ]( URL_4 ) ^(_2 comments_)",
"It's the term for when you spin a thing, it will keep on spinning unless other forces slow it down or stop it. For example, the Earth keeps spinning in space because it has angular momentum from when it formed and very few forces slowing it down."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k3qc8/eli5_what_is_angular_momentum/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16c0va/eli5_angular_momentum/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fcx23/eli5_what_exactly_is_angular_momentum_and_how/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xmooh/eli5_the_physical_meaning_of_angular_momentum_and/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11c34s/eli5_angular_momentum_and_velocity/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y2udc/eli5the_conservation_of_angular_momentum/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kqqw2/eli5_angular_momentum/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
9in38n | Why is it easier to balance (on a bike, unicycle, etc) moving as opposed to stationary? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e6kwvhx"
],
"text": [
"Momentum and inertia act against gravity to keep you upright when you are in motion. When sitting still you obviously don't have the benefit of motion to counteract gravity. URL_0 *\"Inertia, as defined by the second law of motion, is the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, and of an object at rest to remain at rest. Momentum, by definition, involves a body in motion, and can be defined as the tendency of a body in motion to continue moving at a constant velocity.\"* Of course, this is very complex topic on many levels since it's *literally* rocket science. But you count on these various laws of motion on a daily basis. A good example is throwing a baseball. If you hold the ball out and drop it, it falls to the ground. If you pull your arm back and throw it with force, it follows a vector through the air and temporarily counteracts the force of gravity. As the effect of the throw weakens, the ball falls to the group. If you throw it hard enough, theoretically, you can launch the baseball into orbit. These same laws of motion allow a bicycle to stay upright when force is applied to counteract gravity. Because you can continue to apply this force, you can stay upright for a long time counteracting the force of gravity by peddling. As soon you stop peddling, the force wanes and you eventually fall over like the baseball eventually hits the ground. With more input force the longer you can coast before gravity claims you."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-3-Physics-Vol-1/Momentum-How-it-works.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
abd8pd | Why are males not able to have multiple orgasms? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eczh6m7"
],
"text": [
"Because there is no evolutionary advantage of blowing your load then continuing to have sex thereby pulling sperm out of the vagina. This would decrease the likelihood of successful conception."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adc0ta | How do wireless chargers work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edfld2i",
"edflewj"
],
"text": [
"Magnetic induction. Specifically, currents generate magnetic fields and changing magnetic flux generates currents. See faraday's law. This is also why the electric and magnetic fields are often combined into the electromagnetic field. And why light works. tl;dr is electricity make magnet, magnet make electricity So the wireless charger uses electricity to make a magnetic field. That magnetic field causes electricity to flow in your phone.",
"Basically there’s a coil of wire in your device and in the charger. Working on the same principle as a voltage transformer, a current is passed through the coil in the charger and the resulting electrical field generated by the wire, induced current into the other coil which generates a voltage that charges your phone."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
adlpm1 | Why did the US Never get on board with the rest of the world with the metric system? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"edi494g",
"edid0l1",
"edil6da",
"edi4rvi",
"edi5vcn"
],
"text": [
"They tried. The Metric Conversion Act was signed in December of 1975, but the only issue was, it was voluntary. It was never really enforced, and it only stated that metric was the preferred way to do stuff. With no pressure to switch, nobody switched",
"The US is completely on board, where it makes financial sense. Schools teach all students the metric system. Science is almost exclusively metric, and most of engineering is capable of being metric. You can buy metric tools and fasteners in the local hardware store. The only thing that isn't metric, cooking and roadways, would simply cost too much to change for the benefit metrication would bring.",
"They mostly didn't have a choice. Metrication was a big push during the French Revolution, and spread through Europe during the Napoleonic Wars by ramming it down the throat of the conquered nations. The US was already independent before the first of those, and was not subject to the second. European countries went on to conquer most of the world, leaving them with those measurements in the post-colonial era, but it never took hold here, especially because the Industrial Revolution made switching expensive - you would have to re-tool all your assembly lines. It's like how Canadian French is very, very different from metropolitan/continental French: it was the local dialect of a small group of settlers, and they kept on talking the same way, while the mother country mostly adapted to the Parisian dialect, at least in formal speech/writing. In science, engineering, and medicine, nobody uses Imperial units. Fahrenheit is a somewhat special case; I'm unconvinced that it's inferior to Celsius for practical purposes, though there is a good point to be made that it would be better if we all used the same scale. For science, you should be measuring in Kelvin (or Rankine, if you prefer Fahrenheit's degree spacing).",
"The US has been involved with the metric system since the start. All the US measurements are actually based on SI standards, so a yard isn't 36 inches, and a pound isn't 16 ounces - rather 1 yard = 0.9144 meter and a avoirdupois pound = 0.45359237 kilogram",
"Money, think about re standardizing things and the cost to inform the public, reprinting books, re training labour ect ect"
],
"score": [
26,
10,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
afpzoz | How come when you really have to pee you can be relatively okay until you step through the threshold of your home and it becomes a desperate race to get your shoes off and pants unbuttoned before you pee your pants? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee0lmif",
"ee0oh46",
"ee0oqc2",
"ee1042q"
],
"text": [
"It's like a weird type of Pavlavs response. Your body knows it can relieve itself in the bathroom and the closer you get the more the subconscious response to empty your bladder becomes noticable.",
"( I know many people have strict policies of no shoes in the house but it's hilarious to me thinking about having to take your shoes off to pee",
"Unbuttoning your trousers I understand, but why would you need to get your shoes off when you're going to the toilet?",
"When I was a kid I walked to school every day. Some days, as soon as I put the key in the door after my walk home from school (about one mile) I would have to go so badly, I was worried I wouldn’t make it to the bathroom in time. We lived in a house built at the turn of the century and one day I couldn’t get the wonky door to unlock and thought I was going to burst so I peed in the backyard. I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone I did that."
],
"score": [
99,
48,
14,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
agw3wh | How come full scale quad copters as big as helicopters haven’t been developed, considering the drone versions seem to be much more stable than the single rotor helicopter RC drones? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ee9hcjc",
"ee9ozpx",
"ee9h9mm",
"ee9yd5h",
"ee9h0iv",
"ee9pu14",
"ee9isi2",
"ee9sx1r",
"ee9lq0z",
"ee9q09n",
"ee9ic1p",
"ee9p6jx",
"ee9utej",
"eeao43l",
"ee9nhrk",
"eeabx3f",
"eea9oi8",
"ee9v6j7",
"eec3zpp",
"ee9th7p",
"eeaw9q4"
],
"text": [
"The biggest quadcopters are comparable in size to the smallest manned helicopters. A quadcopter is based on very different principles of control and stability from other helicopters. Ordinary helicopters have a set of rotors linked together to balance the forces and then change the pitch of the rotor blades for control. This is a mechanically balanced system as any variable unknowns like the rotor speed have an equal effect on all components. However a quadcopter is a mechanically unstable system that requires constant corrections by the electronics in order to stay balanced. This means that you need motors that have a very fixed speed and can change speed very fast. So quadcopters need special electric motors. You can not build a quadcopter out of any electric motor or out of a combustion engine because these can not be controlled in the same way. This creates some issues when you attempt to scale the design. If you look at bigger quadcopters you will notice that they usually have more rotors then the four classical rotors. This helps with the scale although you can not just mount a hundred motors on a helicopter without issues.",
"From the RC perspective, the single rotor RC helicopters came before the advanced sensors required to automatically stabilize and hold position. Once the technology came, there was no motivation to add it since the main purpose of those helicopters was to be [deliberately unstable for 3D helicopter flight]( URL_0 ). Multirotor drones by design requires the use of sensors just to be able to be flown by humans. The early ones were just as unstable as single-rotor RC helicopters and required constant input from the human controller in order to remain stable. Then, since the sensor technology was already there, people added automatic leveling, where if you let go of the controls the heli would automatically orient itself. The next step after that was to add GPS functionality, so the heli would be able to automatically correct slight drifting and remain in a single place. Basically multirotor RC helis had most of the tech needed for the automatic stabilization anyways, while traditional RC helis didn't and were primarily intended to do unstable 3D flying anyways.",
"Short version, human sized quad-copters or quad helicopters: more rotors = more engines, higher fuel consumption, more difficult design, more construction materials required, higher overall mass that does not necessarily translate into being able to lift more, bigger then regular designs, many more parts to maintain, more overall costs and an overall greater risk of failures and risk of the whole machine failing and crashing as a result, as it only takes 1 out of 4 engines/rotors/load bearing arms to malfunction to send it crashing down. (You could compensate for the loss of 1 engine/rotor/arm, but only so much...), then there's also the issue with auto-rotation being non existent on a quad-copter amongst other more complex topics.",
"The short answer is efficiency. The best way to make an example of this, is to use model helicopters. (becuase they're the best apples to apples we can do..) The common size quadcopter is a 250mm quad. That's roughly the same size as a 130 class helicopter. Your typical 250mm quad has a \"few minute\" flight time. On a very large battery. Lets be nice, and we'll call it 5 minutes on a 25 watt hour battery. A 130 size helicopter will fly 7 minutes, on a 2.2 watt hour battery. So why is that? All powered lift aircraft need to grab big chunks of air, and throw them at the ground. Getting a good grip on the air, is really controlled by how big of a wing (rotor, prop, whatever..) you have. The most efficient part of a wing is the part furthest from the tip, and moving the fastest. Helicopters get this right, by having long blades, and few rotor tips. Multirotors get it wrong, by having LOTS of tips, and short blades. I\"m making a very strong case, against multirotors. And for carrying people, large loads, and doing many tasks, they are really awful. And when you start building a multirotor to carry heavy loads, fly long ranges, or have good flight times, they start looking a lot like normal helicotpers. EG: a popular thing with the quad community is to build \"long range\" rigs. Instead of the typical 4.5 or 5\" props, they're swinging 7\" props, more than doubling their effective swept area. Helicopters, are also \"human controllable\". That is, a meatbag at the controlls can fly it well. To fly a multirotor, you need computers doing the work for you. Multirotors also can't autorotate. \"Real\" Helicopters can become a glider, and land safely in the case of an engine out situation. Multirotors, if you unplug the battery, crash.",
"The V-22 Osprey is a twin copter, and it was plagued by issues during its first few years of active use. I think the struggles experienced by this vehicle has slowed the development of a full-scale quad copter. Additionally, quad copter drones can be made with lightweight plastic material, where a full-size version could potentially require an unattainable weight/lift ratio.",
"[ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) it was shown at CES 2019",
"Drones work because they use fixed pitch propeller blades attached to electronic motors that speed up or slow down independently to create lift. full sized rotor craft use collective pitch for control. Meaning that the main rotor rotation speed stays(relatively) about the same speed and the angle of the blades goes up or down. Drones are light and only fly for short amounts of time. Around 20 minutes. This makes them perfect for electric power and and electric motors. A full sized aircraft engine just cannot change engine speed as fast as an electric motor. We also don't have electric motors that have developed advanced enough to be feasible in regular full scale flight. Now you're thinking \"Well why not do the collective pitch like helicopters?\" Well you're right, the V22, uses this option and it's very complicated. And has had lots of problem through development and deployment. Imagine multiplying it and having 4 or 8 collective pitch rotors that all need to come together to one central control area. It's needlessly complicated and very prone to failure. As of now there is no reason to put lives at risk for an overly complex contraption like that.",
"There are a number of reasons quadcopters (and multicopters in general) haven't been used at full scale, but I'll highlight some important ones. * First, rotors get more efficient the less weight they have to carry. Making a single, big rotor uses the most space for a given box. If your aircraft has to fit in a 50' wide box, a single rotor will give you the best efficiency. You could overlap multiple rotors, but that tends to make them shake themselves to pieces unless they're on the same shaft. * Second, rotors are hard to hold on to. Try hanging from a tree branch. Now, try hanging from two tree branches with your arms horizontal. The arms to support a quadcopter can be much heavier than the single connection to a main rotor. * Third, sending power from your engine to the rotors is hard. Doing it for a quadcopter is complicated for an engine, so we usually use electric motors. Wires are simpler. That requires powerful, **lightweight** aerospace-grade electric motors which literally don't exist. Siemens is working on some, so is (was?) ThinGap. We're just starting to get ones big enough for manned multicopters. * Fourth, safety. When a helicopter loses power, it can perform an \"autorotation\" to effectively parachute to the ground. This is much easier to do with a single, large rotor than multiple small ones. Quadcopters trying to autorotate hit the ground too fast and go splat. This is why the Bell Nexus multirotor transport concept uses 6 rotors. A quadcopter can't fly on 3 motors. A hexacopter can fly safely to the ground on 5. As it turns out, there are a number of other, more technical reasons, too (though rpm vs pitch control is not one of them), but these four are enough. The third reason being close to solved is a big part of why lots of designs are popping up. I would *never* step foot in an ehang.",
"Larger propellers use less energy for thrust. If two small propellers create the same amount of thrust as a single large one, the large one will be using less energy. As you scale it up, the logical conclusion is to use one big propeller to create all the thrust.",
"URL_0 Workhorse is working on an 8 rotor (4 sets of inline rotors) helicopter. I've been following this for a while, it looks like they've reached manned testing.",
"Quads rely on very rapid changes in motor rpm to control the aircraft. This is accomplished with electric motors. No other type of propulsion can reach as quickly. As a result, quadcopters use batteries and are thus limited in flight time. A 30ish minute flight is about all you can expect of batteries before you have to land and change them. If more or bigger batteries were used to try and extend the flight time, the weight of the aircraft becomes prohibitive. This works fine for the type of work being done by most drones but is not ideal for manned flight. If a way could be found to provide enough electricity for much longer flights and the \"refueling\" issue addressed, or a propulsion system that could rival the response time of electric motors but does not rely on electricity could be developed, then you'd probably see a surge in manned quadcopters or higher (octocopters, etc). More motors means redundancy and more safety.",
"Geometry does not favor medium-large quadcopters in certain ways. The things that people are saying about the complications and control issues are all quite correct, but all those things can be overcome with technology. But four rotors of equal \"surface area\" of one large rotor are going to have to have a bigger overall footprint than one large rotor. And the body of the copter will have to be equally widened, to accommodate four axes. So given the control problems and the geometry problems, single rotor helicopters will probably always be better UP TO THE LIMIT THAT A SINGLE ROTOR CAN SUPPORT. We've long since reached the size and speed limits of single rotor helicopters, because single rotors have their own geometry problems, mostly concerning the rotor speed versus the speed of sound. So the focus on quadcopters will probably be making normal sized ones as technology test beds, then jumping immediately to these crazy enormous monsters that dwarf single rotor stuff in size and lift capacity.",
"Two reasons: 1. They aren't actually more stable 2. Cost and efficiency Without going into the physics in detail because ELI5, quadcopters aren't actually more inherently stable. They just have advantages for very small platforms and electric motors. It really all comes down to how wings work - remember, a rotor is nothing more than a rapidly-moving wing. As a wing gets bigger, the lift it produces increases with its *area*, but its weight increases with *volume*. That means weight is growing at a power of three while lift is growing at a power of two. So tiny wings have much more lift for their weight, and don't have to rely on expensive composites. As a result, they can use simple but heavy over-the-counter batteries instead of the explosive hydrocarbon fuels full-size aircraft require. This makes small aircraft much cheaper and simpler to make and operate. As a result, in a handheld quadcopter, each rotor can be powered by its own simple electric motor, which in turn is powered by batteries. To do the same thing for a manned quadcopter, you'd need four internal combustion engines, with all of the weight and fuel that translates into. Obviously, no one is going to do that, so instead, you'd have one or two engines, with a hideously complex transmission to power all the rotors. Or...you could just use the current system.",
"For Quadcoptors to fly correctly, they need instant torque, which can only be provided by special electric engines. These use batteries, which are a lot less energy-dense than gasoline. A traditional helicoptor has the much more efficient fuel, but a combustion engine is incapable of providing instant torque and starting/stopping. So in other words, if we had much better/efficient batteries, then we would have full size quad coptors.",
"[ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) & #x200B; [ URL_1 ]( URL_1 ) & #x200B; People are experimenting, it will be done one day you can now, if you want to tinker and take on some personal risk & #x200B;",
"[ URL_0 ]( URL_0 ) hows Uber doin it?",
"They do have one. It was revieled at ces 2019. URL_0 Dang u automod this answers the question!",
"[Oh you mean like this one, being shown this week at the North American International Auto Show?]( URL_0 )",
"One of the biggest problems with scaling is due to what's known as the square-cube law. Basically what this says is that as you scale up, some properties, such as weight, increase with the cube of the scale factor. Others, such as area, scale with the square of the area. The amount of power required to lift a vehicle is proportional to the weight^1.5 / rotorArea^0.5. As you scale up a given design by scale factor \"s\", the weight increases by s^3 and the rotor area increases by s^2. This means that the power increases by (s^3 )^1.5 / (s^2 )^0.5 = s^3.5. Since 3.5 is greater than 3, what this tells us is that the power increases more quickly than the weight increases. As a result, since the amount of fuel stored onboard also scales with volume (or s^3 ), as you scale up, your fuel will last less and less time. Bigger - > much heavier - > even more power - > less time flying",
"First you need to know the differences in the designs between quad copters and helicopters. Helicopters are designed to have a constant rotor speed, and change the pitch of their rotor blades in different ways to control the way the helicopter flies. In quad copters, the pitch of the blades is fixed, so the only way to control the quadcopter is by varying the speed of the blades. Varying rotor speed is pretty easy on small quad copters but as it scales up, it becomes more difficult due to the weight of batteries, or if you’re using jet engines, due to the time it takes for the engines to spool up. There’s also the matter of safety. In a helicopter, of the engine quits, a helicopter can autorotate. In a quad copter, if one of the four motors quits, you essentially have to shut down the opposite motor to maintain any semblance of control, and I could be wrong on this point, but I’m fairly certain there’s no way a conventional quad copter would be stable only running two motors. A quad copter could be designed with some sort of variable transmission that drives all four rotors from a single or multiple engines, but you end up with the same concerns... what if the drive shaft fails? And with this design style, the usable load of a quad copter would be minuscule.",
"Most of the answers here so far touch on the issue but don't correctly answer the question. Firstly the advantage of quadcopter is that they actually are less stable but more maneuverable than single rotor helicopters so the question is a little misguided. Basically the more rotors you have the more independent control you can have and the more maneuverable you can be. The reason quadcopter seam more stable is that they have electronic stability control while single rotor helicopters tend to be stable enough to be controlled directly by humans without needing electronic stability augmentation but if they were equipped with similar system they could be just as stable. Secondly the primary reason why larger rotorcraft have fewer but bigger rotors is related to efficiency above all else. In smaller quadcopter the maneuverability is a worthwhile tradeoff for reduced efficiency and range but in larger vehicles speed and range are much more important than maneuverability. Think of it like this, if I gave you an hour to empty a bathtub filled with water and the choice between using a shovel and spoon you would of course choose the shovel over the spoon. Similarly the bigger a rotor blade is the more air you can move at a time and the more efficient you will be. Last but not least if you did choose to build a large multi rotor, while they would look reasonably similar they would have to work fundamentally differently from small quadcopters. Small quadcopter depend on being able to rapidly change the speed their rotors spin for control. The bigger the rotors are the more powerful the engine has to be in comparison to the vehicle to achieve similar speed changes as the quadcopter does with its small blades. Eventually the engines required would become so big and heavy that that most of the vehicle would have to be engine. As a result you would need to change the control system to be more similar to how a single rotor helicopter works with constant rotor speeds that you can steer. This would make the rotors far more complex than the simple ones on quadcopters eliminating this advantage of simplicity that they would have. & #x200B; There are some other things like for example efficiency of scale when it comes to engines that favor fewer larger engines rather than many smaller engines but these are the main ones. TL;DR 1. helicopters are more stable but less maneuverable than quadcopters actually 2. single large rotors are more efficient than many small rotors. 3. if you did it they would be more like four bladed chinooks than quadcopters. & #x200B;"
],
"score": [
8158,
300,
167,
138,
82,
57,
41,
33,
18,
12,
12,
7,
7,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/nexus"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://sureflyaero.com/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI2j4KEPQI4"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/WpQVDiRiFfg?start=31"
],
[
"https://www.gpsworld.com/bell-helicopter-unveils-full-scale-air-taxi-at-ces-2019/"
],
[
"https://twitter.com/NAIASDetroit/status/1085596069097025536"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
aia6qn | How de we sent pictures all the way from other planets without losing any data and still get the full picture? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eem6p7s"
],
"text": [
"For one, the devices in question are using a dedicated high strength signal/channel, not a shared network like the internet or your cell phone. But more importantly, they also don;t send just one copy of the data in question. They send multiple copies along with parity data so that anything that might be lost in transit can be rebuilt from another copy or the parity data"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
altgib | How do you programm a computer without a computer? (e.g. first computer) | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efgu4ym"
],
"text": [
"The first computers were operated with switches. Those switches were manually flipped to indicate the input into the computer. Later on there were things like memory which allowed a set of switches to be set, a button pressed to enter them into a \"register\" or set of memory values, then the switches flipped to another set of values and entered into a different memory register. That quickly became tedious so later innovations included easier ways to enter binary values such as punch cards where holes or lack of holes indicated binary digits, and strips of tape with holes similarly indicating binary settings."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
dtpi6u | Why do some human hairs stop growing at a certain length but others seem to grow indefinitely? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f6y2mb2",
"f6y6ccv",
"f6yp98r",
"f6yumh2",
"f6yu4mq",
"f6ys8na",
"f6yaymx",
"f6yy2xr"
],
"text": [
"Not all hairs are created equally. Most have a maximum length they can achieve before regular wear-and-tear causes them to fall off. Arm hairs will stop growing after a couple of months, whereas the hair on the head grows for a few years before it stops. Hair growth occurs in phases. The first phase is called the *anagen* phase, and it's the only time that hair actively grows. How long your own anagen phase is will be dependent on your genes. This is why some people just can't grow beards, or can't ever seem to get their hair as long as they want it to be. The typical anagen phase for a healthy adult for head-hair is between 2 and 6 years, long enough to grow around 1 to 3 feet. The typical anagen phase for arm hair is between 3 and 8 weeks, maxing it out at one or two inches. Once the anagen phase is over, it enters into the *catagen* phase. All the growing is done, but you might actually gain a little bit of length hear as the follicle pushes the hair out before it begins to grow another strand of hair. After catagen comes *telogen*, the resting phase, where the follicle sits dormant for a while (up to several months). This is when the old, dead hair falls off/gets pushed out. After that, it goes back to the anagen phase. And thankfully, all of this is staggered all over our (human) bodies. At any given moment, some of our hair is in any one of the three phases. Whereas for animals like long-furred dogs or sheep, it all happens at at the same time in the form of summer/winter shedding.",
"Your hair grows in cycles. The max length of the hair on any specific part of your body basically tells you how long the growing cycle is for those hair follicles. When the cycle is over, the hair will fall out. Every follicle has its own cycle, they are not in sync with each other, so you don't notice that they are all falling out eventually. For example arms and legs have a very short cycle while your head has a very long cycle, and then there's everything in between like that one random long hair that you find on your ear.",
"When I’m stressed I pull out beard and eyebrow hairs...to the point that there are bald patches...goes in phases and SEEMS to always come back Will I ever kill the hair follicle or whatever?",
"The top comment is a great answer. I just wanted to add that your body has different types of hair. Indeterminate and determinate. Indeterminate is the hair on your head. It can keep growing as long as it's in the right phase. Determinate hair is the hair everything else. Your genes tell it what length it should be and when to stop. For example your eyebrows are determinate so they don't get so long to cover your eyes.",
"My husband has an 11cm long back hair - just one and it's grey. The rest of his back is relatively hairless. If it is pulled out it just grows back again over time. We have no idea why the alpha hair grows so much longer than the rest.",
"I felt trigggered. My under arm hair is like singing \"grow, grow, grow\" and here I am shouting \"STOP, STOP, STOP!!!!\"",
"They don’t stop growing, the follicles have a loose hold on the hair so they release the hair after a time and start over....so they’re constantly falling out. They’re called guard hairs.",
"How does the hair know it's been cut? It grows from the follicle not from the end.. and it's built out of fibers and such so how would they even deliver the message to the base of the hair? Like grow more I have been cut? Also if it's by weight or something wouldn't putting your hair in a ponytail confused the process?"
],
"score": [
6113,
140,
48,
18,
11,
8,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
ebaegl | Why aren't illegal activities recorded in documentaries/youtube videos/any media prosecuted? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fb3gfzl",
"fb3uh3c",
"fb3sxwj",
"fb48xm8",
"fb461sg",
"fb46hy0",
"fb44so0",
"fb3s0dh",
"fb4dzu6",
"fb4e7kg",
"fb47ws2"
],
"text": [
"Science and reporting have an interesting relationship with lawbreaking and the law. Generally, scientists and filmmakers have to promise to keep secret the information of criminals that they record. In return, the criminals allow them to study and observe their practice. Meanwhile, law enforcement recognizes the fact that if they crack down on these criminals now, then they will refuse to cooperate with scientists and journalists in the future, which means police have less information to go off of. There was a high-profile case where this trust was violated and scientists were forced to surrender data on terrorists who had participated in a research study to the U.S. government. It is theorized that this event has seriously hindered our research of terrorism ever since.",
"I have irrefutable proof on film that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a mass murdering robot from the future. Why haven't the police arrested him? Admitting something to a reporter is rarely, by itself, suitable grounds for prosecution. All your lawyer has to say is \"he was lying because he wanted to be on TV\".",
"> How is this not seen by police who then take action, knowing the man's name? In order to be convicted of a crime the prosecutor has to prove that there was a discrete violation of the law. This means that they need to be able to point to a specific act that occurred. A generalized \"I break the law\" isn't good enough. That being said, if someone admits that they are *currently* breaking the law, that admission can be used as probable cause to get a search warrant. The search warrant can then be used to prove the specific act. But I think a lot of people don't really understand the point of most crimes. Most minor crimes, like drug crimes, don't exist because the government cares about stopping them, rather, they give the police a pretext to get people who are committing more serious crimes off the streets. If you've ever been the victim of a break in, robbery, or assault what probably happened was that you reported the crime to the police and were told \"don't expect this to ever be solved.\" The reason that crimes like that don't get solved is that to convict someone of a crime like that you generally need a witness who recognizes the perpetrator and who is also willing to testify in court. Finding a witness who recognized the perpetrator is hard enough. On the off chance that you do find one, getting them to testify is borderline impossible. This isn't a snitches get stitches thing, but rather stems from the fact that its costly to testify. Doing so requires you to take at least one full day off work, possibly more if you get deposed before trial. Then you need to drive downtown and pay for a full day of parking. All for something that probably doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form. What this means is that very few crimes are actually solvable, but that doesn't mean the police don't know who is committing them. The police actually have a pretty good idea of who the criminals in the community are, they just can't *prove* it. What they can do is follow them around and pull over their car for a minor traffic offense. As it turns out, the people who are committing more serious crimes tend to be committing those crimes to pay for a drug habit, which means that they're usually carrying drugs around. And those drugs generally get discovered during a traffic stop. That drug find allows the police to get those people off the streets. Maybe not for as long as they would go to jail if convicted of the other stuff they were doing, but its better than nothing. If they're on probation drugs are an even more powerful vehicle for putting them in jail because if you're on probation the police can search your house whenever they want. So if the police hear that someone on probation is breaking into cars, or whatever, then getting them off the street is generally just a matter of sending their probation officer to search their house. Cockfighting is a bit different in that it its more of a public nuisance than drug use is, but again its a pretextual crime. The police don't really care about cockfighting, but its an obnoxious activity that neighbors will frequently report. And, more importantly, the people engaging in cockfighting are typically also engaged in other crimes. But how does this all affect people who admit to crimes on TV? If you're someone who is known to the police and you admit to be actively involved in a criminal activity you can expect that the police will use that to get a search warrant. But if you're just \"some dude\" then nobody cares. The police aren't generally in the business of going out and rounding up everyone they see rolling a joint on TV.",
"\"Because the prosecutors allow it.\" ELI35: Here's a great example: David Gregory, an NBC host, was having a segment on his show after the Sandy Hook shooting. During the show, on national TV, broadcast from Washington D.C., he [held up a 30-round magazine]( URL_0 ) that a staffer had bought earlier that day. Now, that's specifically illegal, as referenced by the Attorney General of DC's office: > It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to “possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm” or loaded. Nevertheless, when it came time to actually charge him with possession of a highly illegal and regulated device: > OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23, 2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust. So that's what it is. Even though he's committed a clearly illegal fact, on tape, with zero defense, he's not charged with a crime due to prosecutorial discretion. Which, honestly, is usually a good thing. There are plenty of reasons *not* to charge someone with a crime. Law is black and white, but lots of crimes are more of a gray area. And, in this example, it's probably a *good* thing that a reporter didn't get sent to jail or prison for this incident. It does nobody any good.",
"Well, that 19 year old that filmed herself throwing a chair off her condo balcony was certainly charged by Toronto police over the incident.",
"I once saw a video on people making an actual gun (illegally) like 5 years ago. then I saw one of some guys actually making coke (the drug... ) with those bright lamps and stuff. I didn't know why the film makers didn't call the police, but apparently the film makers have to make a promise saying they won't call the police, or something along those lines. and that makes them trusted, so they could film other similar things using that trust",
"Because the police/prosecutors didnt do the work to properly charge you. A lot of the suspects on Datelines \"To Catch A Predator\" were never charged as the courts saw it as the show was doing all the work, and entrapping people. The cops were there simply to slap cuffs on anyone that came by. That's not doing the job correctly, and violating people's rights.",
"Never ceases to amaze me how media can find anyone, interview them etc yet cops spend years following",
"Well, if the illegal activities happen where I live (North Minneapolis) there is a super simple answer to this question. These illegal activities are not prosecuted because the police are worthless. In North Minneapolis, I was in a minor car accident. Someone rear ended me. They driver let me take a photo of himself, his license, and his car, then he just drove off before police got there. When police finally arrived, I gave them all the photos. They said the driver was driving on a suspended license, in a car that was registered to someone else, and they won't be doing anything about it because \"they didn't see it happen.\" Sorry, I am a little salty about law enforcement not enforcing laws.",
"It's also worth pointing out that its never going to be a person in charge who accepts to be on the video, its always low level people doing low level shit that agree to be in these videos. You never get reporters going with a hitman to show them how he does it, or talking to a mafia boss showing you how he runs things, and torturing people. You do however get people willing to talk about how they sell meth or run a dog fighting ring. Gordon ramsey did that thing on cocaine which is a good example of what i mean. In that program we got a talk with a dude in the jungle who mashes up the leaves \\[and how he does it which is common knowledge anyways\\], some stuff with the police and a chat with some alleged sicarios with masks on, but all they did was stand there holding some 9mm's, trying to look hard. You also get a lot of criminals willing to talk about their crimes after serving their punishment, or folks willing to talk about it after they left the life and stuff. But its all just hearsay unless it can be proven.",
"Sometimes it's across portraying the events, because of this, it's hard to prove of something is acting or not. An assault case (woman slapped another woman) was thrown out because it happened on camera and there was no proof that this wasn't scripted for the particular TV show."
],
"score": [
2340,
365,
107,
75,
45,
19,
17,
15,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/david-gregorys-high-capacity-magazine/2012/12/26/5b590a72-4faf-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_video.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
amqxrk | How do the sensor bars at the entrances and exits of shops work? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"efnwi3f"
],
"text": [
"It emmits a laser beam (usually IR) that reflects of the surrounding structure, the sensor picks up the reflection (the echo so to say) if something enters the area the echo changes and the sensor realises it and opens the door"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
apw1gq | why does it seem like cars move in packs? | I can understand that stop lights can create groups of cars, but I’ve noticed this phenomenon even on highways where you’d think cars would spread out evenly. However, it still seems like groups of cars form. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"egbjh0u",
"egbjhld",
"egbjf6o",
"egbnt96",
"egbjftk"
],
"text": [
"Slowness Waves. It turns out that it only takes one slow car to generate a traffic pack. They effect even cars in the adjacent lanes, because people don't like to go too fast past another car. Even if the slow car speeds up, the slowness wave (or sometimes called a [Traffic Snake]( URL_0 )) remains, moving slowly in the opposite direction to the cars.",
"Consider a bunch of cars driving along a road with almost the same speed, some slightly faster and some slightly slower. The faster cars will tend to approach the slower cars from the rear but, being only slightly faster, not choose to speed up to pass but rather slightly slow to match speed. Repeat a few times and you have a clump.",
"its a phenomenon caused by, as you said, stop lights and stuff. also something as simple as 1 person hitting their brakes. the person behind them hits their brakes, and the person behind them hits their brakes.. etc etc. this is why traffic jams happen and can last for hours. other reasons are stuff like during heavy storms you tend to see people sticking together.. theres 1 person in the front with a good truck that isnt really intimidated by the elements, and a bunch of people kinda following behind them in a group so they can feel more comfortable on the road. also i think a lot of people like to just \"go with traffic\" to follow (or not follow) the speed limit.. this leads to people sticking together. i dono, i can tell you that there are entire fields of jobs that study this stuff though. where i went to college, traffic engineering was a degree that you could get. it was a bunch of smart asian kids",
"People who want to go 70mph tend to get stuck behind people who want to go 60mph, and form a big clump.",
"[This previous post]( URL_0 ) has over 1800 comments."
],
"score": [
10,
7,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dfqns/eli5_why_do_cars_travel_in_packs_on_the_highway/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
b85vrx | Do our brains have infinite storage for memories of will we run out of room eventually? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ejw0lw1"
],
"text": [
"Great minds think alike. I've sailed far and returned ta port with this booty. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Does the human brain have a capacity limit? Is there a limit to the amount of knowledge, memory, and data a single human brain can contain? ]( URL_5 ) ^(_28 comments_) 1. [ELI5:What is the limit of our brain? ]( URL_4 ) ^(_4 comments_) 1. [ELI5: How do we remember everything? Doesn't our brain get overloaded with information? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_13 comments_) 1. [Is there a limit to how much information a human brain can hold? ]( URL_1 ) ^(_2 comments_) 1. [ELI5:Can our brains run out of memory? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_._) 1. [ELI5:How are memories stored in the human brain? Is there a theoretical limit to the amount of information that can be stored? ]( URL_3 ) ^(_8 comments_)"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kq7wk/eli5can_our_brains_run_out_of_memory/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/aueyn7/is_there_a_limit_to_how_much_information_a_human/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ut0ux/eli5_how_do_we_remember_everything_doesnt_our/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f3bg8/eli5how_are_memories_stored_in_the_human_brain_is/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x3pj3/eli5what_is_the_limit_of_our_brain/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hjz0h/eli5_does_the_human_brain_have_a_capacity_limit/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
bawhab | Why do soap operas have a certain look, different from other TV shows? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ekeh0qz",
"ekehxog"
],
"text": [
"Two main reasons. The first is that they use high quality cameras and high frame rates (~60) while the norm in film is about 24. Not everyone likes the difference because while the higher frame rate is technically better it reminds people of the second factor, which is... The scenes are shot with even lighting from all sides. In movies there is a lot of care taken in setting up lighting for every shot. A character might get a main highlight from one angle and then a softer, dimmer fill light to show what would otherwise be in shadow. Also a light would be placed behind them to accentuate the edges of their form. When they change positions the lighting along their path needs to be designed in a similar way and that means the actors need to be careful that they move precisely where and when they are supposed to, and there is a bunch of work and time setting up and breaking down the lighting between scenes. Quickly produced soap operas don't have time or budget for that so they light everything from all angles so they don't need to change things between scenes. The problem is that gives a characteristic look to the end result, something people come to associate with a less polished end product.",
"Great minds think alike. Ahoy, matey! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why do soap operas look and feel so different than other types of TV shows? ]( URL_6 ) ^(_6 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why does it seem like soap operas are filmed with different cameras than regular shows? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_48 comments_) 1. [ELI5:Why do soap operas look \"different\"? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_3 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why did \"soap operas\" always seem to have a higher definition picture than regular TV programming? ]( URL_4 ) ^(_ > 100 comments_) 1. [ELI5: What causes the difference in \"look\" between say a soap opera and a feature film? ]( URL_3 ) ^(_14 comments_) 1. [ELI5: why does motion in soap operas and home videos look different than motion in movies and tv shows? ]( URL_1 ) ^(_3 comments_) 1. [ELI5: How come I can always quickly tell a soap opera is on TV from even a single frame? ]( URL_5 ) ^(_14 comments_)"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b831f/eli5why_do_soap_operas_look_different/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aermi/eli5_why_does_motion_in_soap_operas_and_home/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25swp6/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_soap_operas_are_filmed/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3shntk/eli5_what_causes_the_difference_in_look_between/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pv3xg/eli5_why_did_soap_operas_always_seem_to_have_a/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30e2o4/eli5_how_come_i_can_always_quickly_tell_a_soap/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c19b8/eli5_why_do_soap_operas_look_and_feel_so/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
bgipdq | How do websites know when you are using an adblocker? | I remember a few years ago, I would be able to use my adblock without getting any pop ups telling me to turn it off, but as of late I see an increasing number of websites telling me to turn it off before proceeding? How do they know? Isnt an adblocker only on the client's screen? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ell4e92",
"ell4p37",
"ell4zgo",
"ellh2j9",
"ellnhls",
"elm0uk8",
"ellkjm8",
"ellggsc",
"elm5sax",
"ellf2k6",
"elluo14",
"elljowv",
"ellgday",
"elm37th",
"ellhhrr",
"elm285x",
"elmgjtx",
"ellhefr"
],
"text": [
"In simple terms, they attempt to create an object which adblock blocks, then they run a script to detect whether the object exists or not. If they can't find the object they know you are running a blocker.",
"Another way some sites do this is to layer the ad over the top of the message asking you to turn off the blocker. This way, if the ad loads properly, you wouldn't see the message under it.",
"Well you're still running a script that does something to your browser, in general everything your browser \"knows\" is data you can check. So if there's a script running on said website that \"sees\" the changes adblocker makes to your browser they can basically tell a script on this website: IF you see THIS happening THEN you show a window AND you keep showing this window UNLESS you don't see THIS anymore. Sounds a bit stupid and it's a bit more complex to make it work but thats basically what you'd do to make something like this happen.",
"If you open a paper magazine, there are ads on a lot of the pages. The only way to not see the ads would be ripping those pages out. There's nothing the publisher can do to stop you from doing that, but you'd be seeing the ads before ripping them out anyway. On a web site, a computer somewhere else sends a \"recipe\" to your computer to tell your computer what to show on your screen. It goes something like this: \"on this part of the page, show this text; on this part, show this image; on this part, show this ad.\" If you tell your computer you don't like ads (by installing an ad blocker), it will ignore any parts of the recipe that tell it to show an ad. It's like you're paying a friend to rip the ads out of the magazine before you read it. The publishers don't like that, because then they can't show you the ads, and they lose money. So they changed the recipe a bit. Now the recipe says, \"in that part of the page where we already told you to show an ad, check if there is actually an ad. If there is, cool. If there isn't, then show this message instead.\" Essentially the recipe is checking itself to see if it was made \"correctly,\" the way the publisher intended it to be. It's generally easier for an ad blocker to block an \"show an ad\" part of the recipe than it is to stop the recipe from checking itself to see if it was made correctly. The primary reason is that almost all ads are delivered by certain computers that are known to do nothing but show ads, so your computer knows to ignore anything it sees coming from those certain computers. That would be like you being allergic to walnuts, so you decide to not add any to your brownies even though the recipe calls for it. Finding a self-checking recipe, on the other hand, involves extra steps that are complicated to design and easy to thwart, especially because you don't want your computer to accidentally ignore an essential (non-ad) part of the recipe.",
"Adblocker is only on the client's screen. Meaning, they ship a JavaScript script with their website that shows the nagscreen and hides the content. However, this also means that your browser still downloaded the entire site. And you can easily reverse the effects of the JavaScript that messed up your site with the nagscreen, if you know a bit about Html/CSS: Modern Browsers let you directly edit what is shown. For example, in Firefox, right click and inspect the background of the nag screen. It will take you to the html code of the site you are currently watching. Delete the element in the tree (by selecting it and pressing \"delete\"), then go up the element tree and continue to delete elements until the nag screen is gone. But the main content is still cut off and not scrollable. That is simply done by the script adding the property \"overflow: hidden\" on the main body element and the one above or below that. Scroll up in the element tree until you find the body node, click on it and disable the \"overflow: hidden\" property on the right side of the window. Then go up and/or down a level and disable the other \"overflow: hidden\" property on the other element. And now your site is fully functional, without disabling your adblocker.",
"I just stop going to every site that does this. They should've been happy with my traffic but they squandered it =D",
"Related question, kinda: How do compainies know you viewed their email? For example, i've gotten emails from a credit card saying that i needed to verify i was still using the account. Once i open the email, id get an immediate follow up email saying it was confirmed i was using that email address. Seems shady companies get notified when an email is open.",
"Ad blocker browser extensions also have specific IDs, and the browsers themselves expose methods to see if an extension is installed by ID.",
"Server: Puts ad333542.jpg on webpage that user 333542 asked for. User: does not download ad333542.jpg from server. Server: UfokingWOTM8?",
"Many, many ways. The ELI5 is that they have different \"tricks\" to detect if their ads are not shown. If an ad is blocked, they can see that change being made and a message pops up asking you to disable it",
"I take an odd pleasure in blocking those pop popups, even if the page refuses to work once it's gone.",
"The website is a flash light shining at a wall. The ad blocker is your hand making shadow puppets that block out ads from showing on the wall. & #x200B; The website looks at the wall to see if there are shadow puppets.",
"> Isnt an adblocker only on the client's screen? Yes, but the web page is also on the client's screen, executing code (javascript) on the client. In the simplest terms, that javascript code has access to your browser and can tell if ads are being blocked between the client (browser) and the ad server.",
"I use a PiHole on my network, it's a DNS sinkhole, as far as page scripts are concerned, the ad servers are unreachable, so far I have not had any adblock detection scripts pick it up. You need a Raspberry Pi and some knowledge of networking to get it set up, or I believe there is a version of it that will run on a normal PC. I have the alternate DNS set to Quad9 versus the default Comcast DNS servers for further protection. [ URL_0 ]( URL_0 )",
"Heres a fix. Use uBlock origin as your adblocker and then add nano defender aswell. Then follow the instructions on nanos defenders chrome store page. This assuming that you are using chrome and not firefox, which would be a little bit different. After this the websites will no longer know.",
"An ad blocker can't fundamentally tell whether something is an ad or not. It can only guess, based on filenames, etc. What the developers do is create something on the page that isn't visually shown to the user, but which the adblocker is likely to guess is an ad. Then the webpage detects whether or not it can find if that object was loaded. If it isn't, it knows that an adblocker is active, and it can do what it wants with that information.",
"Having had to deal with a zealous anti-adblock website operator, there are many many ways. Most of them have to do with the fact that the adblocker is modifying the source of the page. The anti-adblock code can check for discrepancies after the page is fully loaded and the adblock has run, or even using a timer to check later. One already mentioned a lot is checking for an object. One is hashing (using a function to turn data of any length into a string of very short length) the source of the website and checking if the hash matches a precomputed hash of the unmodified source. Another is checking the time the page takes to render. Above mentioned guy would dissect every adblock workaround to add his own workaround to the site, so I'm definitely missing/forgetting a few. I believe an adblock expert posted a full rundown of the battle at some point.",
"You see everything on a website is created by a set of words called code, code is how we create programs in a sense. So if you think of it like a story code would be the words that make up sentences. The scripts would be complete sentences that make up pages. The program would be the entire story. So add blocker would be like an eraser getting rid of scripts (sentences) in a story. The program thats run on the website would check for specific sentences that are missing from the story. Specifically theirs hundreds of ways to check. An example to check would be like a test on a story you'd get in elementary school. So you've supposedly as the student (user) read the story that was given by the teacher (program), but in your case you skimmed and just Wikipedia'd(adblocked) the plot so the story(webpage) you know is a summary of the story leaving out all the intricate details. Which would usually work for a test, as its not exactly practical for the (program) teacher to make you write out the entire book verbatim as your answer. Usually you'd get away with the wiki'd summary of the story you didn't read, but the problem is everyone in the entire class used the same exact wiki'd article (adlbocker) for their \"summaries\" of the story. So the teacher (program) checks for the specific wikipedia article and cross references it to the summaries of the story that are an exact copy. yeah i don't know if the example helped."
],
"score": [
8617,
1053,
197,
153,
105,
11,
11,
9,
8,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://pi-hole.net/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
bhyd2p | The folding paper thing. Where apparently if you fold a piece of paper 103 times it's thicker than the universe. I read this today and it doesn't make sense to me. | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"elwmyk1",
"elwmy04"
],
"text": [
"If you fold a piece of paper, it’s thickness is now equal to 2 pieces. Fold it again and it’s now 4 pieces thick. It doubles every time. When you fold it 103 times, it’s thickness is 2^103 = 10 Million Trillion Trillion pieces thick. If each piece is the 0.1mm thick, the total thickness of that folded paper would be 1 trillion trillion km, which is indeed thicker than the universe is wide. However, it is impossible to fold the paper that much. Each time you fold the paper, it’s area decreases by half. Eventually the area of the paper will become so small, it becomes impossible to interact with it. Assuming you start with a humongous 1km x 1km sheet of paper, folding it 103 times will result in the length of the paper becoming. 44.4 picometers wide, or half the size of an atom.",
"Great minds think alike. I've sailed far and returned ta port with this booty. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Is it REALLY impossible to fold a piece of paper more than 8 times? ]( URL_6 ) ^(_9 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why can paper only be folded 7 times, no matter the size of paper? ]( URL_1 ) ^(_18 comments_) 1. [ELI5: How can a piece of paper folded 103 times be larger than the observable universe? ]( URL_2 ) ^(_._) 1. [ELI5: Why you can't fold a standard sheet of paper more than 7 times ]( URL_4 ) ^(_9 comments_) 1. [ELI5:how does a piece of paper that is folded 50 times reach the sun? ]( URL_0 ) ^(_9 comments_) 1. [ELI5: How can folding a paper 42 times reach the moon? ]( URL_3 ) ^(_18 comments_) 1. [ELi5: how would folding a piece of paper 42 times make it reach the moon? ]( URL_5 ) ^(_19 comments_)"
],
"score": [
10,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/373o9w/eli5how_does_a_piece_of_paper_that_is_folded_50/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8w8rbo/eli5_why_can_paper_only_be_folded_7_times_no/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7frj2o/eli5_how_can_a_piece_of_paper_folded_103_times_be/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20xmib/eli5_how_can_folding_a_paper_42_times_reach_the/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4akwrg/eli5_why_you_cant_fold_a_standard_sheet_of_paper/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aep56/eli5_how_would_folding_a_piece_of_paper_42_times/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vyain/eli5_is_it_really_impossible_to_fold_a_piece_of/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
clqxx2 | What exactly is glass? How is it clear? Could you 3d print glass? | Is glass a naturally occuring thing? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"evx8r9w",
"evx9g2z"
],
"text": [
"Glass is typically comprised mainly of silica sand, which is just ground or otherwise broken down quartz crystals. Quartz itself is clear, and when you see a large piece of quartz, and cloudiness is either from impurities or flaws in the crystal structure that refract light making it appear less transparent. Theoretically you could 3D print with glass, but it would be a pretty specialized printer that you would need. It would have to melt the materials, close to 3000°F, and then it would have to maintain a high temperature for all of the glass you've already printed to prevent the glass from cooling too unevenly and cracking. The main problem with the printer would likely be that it would be difficult to support the glass as you print it, it would still be in a liquid state and would try to settle with gravity. This is why glass blowers have to keep their blown objects constantly moving and rotating so that all sides deform as evenly as possible. And finally, yes, [glass can be created in nature]( URL_0 ), the only example I am familiar with is when lightning strikes on a sandy area. But, it isn't glass like we think of glass, because it's not all melted evenly, and so it's usually more like a fused chunk of sand than a glass window pane.",
"Others have pointed out how glass is made, but maybe I can help with the rest of your question. Glass is something called an \"amorphous solid,\" that sounds complex, but isn't. If you take a sheet of stainless steel, and look at it under an electron microscope you'd see that the atoms are arranged in a fairly regular crystal lattice. Because of the way that a material like that is structured, and because of its electronic properties (as in, how the electrons in it in behave) light will be rapidly absorbed or reflect near the surface. In glass however, there is no such regular order, and the electronic structure is such that light *can* pass through it. Of course this is not the only kind of substance light can pass through, but I can't think of a way to ELI5 exactly why that is. I can give you an example like ALON (ALuminum OxyNitride), which is a crystalline solid and quite transparent in the wavelengths we use to see. That last bit is the key; it isn't generally transparent the way glass is, it's really just transparent in a broad section of the visible spectrum. As for naturally occurring, yes. Glass is routinely formed from volcanic activity; you've heard of Obsidian right? That's volcanic glass. You can also find glass formed when lightning strikes sand of the correct composition, as a result of meteorite/asteroid impacts, etc. And yes, you can 3D print glass, and it has been done before."
],
"score": [
34,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/fulgurites-when-lightning-strikes-sand-magic-is-formed"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
cmmnps | When you hear something like "The Dow is down 500 points" what does this mean? Specifically the "points" part | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ew3ykn3",
"ew49w4b",
"ew3bdka",
"ew48s4z",
"ew3xg69",
"ew3c91d",
"ew42sx5",
"ew44y4v",
"ew3y01y",
"ew43j43",
"ew580b9",
"ew48wop"
],
"text": [
"Lot of mostly correct stuff below, but here's the ELI5 skinny: Over a hundred years ago, a guy named Dow came up with a concept of tracking \"the general market\", instead of each individual stock. He, along with a stats guy named Jones, created an index called the Dow Jones Transportation Index (DJT) in 1884 - this was a price-weighted index of (initially) nine railroads; eventually this grew to 20 companies in areas such as freight, airlines, etc. In 1896, they added the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) of 30 major industrial companies. (The industrials are what most people think of when they refer to the \"Dow\".) Finally, the Dow-Jones Utility Average of 15 major utilities - electricity, gas, etc. - was created as well. Together, they form the DJ65, although that is not followed as closely as the DJIA. Each index was an attempt to gauge the overall movement of the market. For example, suppose Exxon is up $3, but GM is down $1.50, while Caterpillar is up $0.75 but Apple is down $1. Did the overall market go up or down that day? All stock indices attempt to answer that question. The Dow is considered the narrowest of these indices, as it only includes 30 stocks, whereas the S & P500 contains 500 stocks, and the Russell 2000 and Wilshire 5000 contain even more. One of the tricks to keeping the index meaningful is adjusting for stock activity (like splits), and for corporate activity (many companies have been removed from, and added to, the Dow over the years). For example, Apple splits their stock 2:1, so what was a $100 stock is now $50. How does this get reflected in the average? The DowJones people came up with a mathematical technique to adjust for this called the Dow divisor, which is too far beyond ELI5 to explain here. In addition, some companies fail. For a long time, Woolworth's was a member of the Dow, but in the early 1990's, after many terrible years, it was removed from the DJIA, and replaced by Wal-Mart. Similar fates have befallen such former stars as Western Electric, Bethlehem Steel, US Steel, and International Harvester. Each time a company is added/removed from the list, the Dow is recalculated so that the effect of the change isn't noticeable. This allows us to use the index over the years. A fall of 500 points today is not the same event as a fall of 500 points in the 1960's, because the index is so much higher. In the 60's, the Dow was trying to top 1,000; today, it's about 25,000. A fall of 500 points in 1968 would have been 50% of the Dow's value, and would have been a catastrophe, but a fall of 500 points today is 2%, and while troubling, is not nearly as bad. In general, rising markets signal confidence in the economy and business; falling markets signal the opposite. But one day's movement is generally just noise; you need to look at longer trends to see what's happening.",
"PSA: The Dow is actually a pretty crappy gauge of the stock market. The only reasons why it still gets referenced are: 1) tradition and 2) Dow Jones owns one of the best financial news sources in the world (Wall Street Journal). It’s the WSJ’s one flaw, in my opinion. Better stock index: S & P 500, which is market cap weighted (instead of stupidly price weighted like the Dow). And the S & P 500 tracks the largest 500 stocks (instead of only 30 industrial stocks like the Dow). Even better stock index: Total US Stock index, like VTI for example (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF). This index includes essentially all US public stocks, so there are 3,600 companies in it instead of only 500 like the S & P 500 or 30 like the Dow. Even better stock index: Total WORLD Stock index, like VT for example (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF). This index includes essentially all public stocks in the world, so there are 8,300 companies in it instead of only US ones like VTI or only the large US ones like the S & P 500 or only a few large US industrials like the Dow. Context is key 🔑",
"The Dow is an index of the market. It indicates how the market as a whole on average is doing. The points is referring to the current Dow value. Let's say the Dow is 25,000 today but falls 500 points tomorrow. The Dow would then be at 24,500. This is a fall of approx 2%. The largest companies on the stock exchange make up the Dow. The company themselves did not lose 500 points. As companies are not valued in points but in dollars. On average across the board the largest companies lost 2% of their market value. This does not mean all companies lost share value, just on average across the board they lost 2%.",
"Sounds like the OP really wants to know what an INDEX is. I'm not a finance expert but maybe someone can build off of this: As people have said already, the Dow or other market \"indexes\" are an attempt to measure the health of the economy. They look at the performance of a group of stocks. The price of each company's stocks may go up or may go down independent of how other companies are doing. The index provides a big-picture look across multiple companies. If I asked you to give me a snap shot of how these companies are doing on a day-to-day basis, you might be tempted to give me the AVERAGE of all the companies' stock prices over each day. Like tracking the average price of milk/gallon over time. However, stock from company A is not the same as company B. When you buy stock in a company, you're actually buying something called a \"share\". Different companies have different number of shares. A share is very much what it sounds like; if I had a pie and I wanted to share it with multiple people, I'd cut it into several slices. But how many slices? Now if I wanted to sell a piece of that pie, how much would I sell it for? What's worse is that I can change not only the price per piece of pie, I can change the number of pieces (shares). Let's say there are other people selling pie, but some people have bigger pie, smaller pie, pies with more pieces, less pieces, and the prices per piece are all over the place because maybe apple pie is selling better than peach at this time of the year. Now I ask you to tell me how the pie market is doing, accounting for all of these differences. It probably seems like taking an average of the price/piece of pie doesn't really cut it. So instead you, you make a pie \"index\" which is just a fancy way of saying, you're looking at multiple VARIABLES or PROPERTIES of each pie provider, not just comparing price/pie. You take into account how large the pie is, how many pieces there are and how much people are willing to buy the pieces for. Maybe you can come up with some other useful properties to measure the health of the pie market. Then you take these variables from all of the major pie companies, put them into a fancy formula you've developed where you multiply things or divide things and at the end, you get a number. Though this number might have something called a \"unit\", like \"$/lb\", it's probably something very complicated and ugly. So you decide to make your pie index sound cooler, and you name the number that your formula spits out a \"point\". It sounds way better to say that the pie market has increased 10 pie points rather than 10 $/cubic-inches-of-pie/piece-of-pie (yuck). Lastly, let's say you were looking at 10 different pie providers for your index (even though there are many others who produce pie). Suddenly, peach pie--one of your 10 providers--goes out of business. If you took the average of share prices, this would be a HUGE deal. But you were smart and accounted for multiple variables which does something called NORMALIZING. This means, regardless of the price per piece of pie, you can swap pecan pie in for peach pie and your magical \"points\" aren't affected that much. This makes your pie index way cooler than a boring average! Fun fact, similar mathematical gymnastics (indexes) are used in science and engineering (but the units are different). // TL;DR: Indexes help compare the performance of dissimilar things. In the case of the economy, stocks from Company A are not the same as Company B so if you want to look at the performance of a market as a whole, you need to create an \"index\" which looks a many important properties of a stock. Because indexes look at many properties, the actual units of the index are complicated and \"points\" is used because it sounds better.",
"The Points are referring to the general dollar value of the stock based on how many people are trading it versus own it. And the Dow is just an average of all the stocks in its index, so if one company has a bad day, the Dow doesn't move much. If multiple companies in the Dow index have a bad day, the Dow suffers and its average moves down. While usually a sign of bad news, sometimes it is an overreaction where people sell to protect their investment but repurchase days later. So, the Dow could be down 789 points today, but by next week it has gone up 1500 and recovered all that was lost.",
"Dow Jones Industrial Average is a stock market index made up of 30 large companies in a variety of sectors (some examples are Apple, Home Depot, Johnson & Johnson, American Express), it’s used as a general gauge on the stock market. It has lately been trading around 26,000 points but today fell almost 800 points, or almost 3%, suggesting investors have strongly negative feelings toward recent Trump trade decisions and how those will impact the economy.",
"One thing that is kind of funny is that everyone will tell you that the S & P 500 is more relevant--and they are right, and this is something I've known for like 20 years--but I always look at the Dow first. If you follow baseball, the Dow is kind of like batting average--it's a benchmark that's been around a long time, but other far more useful measuring sticks have been developed since. And I still look at batting average first before looking at WAR or OPS. Old habits die hard.",
"You know how in Civilization games at a certain point you can see every civ's score giving you a general idea how everyone is doing? If suddenly every civ's score dropped like 50 points in one turn (which is unlikely but let's just say) then you know something really majorly f'd up just happened in the game.",
"**edit** This comment is NOT correct. Please ignore. Leaving the comment up so others might learn. Beginning of incorrect comment: A point is a dollar. When a stock is being traded at $5.00 per share on Monday, then on Tuesday it is being traded at $4.00 per share, that stock has gone down one point.",
"It's a barometer for the stock market. It's a small group of stocks that are meant to represent the stock market as a whole. This basket of stocks are blended into an average, and based on the movement of each of those stocks the Dow moves based on a weighted average. Without trying to sound like a crazy person: The headlines make it sound really great when you hear am absolute number \"500 points\" \"700 points!\", but in reality, you need to look at the percentage that it moves. 3% - while not minor - doesn't have the same \"oh shit!\" impact as 700 points.",
"* Take the 30 stocks that are in the Dow * Add up all the prices (if the Dow was made up of 2 stocks, stock A and B, with prices $1/share and $3/share, you would be at $4 on this step) * Divide by the Dow divisor. This is a number that can only be computed by historical averages, so it’s hard to pin down exactly how it’s calculated. For now, it’s roughly 0.14 The number you got is the Dow. Everyday the prices change, and the Dow divisor stays relatively the same. So when all the prices go up, the Dow goes up. The number the Dow increases by is the “points gained”.",
"You walk into a arcade game room full of pinball machines with different scores. A manager named Dow wants an idea how high all the high scores on his machines are at any given time. He compiles a list of his 30 most popular pinball machines and combines them into an index. Index like average (weighted) of the high scores of those 30 machines. He comes into work one day and all of a sudden, the index (average) of those machines is down 500 points b/c player's aren't playing and demanding refunds on the quarters they spent on the 30 machines. He exclaims \"OMG THE PLAYERS TODAY SUX!! Bringing my arcade average down puny noobs F\\*\\*\\*! Sh\\*t i'm losing money, my owners are going to be pissed.\" The next day he comes in and the index (average is up 1000 points, he exclaims \"BOO YEA worthless players finally improving. Hope they pump more quarters into those machines and keep setting new high scores. My owners gotta get paid so i can have a job.\" In real life terms, the Dow index being down 500 points just means more people are selling their stocks than people buying stocks for the 30 large revenue companies in the Dow Index. 500 points is nothing to be scared of. If it was 5000 i would be worried b/c when more people sell stocks than buy, it usually signals a recession coming. Quarters = money buying stocks. Owners = investors, pinball machines = companies stocks."
],
"score": [
5445,
199,
150,
31,
27,
23,
18,
5,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
cqfzhk | How can I dose off a few seconds after closing my eyes while on a bus/train home, yet if I crawl into bed as soon as I get home it takes more than ten minutes to fall asleep? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"eww4iny",
"eww57u6"
],
"text": [
"Much like a smartphone, your body will go to sleep when there are no new inputs. When you are on a bus, your senses will give you the same repetitive inputs. The streets will flow by, the AC and engine adds a constant white noise, you're seated and not moving, and the smell... well you hope the smell doesn't change. Any repetitive input going to your brain will eventually get ignored and your brain will start going into a low energy state. The fact that you fall asleep quickly when closing your eyes on a bus is because you were already been on the bus for a while and got used to all the repetitive sensory data. When you go to bed, you have a lot of new changes. You are lying down, you wear different clothes, you feel the pressure of your covers, you go from bright to dark, noisy to quiet. All of these are new sensory inputs that your brain needs to get used to before going to sleep. God forbid if your brain starts thinking about other things! Those 10 minutes to fall asleep on the bed is your brain getting used to the new senses of being in bed. One way to shortcut going to sleep is to be exhausted mentally and physically. Your brain will skip many steps and quickly activate sleep.",
"So I’ve actually read a bit about this because I’m a structural dynamicist (acoustic, shock, and vibration). From what I understand, our brains have low frequency delta and theta waves—something like 0.5 to 8 Hz. This frequency just so happens to correspond to automotive vibration. Ford even recognized this and built a baby vibrating car seat that mimics road vibration. This is why babies fall asleep during a drive. So in other words, driving can actually make you sleepy. As to why you stay awake once you’re in bed, there are probably multiple physiological and psychological reasons: stress, anxiety/worries, and the obvious — > caffeine too late in the day, but I’m not an expert in this area."
],
"score": [
108,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d0il1q | Why wet slaps hurt more? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ez9w9ig",
"ezael1k",
"ezaa0mo",
"ezaj7yi",
"ezbae10"
],
"text": [
"Skin is soft, mushy, and full of lots of little cracks and holes. When you slap someone, a lot of the force from the slap gets cushioned by the skin and dissipated over the larger surface area created by those little uneven surfaces. This happens for both your hand and the slapped person. When your skin is wet, it pulls itself taut to help keep that moisture out. This tightens it out a bit to reduce surface area and makes it slightly less mushy. In addition, the water fills in some of the cracks and holes, making the surface more uniform. This reduces the energy lost and makes the slap hurt more. If you wait even longer while wet, like long enough for your hand to get all pruney, the opposite will happen. All of those wrinkles increase surface area and make the skin even mushier, and so the slap will hurt even less.",
"Good god! I asked this question on a whim I didn't know reddit was waiting for it.",
"It is surface area. The water fills the gaps in your skin of the hand and surface of the other area. Evenly dissipating the power of the slap onto its target. Creating more efficient energy transfer. You ever tried to hit something, swing hard and just not get enough hand on it. Like a volleyball serve where your fingers engage before your palm, it will not go as far because you did not evenly transfer the power.",
"the other commenters are mistaken, i think. it’s not a surface area thing, it’s an air cushion thing. the pain of a slap comes from the linear kinetic energy of the slap being transferred to the struck skin, and air lets some of the linear force become transformed into motion in a random direction via turbulence and subsequently into sound and heat. by making an airtight seal, a slap that occurs at a wet palm/skin interface compresses all of the air at once. you can think of it as a wrinkled vs a flat surface striking skin. as the rough surface comes toward the skin, the taller peaks of the surface will be “squishing” the air faster than the troughs, so those areas will experience a sharper rise in pressure. the adjacent troughs will be at a lower pressure and air will flow sideways to equalize this, stealing forward momentum that could otherwise be spent on pain. there’s only so much force behind the slap, and moving air isn’t free. more force spent pushing air sideways means less force pushing meat hard enough to hurt, less force means less pressure. well, the why of a wet slap hurting more probably has something to do with the fact that the acceleration is happening quickly. i don’t know why sharper acceleration is more painful, but i’m pretty sure that’s the cause.",
"Its because water is not compressible, for the same reason that water is like concrete when an object hits it from a great height."
],
"score": [
16384,
527,
127,
28,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
d4j294 | Why does "Hoo" produce cold air but "Haa" produces hot air ? | Tried to figure it out in public and ended up looking like an absolute fool so imma need someone to explain this to me | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"f0cx6q2",
"f0dd5g3",
"f0daccn",
"f0dcqre",
"f0ddj6n",
"f0ede21",
"f0dc2gj",
"f0dysww",
"f0dldmx"
],
"text": [
"When you do a \"hoo\", the air is coming out from a very small opening which gives it a higher chance to mix with the air around it and cool down. When you do a \"haa\", the air is coming out at a larger volume and needs more time to cool down. **Edit** Put your finger right in front your mouth when doing a \"hoo\" and you will sense that it's actually just as hot as a \"haa\", but cools much faster a few cms away.",
"There's two things to note here: 1. The human body doesn't feel absolute temperature, what you feel is how much heat is entering (hot) or leaving (cold) your body (That's why metals always feel a lot hotter or colder than their surrounding, high heat conductivity). So in the case of your breath, the air comes out faster on the \"Hoo\" sound. A faster flow of air will carry more heat away from your hand via convection. As someone else pointed out, it is the same reason a fan cools you down even though the air doesn't get any colder. 2. The reason the \"Hoo\" sound produces a faster airflow than the \"Haa\" sound for the same effort has to do with the opening size in your throat. If your lungs are pushing the same amount of air in both instances, the air will have to come out faster if the opening is smaller. Think of a garden hose when partially block the opening with your thumb, the water comes out faster!",
"What you go \"hoo\" the air your pushing out of your lungs increases in pressure as it moves through the smaller opening in your lips and then quickly decreases in pressure after it's left. This decrease in pressure reduces its temperature because the air particles are moving further away from each other, dissipating their energy into kinetic rather than thermal. When you go \"Haa\" there is less of a pressure difference between your lip opening and the outside air than when you go \"hoo\" so the pressure change is lower so more thermal energy is kept in the air. Therefore, when you go \"Haa\" the temperature of the air is closer to the temperature in your lungs. Its the same reason that you can feel your deoderant can getting cold when you hold the nozzle down for a while. The pressure in the can is decreasing as you let the gas out. Edit: This affect is known as Gay-Lussac's Law (aka The pressure temperature law)",
"When air moves fast out of the mouth, it sucks in ambient air, which is colder. To test this, blow (\"hoo\") on the palm of your hand through a \"tube\" made of the other palm (make sure it's tight), or a toilet paper tube. It has nothing to do with \"compression\" or Bernoulli principle.",
"I disagree with the answers referring to drop in pressure (adiabatic effect), since the pressure difference just isn’t sufficient. Instead, the answers around speed are more accurate. The body is pretty warm, and the more contact that the air gets with us, the warmer it gets. Even then, rapid air over the surfaces (like our mouths and throats) tends to cool them, so the slower the air is, the more chance the body can keep those surfaces warm with circulating blood. Also, while “hoo” moves air faster, “haa” has greater turbidity around the vocal chords, which means that the air gets more stirred up and more of it gets in contact with the warm surfaces.",
"The temperature should be close to the same, but fast moving air wicks away more heat than slow moving air. The \"hoo\" motion involves pursing ones lips closer together so the air coming out moves faster because of the higher pressure inside the mouth. The \"haa\" motion involves leaving ones mouth more open, the air coming out moves slower because of the low pressure inside the mouth. If there was anything more to it, I think its possible that the temperature of the air is coming from the lungs, and when you say \"haa\", that the total volume of air comes out more quickly and so does not have a chance to cool down. When you say \"hoo\", the total volume of air comes out more slowly, and probably cools down as it passes over your lips, which are much cooler than the core of your body",
"Think of what some people do to clean their glasses. When you do a haa you get wet from fluids at your own body temperature, and so feel warm. When you do a hoo the air is faster which means you don't get wet and you feel a cooling sensation from evaporation. The faster the air the cooler. The pressure theories are wrong since the air is at a lower temperature that your body already. Even holding your breath for 5 minutes will barely increase the temperature of the air inside your lungs. Also you can't create much pressure with a simple hoo. It's more about sensations than air temperature itself.",
"Holy cow, there are so many wrong answers here from folks trying to look smart with complicated answers. It’s really simple: with “hoo” you’re blowing a small and directed stream of air quickly, so it brings along the typically cooler atmospheric air with it. With “haa”, you have a larger and slower outflow that does not pull along the surrounding air as much. That’s it. See “entrainment” and URL_0",
"This is the same principle that applies to EcoCooler, an air conditioning system that doesn't use electricity: \"As hot air rushes into each plastic bottle, it is pushed to the rim where it begins expanding. This expansion then leads to the cooling of the air as it enters the target room. This cooling results from pressure change. As air enters the plastic bottle’s wider part it comes out the bottleneck with higher pressure. As it quickly disperses into the room, its temperature drops. Sounds uncanny, right? The principle here is quite simple actually. With your mouth wide open, blow some air onto your hand. Does the air feel hot? What if you do the same with pursed lips? Does the air feel cool? That is exactly how the Eco cooler functions!\" URL_0"
],
"score": [
9511,
7057,
121,
17,
17,
17,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7868/why-does-the-air-we-blow-exhale-out-from-our-mouths-change-from-hot-to-cold-depe"
],
[
"https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-ECO-cooler-and-on-which-principle-does-it-work"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
eo8osl | How come we still use steam moving dynamos to convert energy into electricity? It seems antiquated that even something as advanced as nuclear reactors still rely on this process. Are there obstacles in designing a better energy/electricity method? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fea0oal",
"fea17c7",
"fea1aty"
],
"text": [
"Water has some stupendously useful properties. It's easy to boil, and steam is able to store a great deal of heat energy without coming apart into hydrogen and oxygen. That heat energy can be converted into electricity at high efficiency using a turbine, a device with only two moving parts. In addition, water is environmentally friendly, if you spill it on the ground, no messy cleanup. It is everywhere **and** it is cheaper than almost any other substance at a constant purity level.",
"You have to realize that the method depends on the kind of \"energy\" you're talking about. Solar panels convert electromagnetic radiation (light) to electricity, hydroelectric dams convert gravity to electricity (via water fall / water pressure), and batteries convert chemical reaction energy to electricity. And the obstacle is materials. We don't know of a material that would convert radiation (such as in nuclear reactors) to electricity, and we don't have a material that efficiently converts heat to electricity ([there are materials]( URL_0 ) that generate some electricity from heat, but not on the grand scale that we consume). So, ultimately, boiling water to generate pressure to turn turbines, however inefficient the process, ends up being the best large scale method we have. Convert heat to pressure/motion, then pressure/motion to electricity (using magnets and copper wires). There's a lot of chemical energy stored in the stuff that we burn (burning is a chemical reaction), much more than what we can achieve with the chemical reactions in batteries.",
"Relatively speaking, the use of steam turbines if pretty efficient due to the excellent heat transfer properties of water. So it falls in the category of \"if it aint broke, dont fix it\"."
],
"score": [
37,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#Seebeck_effect"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
jlzdlk | Why do we have knee caps but not elbow caps | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"garznhx",
"gas71xx",
"gas20hi",
"gasay0s",
"garzny0",
"gashcxp",
"gatdoxz",
"gashuk7"
],
"text": [
"Our legs and knees bear a lot of stress due to our walking upright. The muscles in our upper leg are the biggest and most powerful in the body. The quadriceps muscle is responsible for extending the leg - when it contracts, it pulls on the tendon that runs over the front of our knee, which extends our lower leg. This tendon runs more or less right over the kneecap. What the kneecap does is act as a fulcrum - it moves the tendon away from the knee joint's point of rotation, just a little, but enough to provide a significant mechanical advantage. It actually makes the quadriceps muscle about 30% more powerful than it would be without it. [Here's a YouTube video showing how it works.]( URL_0 ) As we generally don't walk around on our hands, our elbows need no such mechanical advantage.",
"The ulnar bone has a fairly prominent process called the olecranon, wonder if it serves a similar function of moving the triceps pull of force into a more advantageous position about the joint like the patella does for the quadriceps? We talked about the knee in my biomechanics classes in regards to this but never the elbow. Could be as others have said, just don't need it as a bipedal organism.",
"The knee cap is actually a bone that develops in childhood. Babies don't have them. It's a special kind of bone known as a sesamoid bone that forms inside the tendon to help take the forces exerted on the tendon by the large muscles of the thigh.",
"Just an additional information: knee caps don't form till 18 months of age. Means, babies less than 1 1/2 years of age don't have knee caps.",
"Your femur (thigh bone) and your tibia (shin bone) are sandwiched between a cartilage circle structure (meniscus). These bones are held in place through ligaments to prevent front, back and side movements to keep the bone in place. Your knee joint is actually quite an unstable joint in your lower limb, which has to support the weight of your body, which is why it needs more protection. In your elbow joint, there are two connections to the humerus (upper arm bone); one of these has a hook like end (ulna/forearm bone) which is very stable. Also, the elbow doesn’t often bear a lot of weight compared to the knee. Hope that’s clear!",
"I see good ELi5 about the legs being stronk, but can we talk about how our radius can rotate around our ulnar letting us roate our hands? The tib/fib can't do that shit.",
"A lot of these responses are why we need a knee cap but do not address why it is there in the first place. The answer is evolution. Our genetic and evolutionary lineage needed a bone in the knee and there was a bone there that could function in that way. At first it was not as effective but as walking on two legs became increasingly important to our ancestors’ survival it was slowly changed over time. Arms and forelimbs work differently so there were different evolutionary factors that helped them to become different from the leg.",
"The bone that we feel on our elbow is actually made up of the ends of our two forearm bones. The bone that we feel on our knee is its own bone called the patella bone. It is attached to strings called ligaments."
],
"score": [
1949,
85,
36,
31,
29,
6,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XnYO4TnpTCo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
jtylta | Most hard drugs give you a hit of dopamine and/or serotonin. Why not just cut out the middle man and take straight dopamine or serotonin instead? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"gc8kjn5",
"gc8stt2",
"gc8to5l",
"gc8tded",
"gc8ydte",
"gc8xnou",
"gc8xzgf",
"gc8ym6m",
"gc90bb4",
"gc90pd3"
],
"text": [
"Dopamine, outside the brain, can dilate blood vessels in the kidney, increase cardiac output and lead to vasoconstriction respectively, depending on dose. Directly injecting dopamine therefore, will not lead to any kind of high, just an increase in blood pressure. This means if you want a high, you have to inject directly into the brain, which is difficult for obvious reasons. Even then, it may not be sufficient. In different regions of the brain, dopamine has different effects. Eg. if you introduce dopamine to the chemoreceptor trigger zone, vomiting will result. So, in addition to injecting into the brain, you must also target the correct region. In summary, dopamine should be treated only as an excitatory neurotransmitter that has different effects in different parts of the body.",
"Also because 'feeling good' is the result of a very complex set of variables that just so happen to involve serotonin and dopamine and wack ton of other chemicals/reactions, while obviously important they're not the simple 'happy' molecules you could easily be led to think they were. the real answer to this is probably beyond ELI5 or at least for me but yeah.",
"serotonin plays a role in the digestive system...so based on the side effects of SSRI'S lots of toilet time would be in your future",
"You can take L-DOPA (precursor to Dopamine) and 5-HTP (precursor to serotonin). Both are able to pass the blood-brain barrier and stimulate production of the neurotransmitters in the brain. L-DOPA is used to treat Parkinson's. And 5-HTP may be used to help with depression.",
"might be irrelevant to this post but i just want to say that more ≠ better. too much of any brain chemicals can cause psychosis, mania, and so on. it’s a very delicate balance.",
"Neither serotonin or dopamine is able to cross the blood-brain barrier. Thus injecting them would do nothing for your brains. But like others have said both have functions outside the brain as well.",
"Ever had serotonin syndrome? DAMN that shit ain't fun. Worst trip. Ended in a 20 minute seizure, even the diazepam injections weren't working.",
"The drugs I assume you're referring to don't actually have serotonin and dopamine in them. These chemicals are already in your body. What the drugs do is over-activate the corresponding receptors in the brain.",
"It's almost like taking a pure vitamin, it may go in the body as one compound but after your body metabolizes it, it becomes a different compound. Pure dopamine and serotonin will not be pure serotonin or dopamine once it reaches the liver and enters your blood.",
"Your body manufactures and stores these naturally in vast quantities, they can be administered in certain ways and increase available supply but won't cause euphoric effect because the brain strictly manages and recycles them. Drugs work by tricking your brain into mismanaging them in various ways, for example binding to receptors to inhibit the re-uptake process causing dopamine to flood in your brain"
],
"score": [
4118,
157,
66,
46,
18,
12,
10,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
g29knw | So how does the the human brain ignore the second the? | Repost | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"fnk9cpm",
"fnkirhq",
"fnke8bi",
"fnkld0z",
"fnknhpu",
"fnli2gl",
"fnko4zq",
"fnkuxen",
"fnlz6rp",
"fnknw21",
"fnlzsvi",
"fnknxpb"
],
"text": [
"We don't actually read every word in a sentence. Our brains pick up the patterns and fill in the blanks as we skim along the text, which greatly increases our reading speed while doing very little to reduce comprehension. We do it with just about all sensory input, as well. We blank out while driving but still reach our destinations with no incidents, we tune out smells pretty quickly (no matter how bad the smell is), we tune out physical sensations (you're now aware of how your tongue is resting in your mouth, also you're breathing manually), we hit that autopilot button at work and just coast through it while thinking about the grocery shopping, etc. It's probably an evolutionary trait that evolved from a need to be vigilant against **unique sensory input**, like sudden movements and noticing things that aren't supposed to be there. We're good at recognizing patterns, and tune things out to reduce overall taxation from sensory inputs so we can instead focus on novel inputs. & #x200B; Small edit: I'm an English tutor, and one of the practices we use to catch those kinds of mistakes is to read the whole text backward. Doing this tricks the brain into not recognizing the speech patterns and causes it to focus on each word.",
"Short version: Our brains are tuned for pattern recognition and prediction, not detail. That's also why things that break the expected pattern/outcome can be so jarring. Sometimes it's in a fun way, though. See movie twists, stage magic, joke punchlines and so on. It's a filtering mechanism. Ignore the leaves, see the broken up/partial shape or movement of the predator hiding behind them.",
"We're too used to reading English that we don't actually read every word, but the sentence as a whole. (When I was learning Spanish in school I had to read every word and then combine them to understand what it means)",
"I'm guessing people who are learning English won't skip it naturally as they are not used to the patterns and are more focussed on piecing together the meaning?",
"Your brain doesn't take in information. It takes in patterns on information. I dotn haev to be detialed in my tpying for you to now wat I'm sayin. You can read what I just wrote. Just like you can understand the gist of a sentence with two thes. You get the pattern, and then you can disregruard.",
"Brains are lazy. They are quick to guess, and they \"check\" the guess as lazily as possible. More accurately; brains need to be as fast as possible while using as little energy as possible, so we can out-compete everything else and not get killed - same as all life. That's what makes you successful; use the minimum resources to get what you need. Which is why life takes short-cuts - as long as they work more often than not... It applies to all levels of things; from your example, to people more readily believing things they already know more than anything new to them - regardless of reality.",
"Your brain is very efficient (lazy). It can ignore redundancies unless you focus on them. A neat experiment to do ( but can be difficult) is if you stare at one point for a good amount of time, and I mean stare don't move your eyes even a bit, you'll notice it starts to disappear. Your brain is saying this is not new input so I will ignore it. Its why your eyes are constantly doing micro movements you may not notice and why when look from one thing to another quickly you don't see a blur but instead feels like your vision teleported.",
"What we 'see' isn't what's actually there. It's the same as how we have a big blind spot in the center of our field of vision and our brain fills in the details. Our eyes detect light and send signals to our brain. Our brain interprets those signals and builds a model of the world that isn't necessarily accurate, but is usually good enough for us to function. Things like this show that the model built isn't necessarily accurate, but that details will be filled in by our brain based on surrounding detail. Another one is that I can type words incorrectly and as long as the first and last letters are present a quick raed show that your brain will fill in the detials and 'show' you the correct word.",
"Superfluous information. Your conscious mind has what it came for and discards the rest. Think if it as data compression. Your typical mp3 song sounds indistinguishable from lossless wave yet it’s a tenth of the size because all those high sounds you can’t hear anyways gets discarded. Mostly these shortcuts are very useful to us but it can be a vulnerability to be exploited. Source: A whole lotta thinking about it.",
"Human brains are very sophisticated pattern recognition machines. More sophisticated than many AI or algorithmic computers even. Pattern recognition revolves around uses minimal input to form a complete picture. That’s also how we read, you don’t actively read every word once you’re used to reading. Your brain infers the meaning of a sentence based on a number of keywords and its experience in reading similar sentences. After ‘the’ you get an adjective or a substantive so no need to read the second ‘the’. Our visual or olfactory system work in exactly the same way. You exclude long-term input (your nose is always in your line of sight), but are very susceptible to short-term changes (sudden movement).",
"Because when you read the the sentence, your brain creates the sentence in your head first and then breaks down the meaning as a whole not just the individual words. So your brain just ignores it because it already has a sentence so ignores the other the.",
"Does this have anything to do with the fact that our eyes only senses a small part of reality while our brains fill in the rest of the world? There’s a notion in Sleight of Hand where a good performer can “feel” where all the eyes are and exploit it by forcing the audience to follow the big movements while hiding the smaller ones. It’s supposed to be based on old hunting/tracking skills. We track where a ball drilled across a football field goes by hopping from where the ball is to where the ball is going easily but once it hits the ground and goes bouncing, it’s easy to lose where it went. You can all think about the difference between a bunny making a beeline to one quickly changing direction. URL_1 Also should be noted that Apollo Robbins is unreal - seen his lecture a few times. URL_0"
],
"score": [
18103,
612,
348,
79,
64,
25,
23,
6,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140627094551.htm",
"https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00133/full"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lcm18 | Why do old games running on new hardware still have technical issues? | I am playing some mega man games on my Xbox One and experience slowdown when there are a lot of enemies on screen. but the Xbox One is significantly more powerful than the NES, so why is there still slowdown on this hardware? | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbuo48e",
"dbusfve"
],
"text": [
"The XBox is emulating NES hardware and running the emulation at a set speed. If it ran it at as fast as possible, then it would be several times faster than the original NES game and would be unplayable. I can't speak for Mega Man exactly, but older games tended to run on a cycle locked to the screen refresh which was a fixed 60Hz or 50Hz. There was only one piece of hardware they ran on, so there was no need to adjust for different hardware speeds.",
"In that case, it's probably on purpose - they want to emulate the experience as closely as possible, even including the slowdown and sprite flickering. Some emulators let you turn it off, but it's usually turned on by default. In other cases, like if you're trying to emulate PS2 games on your PC, the game might just run really slow in general. Even though your PC is way more powerful than a PS2, it has to \"translate\" from PS2 language to PC language in realtime, which is much more difficult than running PS2 code on the PS2 itself."
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5lcp4z | Why are electrical lines slack between poles? | Is there a good reason or is it just that they're too heavy to be pulled taut? | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbuoo06",
"dbuoo4s",
"dbuqanf"
],
"text": [
"Because if they were pulled taut, then a strong wind could bend the poles away from each other and snap the lines, loosing high energy power lines onto the ground below which can be extremely dangerous. A little bit of slack is just fine.",
"There are a few reasons. First, they're metal. Metals expand and contract with heat--if there was no slack, they'd possibly break under extreme temperature changes. Second, birds and debris sometimes land on them. You need them to be able to take some weight, which means they can't be stretched too tight.",
"The lines have mass. So there is something that needs to hold them up. Any force is composed of a horizontal and a vertical force. And a line under tension have a force following the line. So in order to keep the line up you need a certain force up on each pole in addition to the horizontal force. You could increase the horizontal force which would make the line more straight but it would still have some slack in them. You can not get rid of it. The amount of slack in a power line is a compromise between the force that can be applied to the lines before they or the poles snap in wind and how tight the lines have to be to not hit each other or the ground."
],
"score": [
9,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5lexas | It's been 12 years since the tallest roller coaster was built. Is there a limit to roller coaster heights, or what is the reason why there hasn't been more competition? | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbv7195",
"dbv682f",
"dbv5x2q"
],
"text": [
"It's really about cost and safety. Look at the example of Drachen Fire coaster in Busch Gardens in Williamsburg, Virginia. It was a fast steel coaster that ran from 1992-1998. It has a 150 foot drop, reached 60 mph, and had a special double bend that produced a split-second of zero-gravity effect. The problem was that the ride was very rough and many injuries ensued. Shortly after opening they told people to remove earrings because of the number of cases of them being ripped out of ears as a result of the ride. Busch Gardens had to disassemble Drachen Fire in 1998 at a considerable loss. It's not just physics, but safety that matters as well.",
"There's no limit in principle to the height a coaster can be built. Arrow's proposed [fishhook coaster]( URL_1 ) would have been 750ft high if it had ever been built. The [Polercoaster]( URL_0 ) currently proposed to be built in Florida would be over 500ft high. The primary reason why the height record hasn't been broken since 2005 is economic. Large coasters are very expensive to build, record breaking ones even more so. There aren't that many parks large enough that they can justify the cost.",
"It's probably twofold: (1) The economy sucks. Theme parks are a bit of a luxury good - > people are less inclined to pour money in to them during hard times. (2) I'm pretty sure that whilst not technically impossible to build bigger rollercoasters, the cost gets exponentially higher as you get bigger. Would not at all be surprised if a rollercoaster 20% taller than the biggest one right now is like 100% more expensive to build. TL;DR: $$$"
],
"score": [
16,
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.usthrillrides.com/products/polercoaster/",
"http://www.thecoastercritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fish-hook-roller-coaster-statosphere.jpg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lgxos | What exactly IS a belt drive motor? | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbvksip",
"dbvrs47"
],
"text": [
"A motor with a pulley and a belt which drives another pulley. The alternative is direct drive. That can include drive via gearing, shaft, friction wheel, or other.",
"It's not a thing. The motor drives a belt, which drives what you want to move. \"Belt drive\" is what that's called."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lja1d | What is this "Split Bolt" for and why is it 15 thousand dollars? | URL_0 | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbw6cvr",
"dbw4wuz",
"dbw55r3"
],
"text": [
"Everybody else is right as to what it's for, maybe I can help with the price. Sometimes, a company encounters a situation where they need exactly this very component, as soon as humanly possible, or else they stand to lose a ton of money. So occasionally you can find vendors listing fasteners for ludicrous prices on the off chance that happens. If they have the last one, you buy it. Source: I'm an aircraft engineer that has encouraged hundreds of thousands of dollars of spending on ridiculously overpriced items to get a plane ungrounded.",
"They are just industrial wire connectors and I can not understand those prices. They're usually like a couple dollars a piece",
"I'm not an expert, but I found items similar to these listed at the Grainger site. They are for splicing large wires together. They sell for as much as $135 a piece on there."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5llgyc | What are the benefits of a smaller processor nm? like from 32nm to 14nm to 10nm? | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbwjf7z",
"dbwptf4",
"dbwjnym"
],
"text": [
"Were able to achieve a smaller size only due to the finer resolution that we can make the individual pathways on the silicon that makes up the CPU. The smaller size means that electrons have to travel less distance and use shed less power in resistance to do the same work.",
"None of the other replies really get to the heart of the matter. The main reason why smaller feature size is better is because a guy named Dennard discovered that the smaller features on a processor, the faster the clock speed can be. This known as Dennard scaling: URL_0 This often confused with Moore's Law, which states that transistor density doubles every 18 months or so. While they are different laws, they are obviously related, since Moore's Law predicts the rate at which features will shrink, and Dennard says that smaller features are faster. Another reason for smaller features is that improves the yield of silicon wafers used to make processors, and therefore reduces the cost of making processors. For example, every silicon wafer will probably have a few defects in it. If a processor was so large that it used a whole silicon wafer, it would be difficult to ever make a processor without defects. Now if you can fit two processors on a single wafer, the odds of one of those processors not having a defect just went up. Now take this example to the extreme. Say you have a wafer with 3 defects on it, but you can fit 100 processors on it, because they're so small. You now have made 97 usable processors from a single silicon wafer, increasing your yield, which decreases your cost per processor. Now that you have increased your yield and reduced costs so that you can sell enough processors to make a profit, you can continue to reduce feature size and use that to add more features to your processor ( like caches, vector registers and additional floating point units) while keeping the processor size constant, which should keep yield constant.",
"The nm number is a measure of how small they can make the components on the chip. Smaller numbers mean that the transistors and other components are smaller. This in turn means that more can be packed into a given area, or making a chip with a given number of transistors will be smaller. This is one of the main benefits. If we suppose that the processors in typical computers have up to 10 cm^2 of space, then smaller components (smaller nm) means that more cores can be put into that space or cores with more additional circuitry. That additional circuitry can come in real handy. For example, being able work with more floating point numbers (binary equivalent of real numbers with a decimal point) in parallel at once in math operations. Or being able to calculate common hash functions and cryptographic functions in hardware instead of software resulting in a massive speedup for anything using them (say, browsing a website using TLS/SSL). Or making various processor instructions more efficient (taking less clock cycles to compute). There are a few downsides. As the components get smaller, the insulation between the wires and the parts of the electronic components gets thinner. As the insulation gets thinner, it leaks more electricity which wastes power and generates heat. The bad news is that at these sizes, reducing the thickness of the insulation by a factor of two doesn't double the leakage. It increases a lot more than double. The reason for this is that at these scales, quantum tunnelling of electrons through the insulation starts to become important and the rate of that increases very steeply as the insulation gets thinner."
],
"score": [
28,
11,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling?wprov=sfla1"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5llk9q | Nikola Tesla's plan for wireless electricity | Engineering | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbwpr6m",
"dbwz7c8",
"dbxrdbw",
"dbwx378",
"dbwrvbb",
"dbwr9j0",
"dbx6wad",
"dbwkcia",
"dbwpxit",
"dbx5m5l",
"dbx2q1j",
"dbx17ea",
"dc5m0g8",
"dbx1i79",
"dbxgcog",
"dbxa59v",
"dbwxna7"
],
"text": [
"To make current (flowing electrons) in a wire, you need a magnetic field moving across that wire (you can also have the field stay pit, and move the wire, relative motion is the key). Magnetic field do not travel very well though. They dissapate very quickly the further you go. An electromagnetic wave, on the other hand, will travel much further. The electric part of the wave reinforces the magnetic, and vice versa. The key problem, is that the power of the wave drops off with distance. Given a transmitter of a fixed amount of power, say 100 watts, at 1 meter from the transmitter, that 100 watts is divided across a sphere that has a surface area of ( 4 * pi * r^2 ) call it 12 square meters. At 2 meters you have 48 square meters to divide the 100 watts. At 3 you have almost 120 square meters of surface are to 'fill' with the same amount of power output. Tesla thought you could overcome this drop off by using resonance. If the field vibrated at the same frequency as the earth/atmosphere system, the transmission efficiency would be greatly enhanced. As far as anyone is aware, he was not able to make this work on a large scale.",
"People here keep referencing the tesla coil as his method of wireless power transfer. While partly true that was not his complete idea for low loss wireless power transmission across large distances. Most Tesla's ideas involved constructive resonance through a medium. Tesla's idea was to use the earth and atmosphere as a medium. He believed that he could use the earth itself as a conductor by taking advantage of resonant frequencies and using the atmosphere itself as to complete the circuit. Essentially people would put a wire into the ground and a second \"antenna\" up into the air and they could power their home without wires connecting to a grid from his power station towers. Wikipedia has a nice, imho, simple [eli5 explaination]( URL_0 ) I will leave here: \"The theory included driving alternating current pulses into the Earth at its resonant frequency from a grounded Tesla coil working against an elevated capacitance to make the potential of the Earth oscillate. Tesla thought this would allowing alternating current to be received with a similar capacitive antenna tuned to resonance it at any point on Earth with very little power loss.[116][117][118] His observations also led him to believe a high voltage used in a coil at an elevation of a few hundred feet would \"break the air stratum down\", eliminating the need for miles of cable hanging on balloons to create his atmospheric return circuit.[119][120] Tesla would go on the next year to propose a \"World Wireless System\" that was to broadcast both information and power worldwide[121][122] and attempted in 1901 to construct a large high-voltage wireless power station, now called the Wardenclyffe Tower, at Shoreham, New York. By 1904 investment dried up and the facility was never completed.\"",
"Several of the explanations here are wrong. Beware! :) As Tesla kept saying and saying, *it wasn't radio. It had nothing to do with radio. The inverse-square law did not apply, because radio waves weren't being sent from an antenna.* He wasn't using his giant Tesla coil in radio-transmitter mode. He wasn't broadcasting his waves into outer space like Marconi did. Anyone insisting differently, they're simply wrong, and remain clueless about Tesla's actual plans. But, they're wrong for good reason. It's because Tesla kept secrets. Today we know quite a bit because Tesla did give many details in a private 1916 legal deposition (Marconi radio court case,) but that wasn't published until 75 years later. Much else being said about Tesla's wireless system was either uninformed speculation, or was taking Tesla's furtive and semi-misleading comments about secret inventions as being complete explanations. Before 1992 you had to go to the Tesla Museum if you wanted to know the truth. Instead, most authors just made s & 't up about Tesla. Or, they lifted their information from earlier books which made s & 't up about Tesla. Unfortunately, all this wrong speculation ended up in books. And if books clearly state Tesla's wireless plan, it must be true? And it's even more true when many books say the same thing? Nope. That's pure BS. It's \"game of telephone\" where books repeat earlier books with distortion, and the info in earlier books came from even earlier ones. And the original info was speculation to begin with! Instead, read original Tesla docs with Tesla's actual statements (which remained inside the Beograd Tesla Museum until finally published by Leland Anderson 1992 \"[Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy...]( URL_0 )\" --- Ok ok, *WHAT WAS TESLA'S PLAN?* It was very simple: make a conductive path all the way up to the top of the sky, to the conductive ionosphere layer. Then power the ionosphere with a fifty million volts power supply, as if the entire sky was one giant plate of a capacitor. The ground serves as the other plate. The sky-plasma was his power-line, with the Earth being the return conductor. Giant tesla-coils with 100 megavolts on the upper terminal would create the vertical \"plasma tower\" to conduct current to the sky itself. They'd also supply power to every Tesla-type power-receiver on Earth. Very cool idea: we're in the gap of Tesla's giant capacitor, the size of Earth's atmosphere. It's as if all of human society was placed inside a microwave oven operating at low frequency. Hold up a fluorescent tube, and it glows wirelessly, anywhere on Earth. (Well, his planned power level wasn't high enough for that. Tube-lamps would need a few yards of vertical antenna and a small coil before it would glow wirelessly.) One engineering paper in the 1980s estimated that such a system would consume a millon watts entirely in wasted energy, but these losses would be constant. That means 10 megawatt system would be 90% efficient, while a 100MW system would be 99% efficient. Note that large power grids tend to be under 70% efficient < edit, wrong might be more like 94% > Only one problem. HOW THE EFF DOES SOMEONE MAKE CONNECTION TO THE IONOSPHERE? Carbon-fiber space-elevators?!!! Tesla said he would \"break down the atmosphere\" between his tower-electrode and the conductive layers far above. So, a lightning bolt. Only needs to be 30KM tall. Roughly. So, all the Tesla-skeptics were never able to properly scoff at his wireless-power system. Tesla had them all gnashing and frothing about inverse-square falloff and near-zero efficiency, when his system actually wasn't using radio waves at all. It was an invisible power line, an odd type of beamed-power using plasma. They should have been scoffing about Tesla's ability to create the 30KM vertical spark needed for his system to work. Well, spark, or a glow-discharge. * [Artist conception of Tesla's system in operation]( URL_1 ), from 2001 Serbian-language book from the Tesla Museum. * [Tesla's lab-scale protoype of Wireless Power xmission]( URL_0 #Section_7), build for Patent model From the above diagram with the glass tube, we see that Tesla's system was based on conducted currents in glowing air, not on radio waves. Those current paths would glow at night. It was only \"wireless\" in the way that neon signs are \"filament-less.\" In modern words, Tesla was going to use tens of kilometers of glowing plasma as his power grid. Interesting trivia: when Tesla was discussing this in an interview, the reporter said why not just guide your lightning discharge up to the sky using ultraviolet spotlights. Tesla changed the subject! Decades later Tesla said that the UV spotlights placed atop Tesla Coils were his first goal, but he then tested it and found that the discharge-length remained far too short. He abandoned the carbon-arc searchlights, and instead discovered another method which he claimed was successful, and he'd fully tested it on his giant coils at Colorado Springs. A side-effect would be to make the entire sky above the transmitter glow like a vast Aurora. He never said what this method was. Later he changed his mind about making it public, because he said it had major weapons possibilities. It could \"render uninhabitable\" any selected spot on Earth. \"It would be like giving a knife to an infant.\" Whatever was the trick was, or, whichever way Tesla was fooling himself, he took the secret to his grave. Therefore, don't laugh about Tesla's system being \"too inefficient,\" or because \"Tesla didn't even know about inverse-square law.\" That's just ignorant. Instead, laugh at Tesla for suggesting that he'd actually excited the Earth's entire ionosphere using a vertical gas-breakdown path many tens of KM tall ...late at night out in Colorado, so nobody would see the sky-glow aurora effects it created. *I saw that I would be able to transmit power provided I could construct a certain apparatus -- and I have, as I will show you later. I have constructed and patented a form of apparatus which, with a moderate elevation of a few hundred feet, can break the air stratum down. You will then see something like an aurora borealis across the sky, and the energy will go to the distant place. ...I came to the conviction that it would be ultimately possible, without any elevated antenna --- with very small elevation --- to break down the upper stratum of the air and transmit the current by conduction.* -N. Tesla 1916 Well, one thing's certain. Tesla was exactly right in insisting that, it wasn't radio.",
"It wasn't practical, sorry to say. A Tesla coil is essentially a huge radio transmitter, with no content, typically in the 2-100KHz range but it's unclear what frequency he was planning to use (plans may never have been settled to that level of detail). A normal radio receiver gets tuned to match the frequency of the radio transmitter and collect as much power as possible, but still, the signal is TINY (not enough to light an LED) and all the power to drive the speakers comes from the receiver's battery driving an amp. Even though the radio transmitter is tens of thousands of watts. Tesla really didn't have anything new in that regard, but fantasized about impossibly huge radio transmitters and bigger receiver antennae. There are many aspects which don't make sense here: 1. The radio transmitter would have to be fantastically huge for anyone to receive a useful amount of power, even right next to it. It would be very inefficient and power ain't free. 2. Strong RF flux is actually known to be *dangerous* to people and the environment. OSHA sets a limit of 10 mW/cm^2. The power levels needed to light a lightbulb are comically above that. 3. It would not just be received by the intended antenna, it would be picked up in the wires of any circuitry not shielded in a metal box. It would cause massive interference. 4. You could receive more power with less RF flux, but the antenna must be huge. If you have an antenna spread out across an acre to receive a few watts from a transmitter 1/2 mile away at 0.0001% efficiency, why wouldn't you just run a wire to the power source? You may have heard the claim \"a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor!\" Also listed as 50W bulbs, 10kW. That \"fact\" showed up in a 1944 biography of Tesla written by John O'Neill. There is NO source for the claim, in fact O'Neill was NOT a proper historian and said a lot of shit which doesn't correlate with history. Tesla took meticulous notes at Colorado Springs and he never documented anything like that. No one other than O'Neill said anything like this. Some people think \"well Tesla was being too secretive to record it, because it might be stolen\" but that's nothing like Tesla. Tesla was desperate for funding and into *grossly inflating* his claims. No one could \"steal\" his work, he was too far \"out there\" for others to even try to replicate. One theory someone came up with: \"It is interesting to note the 1909 American Encyclopedia cites the first commercial transmission of AC on November 17, 1896 was from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, N.Y., a distance of 26 miles. Could this have been the historical event after which the questionable 26 mile Colorado Springs figure was derived?\" Plausible, IMHO. O'Neill was a kind of a confused guy.",
"Imagine you are on a trampoline. Around the edge, you put marbles. In the center, you drop a bowling ball. When it hits the tarp, the bowling ball makes all the marbles on the outside edges move. If you could dribble the bowling ball, or bounce it just right, you could get the outside marbles to move repeatedly. The bowling ball is the tower, and the marbles are receivers. Basically tesla \"bounced\" energy in that tower, and the marbes felt it and were affected by it at a distance. The problem is that tesla wanted to make the trampoline *really* big, so big that the marbles would be too far away from the bowling ball to feel it. *** I stand corrected- I'm talking more about a tesla coil system here, where it appears the question was about his atmospheric power system. Refer to /u/wbeaty answer as I think that is more accurate. My answer applies more to wireless power via electromagnetic waves, wheareas his is more about making the sky and earth into a giant conductive sandwich. To my knowledge the Wycliffe tower was intended to be a tesla cool type system, but I do not know for sure.",
"A Tesla coil when Tesla was building them, wasn't about generating lightning, the lightning was an unwanted side effect of his transmitting coil. A Tesla coil is like a swing, but with electromagnetic fields instead of mass, gravity and a pendulum. Energy is pumped into the coil at its resonant frequency, and like a swing set, swings further and further as you add energy at its resonant frequency. These swings of the electromagnetic energy sends out electromagnetic waves through the air. Tesla coils are very efficient at generating electromagnetic waves. Back in Tesla's day, electricity in the home was all about lighting. There weren't many home appliances and industry mainly still used diesel, steam or water for powering their machinery. With fluorescent lighting, energy put into the tube causes it to emit uv radiation. That radiation hits the white phosphorus coating in the inside of the tube and is absorbed and re-emitted as visible light. In the electromagnetic field given off by a Tesla coil, the tube will also give off light. Tesla wanted to build absurdly large Tesla coils to light up fluorescent tubes at huge distances instead of running wires from the generating station to homes.",
"Tesla believed that a spherical conductor (i.e. The Earth), can support *surface waves*. They look a little [like this]( URL_0 ). They hug around the outer surface of a conductor, and in the case of the Earth would continually diffract around it. Surface waves (also called creeping waves, ground waves, Sommerfield-Zenneck waves) do exist. He thought he could transfer power around the Earth using these waves - exciting them using his Tesla coil. It would create a standing wave around the Earth -the waves would be emitted from his transmitter, go around the Earth, converge at the anti-pode, and then come back. If you know anything about standing waves, they are caused by a transmitted and reflected wave, which is what would happen here.",
"Imagine a guitar, the strings are the wardencliff tower and the guitar body is the earth. When the string is played it resonates within the body. The earth would resonate the power through the ground so it could be extracted at a distant location.",
"In one way, radio transmission is a form of wireless power; after all, a crystal radio is powered purely by radio waves, without external amplification. Of course, by the time it reaches you, the signal is very weak indeed. Signals from Wardenclyffe going through the ground would also experience huge losses. Tesla also misunderstood the properties of electromagnetic waves.",
"Make air electric so all electric things are powered by the air (hope this was a good ELI5, it seems many explanations tend to be ELI have a reasonable background in the topic and am around 20 and might not help the person for what they want)",
"Today we know electricty is caused by the sharing of electrons between a conductive material (copper wire). Tesla on the other hand thought that electricty came from an invisible 'Ether' in which electrons are a free floating entity in space not attached to any atoms. He thought that by pumping electricity into the ground via the Wardenclyffe tower he would be able to send energy all over the world. Turns out he was just connecting to the largest ground system known to man and disscharging all of his electricity into the earth. His Tesla coil does work for sending electrical energy wirlessly but it is not usefull for our needs. Imagine connecting a computer to WiFi and having the option to plug in an ethernet cable.",
"In the simplest terms, electricity moving through a wire creates a magnetic field around it. If you wrap the wire around into a coil, that field gets stronger. (this is the basic principal upon which electromagnets and electric motors operate) Similarly, the opposite is true as well. If you introduce a magnetic field to some wire, it will induce electrical current in the wire. (technically the change in magnetic field, but that's not super important for an ELI5 explanation) This effect is stronger with more \"coils\" of the wire. (this is the basic principal upon which generators operate) So, to transfer power wirelessly, you just send a high frequency (meaning many times per second) alternating current (means polarity switches back and forth from positive to negative over and over) through a coil of wire, and put another coil close enough to be in reach of that first coil's magnetic field, and boom, you have transferred power wirelessly. Tesla had the idea of scaling this principal up to a HUGE scale.",
"I'm five days late to this question, and there are already a few good answers, so I assume no one will see this, but a big part of the complication in understanding Tesla's wireless power system comes from the fact that his wireless power system combined two very different systems. The first was a wireless power transmission system that used the earth as a resonator for ELF-VLF 'reactive' 'quasi-superconducting' energy transmission (for up to ~30 kHz), and the second part was a solar wind energy harvesting system. These systems were completely independent inventions, but he intended to combine both ideas in his global tower system. [Wardenclyffe]( URL_13 ) was supposed to be only the first of many such towers. The first system was apparently his single-wire power system but using the layer of water (groundwater, lakes and oceans) as the resonator instead of a transmission line. The solar wind energy harvesting system was later developed in a much more limited local form using metal balloons instead of towers by Estonian inventor Hermann Plauson of the Fischer-Tropsch Otto Traun Research Corporation. Plauson is apparently better known as the inventor of the colloidal mill for making asphalt. Plauson put a lot of effort into developing this atmospheric energy tech for many years before patenting it in 1921 ([US Pat. No. 1,540,998]( URL_12 )). People found some things Tesla said about the combined wireless system impossible like especially how much power he said was available. In 1904, Tesla said he could produce 6 million households of energy from Wardenclyffe consuming only 6 households of energy—produce a 7.5 GW wave from only 7.5 KW input. That must have sounded especially unbelievable to people who were not yet even aware that the solar wind exists. Disbelief in that incredible claim might have contributed to the rumor that he had lost his mind. If it is possible to harness solar wind like Tesla said, we aren't aware of how to do it yet. But no one seems to have investigated Plauson's research lately or this aspect of Tesla's research. Plauson claimed to harness tens to hundreds of KW using only tethered metal balloons. In his patent Plauson said the energy came from the atmosphere, which might be possible, but it seems more likely it would have been harnessing solar wind energy as it enters the atmosphere if only because extracting energy from the atmosphere like that seems more impossible. Here are some more links about it: - Tesla N. [The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires]( URL_2 ). *Electrical World and Engineer*. Mar. 5, 1904. - [Cloudborn Electric Wavelets To Encircle The Globe]( URL_11 ). *New York Times*. Mar. 27th, 1904. - [Quasi-superconducting single-wire electric power system]( URL_6 ). - Hermann Plauson: [Wikipedia]( URL_3 ) - Secor HW. [Power from the Air]( URL_4 ). *Science and Invention*. Mar. 1922. - [Gernsback]( URL_7 ) Feb. 1922. - [Tesla & the magnifying transmitter: passive circuits that multiply power like simple machines multiply force]( URL_5 ) - Tesla N. [US Pat. No. 645,576: System of Transmission of Electrical Energy]( URL_9 ) application: Sept. 2, 1897; published: Mar. 20, 1900 - Tesla N. [US Pat. No. 649,621: Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy]( URL_0 ) application: Feb. 19, 1900; published: May 15, 1900 - Tesla N. [US Pat. No. 1,119,732: Magnifying Transmitter]( URL_1 ) application: January 18, 1902; published: Dec. 1, 1914 - Palenscar A. [US Pat. No. 674,427: Apparatus for collecting atmospheric electricity]( URL_8 ). application: Jul. 10, 1900 - [Croatian TV show: long interview about Tesla's wireless power transmission \\(English subtitles\\)]( URL_10 )",
"Thank you ! First time I've ever had a real answer when asking anyone. A lot of people I have asked believe that the government and/ or JP Morgan are the reason we don't use this energy. Because they can't make a profit off of it I guess.",
"He wanted to make a low frequency, high power, isotropic antenna. Then shoot a low frequency, high power, continuous, radio wave from it. This wave would travel around the world. It would have so much power that any radio antenna could pick up enough energy to power appliances.",
"How does tesla [the car company] use his inventions in their cars?",
"Adding on: Wireless electricity already exists in the form of conductive wireless charging, which is most often seen in phones as inductive wireless charging. From the Wikipedia page: > the use of an induction coil which produces an electromagnetic field via a charging station where energy is transferred to an electronic device which is also equipped with a corresponding induction coil. It's essentially charging the device via electromagnetism. Standard charging methods rely on the conventional (and far more efficient) application of electricity: in a closed circuit, with electrons travelling in a loop from the negative terminal to the positive."
],
"score": [
1662,
1009,
963,
201,
193,
159,
52,
45,
11,
9,
9,
7,
6,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer"
],
[
"http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm",
"http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/ttower3.jpg",
"http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm#Section_7"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.teslaradio.com/pages/compare_files/image029.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.google.com/patents/US649621",
"http://www.google.com/patents/US1119732",
"http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1904-03-05.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Plauson",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=SmU3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1006",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=ZNqo1zaZRTYC&pg=PA193",
"http://ptp.irb.hr/upload/mape/kuca/07_Dmitry_S_Strebkov_SINGLE-WIRE_ELECTRIC_POWER_SYSTEM_FOR_RE.pdf",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=SmU3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA890",
"https://www.google.com/patents/US674427",
"http://www.google.com/patents/US645576",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUdbzgCWFIY",
"https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/cloudborn-electric-wavelets-encircle-globe",
"https://www.google.com/patents/US1540998",
"http://www.teslasciencecenter.org/wardenclyffe/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.