q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4u670v
|
why is it that ice slows down swelling but when in the cold, our skin turns red from blood flow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u670v/eli5_why_is_it_that_ice_slows_down_swelling_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5n8z41"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cold just really slows down molecules down from their natural fast moving state to another state where things aren’t moving much at all. This works well and fine for things that don’t live and die like a pool of water that can just freeze without problems. When you cool sown a warm blooded creature like a human, the game changes. Humans require you to maintain a certain temperature for all of your processes to operate (like say make your lungs push air or allow your heart to pump blood). All of these systems become compromised when you are cold. Human skin is one of those things. Your skin doesn’t like to be cold since it tends to be damaged with cold temperatures. \n\nWhen you get cold your “core” (the boiler in your body) starts to panic - the boys operation is at risk. one of the normal reactions is to pull all of your body temperate goes to the core to keep it warm to keep your vitals operating. Your skin turning red is likely a panic response to getting your warm blood pooling together to the important parts of your body. The skin is the first thing that your body wants to preserve for temporary cold. If you stayed in the cold for longer, that redness would go away as your body starts deciding what it needs to save to make sure you don’t suffer from hypothermia. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2do5h1
|
how did israel developed from rand rock desert into oecd equivalent progressive nation.
|
Israel has GDP per capita better than some messed up Eastern European nations. In terms of literacy rate, education level, human right and freedom etc they second to none in Middle East. Not to mention they had 4+ times war and constant clashes with its neighbors (which most of the time they achieved victory). They certainly are first world. How did originally workers mass over barren badlands, turned into one of the most sophisticated cutting edge progressive nation of science technology education and finance in merely 50 years; this progress is equivalent to something like Japan, South Korea and Singapore have achieved.
EDIT:
> rand rock
meant land rock
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2do5h1/eli5_how_did_israel_developed_from_rand_rock/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjrdryu",
"cjrf24b",
"cjs8jwn"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It was built by first world people, at first educated by first world institutions, until they created their own.\n\n\nAnd they get funded by first world jews all over the world. Jews have always prioritized education(as asians do).",
"Israeli culture does (and always has) place a high value on knowledge and education. This was established (at least partially) for patriotic reasons - Israel had to be smart to survive - but the bottom line is it lead to a well-educated society that prizes innovation. \n\nA lot of high-tech stuff you use on a daily basis were developed (at least in part) in Israel. Those Qualcomm chips in your cellphone. A lot of those Intel CPUs. Anti-virus software. Lots of huge multinational companies have huge R & D centers in Israel. With all that going on, drying the swamps and irrigating the desert isn't that big a deal. ",
"yolo, some factors others here probably won't consider;\n\nisrael started out on socialist ideals, so there was a lot of cooperation between citizens to centrally plan and build it's infrastructure. security and redundancy mandates from the military further spurned on key development far beyond how a country might have evolved had it been a peaceful capitalist democracy from the start.\n\nisraelis know israel is a tiny country in a huge world, and as such they are major world travelers. israeli tourists can be heard speaking hebrew all over the world. i know adult americans that don't even bother getting a passport. \n\nsuch worldwide exposure of it's average citizens broadens an israelis perception in both education and business opportunities, helping make israel a truly open and international place to learn, work and innovate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4vtj6d
|
what's going on inside those box things on laptop chargers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vtj6d/eli5_whats_going_on_inside_those_box_things_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d618u32",
"d6193j0",
"d61k7tk",
"d61qvzc"
],
"score": [
4,
26,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"Those \"box things\" are known as bricks and they are essentially used to convert the AC current to DC current. \n\nDC current is more expensive to transport than AC current hence you get AC at homes and the brick converts it to DC for the battery to get charged.",
"**edit - disregard my comment and read what the actual engineers have to say in the replies**\n\nPower (electricity) from the nearby power plant comes down the wires to your house or apartment and it's alternating its direction of travel 60 times every second (60 hertz). This is necessary to send electricity across many miles of wire (so we don't need a power plant in every neighborhood). \n\nThe little box in the middle of your power cord contains a circuit called a transformer which converts the AC (alternating current) power to DC (direct current) by means of sending the electricity through copper wire wrapped around a magnet, which transfers the energy into a single direction (magically).",
"Ok - there's some rather misleading answers here.\n\nModern laptop chargers are not, in essence, transformers. Yes, they contain components which act as transformers, but they're not controlling the electricity in the way a plain transformer would.\n\nInstead, they're what's called Switch Mode Power Supplies.\n\nIn simple terms, the incoming AC is converted by a bridge rectifier to DC. This is then used to charge a capacitor to the required output voltage, then switched off. As the laptop draws power the capacitor's voltage droops, so the switch is turned on again until it reaches the right voltage, then it's switched off again. This happens thousands of times a second.\n\nThe *reason* this is done is that a transformer gets hot because the current is flowing through a coil (it's more complicated than that, but this is ELI5) and is controlled by *partly* turning on a transistor, which creates a lot of heat. In a Switch Mode supply the switching elements are either hard on, or hard off, which wastes a lot less power, so creates a lot less heat.",
"Along with what erichthinks said, it also serves as a surge protector, and will often damage itself and render the power cord useless instead of frying the whole computer. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wbmm9
|
why can't nuclear power plants use their own generated power for cooling?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wbmm9/eli5_why_cant_nuclear_power_plants_use_their_own/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf0k56q",
"cf0k6ug",
"cf0lmr5"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"I think what the OP is referring to is why nuclear electric plants have a secondary electrical supply to power cooling systems. They need to have a secondary power source in case something goes wrong with the nuke system, so at least there will be reserve power to run the cooling pumps and prevent a melt-down. This was one of the problems in the Fukishima disaster. After the tsunami, the nuke power systems went off-line and the secondary diesel generators kicked in to run the cooling. Unfortunately, the diesel engines also got incapacitated by the flooding.",
"They do. They also have backup generators in case something goes wrong - it's easier to keep cooling the reactor than to shut it down.",
"Nuclear engineer here.\n\nThey can, and they do. When a nuclear power plant is online, it actually supplies all its own power. The main generator has taps that feed back into the plant's auxiliary power system.\n\nHowever, when the reactor has to scram, or when the power grid has an instability, they usually cannot, and here are some of the reasons/issues why:\n\nFirst up, after a reactor scram, there is insufficient decay heat to drive the generator. So if the reactor has to scram for any reason, you lose the ability to power your own equipment. After a scram, the plant's electrical system will perform an automatic fast transfer from the generator to the plant's reserve transformers to draw in grid power.\n\nNow second up, what about when the plant loses electrical power from the grid? The answer is, a plant CAN power itself and stay online, IF it was designed that way. So for example, during the 2003 Northeast blackout in the US, the blackout was so severe it stretched into parts of Canada. The Canadian CANDU reactors have what is called \"total load reject capability\". In plain terms, this means if the power grid goes away, the plant and its systems are designed to automatically downshift the reactor to < 50% power, automatically vent excess steam, disconnect from the failed power grid, and continue powering itself. This scenario, a load reject without scram, is a challenging one to design for, and even though all the CANDU plants have this function and tested it, only about 1/2 managed to survive that blackout. The rest had some other system perturbation that produced a reactor scram, leading them to shut down. \n\nSo the next question one would ask, is why don't US plants, or most plants have this functionality? And there are several challenges. You can design for this scenario, but it requires taking penalties to the plant's operating limits and installing more equipment and more expensive equipment from the start. If the reactor downshift does not occur properly, or if one of your systems designed to handle the excess steam fails, you put a large shock on the reactor, so you have to take penalties to your core thermal limits. You also need a generator and a turbine that can handle low load conditions (most large nuclear plant turbine/generator sets are unstable if they can't put out enough power and will vibrate themselves). Low-load capable turbine/generators are usually less efficient. Most plants have been moving to new/modern turbine designs like the mono block rotors, which do not like being at load electrical outputs for more than a few hours. After 2-4 hours my plant's mono-block turbine will start to vibrate excessively and we have to trip it. If my plant was capable of running itself with no power grid, that means we would be fundamentally limited to 2-4 hours without the grid. \n\nThe next challenge is load reject capability. A \"Load Reject\", is when the grid stops accepting electrical power. This is the equivalent of pedaling your bike up the hill and the chain snaps, and you lose balance and fall over, except you are dealing with dozens of tons of rapidly rotating metal. It is hard to design for. You also have issues on the reactor side. At the time the offsite power grid goes away, the reactor is producing 14 million pounds of steam per hour (for a large 1000MW plant). When the power grid goes away, the turbine isn't capable of accepting that much steam. The plant needs a place to put all this excess steam while it attempts to rapidly reduce reactor power, otherwise there will be a massive pressure shockwave that will challenge the reactor's safety. One way to do this is to signifacntly oversizes the plant condenser, then they can route ALL of the reactor steam there. This is not typical, plants usually only size their condenser to handle 15-35% pure reactor steam. Typically condensers are sized with the idea that the turbine is going to to remove most of the energy from reactor steam. So this is usually a limitation. \n\nIf your condenser is not large enough, some alternative options for PWRs include dumping steam out to the atmosphere. You can only do this for a short time though, because the plant would be venting off clean extremely pure water, and there is a limited supply of that on site under normal conditions. For BWRs, you can dump steam in the pressure suppression pool, but only for about 10 seconds, and it requires special analysis, core penalties, and a license modification to do. In both plant types an automatic partial scram would need to occur to drop power low enough so that the plant can remain online, and if the power grid doesn't come back in time this could cause xenon/fission product/conditioning limits being violated which would require the plant to still shut down. Some overseas PWR/BWR plants DO have oversized condensers, partial scrams, turbine/generators designed for low load, based on my talks with operators from those plants, the reactor typically only stays online 30-50% of the time.\n\nOn top of this all, with a shutdown reactor, you only have to deal with < 1% of reactor heat (Decay heat). Emergency core cooling system is extremely reliable and can deal with this easily/readily. Many operators, including myself, if I was in a situation where I lost the offsite grid, would be reducing reactor power to get the core shutdown so I would have less heat to deal with if/when another plant failure occurred. \n\nThere's one last piece I didnt mention. In the US, every nuclear plant operating license requires the offsite power grid. With the offsite grid lost, there are requirements to have the plant shut down in 12 hours or less.\n\ntl;dr During normal operation nuclear plants power themselves. After a scram they cant (because the core is shutdown). After a loss of power grid, it is very hard and expensive to design a plant to survive that without a reactor scram, and even if you do, you'll probably have a scram 50% of the time anyways or you'll have to come off in 2-4 hours because of other limitations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26j36t
|
why do scientists assume an alien species would use the same math system as us.
|
Like I hear stuff about our space crafts showing prime numbers on them incase they ran into an alien species and other stuff I'm too lazy to look up.
But how do they know they don't count in sets of 7 instead of 10. I figured the only reason we did that cause we have 10 fingers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26j36t/eli5why_do_scientists_assume_an_alien_species/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chrib5a",
"chrib7n",
"chribih",
"chricrg",
"chrig8s",
"chrimej",
"chrj6p5",
"chrjj25"
],
"score": [
21,
4,
4,
5,
3,
49,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If the aliens cant figure out different bases chances are they dont even know how to get to space or how to reply to any message we can send.",
"we do, but there are lots of number systems using different bases. if there ever were an alien species who were asking themselves the same question, the most logical conclusion is to use base 2 - the smallest base you can use for numbers. and thats what our binary system is.",
"Even if they count in sets of 7 (\"base 7\"), the prime numbers would still be the same. In much the same way that morse code and the roman alphabet can both be used to express English words -- they look different but represent the same thing.\n\nMathematics is universal -- even though the Babylonians used base 60, and we use base 10, and computers use base 2, the universal truths remain constant.",
"They don't assume that. But it can be reasonably assumed that any aliens capable of space flight are capable of understanding multiple base numbering systems, and understanding prime numbers in any of them just like we can.",
"Math is often used as the universal language. An alien race would presumably have similar math system despite the likely possibility of different symbols and/or using a different base (i.e. a base8 number system). \n\nThink of it like this. if you show a toddler 3 oranges, they might think it is another number (they likely make up) and if they're not taught our system they could associate three with the symbol 5. That doesn't change the fact that there are, what we call, 3 oranges. Math is just a bunch of related systems that are invariably linked and universal ",
"An alien species very well may use base 7. Even other human civilizations have used different bases: the Babylonians used base 60, iirc.\n\nPrime numbers are still prime regardless of what base you write it in. When we write, for example, 7 in binary, it's 111, but that doesn't change any of the properties of the number. It's just a different way of writing it.\n\nWhen we try to communicate with aliens, we use things that are symbolic, since it's assumed that they won't know what \"7\" means (ie they won't recognize the shape). Something like ||||||| is universal, though, we know it's seven lines. So, if I wrote || ||| ||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13) or whatever, it would communicate to anyone who received the message that someone intelligent is sending it, since there's a clear and recognizable pattern.\n\nThey might use base 7, in which case they'd write the message in their own number system as 2, 3, 5, 10, 14, 16, but that's fine: that's just how they write the first six prime numbers. 10 in base seven is not ten, it's seven, and seven is a prime number. In base 7, 10/2 = 3.333333 or so, which is 3.5 in base ten.",
"There's only one mathematics. Anything we discover could be explained to aliens, or vice versa. The trouble is finding a common language – we would undoubtedly have very different notations.\n\nBut something as simple as a list of prime numbers should be quite easy to communicate. A trivial unary encoding should be [hard to miss](_URL_0_). Prime numbers are a critical concept in basic arithmetic, and any plausible formulation of the counting numbers should include them.",
"Every civilization or alien species would have there own code of doing things math wise. However the outcome would be the same and the process similar. You can't mess with the laws of the universe. Everyone just has there own system of coming to the same answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw"
],
[]
] |
|
29fikz
|
how did popcorn become a standard movie "meal"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29fikz/eli5how_did_popcorn_become_a_standard_movie_meal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cikf4mq",
"cikf7pq",
"cikf9ek",
"cikg68r",
"cikgc8y",
"cikh15o",
"cikkquj",
"cikky4i",
"cikl0fv",
"cikl5mg",
"ciklwvd",
"cikms32",
"cikmzpu",
"cikn0m1",
"cikn2hp",
"ciknwej",
"ciko3pt",
"ciko7pc",
"ciko8ry",
"cikobih",
"cikog4h",
"cikoxyd",
"cikp6b9",
"cikpa8m",
"cikq8ce",
"cikqolc",
"cikr9xv",
"cikrb1k",
"ciks4bf",
"ciksdkk",
"ciksh9f",
"ciku3fj",
"cikum8u",
"cikvdxp",
"cikwnil",
"cikz06l",
"cil09oj",
"cil0jwz",
"cil0xlx"
],
"score": [
21,
1979,
89,
10,
128,
11,
8,
15,
3,
26,
4,
2,
18,
4,
4,
24,
6,
2,
2,
2,
5,
13,
3,
5,
2,
2,
7,
2,
3,
2,
7,
3,
6,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"People figured out they could sell it at a 2000% profit margin. ",
"Popcorn was originally sold by street peddlers. Oftentimes businesses rented popcorn carts to poor / homeless people to sell popcorn on sidewalks around the city, in exchange for a cut of the day's take. Unpopped popcorn isn't heavy or bulky, and cooking it requires simple equipment and little skill or effort. Thus it's not surprising that popcorn would be a popular food in this role.\n\nMovie theaters had to cut prices during the Great Depression because their customers didn't have as much money. Meanwhile they noticed that popcorn carts seemed to appear outside at many theaters, because people liked to sneak it into theaters. At the time, eating was forbidden because movies were viewed as an upper-class cultural experience -- eating at the movies would be like eating at a classical music concert.\n\nSo theaters decided that they needed re-brand themselves to be more attractive to lower- and middle-class customers by cutting prices and allowing food, then making up for the lost revenue by selling popcorn themselves instead of letting the street vendors get all the money.\n",
"Back in the early days of the \"motion picture\" Movie theater owners needed a way to draw people in to see movies. \n\nEspecially during the depression, when money and inflation was both unstable and gouged, things like Coffee and chocolate were hard to purchase and come by.\n\nPopcorn as it were, was easy and readily available, cheap to transport, and until you cooked it took up a small amount of space. [$0.05 as claimed by _URL_1_](_URL_0_) per bag was not uncommon during the depression age.\n\nBecause at the time, popcorn kernels could be purchased for the low price of $0.10/lb or $10 per 100 pound batch, movie theatre owners looking to boost their bottom line in a time when Movies had just begun showing \"Talkies\" and even the rich and famous were enduring the hardships of the depression; Popcorn became a quick staple.\n\nAnd then as all things went, Popcorn became a mainstay at theatre front counters, becoming the dual service Movie and a snack bar combination that we know them to be today.\n\nThere are several articles written that help show the history of popcorn and most agree: Popcorn saved Hollywood as we know it today.\n\n\n[The Science of History and Popcorn - How popcorn saved the movies](_URL_2_)\n\n[Why do we eat Popcorn at the Movies?](_URL_3_) - This one actually explains that at one point, During the Silent Movie era, popcorn was explicitly banned because of its noisy sound while chewing.",
"It's cheap, can be eaten in the dark, and doesn't make a lot of noise when eaten.",
"Interesting Note: Before popcorn, one of the more popular in-theater foods was 'Egg Mimosas,' or Deviled Eggs. ",
"This is quite an interesting article on the subject from [_URL_0_](_URL_1_).\n\n*“Movie theaters wanted nothing to do with popcorn,” Smith says, “because they were trying to duplicate what was done in real theaters. They had beautiful carpets and rugs and didn’t want popcorn being ground into it.” Movie theaters were trying to appeal to a highbrow clientele, and didn’t want to deal with the distracting trash of concessions–or the distracting noise that snacking during a film would create.*\n\n*When films added sound in 1927, the movie theater industry opened itself up to a much wider clientele, since literacy was no longer required to attend films (the titles used early silent films restricted their audience). By 1930, attendance to movie theaters had reached 90 million per week. Such a huge patronage created larger possibilities for profits–especially since the sound pictures now muffled snacks–but movie theater owners were still hesitant to bring snacks inside of their theaters.*",
"I highly recommend watching [Filmmaker IQ's video](_URL_0_) on the topic",
"There's a gas station near where I live that sells popcorn in tubes that holds as much as a large popcorn at any theatre. It's a lot tastier, and about 2$. I always sneak a tube in and some mountain dew. You can hide a lot of junk food in a woman's purse.",
"why is this a ELI5? ",
"The more important question is when are they going to start selling kettle corn in theaters?",
"and popcorn doesn't make as much noise when you eat it. :)",
"peoples choice for being easy to eat finger food in a dark room. even easier than sandwiches. Popcorn was banned in many theaters at first cause it made a mess on the floors. until they decided to charge a lot for it and sell it.",
"I discovered why popcorn is the best movie food. It required zero concentration to eat. \n \nWe made the mistake of ordering a whole bunch of food in a gold class cinema, it was the Bourne Supremacy. I remember nothing about that movie because all my concentration went to trying to eat tapas style food in the dark. Never again, now only popcorn.",
"[I asked this a while back :D ](_URL_0_)",
"The moment they figured out that you could buy a portion for 1.5 cents and sell it for $8 fecking dollars\n",
"Just wondering why you chose the word \"meal\" over \"snack\"?",
"I don't like the creamed corn a the movies, its to crunchy ",
"1) Popcorn smells like butter, so once you start selling it in a crowded area, more and more people want to buy it because it smells tasty.\n\n2) Butter popcorn is actually a *really* messy snack. Your hands get all oily when you eat and you can't do anything! For example, you can't really eat butter popcorn while reading a book or studying, because you're going to get butter on all the paper. But during a movie? You don't need to use your hands for anything, doesn't matter if they are all buttery, you're just sitting there for 2 hours!",
"having frequented theatres in asia, i really miss the variety that was available there.",
"You know what I'd prefer instead of popcorn? \n\nCrab legs.",
"because it is cheep to make and there is a big profit margin ",
"Pop corn was cheap as fuck during the war times. It became a staple food back then. \n\n\nSpeaking solely for the United States: Although popcorn carts had become a common sight at fairs and other outdoor events in the late 19th Century, they were not typically seen in Cinemas of the time. It was considered too low-brow for the fancy new movie palaces because of its association with circuses and burlesque entertainments.\nThen comes the Great Depression. At 5 to 10 cents per bag, popcorn became a rare affordable luxury and its popularity helped movie theatre owners keep their businesses afloat. By the beginning of WW2, popcorn machines were ubiquitous at movie houses and the experience of munching popcorn in front of the silver screen had spread to almost every town in the US.\nAfter the United States' entrance into WW2, sugar was tightly rationed. This made candy at the movies become scarce and expensive. Popcorn became more or less the only game in town for affordable movie snacks until the war's end.\nSales began to decline as television sets became more affordable and movie attendance slumped in the 1950's. But thanks to some clever marketing campaigns and the increasing use of microwave ovens in the home, popcorn became a popular snack in American households in the late 20th Century.",
"Theater concessions started out with hard-boiled eggs, but that became cumbersome and popcorn had more of an aroma and also worked well with selling sodas.",
"Murwillumbah Cinema in NSW Australia makes pizza to order, and you eat it while watching the movie. \n\nFront seats are giant bean bags.",
"In the UK, Ice Cream was sold in Cinemas, however during WWII to ration milk, Popcorn was introduced by following Americas change. \n\nIts a shame that Popcorn/Ice Cream whatever is so extortionate now that it's the reason I never go anymore. ",
"All other things aside popcorn is astoundingly cheap to make and is also conveniently salty which sells drinks. However it started it's a standard because it's a licence to print money.",
"Is this really ELI5 worthy? Were you expecting a scientific explanation?",
"Ever since i can't watch a movie at the cinema without a bucket full of it. ",
"I own a popper from the 1930s. The manual that came with it explained side walk marketing.\n",
"Eating something like popcorn might actually make you immune to cinema advertising, there is a study. Quite interesting. \n_URL_0_",
"Fun fact: Kemmons Wilson, founder of Holiday Inn, had a popcorn stand as his first business.....outside the movie theatre. Until they bought his machine and moved it inside.\n\nThe more you know!",
"I heard a weird story from an older guy once many years ago...\n\nHe said that eating a lot of corn made you laugh...so they started selling popcorn in the movie theaters when a comedy was playing to loosen up the audience. Also, this guy said, that is the reason a lame joke is called corny.\n\nThat doesn't sound right to me, but I thought I'd share anyway...",
"the word you're looking for is \"snack\"",
"I did an animation to explain that once that aired on the food network! The episode is: _URL_0_ \n\nI haven't seen it since it aired!",
"The same way diamonds became necessary for engagements: People keep telling you over and over and over.",
"When movie theaters realized they could sell 5 cents worth of popcorn for 6 dollars. It's the highest profit margin food in the history of man. ",
"Because I'm not strong enough to punch my dick through a plate of spaghetti.",
"It is inexpensive and easy to make. Plus it's served heavily salted and buttered, which makes customers thirsty and encourages them to buy drinks. ",
"Popcorn culturally was an event food in the 1800s. It was exotic and American at the same time. One would buy it at fairs and expositions. With the advent of movies, popcorn naturally made its way in as they were new and felt much like an event. Then the depression hit and a person could cheaply fill their stomach as they also got their minds off of their own lives for a day. This created a strong cultural association with movies and popcorn in the 1900s. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.oscars.org/features/movie-munchies/popcorn-origin.html",
"Oscar.com",
"http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-science-and-history-of-popcorn-the-snack-that-saved-the-movies/",
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-do-we-eat-popcorn-at-the-movies-475063/?no-ist"
],
[],
[],
[
"Smithsonian.com",
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-do-we-eat-popcorn-at-the-movies-475063/?no-ist"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1XfVDXoMc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22bdf8/eli5_when_did_popcorn_become_a_movie_food_and_why/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/13/eating-popcorn-cinema-advertisers"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/the-secret-life-of/1-series/secret-life-of-popcorn.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
560804
|
how is it that disposable lighters have lighter fluid inside and it comes out as gas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/560804/eli5_how_is_it_that_disposable_lighters_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8f5pja",
"d8f5qom",
"d8f6ist",
"d8f788h",
"d8f7mrm",
"d8fnuog",
"d8ftvbt"
],
"score": [
3,
43,
3,
4,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When it is compressed it turns to a liquid, the valve lets the fluid out slowly so turn back to a gas when it's uncompressed. ",
"The gas inside the lighter is under fairly high pressure which keeps it in a liquid state until it gets released. I wouldn't recommend trying it, but when I was younger we use to scare people by throwing cheap lighters on the ground behind them. The plastic cracks, pressure is release, loud pop ensues.",
"It isn't lighter fluid. It's butane, a gas under high pressure. Lighter fluid is a flammable liquid used in flint and wick lighters like Zippos.",
"Every liquid has a vapor pressure. This is because although the average temperature of a liquid might be room temperature, there are some molecules of it that are moving very fast and some that are moving very slowly. The fast ones have enough kinetic energy to overcome the attractive forces of the other molecules around it and escape them to enter the vapor phase. The vapor pressure of a liquid depends only on the temperature of the system; it goes up as temperature goes up. The vapor and liquid are also constantly trying to achieve equilibrium. If some vapor is removed from the system, some liquid will vaporize to replace it. This is why puddles evaporate but water in a bottle stays there; as more liquid becomes gas, the pressure of the atmosphere is basically unchanged by the puddle so liquid just keeps evaporating and trying to build up that vapor pressure to reach equilibrium but never gets there.\n\n \n\n \nIn a lighter, the system is sealed so the vapor and the liquid are in equilibrium. When you press the button on the lighter, it opens and some of the vapor comes out. When you let go, it is closed again but now has less vapor. This means more liquid will vaporize to replace it until the pressure exerted by the vapor is back to what it should be at that temperature. ",
"Butane's boiling point is right around 0 degrees C so it doesn't take much pressure at room temperature for it to become a liquid. That's why a relatively flimsy plastic capsule can keep it from bursting, unlike CO2 or Nitrogen which have far lower boiling points and need sturdier steel cylinders to make them safe for transport/use.",
"Made the mistake of leaving a couple of new bic lighters in my car. It was a broiling hot sunny day and they cooked in that car for 8+ hours. When I got into the car it smelled like butane and both lighters self discharged.",
"The temperature at which a gas becomes a liquid will depend on pressure. The higher the pressure the higher the boiling point. The butane in the lighter is under pressure and so it is a liquid at room temperature. When you open the valve to release the butane it has a greater pressure than the air around it and so it is forced out, the pressure drops and it becomes a gas. \n\nThe empty area above the butane tank is not a vacuum though and there is butane gas in there as well from evaporation. \n\nThis loss of pressure also removes heat from the tank and if you let too much gas flow out it will lower the temperature of the butane and it will get cold. \n\nIt's the same reason why duster cans get cold when you spray them too long. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
n9ubn
|
megaupload
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n9ubn/eli5_megaupload/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c37eyd6",
"c37eyd6"
],
"score": [
17,
17
],
"text": [
"Megaupload is a file hosting service, meaning everyone and their dog can use it to upload files to be hosted on the internet, where anyone can download them. This is a legitimate service, even if it is abused by people loading copyright infringing material onto the service, like pirated software, ripped CDs, or bootleg movies.\n\nOne of the few good parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the safe harbor provision. This means that Megaupload isn't liable for what is uploaded to it as long as they take copyright infringing material down when they are notified about it. The thing about these notifications is that they are a legal document, stating this is definitely infringing content under penalty of law. Whoever uploaded the material can file a counter-claim saying it isn't infringing and can take copyright holder to court, if necessary, to get the material put back online. \n\nCopyright holders have been repeatedly caught abusing the takedown process using automated tools. So if I rename a perfectly legal Linux distribution as \"MIB_3_camrip_h264.zip\", the movie studio may falsely take down the file thinking it's a bootleg movie. They also have been lobbying to get the service outlawed. Much like a firearms manufacturer, it's what the users do with the end product that matters.\n\nSome very well known musical artists use Megaupload and similar file hosts as a means of distributing special tracks directly to their fans. They worked together on a YouTube music video which came to Megaupload's defense. [Which Universal Music Group then had blocked on copyright grounds.](_URL_0_) \n\nThanks to the Streisand effect, the whole situation blew up in the music industry's face.",
"Megaupload is a file hosting service, meaning everyone and their dog can use it to upload files to be hosted on the internet, where anyone can download them. This is a legitimate service, even if it is abused by people loading copyright infringing material onto the service, like pirated software, ripped CDs, or bootleg movies.\n\nOne of the few good parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the safe harbor provision. This means that Megaupload isn't liable for what is uploaded to it as long as they take copyright infringing material down when they are notified about it. The thing about these notifications is that they are a legal document, stating this is definitely infringing content under penalty of law. Whoever uploaded the material can file a counter-claim saying it isn't infringing and can take copyright holder to court, if necessary, to get the material put back online. \n\nCopyright holders have been repeatedly caught abusing the takedown process using automated tools. So if I rename a perfectly legal Linux distribution as \"MIB_3_camrip_h264.zip\", the movie studio may falsely take down the file thinking it's a bootleg movie. They also have been lobbying to get the service outlawed. Much like a firearms manufacturer, it's what the users do with the end product that matters.\n\nSome very well known musical artists use Megaupload and similar file hosts as a means of distributing special tracks directly to their fans. They worked together on a YouTube music video which came to Megaupload's defense. [Which Universal Music Group then had blocked on copyright grounds.](_URL_0_) \n\nThanks to the Streisand effect, the whole situation blew up in the music industry's face."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/14234917026/universal-music-issues-questionable-takedown-megaupload-video-that-featured-their-artists.shtml"
],
[
"http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/14234917026/universal-music-issues-questionable-takedown-megaupload-video-that-featured-their-artists.shtml"
]
] |
||
1h1fki
|
why has the supreme court declared section 4 of the voting rights act unconstitutional?
|
I have read section 4 and I'm not sure what part makes it unconstitutional? I haven't read a good break down of it yet either so, ELI5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1h1fki/eli5_why_has_the_supreme_court_declared_section_4/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capvnqe",
"capwccp",
"capwfs8",
"caqffa8"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, it said that certain areas of the country must go through extra steps if they want to change **any** process related to voting. For example, even closing an expensive or infrequently utilized polling place at a local school requires federal approval if you're in a certain area. These were areas that abused minorities in elections enough to cause that bill to be passed in the first place.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the way we figured out who the bad guys were was reasonable 40 years ago, but if we're gonna keep the situation where we keep an eye on some trouble makers congress needs to reevaluate how we decide who to watch most.",
"The voting rights act was necessary at the time but the act itself was not particularly well constructed looking forward. The act lists a large number of municipalities, counties and states which imposed barriers to voting (EG literacy tests) but made the process for getting off the list extremely cumbersome such that nearly every area covered no longer has even the hint of racially based voting problems yet is still included. The justice department have also been extraordinarily reluctant to remove areas from the list even when they have clearly demonstrated they no longer have the same issues too; New Hampshire had to sue the federal government to get its municipalities off the list despite the state having had decades of some of the safest elections in the country.\n\nThe act has also been supplanted by other legislation which entirely negates the problems it was seeking to solve, the federal government has authority to intercede in state & local elections which is did not 50 years ago such that abusive voting practices would result in a federal court overturning elections. Even if a state managed to pass a literacy test requirement today (pretty much not a chance) they would find themselves in a federal court about 5 minutes later, since 1982 all the federal government needs to do to prevent such a practice is simply pass a federal statute barring it.\n\nThe reason why municipalities/counties/states want off the list is because it attaches stigma that may no longer be accurate (they must hate black people, the states not permitted to manage its own elections) and the pre-clearance procedures are both cumbersome and take an extremely long time to traverse. A municipality looking to change the wording on its ballots is looking at a couple of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in order to do so. In many cases this is too expensive to be justifiable so many municipalities are stuck with 50 year old voting procedures which may make elections less safe not more.\n\nIn terms of why SCOTUS overturned this provision now they felt the renewal violated the 10th amendment as the data being used to justify the act was 50 years old, the 10th and 15th amendments clash in this area so in order for a federal statute to be enforceable over the 10th amendment the federal government have to show 15th violations to be both recent and actual. Roberts stated clearly that congress are free to pass another voting rights act with precisely the same requirements as long as the areas listed are included due to recent violations not 50 year old violations that no longer occur.",
"Information is a summary of the opinion released this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court. The opinion can be found on the Supreme Court's [website](_URL_1_) and the case is Shelby County v. Holder. Additional information found on the [New York Times website.](_URL_0_)\n\nSection 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is what is commonly called the \"coverage formula\" and deals with defining areas or jurisdictions (such as a State or political subdivision) that used a test or device as a precursor to actually voting - which was common in Southern states to prevent African-Americans from voting. This relates to Section 5 which states that within these jurisdictions, voting procedures cannot be changed without first approval in Washington, D.C. - aka \"preclearance\".\n\nThe formula used in Section 4 was originally supposed to expire after five years. However, the VRA has been renewed numerous times but the formula still has NOT changed. Shelby County in Alabama challenged Section 4 & 5 and stated that it was unconstitutional and an injunction to law enforcement in that area.\n\nThe ruling is that the formula used in Section 4 is unconstitutional and can no longer be used to determine which areas need preclearance. It is unconstitutional because of several points: \n\n1. In a previous case, the VRA was noted to contain burdens and had to be justified due to current needs. In 1966, this was needed because of the racial discrimination and thus the formula made sense in areas deemed by Congress to have \"evidence of actual voting discrimination\". The VRA also departs from the basic principles of the Tenth Amendment by requiring states to appeal to the Government for permission to implement laws (regarding voting) that they should otherwise have the power to do. This only applies to the Nine states in the VRA that where deemed by Congress to have been discriminatory. \n\n2. The Government has continued to defend the formula by stating that because Congress first \"identified the jurisdiction to be covered and then came up with the criteria to define them\". Example: Congress identified Shelby County and then based on what was happening there, made the guidelines so Shelby County would always be identified. The argument was that since the formula made sense in 1965, then the formula was still relevant so long as the discrimination then was still in place now.\n\n3. Yet, the formula ignores current political conditions and doesn't account for the advances in discrimination today. Thus, jurisdictions must be singled out by what is happening political now, and not by what happened nearly 50 years ago (yet, the past shouldn't be ignored).\n\nTo sum up: The formula that was put in place in 1965 doesn't account for the political situation of today. Because of that, Section 4 has been ruled unconstitutional and thus removes the effectiveness of Section 5. If Congress so chooses, it may draw up new guidelines using current (2013 and beyond) data, not data from the '60s.",
"A landlord owns several buildings. Some of them are infested with termites, some of them are not. The tenants beg the landlord to spray for termites. The landlord makes a survey of which buildings, floors, rooms, and apartments need spraying for termites, then hires a man to spray for termites.\n\nIt starts to work. The termites begin to recede. The termite man keeps spraying, and slowly but surely, some termites completely disappear from certain problem areas. Some areas still have termites.\n\nEvery week the termite man sprays for termites. \n\nYears pass (let's say 45 years.) But the termite man is still at it. Some sections of the landlord's buildings still have termites, the persistent cusses. Some sections have completely rid themselves of termites. And some sections that didn't have termites before now have termites, but the termite man doesn't spray for them because originally they didn't have a problem, so he never checked to find out if they had termites. He just follows the original schedule.\n\nWhenever he sprays for termites, certain areas of the building are restricted with tents like in Breaking Bad or that Will Eisner book. The restrictions become a habit for the residents of the city. Sometimes they ask the termite man not to spray so they don't have to deal with the restrictions. Maybe they want to use the convention room for something, could you skip spraying. The termite man says \"that's not up to me, i can only stop if the landlord says.\" the residents asks the landlord if they can skip a spray at this time so they can use the normally restricted areas. The landlord then goes down to inspect to make sure it's ok, there's not a big termite problem there. If he approves of the area, he tells the termite man it's ok not to spray this time, they don't need the spraying right now, so the people can use the area and get around the restrictions.\n\nbut if a room or section was not originally put on the list for being sprayed for termites, then nobody has to ask the landlord permission for anything. they can just use it.\n\nSome people think it's stupid to keep spraying for termites using the same schedule based on who needed it years ago. \"Let's do a new assessment of who needs termites.\" \"This area was never sprayed but now has termites\" \"that area hasn't had termites in years but is constantly sprayed\" \"this other area is constantly sprayed and does indeed need the spraying, since the termites are persistent!\"\n\nAll the buildings the landlord owns are America. The termites are racism, or more specifically, the habit of prevent blacks and minority groups from voting by using literacy tests or character references. The landlord is the federal government. The tenants are the counties and people. the termite man is the voting rights act. \n\nThe survey the landlord did to see who needs to be sprayed for termites years ago is section 4b of the voting rights act, and the tents that prevent you from going where you want to are section 5: If you got assessed 45 years ago that you needed spraying by using the former, you get stuck with the latter.\n\nEssentially, the supreme court said you need a new survey, you can't use the one from 1964."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0",
"http://www.supremecourt.gov"
],
[]
] |
|
sspui
|
horizontal drilling: how do they steer?
|
I see [these things](_URL_0_) frequently being used to lay conduit for fiber optics but can not figure out how they have any control over the direction while underground. How does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sspui/eli5_horizontal_drilling_how_do_they_steer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4gqq7o"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The answer of \"They don't\" is wrong. Dead wrong. I'm a Directional Driller in the Oil and Gas business with 11 years of experience, so let me see if I can break it down, Mr. Potato head style.\n\nDownhole while drilling in a wellbore, you have two main components. The Mud Motor, and the MWD. Let's explain them.\n\nThe Mud Motor, in big terms, is \"A Positive Displacement Multi-Lobed Motor that works by employing the reverse application of the Rene Moineau pump principle\". Or, in the spirit of ELI5, it's a tool used to drill that when you pump fluid through it, the bit box on the end turns and generates torque. It has an adjustable bend on it so we can turn with it by orienting the tools downhole. In other words, we can steer up, down, left, right, or by rotating the entire drilling string, we can go straight.\n\nRight behind this, we have the MWD, or \"Measurement while drilling\". The most basic form of this has 6 sensors on board. 3 gravity sensors, oriented at X Y and Z axis, and 3 Magnetic Sensors oriented the same way. Using this we can determine the Inclination and Azimuth that the well is travelling, and steer it according to whatever direction and angle the customer we are working for wants.\n\n\n**Edit**\nWow, I'm a really crappy redditor. I just now clicked on the picture. That's a freaking ditch witch. They don't really need to see where they are going, considering they travel very short distances. A good guess is close enough. I'm working with drilling that covers thousands of feet. Right now I'm on a well that we are currently 12,230' deep and drilling ahead at 40' an hour. So, uh....my bad."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/horizontal-directional-drilling-rig-389325.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1171dw
|
what is the problem between greece and germany?
|
I really don't understand the Problem. What kind of money flows where? Why are people burning Nazi flags at a visit of Merkel in Athens?
If someone could put this whole mess in an easy explanation, I would be very thankful.
Edit: Thank you guys for all the answers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1171dw/what_is_the_problem_between_greece_and_germany/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6jvgim",
"c6jvrjd",
"c6jvsxa",
"c6jvtd6",
"c6jvwm8",
"c6jw7jj",
"c6jwgw6",
"c6jwpgx",
"c6jx683",
"c6jxhdz"
],
"score": [
18,
9,
6,
13,
2,
105,
2,
13,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Germany don't want to have to pay for the economic issues Greece have as they think Greece has been too irresponsible.",
"It's her first visit to Greece since the EU-crisis. According to the Greeks she's responsible for the heavy savings Greece needs to achieve since the country is near bankruptcy. \n\n",
"Germany is keeping the european economy alive, while greece is piggybacking ",
"Heike's been pretty responsible with her money. Alexandra has not. \n\nHeike is now telling Alexandra what she can and what she can't spend her money on. Being the petulant teenager she is, Alexandra and her family continue to rebel and haven't quite figured out that it's for their own good. \n\nWhilst Heike continues to be annoyed by this behaviour she always like to finish what she started so will continue to bear the burden from Alexandra and family as well as her own family who think Heike should not be spending any more of her own money helping Alexandra.\n\nAlso, Alexandra lied like a hooker on a street corner just so she could get in with the 'cool' gang.",
"Greece has a lot of debt at the moment, more than they seem to be able to pay back. This is bad for many other countries in Europe, because of two things. First, it was their money to begin with. Should Greece not be able to pay back the money, those countries lose it. Second, because Greece is part of the countries that have the Euro, having Greece be in a state where they can't pay back their debt is bad for the Euro.\n\nGermany is a rich country at the moment and can make a lot of decissions about what Greece needs to do in order to pay back their debt (\"austerity\"). They say they have to save a lot of money on a lot of different places. This angers greek people because a) they don't want to be told what to do with their money b) they can't buy things like education, health care, etc with the money any more, hence their live gets less comfortable because of it.",
"LI5: Let's say there's a group of friends that call themselves the \"EU\". One of the kids is named Greece, and he's been spending his allowance like crazy. He spends his money on expensive toys and other things he doesn't need until he's completely broke. Now he can't afford to eat lunch at school.\n\nOne of the requirements for belonging to the \"EU\" is that you help out other friends when they need it. Unfortunately, the friend named Germany is the only one that has enough money that they can let Greece borrow some. Since Greece is in such a tough spot and only Germany can help them out, Germany can set up any rules they want. Germany tells Greece \"we'll lend you the money as long as you stop buying all these toys.\" Greece doesn't like this. They want to borrow Germany's money but don't like the idea of Germany telling them how they must spend it.\n\nLI An Adult: The truth is a bit more complicated. Greece's politicians were the ones who were irresponsible with money, spending it on things they didn't need, stealing it, embezzling it, letting contractors embezzle it, and doing all sorts of other wasteful and corrupt things.\n\nWhat's happening is that the penalties are \"trickling down\" onto the middle and lower class. The Greek politicians and government contractors who are/were corrupt or foolish aren't being punished, but the people who had nothing to do with the corruption are going to have their wages lowered, retirement payments lowered, or even losing their jobs (the cuts the government is making are called austerity measures). Germany's requirements on how to spend the money they're lending don't really affect the politicians because politicians are not chasing after the wasted/stolen/embezzled money, they're just cutting government services. The cuts affect the common man and are being decided by the Greek government, but Greek politicians are deflecting some of the blame onto Germany.\n\nThat's why some Greeks are mad at Germany. But some Greeks are madder at corrupt Greek politicians.",
"Its a financial matter. Germany's economy is doing quite well while Greece's is in trouble. However, both nations keep the same currency (the euro). \n\nThe act that upset some Greek Citizens was a large loan the Germans offered the Greeks. They posed it with a modest interest rate, which given the huge amount of risk one would be taking investing any money in the Greeks right now (ie any loan they could get would come at a much higher interest rate), seemed to the Germans like a gift. \n\nThe Greeks however were upset that they asked for interest on their \"gift\", and claim they are simply being greedy and profiteering off of the Greeks. ",
"Greece lied about their money situation in order to switch to the Euro. Switching to the Euro let them borrow money at the same interest rate as Germany (even though their economy is not nearly as strong as Germany's). Greece went bankrupt because they spend much more than they make. Now Germany is trying to help them get back on track but all the people in Greece are mad at Germany because of all the spending cuts that have to be made to fix everything.\n\nBasically, Greece is a teenager that abused having an emergency credit card",
"The main difference between their economies is corruption. Greece has a massive, bloated public sector based on patronage, and bribery and tax evasion are commonplace. They also lied their way into the EU, and lied about their finances for nearly a decade so they could borrow money and have the economic equivalent of a weekend in Vegas.\n\nGermans don't want to bail out the Greeks anymore than they already have, especially with the Greeks being so unwilling to do anything to fix their underlying problems.\n\nThe Greeks see the Germans as the bad guys for this, because they are now feeling pain and blame the Germans for not stopping it. ",
"Imagine two siblings. Sibling Greece and Sibling Germany have co-signed on two houses -- one for Greece and one for Germany. Germany has been fairly responsible and has been paying for its house while Greece has felt secure in the fact that Germany has co-signed and has gone on a bit of spending spree. Now Greece is in danger of missing payments on the mortgage. Germany is a little pissed since it co-signed on that mortgage and if Greece defaults, Germany's credit will go down and bad things will happen. So Germany has given Greece some money to cover its mortgage payment on the condition Greece cuts its spending. However, Germany is not happy with this and keeps trying to tell Greece what to do about its irresponsibility and Greece is upset that Germany thinks it's not doing enough when Greece has cut out a lot of spending and thinks Germany is being a jerk about the entire thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2awckr
|
why is going to the dmv always such a clusterfuck?
|
Why does it take so long to handle any business at the Department of Motor Vehicles? I've been at my local DMV for several hours and I'm still nowhere near being helped. There's probably several hundred people in here waiting for the same shit too. Not even going to describe the parking catastrophe outside.
Is there a reason behind the piss poor service at a snail's pace at any DMV you ever go to?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2awckr/eli5_why_is_going_to_the_dmv_always_such_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cizerfs",
"cizfim9"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't have enough staff, the staff they do have works slow and it's a government agency so they have no incentive to work faster or harder because they'd have to rape a baby in front of the President to lose their job.",
"In Michigan we have a Secretary of State. They used to be slow. Understaffed, low motivation. It's all changed. I haven't had any problems with SoS for years. Always fast and efficient now. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
467t92
|
why is it harder to concentrate when you're sick or in pain, e.g. when you have a cold or a headache?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/467t92/eli5_why_is_it_harder_to_concentrate_when_youre/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0329ye"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For the same reason it's hard to concentrate when it's noisy or there's a bright light in your face: Your brain is distracted by all the other stimuli it's being exposed to (in this case, the stimulus of feeling like shit)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1v12yo
|
how does somebody like aaron swartz face 50 years prison for hacking, but people on trial for murder only face 15-25 years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v12yo/eli5_how_does_somebody_like_aaron_swartz_face_50/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cennqmb",
"cenohrm",
"cenp1ra",
"cenpsy8",
"cenrfhh",
"cenud7v",
"cenupxm",
"cenuuky",
"cenv2mm",
"cenvega",
"cenvjo3",
"cenvw34",
"cenwnr7",
"cenwrs4",
"cenxgok",
"cenxlxz",
"cenxrl0",
"ceny3yy",
"cenyst3",
"cenywp6",
"cenz645",
"cenzp6i",
"ceo05g0",
"ceo0poq",
"ceo0xfz",
"ceo1d1y",
"ceo5nc8",
"ceo6ijh",
"ceo8f6c",
"ceo8wck",
"ceofcnp"
],
"score": [
1769,
184,
4,
23,
10,
3,
64,
3,
5,
30,
5,
2,
2,
8,
14,
2,
2,
4,
6,
3,
2,
8,
12,
4,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"If you kill somebody, it's just one crime : murder.\n\nIf you hack a bunch of computers, you're facing a criminal charge for each system you hack each time you hack it. It's the same as robbing five banks at gunpoint. \n\nA dozen crimes with two two year sentences can potentially have a longer penalty than a single ten year sentence.that doesn't mean you always get the max time in prison. They might not be able to prove every crime. They might give less time for some of them. You might be able to \"stack\" sentences.\n\nHe was highly unlikely to actually be sentenced to and require d to serve the max time in prison. Saying \"50 years\" just gets attention so journalists will use that number. \n\n**edit**: By comparing hacking to robbing a bank, I wasn't trying to establish any sort of equivalency between the two crimes, simply saying that you're breaking a bunch of different laws when you hack a computer and redistribute the data.\n\nI'm also not saying he's guilty or making any judgement about whether the laws, charges or the behaviors of anyone involved are ethically sound. I was just writing a simplified explanation as to how he was facing \"50 years\". It's an /r/ELI5 post, not part of an in-depth discussion in /r/politics - please keep that in mind.",
"When the media reports what sentencing the accused is facing, they just add up the maximum for all charges. This is very rarely based in reality. But the writers in the media aren't well versed in federal sentencing guidelines, so they take the lazy route. \n\nI'm a little rusty on Aaron's case, but iirc, it was more likely he was facing about 2 years, and he was offered a plea deal for something like 6 months. \n\nRemember, prosecutors _hate_ going to trial. They'd much rather get the defendant to plea out, as it's less work for them, better use of tax payer money, and so on. ಠ_ಠ\n\nEdit: defendant. Not dependent. :P\n\nEdit2: fixed some redundant repetition that was superfluously needless. ",
"Multiple counts and seeking the maximum possible penalty. ",
"As other people have mentioned it is smaller sentences for multiple counts adding up.\n\nAlso, legislators and prosecutors are notoriously bad at understanding technology. A lot of the laws are written and enforced in such a way that a single action results in multiple counts. It is like a bank robber being charged individually for every dollar they stole.",
"Also, in the US there's have to be some mitigating circumstances for only 15-25 years for murder. Like lack of premeditation, like a bar fight that got out of control or a drug deal gone bad, not a Ted Bundy type murder. or else the result of a plea bargain- Bundy was offered the chance to plea for three consecutive 25 year sentences (for the three murders he was charged with) with no parole.",
"Justice does not compare crimes like that. Justice does not consider if murder is worse than hacking. Justice is blind.\n\n_URL_0_",
"To say it even simpler: Aaron Swartz had multiple criminal charges against him and \"could face\" X years per charge. \n\nSomeone who murders a person and commits no other crime is facing one charge. \n\nI saw one defendant who had committed welfare fraud for about 10 years and filed fake tax returns for about 20 years; she was facing several hundred years in prison time. I don't know the outcome of the case (probably a plea bargain, but I only saw her arraignment). ",
"Because the people making the laws do not understand the very thing they are regulating. Also, \"hacking\" got wrapped up in the whole terrorism thing back in the beginning of 2000, so punishment was made far more extreme.",
"When the media reports something like \"Suspect faces X amount of time\", they're usually taking the maximum punishment permitted by whatever criminal statute(s) the suspect is charged with. For example, the maximum punishment for money laundering, at the federal level, is 25 years. Statutes are voted in by Congress, so the punishment is whatever they can get passed. \n\nOf course, sentencing judges don't typically use the maximum punishment, but this changes when dealing with heinous crimes, repeat offenders, or when the judge is corrupt. For example, the founder of the White Panther Party was given ten years for giving somebody a joint (the maximum punishment for distribution of marijuana).\n\nTL;DR: It depends on the criminal statute, and statutes are written by rich dudes in power\n\n ",
"I wish to add to this discussion. Many people raise extremely good points, but they seem to be missing something: In the USA computer crime laws are governed by something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. As you can imagine, this act is old and outdated and does not fully cover or seem to understand computer crime as a whole. This, in addition to the incomplete understanding of computer crime from a laymans point of view (and even judges and attorneys) leads to persecution and an act that can be twisted to cover any sort of computer \"crime\" even though the act is only supposed to apply to \"protected\" computers.\n\nThe intentionally vague interpretation of this law allows people (like the attorneys who persecuted Aaron) to go after computer \"criminals\" in such a manner that allows them to obtain extremely long sentences even compared to actual crimes such as rape and murder. \n\nMost, if not all, tech industry people seek to push for a reform of such laws so new, up-to-date laws will be created that accurately protect people and correctly punish actual offenders. \n\nFor more reading:\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"The squeaky wheel gets the unnecessarily long jail sentence. Exposing corruption and incompetence is punishable by revenge.",
"There are \"crimes\" that could threaten the dominion of the state, which are taken seriously.\n\nThere is a lot of other stuff they pay lip service to, or make a show of, to keep the human capital docile, which is much less of a priority.\n\nThere is nothing more important than the preservation/expansion of power to the state. The slaves killing each other is almost irrelevant, except that it's another point to sell the slaves on why government is needed.",
"What? I hear people getting life for a single murder...",
"You're talking about two separate things as if they were the same, I don't believe Mr Swartz actually made it to being convicted, and so you're talking about *POTENTIAL* of 50 years, the *POTENTIAL* of murder is life, so if you're going to make a comparison of maximum potential sentences, at least do it right.\n\n~~You didn't even make your title factually accurate, it was a potential maximum of 35 years, not 50~~\n\nEdit: the above is incorrect, a fellow Redditor has told me 9 counts were added to the original bringing the potential maximum up to 50 years. I have no wish to be guilty of inaccuracies so have amended my post.",
"Aaron would have done 1-2 years at most. Probably none. So i'm not sure what the point of this topic is? Many murderers \"face\" 100+ years according to sentencing guidelines. ",
"Ken White over at Popehat has a few really good posts on federal sentencing that are pretty easy to understand:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"For an actual real answer, 2 reasons. First he faced multiple counts (before his death I think it would have been 13 felony counts). And second, the Federal government took over the case, as opposed to local state government. In addition, the 50 years was if he was to \"serve his sentences consecutively\" rather than \"concurrently\" (which means he would only be in prison for the length of his longest sentence). People facing murder charges usually only have 1 charge and it's the State that's charging them. ",
"Lots of political answers here. The short and sweet answer is he was facing a total of about 13 charges, not one. The combined total for all the charges had a maximum penalty of over 50 years.\n\nSo you're comparing the potential sentencing for 13 charges to the potential sentencing for one charge.\n\nNot saying right or wrong. Personally I feel the situation was poorly handled by everyone involved.",
"Bernie Maddoff is spending life in prison without parole and he never killed anybody.",
"Murder = 1 person dead.\nHacking a hospital (or derail a train etc...) = possible many deaths.\n\nA lot of crimes can fall into that latter category and get you in big fuckin trouble.\n\nsimilar kind of skew for architects and engineers. if you fuck up a whole building can fall, if a doctor fucks up just one person dies (usually).\n\nEdit: or a better example is the night club owner who locks the emergency exit and has a fire. 200 people die. so if hes caught before this happens...well you can get in big trouble because the potential is so big.",
"Lets not forget the 6 month plea deal he refused. ",
"This submission has been linked to in 1 subreddit (at the time of comment generation):\n\n* /r/circlebroke2: [Possibly the most loaded ELI5 question yet. Christ this is getting ridiculous.](/r/circlebroke2/comments/1v28jv/possibly_the_most_loaded_eli5_question_yet_christ/)\n\n----\nThis comment was posted by a bot, see /r/Meta_Bot for more info.",
"He wouldn't have gotten 50 years. He'd probably have gotten 2 years. Steven Watt, aka the Unix Terrorist who was the second in ranks for the TJX hacks that took the company for hundreds of millions.. ya, he got 2 years. Even the main capo Soupnazi got only 20 years. Aaron Swartz killed himself for literally nothing, especially since it was his first tangle with the law. He was a coward and an idiot.",
"Because he was indicted for at least 11 separate violations (I believe the final total was more like 13). If you murder multiple people, you can be charged with multiple counts. Same with other crimes. Also, murder can easily get you life, not just \"15-25 years\".\n\nI'm sure you can do the math as to how much each violation was \"worth\". Ignore the people talking about affecting \"higher ups\". They have no fucking clue of what they're talking about. Especially since he was offered a six month plea deal.",
"I assume you're willfully ignoring the people who face life/death penalty for murder?\n\nHe faced 50 years but at the time of his suicide he had a deal down to a massive fraction of that, which is how cases like that usually go.\n\nHis original deal was like, less than a year, HE chose to reject it so they went to trial, that's how justice works. He faced 50 years because he was foolish.",
"\"Facing X years\" is an almost entirely meaningless statement. It's the result of lazy, sensationalist reporting and has little to do with how much one can reasonably expect to spend in prison if found guilty. \n\nIf you're charged with several related felonies you might be \"facing\" 50 years, but even if found guilty of all of them you will rarely be sentenced to serve them consecutively so adding them together is bogus. Also, sentencing guidelines have formulas that can reduce the maximum sentence quite a bit. It's not a simple matter of charge X always equals Y years in prison.",
"One thing that's getting lost is that people on trial for murder do NOT \"only face 15-25 years.\"\n\nThe Federal maximum for murder ranges between life in prison to the death penalty. Now, some aren't given the maximum sentence, just as Swartz was offered a plea bargain for 6 months, which he rejected. But the suggestion that people on trial for murder face less than 50 years in prison, even for a single count of murder, is factually inaccurate.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\n",
"Because we've stripped down what murder is so much.\n\nNow, you can plead insanity, buy your way out and be a \"good boy\" in prison and take time off.\n\nIt's just bullshit. I understand hacking is usually multiple crimes but I one dies. Hard to compare.",
"Laws aren't made as a wholesale set. They're made piecemeal and in (somewhat) disregard for each other.",
"It's called \"Beckerian Punishment.\"\n\nBasically, the idea is that committing a crime entails paying a \"price\" of sorts, i.e. the punishment for the crime. So, hacking (or whatever Aaron Swartz did) entails 50 years of prison while murder entails, say, 20 years. \n\nBUT this ignores the probability of being caught. So, let's say that you commit a crime that entails 20 years in jail and you have a 10% chance of getting caught. Your EXPECTED price of committing the crime is therefore 2 years in jail (10% of 20 years).\n\nWhat this means is that, even if something is comparatively petty, if it's difficult to detect, it makes sense to raise the punishment. In this way, despite a low probability of detection, the expected price will still be high enough to deter the crime. If something is relatively easy to detect, then we a lower severity of punishment makes sense (remember, it's the expected price that matters, not the price if caught).\n\nBUT, all of this only matters if they actually enforce the full punishment when they do catch someone. So, it may seem harsh, but it's the way that we, as a society, prevent the crimes that would have otherwise happened.\n\nSource, should you want to read more: _URL_0_",
"Removing a lot of low effort one-line replies here. If you're making some huge generality about the nature of the government, elaborate with specifics or your comment may be removed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice#Blindfold"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-shitty-journalism/",
"http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_in_the_United_States#Federal"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/bizecon/material/becker.1968.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
2883wt
|
why do some people think it's bad to drink bottled water after it has been opened and sitting out for a few hours?
|
I've always heard about this, but never knew why. I hope this isn't too vague of a question. I just want to find out if it's bad for me or not and why.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2883wt/eli5_why_do_some_people_think_its_bad_to_drink/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci8c2cm",
"ci8c7u8",
"ci8cp00",
"ci8cw41",
"ci8lmt5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It might be due to whatever can come into the water (dust, bacteria, etc.) if it's exposed.",
"There was a myth that plastic bottles, when left in the sun/heated, would release cancer things into the water. While this is completely not true, the myth has persisted and probably is the source of what you've experienced. Bottled water is totally safe, even after being opened/sitting out. I wouldn't microwave it, though.",
"You probably don't want to drink tap water that's been sitting in a glass for a week, since the bacteria it has has been able to replicate several times. The same thing happens with bottled water, once the seal has been broken.\n\nEDIT: This usually takes days, not hours.",
"It isn't bad for you. Pure water left out in a clean container will be fine for ages and ages. Sure there are bacteria and stuff in it, but nothing your body can't handle. \n\nAs long as something hasn't died in your water, you should be fine. Bacteria can't form massive colonies in water alone. \n\nBesides, before being in a bottle or a cup, the water was sitting for days in an aquifer, the water tank in your house, some storage container somewhere long after it was filtered. ",
"One possible explication is that as the temperature of a solvent (water) increases so does its ability to dissolve a solute. Plastic how ever have very low solubility. It is likely that as the temperature increase in the bottle the polymers (molecules of plastics) begins to degrade through the breakage of hydrogen, disulfide or maybe even covalent bonds and further devolved in the bottle. But that's speculation "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4hudrw
|
what is dynamic braking as why is it always prohibited?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hudrw/eli5_what_is_dynamic_braking_as_why_is_it_always/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2sdlia",
"d2seuj3",
"d2sox51",
"d2sqf6i"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When you slow down, you create friction within your brakes. Dynamic Braking is a system that allows you to use your engine to brake for you. So when you release the gas, the engine works to slow you down, rather than just speeding you up \nIt's usually prohibited because it's very loud",
"I think what you mean is compression braking as used on large trucks\n_URL_0_\n\nWhich is different (and much noisier than using engine braking by selecting a lower gear. \nColloquially this is called \"Jake Braking\". A Jake Brake is a trademark of Jacobs brand compression brakes. If you see a sign that says \"No Jake Braking\" they want to hear about it so they can protect their trademark. \n",
"Confusion here about what you mean. Dynamic braking refers to something completely different than compression braking or engine braking.\n\nCompression braking (or engine braking, or jake braking) all rely on the fact that engines have a compression cycle. If you short the engine fuel, it will normally stop running - not enough energy to get through the compression part of the cycle. If you do this while going downhill, the engine will effectively act like a brake. Less wear and tear, and risk of overheating brakes than using the actual brakes.\n\nYour car does this - you will have noticed that when you let off the gas while the car is in gear, the car doesn't really \"coast\" - it actively slows down. Put the car in neutral to compare - it won't slow down as quickly (automatic transmissions dampen the effect significantly).\n\nDynamic braking is using an electric motor to brake. Used heavily on trains, but also on electric cars - with very different post-motor/generator action. Trains will put the diesel into idle and put the motor into a resistance mode - operating like a generator (and thus sucking energy out of the train system) - the energy is generally dissipated with large resistor sets in the engine. (Not practical to put enough batteries on board to store the energy, apparently). Electric cars/motorcycles store as much of the energy as possible back into their battery sets. This is a key part of why electric vehicles are more efficient in cities - they are recovering a lot of their expended energy at the next stoplight.\n\nI have never heard of dynamic breaking being prohibited. Compression braking is often prohibited if people are near the road where it would be used - it's very loud.",
"The 'what' has been covered, but the why hasn't been. It's not always prohibited, but it's always prohibited in the areas/neighbourhoods you see those signs. For the most part, they're illegal in any urban/residential area. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_brake"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1eb7e3
|
when i microwave a dry muffin, it get's moist (and tasty). where did the water come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eb7e3/eli5_when_i_microwave_a_dry_muffin_it_gets_moist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9yim0e",
"c9ylibn",
"c9ylmcu",
"c9yo7dt",
"c9ypdup",
"c9ypu9g",
"c9yqg0l",
"c9yr1nf",
"c9ys03i",
"c9yt8o9",
"c9z24nc",
"c9z3yd7"
],
"score": [
375,
66,
108,
3,
900,
2,
26,
2,
2,
14,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A microwave works by heating up water molecules in the small atmosphere of the microwave door with a certain form of radiation. There is moisture in the air around and inside the muffin. The heated water molecules then get hotter and hotter turning into steam throughout the muffin delivering a moist delicious muffin.",
"Best thing to understand is that it is moisture that makes the muffin stale, not dryness. The moisture crystallizes the starch and makes it hard. Keeping your breads dry keeps them fresh longer.",
"I have a related question:\n\nWhy can I put something stale like a loaf of bread, or a pizza slice in the microwave, and it gets soft and pliable...but if I wait 5 minutes it goes right back to rock hard/stale and crap?",
"Apart from vaporizing whatever moisture is there, heating will also melt sugars which will make the whole thing seem softer for a little while until the sugars harden again.\n\nI do exactly that with Chips Ahoy cookies. If you microwave them and get them warm enough they will get soft and chewy for a short time before they harden again.",
"This is not *guess like you're five* idiots. If you don't know the answer just don't comment.",
"Because microwaves are incredibly efficient at boiling water. So efficient, in fact, that a good deal of the water molecules in your food get to a certain temperature called their **boiling point**. \n\nThis means that the molecules will actually turn into steam, not liquid water. (This also adds some clarity on the [earlier comment](_URL_0_) about starches. The heat causes these to assume a faster speed (higher temperature). The food is no longer full of crystalized molecules (solid and hard) like they were in the fridge.\n\nUnfortunately, after an amount of time (depending upon the room temperature and the type of food), the water and other gasses evaporate from the muffin/pizza/whatever, leaving it dry and devoid of moisture, and rock hard.\n\n\nThis is most discernible with Bagel Bites.",
"Some faulty speculation mixed in with not-so-ELI5 explanations so I'll give this a shot.\n\nLike u/poogy said, the way that your stale muffin seems to be dry before microwaving and moist afterward is actually backwards if we think that adding water makes something wet and taking it away makes it dry! This is because of the way that water molecules interact with the protein molecules in your muffin. The short answer is that your stale muffin isn't really dry, it's just rigid, and your \"moist\" muffin isn't really wet so much as it's smooshy.\n\nI know it's easy to think of water as always being wet, but the \"wetness\" of water is really a result of the way that millions of little water molecules interact with one another. Think of it this way. If you have a whole bunch of marbles that slip and slide all over one another, collectively they act like a liquid even though individually they are solid balls. Put them in a bucket and the collection of marbles will take the shape of that bucket. Pour them into a different bucket and they take on a new shape! And you can smoosh your hand into the bucket and even reach all the way to the bottom!\n\nIf all the marbles were locked into place, like if we super-glued them all together in some definite shape, they wouldn't act like this. They would act more like a rigid solid. This is what happens when water freezes. It goes from \"wet\" and liquidy to rigidly solid. \n\nBut freezing isn't the only way to make something go from liquidy to rigid. There are also processes called \"chemical reactions\" that rearrange the way that tiny molecules are organized, and sometimes these \"chemical reactions\" reorganize something and change how smooshy or rigid it is.\n\nYour muffin, and any bread, really, contains lots of molecules called proteins. These protein molecules are still really tiny, but they are way bigger than water molecules. They are really long, and sometimes get all tangled up with one another to make a tangle, kind of like when your hair gets all tangled and knotty. This can be kind of squishy, but kind of rigid, and good muffin and bread bakers work hard to get the right balance of squishy and rigid so that the muffins and breads \"feel\" good when you put them in your mouth. \n\nWhen a muffin gets stale, water molecules in the air interact with the proteins and cause them to rearrange into a more rigid network of proteins and water molecules. So, even though there is more water in your muffin, it seems \"dry\" because it's not so smooshy anymore. Weird, right? \n\nMicrowaving your stale muffin rearranges the network again, by adding energy that kicks the water molecules out and lets the proteins be smooshy again. So even though the muffin is losing water, it seems \"moist!\" \n\nAfter a little while, the muffin will go stale again, when it absorbs more water molecules from the air. \n\nOne way to stop this from happening is to add stuff called preservatives to the muffin when it is first baked. These preservatives stop the proteins from reacting with water in the air and going stale. But lots of people think that muffins made without preservatives are better than ones with preservatives, so they prefer to just eat their muffins before they go stale (or reheat them in the microwave or oven just before eating them). \n ",
"Microwave ovens work on the \"wet band\" of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning their vibration resonates with water thus exciting localized water clusters into moisture expanding as steam.",
"The carbohydrates in baked goods have a high affinity for water to a limited extent, but any loose moisture evaporates over time. Heating the food causes the previously bound water to be released, which then forms droplets that make your food feel more moist.",
"Copied from the first google result:\n\nBread is mostly flour and water. Flour comprises a small amount of protein (gluten, which is responsible for the bread's elasticity or chewiness) and a large amount of starch (specifically two molecules called amylose and amylopectin).\n\nThe process involved in bread baking - in massively oversimplified terms - accomplishes two things:\n\nDevelopment of additional gluten; and\nGelatinization of the starch.\n\nThe latter - starch gelatinization - is the important part in the context of this question. In order for the starch to gelatinize, it needs to be completely dissolved in water and then heated, which breaks up its original crystalline structure. This process cannot be reversed... except, it sort of can.\n\nGelatinized starch undergoes another process called retrogradation. At lower temperatures, these starch molecules will actually start to realign themselves back into their original crystalline structure or something similar, and during the process they will force out water. That is why refrigerated bread often appears to have a soggy exterior, and frozen bread may develop a layer of frost on the top.\n\nThis process doesn't happen on a large scale, but it is enough to make the bread go stale.\n\nBut remember that bread is mostly water. When you heat it again, as in the microwave, you are significantly improving the solubility of these reformed crystalline molecules, which causes them to dissolve again. Essentially you are re-hydrating the dehydrated (stale) bread with its own water.\n\nAs you've noticed, the taste isn't great. You can't change the fact that the bread has lost water, and a non-trivial amount of great protein and other flavour in the process. The reheated bread is kind of limp and soggy and fragile because the protein (gluten) is what was holding it together. But it's softer.\n\nIf you've got very stale bread, another trick you can use is to wrap it in a cloth dampened with hot water for a few minutes, or use a paper towel and microwave the whole thing for a short time. That will do a lot more to hydrate the retrograded starches instead of relying on whatever water is left in the super stale bread.",
"Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, OP, where did you learn how apostrophes work - MySpace?\n",
"Because the microwave heats up the water molecules in the muffin, making it steamy aka moist, as you described. Same thing happens with dry bread. A dry muffin is not 100% dry muffin or else it would be crumbling. If it is intact, there are water molecules in it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eb7e3/eli5_when_i_microwave_a_dry_muffin_it_gets_moist/c9ylibn"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ofwwd
|
why does pubic hair only grow to a certain length
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ofwwd/eli5_why_does_pubic_hair_only_grow_to_a_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmr8hc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When it gets to a certain length it just falls out. It doesn't stop growing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4it8nv
|
why did commanders throughout history fight in the front lines?
|
Wouldn't that make it easier for the enemy to kill them? I know boosting morale is important but how could you ever risk your leader?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4it8nv/eli5_why_did_commanders_throughout_history_fight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d30xo2y",
"d30xup8",
"d30z5l7",
"d311679"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
28,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends what you mean by \"front lines.\" A commander or king probably wouldn't lead the charge into the enemy's forces because it's an undue risk to their own life.\n\nThat said, for most of human history it wasn't very feasible for commanders to be very far from the front lines because communications technology was primitive/non-existent. You have to stay near the action in order to execute your next move.",
"It made sense from a management perspective. When small armies met on the field of battle, it was relatively easy for a single general or emperor to \"manage\" the fight. Leading from the front at critical moments could be seen and inspire your troops (e.g. Braveheart or Henry V).\n\nBeyond this, many were not only battle-thirsty, but had a tremendous amount of arrogance. A lot of great leaders are considered so great because of their commitment to remaining a hands-on warrior.",
"Because they were often the the most effective fighting force in the field of battle. Your typical commander was a noble, which meant:\n\n* they had ample food and medical care as a child, making them bigger and stronger than most men\n* they were trained in sword and horse almost from birth\n* they had the best equipment money could buy\n* they were surrounded by similarly well equipped and well trained bodyguards\n\nSo the commander didn't just lead the battle, they often served as shock troops who could turn the tide of the battle.",
"In addition to what others have said, being on the \"front lines\" wasn't as dangerous as it may seem. Most of the casualties in ancient/medieval battles tended to occur during or after a retreat. When the line broke and everyone started running, it was very easy to chase them down and kill them. As long as the soldiers were disciplined and maintained formation, they had a high chance of surviving (unless totally overwhelmed). So the commander being at the front and helping maintain order made sense. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fhg5x
|
from a business standpoint, in terms of monitary gain, how does the history channel profit from running 18 hours a day of pawn stars?
|
To elaborate, and this is understanding the show makes money. But socially, the pendulum must swing, correct? It's gotten so far from anything resembling education or history in general that it's difficult to watch
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fhg5x/eli5_from_a_business_standpoint_in_terms_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck9a4do"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Discovery Channel, TLC, The History Channel, they started out as niche channels...inexpensive programming aimed at a specific audience it was easier to target ads for.\n\nThen came *Mythbusters*, a big hit that appealed to a broader audience. Soon all the networks wanted to try to reach a wider range of viewers, and but instead of making clever shows within their niche, like *Mythbusters*, the just made dumbers shows that grew to have little to do with their niches.\n\n*American Chopper*, for example, started out as a interesting show about building things, but turned into a contrived soap opera. The concept of *Pawn Stars* is sound, there is a good deal of history in many of those items, but they went with character based buffoonery. \n\nAnd unfortunately, that's what is getting the ratings...for now. My hope is more cable networks, like USA and TNT, are going to get into the game, and outcompete the niche channels, sending them back to their original ways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2dj52t
|
what is the police command and accountability structure in the us?
|
Reading about the Ferguson events got me curious about the way the US police system is organized. Since I'm from Europe, I only have a very broad idea of the way it works, and the [wikipedia article](_URL_0_) lists a number of different agencies and institutions.
I know that the FBI works independently from the others and gets involved in inter-state crimes. What is the hierarchy of the other agencies, though? E.g., do locally elected Sheriffs need to answer to higher-ranking officers in county or state or do they have free reign?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dj52t/eli5_what_is_the_police_command_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjpys1h",
"cjq5upb"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"US citizen here, St. Louis area, but with no law enforcement experience. As far as I can tell, different executive entities cover their jurisdiction, and usually only step into a lower level if asked or needed. For instance, in Ferguson, they would have the local police department, a county sheriff's department, a state trooper presence, the state National Guard, and now the FBI you mentioned. Each \"lower\" group is expected to function by itself, and to ask for help when their resources (time, manpower, impartiality) don't let them.\n\nHope this helps!",
"Responding because /u/JohnBobJoe's answer is incorrect and confusing. He is using politically charged words like \"police state\" (analogous to the Nazi Schutzstaffel) in his answer, so I don't think it's a neutral and informed answer. He's also using his post to talk about irrelevant things like the NSA scandal and saying the President of the United States is in charge of the police.\n\nLet me try to clarify and give you a real answer; I will start with our political system. The United States is a federal presidential constitutional republic (by way of contrast, Germany is a federal parliamentary constitutional republic). The \"federal\" part of our names you should be familiar with: there is a federal/central government (the \"United States Federal Government\" or the \"US Government\" and the German Government [not sure if there is a word for the German central government]). The central has control over the entire country/state. The US is also divided into further states (Länder), 50 in our case.\n\nThis is where it gets both easier and harder to explain. Unlike [Germany] (_URL_0_), the United States has only two main divisions: the US Government and each of the 50 States. Our system is a system of dual sovereignty: both the federal Government and each State is sovereign. This is similar to the Länder, but I believe our States have \"more\" sovereignty than a Länd. \n\nBecause of our history, the 13 British Colonies rebelled against England and banded together to form the USA. We are the *United* **States** of America: therefore, it is more accurate to say that the 50 States make up America, and not that America has 50 states. \n\nOkay. So I have explained that we have dual sovereignty. What does this mean? The US Government is the ultimate sovereign, but *only in the duties that the Constitution gives it.* Our Federal government is known as a federal government of \"limited powers.\" Our Constitution only allowed our Federal government certain powers; anything not listed is given back to the States.\n\nSo the Federal government and each State creates its own police forces. The Federal government has the Secret Service, the US Marshals, the FBI, etc. \n\nNow, when we are talking a US State, we have to understand that only the US Government and the State government possess sovereignty: the inherent right to exist and the right to independent government. Everything within a State exists because the State allows it to exist: every city and county (equivalent to Landkreise probably) was created by the State government. However, after they are created, the State government rarely interferes with the workings of an individual county or city by issuing \"orders\" to them. They can do things like withhold money to them, but rarely do they do anything drastic, even though it is within the right of the State to dissolve a town.\n\nNow, because each of the 50 States is sovereign, it's very hard to say *exactly* how it works within each State, because each State can create a different kind of police. Most states have a State police. I believe this would be equivalent to the Landespolizei. Some states have police at the county level. Some cities have their own police. Other cities do not have their own police, and are policed by a county-level police. Some very small areas are policed by the State police. Each of these police forces independent of one another and controlled by different entities (the State, the county's government, the city government).\n\nTo your specific question, then, most of the time, yes, a sheriff of a county only answers to his county government. He has no direct responsibility to any officer in any other county or the State government. However, in situations where there is a crisis or controversy, they often allow a different authority to investigate. And if the State really does want to exercise its power, they can task the State police or other State authorities to take over investigations (remember, only the State is sovereign, so they can do this). But it's important to remember that although it is an authority of greater power, the local police never \"report\" or \"take orders\" from the a different department. \n\nThe FBI or other Federal government agency can take over an investigation from any State only if it comes within their scope (remember, the Federal government's power is limited). \n\nI hope that makes sense. \n\n[Edit] To your question somewhere else, in a police scandal, it would be limited to the particular force, because politicians of another level have no direct involvement. In your example about the LAPD or NYPD, if it is really serious, there are probably federal law violations. In that case, the Federal government (usually the Department of Justice, or essentially our Interior Ministry) would step in, usually by suing the police department. This is what happened with the LAPD. The LAPD entered into a consent decree with the DoJ (Interior Ministry), basically allowing itself to be monitored by the Federal government. In this case, however, note that the Federal government did not have the power to directly assume control, it had to go through the courts and argue that the LAPD violated laws. At the end of the day, the LAPD had to agree to be monitored, and the Federal government *still* didn't assume direct control of the department, it only monitored / put into place procedures. \n\n[Edit 2] I think after all of this text wall, I should give a summary. The summary is that in America, we have very \"loose\" political structures. We favor less centralized government and attempt to push down government to a low a level as possible. Regarding police, we do have forces that are of a higher authority than local police, but they are separate police forces. There does exist some ability to control another police force, like take over an investigation or arrest police officers for violations of the law or sue the police force in court, but they almost never have the right to directly take over another police force."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Administrative_divisions_of_Germany.svg/1024px-Administrative_divisions_of_Germany.svg.png"
]
] |
|
a84dn7
|
how does meat left at room temperature spoil so quickly? more importantly, where do these harmful bacteria exist before they get in the meat? are they just hanging around in the air waiting for something to infect?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a84dn7/eli5_how_does_meat_left_at_room_temperature_spoil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ec7ucxz",
"ec7uip9",
"ec7up56",
"ec7wzhr",
"ec8ilci",
"ec9hpci"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A few hang around in the air. Many more are on things. Your hands, cutlery, plates, chopping boards etc. ",
"Often they are already on the meat, likely transfered there at some point during the process from slaughtered animal to your house. However, it takes time for them to reproduce and become a larger problem. ",
"Depends on what it is, but generally, it's hanging around on the processing equipment, it lives on your skin, it lives on the skin or the animal, it lives in tap water, etc. In general, the handling transfers some to the meat, and it starts growing when it warms up.\n\nMolds are just floating around in the air, so depending on how clean it is, that can get there first and molds can take over first.",
"All meat has bacteria on it. Want to know why you can't order a hamburger medium rare? It's ground beef. All of the surface bacteria gets ground too, meaning it's inside and out. Thats why burgers are cooked more thoroughly than, say, a steak. \n\nA steak only has surface bacteria, so you only have to sear the outside of the steak and leave the middle less/un-cooked. Yes, you can eat a raw steak as long as you sear the outside at a high enough temperature. ",
" > **how does meat left at room temperature spoil so quickly?** \n\nRoom temperature is a very common temperature so bacteria have evolved to thrive at that temp. Meat has a good amount of water in it which bacteria like. \n\n & #x200B;",
"Yup so as everyone has said there is inherently bacteria on every piece of meat. To explain why it spoils quicker at room temperature, you can use an analogy.\n\nThink of warm blooded animals such as snakes. When it is cold, they are less active and more likely to be stationary. They become more active when its hits because they are warmed up.\n\nThis is similar to bacteria. Bacterial replication is dependent on enzymes and other factors. Enzymes in this instance are like minions from despicable Me that perform various tasks necessary for the bacteria to be able to split into two identical cells, this is called binary fission. When you have meat in the freezer, all of these enzymes don’t really wanna move and they do everything in slow motion because they’re cold. When you turn the heat up, everyone and their family comes out to party, hence more bacteria, food poisoning etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1cu7pc
|
how did "chips" in the uk get to be known as "french fries" in the states?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cu7pc/eli5how_did_chips_in_the_uk_get_to_be_known_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9k0gyb",
"c9k0hsg"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Frying strips of potato originated in neither countries, it's likely that both countries adopted the recipe independently thus named them independently. \n\nThomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 of \"potatoes served in the French manner\"; while Charles Dickens wrote in in 1859: \"Husky chips of potatoes, fried with some reluctant drops of oil\".",
"Well, part of the answer is in the anti-french sentiment that England has exhibited over the past thousand years. \n\nI know Thomas Jefferson is credited with introducing them in America around 1800. They were known as \"potatoes fried in the french style\", as recorded in a manuscript of his. They were considered a very high-class food, and not a quick snack.\n\nOur modern concept of french fries (in the US) comes from WW2. American soldiers sorta re-discovered them in Belgium, but they called them \"French\" because most Belgians spoke French.\n\nI guess the answer is that deep fried potatoes had existed in the UK for a long time, but Americans have only known about them for about 50 years or so.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2ie4or
|
can i make a citizen's arrest on a police officer?
|
I would like this question to answer on duty police. Would this become a felony for assaulting a police officer? I would assume that making a citizen's arrest on an off duty officer would be the same a citizen's arrest on a non-officer. Please don't give me any crap about common sense, I'm looking for legal answers and theory. Any person could tell you not to try to arrest a police officer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ie4or/eli5can_i_make_a_citizens_arrest_on_a_police/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl1cx2p",
"cl1d0vu",
"cl1d2qp",
"cl1dmqt",
"cl1kpyc"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Police officers aren't above the law, they just enforce it. So yes (but I imagine it'd be harder to prove it was justified).",
"It depends.\n\nIf they are doing something that could in any way be conceived as them doing their job, then you could be charged.\n\nIf they went nuts and just started shooting people, then no, you're probably better off trying to make the arrest, even better off by calling the police.",
"you can try. however, the police officer (as with any other citizen you try to arrest) will just walk away from you. \n\nunless you use force to detain them. \n\ntrying to use force on a police officer is....unwise at the very least. using hand force is assault. using gun is assault with deadly weapon. \n\na regular citizen does not have the power under the law to use assault on another individual unless acting within the laws referring to self defense. a sworn police officer does have that power (in addition to security guards and other personnel authorized by the state)\n\nsuppose you were able to detain the officer. you would be facing charges of assault and arrested by another officer. regardless of whether or not the offending officer was doing something illegal. \n\n\nso yes, you can. but you need both the force, body armor, and a damn good lawyer to survive",
"I'm a cop.\n\nAs a police officer, I only have a few special powers over a regular citizen when I am on duty. \n\n1) arrest for crimes not committed in my presence upon probable cause.\n\n2) serve arrest warrants\n\n3) detain people to conduct investigations upon reasonable suspicion.\n\nI also have a few extra administrative powers such as access to various databases, the ability to book people into jail, the ability to request arrest warrants, etc.\n\nAs you can see, none of the above powers allow me to break the law. So if you see a cop steal something, sexually assault someone, etc you can technically perform a citizens arrest. However, I would be very very ***VERY*** careful about attempting to interfere with police if they are using force that **you** deem to be excessive. You probably do not know the whole picture and you probably do not know police use of force policy. If you interfere and the police were acting within their rights, you will be arrested for assaulting a peace officer. The best thing to do is to film the encounter at a respectful distance and attempt to film either badge numbers or vehicle numbers or license plates.\n\nEdit: I also get to drive very fast with lights and sirens. Pretty much the coolest part of the job. ",
"It depends on the state.\n\nWhere I am, a citizen can detain another person if they committed a felony and can use the same amount of force as a law enforcement officer can when doing so.\n\nHowever, the person making the arrest has NO protection from civil lawsuits.\n\nIn theory, a citizen has the right to enforce any law, as long as they meet the legal requirements necessary to do so and files charges appropriately. It wasn't until the advent of modern, ultra-large police forces that police made most of the arrests for crimes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2m131c
|
the us involvement in middle east wars "for oil" theory
|
Now, I take it as sacrosanct fact that the US pretty much has a business/oil/military-industrial complex interest in war making.
But, to be honest (and this is somewhat embarrassing) besides weapons makers and politicians/military getting a cut from war expenditures, I do not see how this seemingly unending meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is economically productive from the oil standpoint.
How is the US, as an oil importer, profiting from the war? Aren't the Saudis their exporter allies in this regard? Don't they continue to import from Venezuela (despite ideological tensions and posturing)?
How is war turning into cheaper oil for Us consumers or better profits for US oil companies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m131c/eli5_the_us_involvement_in_middle_east_wars_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clzzxau",
"cm048mm",
"cm05hn7",
"cm087ni"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A common misconception is that the US wants to import oil. In reality the US has enough oil reserves to last for a hundred years. It is therefore more likely that they want control of the oil. \n\nCompanies also have an interest in lobbying the US government to give them access (by using force) to middle east oil.\n\n > It might be tempting to argue that the escalating involvement of the United States and its history of militarism and military engagement in the Gulf region have provided a kind of security for the region. After all, oil has continued to flow, the network of oil producers has remained the same, and thus the primary interests of the United States in the region have been served. But three decades of war belie this argument. War is not tantamount to security, stability, or peace. Even in the periods between wars in the region the violence carried out by regimes against their own subjects makes clear that peace is not always peaceful. The cost has been high for the United States and especially for people who live in the Middle East. In thirty years of war, hundreds of thousands have died excruciating and violent deaths. Poverty, environmental disaster, torture, and wretched living conditions haunt the lives of many in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere in the region. \n\n > the United States appears set to continue along a familiar path. Having crafted a set of relationships with oil and unstable oil producers and having linked the fate of those relationships to American national security virtually ensures that while the United States is wrapping up the most recent oil war, its military and political strategists are already preparing for the next one.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTLDR: The oil must flow.",
"I'm not sure about the true reasons for the War in Iraq, but oil is a strategic resource. Modern economies and militaries live and die by their access to it, therefore we have an interest in securing our access to it and controlling our enemies'. ",
"They're doing a good job of it, isis is selling oil as low as $20 a barrel lol. I don't actually support this theory.",
"I've never seen convincing evidence that the war in Iraq was a \"war for oil\". Saddam Hussein was perfectly willing to work with American oil companies - that's how he funded his regime."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
da5ygb
|
how do fire extinguishers work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/da5ygb/eli5_how_do_fire_extinguishers_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1nf8n5",
"f1nfaoo",
"f1no67j"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Depends on the type of extinguisher.\n\nFire needs three things to work - heat, fuel and oxygen. Since fuel can't really be altered, you can stop a fire by either reducing the heat or removing the oxygen. _Most_ fire extinguishers go for the latter - they spray out an non flammable foam that suffocates the fire.",
"It depends on the type, but in general, they use compressed CO2 as a propellant for an extinguishing agent that is expelled through the nozzel.\n\nThese extinguishing agents include special powder that disrupts the flame, liquid foam that smothers the fuel and thus starves it of oxygen, water that mainly tries to drop the temperature of the fuel below the flashpoint, and pure-CO2 that displaces the oxygen necessary for the fuel to burn.",
"You've got a few major types of fire extinguishers which are meant for different classes of fire\n\nA - Meant for wood/paper fires. These generally just contain water and a gas to pressurize it. The water is good at absorbing the heat that the fire needs to keep going\n\nA/B - Meant for liquid fires but will also work on wood. These generally have a foam which smothers the fire and keeps fresh oxygen from getting to it.\n\nB/C - These are generally dry powder like Sodium Bicarbonate(baking soda), and similar to A/B smothers the fire, but lacks the ability to remove the heat necessary to put out a traditional wood fire\n\nB - CO2 fire extinguishers. They're only good for dealing with fires that don't have a lot of residual heat and can't restart themselves so they're only suited for burning liquids. They get rid of all the oxygen and smother the fire, but don't leave a mess like B/C fire extinguishers\n\nK - These are your kitchen fire extinguishers, they spray a wet chemical mix that will sit on top of an oil/grease fire to smother it. They're not water based as water would sink in the oil and cause the burning oil to splatter around making the fire worse!\n\nD - These are special dry powder extinguishers for metal fires. A lot of metal fires get even bigger if you spray anything wet on them so they have to use dry powder and its not even consistent for all metals. If you encounter a metal fire, just run!\n\n\nFire types\n\nA - Wood/Paper fires\n\nB - Flammable liquids\n\nC - Electrical\n\nD - Metal (just run!)\n\nK - Oils and fats"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
54y0ma
|
how are broken ribs mended without surgery?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54y0ma/eli5_how_are_broken_ribs_mended_without_surgery/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d85wioj"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"They don't tend to wander so the torso is just bandaged to stay mostly straight and the two ends will naturally heal together. Most of the time a rib is broken but the break is just a crack which remains set already."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9oaen5
|
what's the science and psychology behind superhuman strength? e.g. mothers lifting cars to save children etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9oaen5/eli5_whats_the_science_and_psychology_behind/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7soxm3",
"e7sugfl",
"e7sy6r0",
"e7tl53r"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no science that really backs it. What little science that has been done pretty much shows there may be a very slight increase as fear or adrenaline ramps up, but as it gets higher productivity breaks down fairly fast. There are anecdotes of people lifting cars to save other peoples lives. But those are highly unscientific and don't account for many things. Like how you don't need to remove the full weight of something to help someone slide out from under it.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThink of it this way, if you could suddenly and massively increase strength just by being afraid or getting an adrenaline rush(or taking a drug that would simulate these effects), then such a tactic would be used by professional body builders and athletes to compete at the highest levels. But they don't. In fact they train very hard to remain as calm as possible, because the negative affects of adrenaline on coordination, and focus are pretty well documented.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)",
"Most of all these answers are wrong. The simple fact is that **\"hysterical strength\" is a myth.** There are no solidly documented cases of it ever happening. Not a single video. Not a single demonstration. It's because it doesn't happen, and there is no mechanism for it to happen.\n\nThere is no \"hidden strength\" in people. This is 100% a myth. Most people are capable of recruiting 80-90% of their motor units for a specific movement at any given time. There is not any more magic strength you can access to allow you to lift cars.\n\nNo, adrenaline does not give you a strength multiplier. If that were the case, then my patients in the hospital that get epi for anaphylaxis would be Hulk-ing out and destroying shit. There would also be videos of Russian dudes taking shots of epi and deadlifting 3,000 lbs.\n\nThese stories come from faulty reporting. A hiker gets his arm pinned by a rock in a canyon. The rock weighs 800 lbs. He is able to wedge himself against a wall, and push against the stone, so that he can slightly roll it to one side, just enough to free his arm. He tells reporters that he \"rolled the rock over a bit.\" The new reports tell the public that he \"moved the rock, and his adrenaline was pumping.\" The public thinks he actually **lifted** the rock.\n\nThe only hysterical strength that exists is people getting psyched up and maybe exerting 5-10% more force than they could under typical circumstances. It's not soccer moms lifting cars. This idea that the brain inhibits people from accessing a true, hidden potential that allows you to lift cars and all manner of other feats is a commonly touted myth, and there is no such mechanism.",
"It isn't true. No cases with actual evidence i.e. videos have ever been reported. For example \"lifting\" a car, usually refers to removing as much of the weight from the suspension as someone can, usually providing an inch or two of extra movement space. If you are strong enough you can move a car sideways into a parking spot using this same method, as you could find on a cursory youtube search. \n\nAs mentioned in another comment, if people could exert these sorts of forces the cars would start crumpling due to the force being exerted over a tiny surface area.",
"So-called \"hysterical strength\" can refer to two phenomena, one of which is mythological and one of which is very real.\n\nThe idea that altered mental status can dramatically increase your raw strength is a myth. If you could double your raw lifting power by being sufficiently upset, then every single Olympic athlete would have to get upset every single time they compete. Obviously this doesn't work in real life.\n\nOn the other hand, the idea that altered mental status makes people more dangerous in a fight is 100% true. Someone who is psychotic or intoxicated can often beat up much fitter and better-trained individuals. That's not because they are magically stronger, it's because they can ignore pain, pepper spray, tazers, and attack without caring about self-preservation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439523/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1195705"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
61s7qk
|
why do people hold each other at gunpoint standoffs for so long? if a bullet travels literally faster than sound a human should have no chance to react, so it would be just whoever fires first right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61s7qk/eli5_why_do_people_hold_each_other_at_gunpoint/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfgtiwt",
"dfgtm8y"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most people when put in an instant state of shock, such as being shot, have many of the muscles in their body contract. Therefore there is a very high probability that they will shoot you after being shot in such a scenario as a reaction to being shot. So most of the time everyone is shot and dies, or is at least injured in a scenario where the standoff is broken by one guy shooting. ",
"They might not want to actually kill someone. \nUnless you sever their spinal cord or hit them in the head, they're not going down immediately. The whole thing in the movies where people fall down from being shot once or twice doesn't happen in real life. Your body goes into overdrive to keep you on your feet, even more so if you have the adrenaline rushing through you from being in a standoff. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
cc5yoh
|
what causes animals to die of old age?
|
Like why would an otherwise healthy being just die all the sudden? Is death of “natural causes” an actual thing or is it a catchall term for more specific things that just tend to happen as animals get older?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cc5yoh/eli5_what_causes_animals_to_die_of_old_age/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etkq193",
"etlabcr",
"etliy76"
],
"score": [
66,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The cells in your body are constantly replicating themselves and then dying off. Your hair and nails are made of these dead cells (and that's why your hair and nails grow).\n\nHowever, every time a cell replicates, it's not exactly perfect. There's a piece of the cell that acts almost like a timer. Every time the cell replicates, that timer piece gets a tiny, tiny bit shorter.\n\nHave you ever photocopied something? You know that the photocopy isn't quite the same? There's always a slight be a degradation.\n\nWell, that's what happens with a cell. So eventually, the degradation becomes so bad that the cell can't perform it's function correctly. That's why we get symptoms of old age as well.\n\nThen eventually, the replicated cells just start to fail and that eventually leads to death.",
"Deaths of \"old age\" or \"natural causes\" are indeed catch-all terms. What a media report might describe as a \"death of old age\" could be a stroke, flu, pneumonia, or another disease which isn't considered to be unusual among elderly people. \n\nAlso, elderly people commonly have a variety of health problems which can make determining the precise cause of death difficult, and so these terms would be used instead.",
"Some animals, like the lobster, can live forever, but die when the strain of molting become too great. \n\nFor other animal, it's not the old age itself that kills: it's the problems that old age brings. Getting old mean accumulating small problems in our body, even in our cells, which replicate less and less well. So eventually, one of these problem become serious enough, and that's it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zbmn2
|
why can women have an abortion but the father be forced to play child support
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zbmn2/eli5_why_can_women_have_an_abortion_but_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cphfi8x",
"cphfony",
"cphfpu4",
"cphg48x",
"cphg6dh",
"cphgg0q"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2,
17,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"This very problem is a concern that is only just now getting the attention it deserves. There are a growing number of cases where men are fighting for the rights to their child and to keep a female from being able to abort. \n\nThe justification heard the most is the drastic impact it has on a woman's body should give her more say. \n\nThe other side of the camp says that it takes two top create a baby and a father should have equal rights to accept or deny a child that a woman does. ",
"I've seen this question before.\n\nIt all boils down to which personal right the courts have decided is more important. In this case its the woman's right to autonomy of her own body. The guy has no say in what the lady chooses to do after copulation. ",
"The father also has options.... like giving up his parental rights. If that were to happen, he would no longer be financially responsible. ",
"The moment a man clumsily drops his load inside a woman, he forfeits his right to abandon any children that messy load might produce. \n\nThe moment a woman lets a man drop his load inside her, she *also* forfeits her right to abandon any children that messy load might produce.\n\n***However...***\n\nBetween the the time said messy load was dropped, and the time any associated children come blasting out of her, the woman *maintains autonomy over her body*. \n\nShe is exactly as responsible for the care of any children she may have, but she is afforded the right to control her own body in the mean time. \n\nI hope that makes sense.\n\nThe base act of ejaculating inside a woman precludes any question of whether or not you wanted a baby or should be responsible for a baby, because *that is exactly what ejaculating inside a woman is designed to give you.*\n\n*Edit - thems spellin*",
"I think the reason is to protect the mother and child should the man initially welcome the pregnancy, then-- as has been known to happen-- decide he doesn't want the responsibility or any relationship with the mom, after it's too late to abort it. \n\nThat said, there should be some cut-off point (like the fourth month?) where either party can back out without financial consequence other than perhaps the medical expenses. If the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy despite his written objection to the court at this point, it's her baby (so to speak,) and he's off the hook for child support. And yes, she has to inform him of the pregnancy before that, too.",
"Anything else would mean\n\nA: Women would be dragged kicking and screaming into abortion clinics, or\n\nB: Men can father as many children as they like without any consequences"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2bl4hk
|
why does my phone show no reception but when i call someone it appears?
|
My phone constantly shows "no signal" in the corner but when I try to make a phonecall my reception magically appears and the call connects. Although the call connects, text messages do not send. How is this possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bl4hk/eli5_why_does_my_phone_show_no_reception_but_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj6daop"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are a bunch of possible reasons\n\n- The software in your phone is badly programmed.\n\n- The measuring mechanism that tells the phone how many bars to display for signal strength is not calibrated to match how much signal strength you actually need to make a call. It's kind of like if you have a ruler where every inch is incorrectly marked and is really only two-thirds of an inch long; that ruler isn't going to properly inform you of what a measured distance is.\n\n- You hold your phone at one angle to see the bars, and then a different angle when calling. The different angle lines up its internal antenna better with the nearest cell tower, increasing your phone's signal strength because the antenna's length goes \"through\" the signal rather than faces it flat on, and gives it more ability to both get a good read on that signal and broadcast your own. \n\nAlso, text messages use a different network than cell calls do, and it can be more or less sensitive to low signals. This is why many phone plans have different \"voice\" and \"data\" charges - they use different mechanics and infrastructure - and why text works differently than voice. Many phones have a symbol like 1xRTT, 3G, 4G and so on - that's the data network, and the voice network is separate. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4p69b5
|
what are the tiny specks/hairs that can sometimes be seen when closing one's eyes?
|
Is this just dust on the surface of our eye? Why can we see these if our eyes are closed?
EDIT: I'm referring to tiny specks or hairs that can be "seen" floating. Not specks of light.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p69b5/eli5_what_are_the_tiny_speckshairs_that_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4icpbp",
"d4ivs4t"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"If you mean the specks of light you can sometimes see when you close your eyes (particularly when pressing or rubbing the eyes), it's called phosphene and is basically the result of the brain being tricked into thinking it's seeing light due to the applied preassure to the cells of the eyes. ",
" *\"Oh, squiggly line in my eye fluid.*\n\n*I see you lurking there on the periphery of my vision.*\n\n*But when I try to look at you, you scurry away.*\n\n*Are you shy, squiggly line?*\n\n*Why only when I ignore you, do you return to the center of my eye?*\n\n*Oh, squiggly line, it's alright...*\n\n*you are forgiven.\"*\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9s5ijb
|
why is processed meat cheaper than non-processed meat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9s5ijb/eli5_why_is_processed_meat_cheaper_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8m7mwd",
"e8m7pcb",
"e8m7qde",
"e8mbe05",
"e8mhqii",
"e8mmcao"
],
"score": [
18,
13,
3,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They can use all the garbage bits. Remainders and the like. All the meat that's left when you take all the good cuts out.",
"Processed meat is cheaper because it is often made from scrap pieces that would otherwise be thrown away. It is also preserved with various chemicals and that means it is safe to eat longer so more likely to be sold rather than thrown away. ",
"It is possible to use more meat parts, those that might not be acceptable in their native state. More chemicals can be mixed in to extend marketable shelf life. Objectionable tastes and odors can be subdued.",
"It depends on what process you are talking about. Livestock for slaughter is cheap. Then as they get slaughtered and butchered they get more expensive. The more cuts is being done the more expensive the meat. So for example deboned steak or strimmled pork is more expensive then its unprocessed parts. However when you get to sausages and other minced meats they can use the cheapest offcuts they have. The stuff people do not want to buy in the shops. But once they minces it people will buy it. So the processing costs money but as they use the cheapest meat it is still among the cheapest meat you can find. They can also add other ingredients then meat which can be cheaper. At which point they can make it cheaper then what they started out with. For example people have a hard time noticing it if you add salt water to their meat until they actually try cooking it.",
"Bacon is never cheaper than pork belly. Pate is never cheaper than the pork it's made from. SOME processed meat is cheaper because it uses the vast amount of trimmings that would otherwise be waste (or hamburger) and mechanically separated meat, the last bits clinging to the bones.",
"Processed meat is not actually cheaper than the meat it is made from. The reason processed meat looks cheaper is because you are not making a fair comparison. For example, sausages are made from 1) meat that doesn't sell that well because it is either less popular or lower in quality and 2) trimmed scraps from the better meat that were not sellable because they were scraps. If you were to go seek out the parts that are used to make that processed meat, you would find they are cheaper. Pork sausage is often made from shoulder, I rarely see sausage for less than $2.50/lb, and its generally more, but I see shoulder for $1/lb multiple times a year and $2 pretty much all the time. I am quite certain that you would find this is true for most if not all processed meat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
60i3kg
|
does oxidation make oxygen disappear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60i3kg/eli5_does_oxidation_make_oxygen_disappear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df6jvrj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes and no. In oxidation oxygen reacts with the metal. The oxygen would bond with the metal. So yes in the end you would have less gaseous oxygen, but none of the oxygen atoms would actually disappear. Oxygen only would change the for it is in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2w48n7
|
why are a large number of video games, particularly role-playing games, set in medieval setting?
|
History is full of different time periods, such as ancient civilization, the age of exploration, the revolutionary period, the wild west, etc.
Why are the middle ages the setting for a disproportionate number of video games?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w48n7/eli5_why_are_a_large_number_of_video_games/
|
{
"a_id": [
"conftoq",
"cong810",
"conij80"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"People tend to go with what they're familiar with, and what they grew up with. The earliest popular roleplaying games were tabletops like Dungeons & Dragons, with a smaller percentage set in space and on alien planets. So, when game designers started exploring electronic RPGs, these two settings were what they started with.\n\nLater down the line, the next generation of gamers are old enough to make games of their own. Instead of doing something in a completely different setting, they make games in the worlds they grew up with. They've spent their whole lives playing these medieval (and sometimes space) games, asking \"What would it be like if it were more like this...?\"\n\nTL;DR: Medieval settings started at the top, so it's what everyone is already the most familiar with. It's the safest setting to present to publishers, and it's the kind of world that these designers grew up in.",
"I think it's more accurate to say the games are set in worlds based off of a general folklore universe of Western Europe. Most of the folklore doesn’t rely heavily on any time-specific characteristics of the societies where it comes from (such as two-handed swords and plate armor vs. axes and chain hauberks), but it was still clearly developed before significant advances in technologies such as gunpowder or electricity. Therefore, to stick with the folklore, you have to have a pre-industrial setting.\n\nOther than tech being in a pre-industrial world, there’s not much that makes the games “medieval.” Technology advanced a fair amount in medieval times, but most people are not familiar with a lot of those advances because they don’t know much about medieval military fighting. For example, fancy renaissance plate armor wasn’t available in most places in 1000 CE, yet it appears in almost every medieval game. For another example, your typical “medieval inn” didn’t exist like they do in RPGs – those are more based on coaching houses from around the 1600 and 1700s. And the political and social aspects are all invented for the fantasy world, so of course those don’t line up with medieval history or medieval thinking.\n\nI would assume we use Western European folklore because the US, where most of the RPGs I’m familiar with are made, was founded by Western Europeans. For Japan, they just jumped on the medieval train later. The other posters saying videogame RPGs were based off of D & D are correct, but that doesn’t explain why D & D or similar RPGs went with a medieval setting instead of a colonial American setting or something else.\n\nThe tl;dr of all that is the games are really a mish-mash of pre-industrial tropes and aren’t specifically medieval. The technology and life was so different back then, though, that we just sort of classify everything that’s pre-gunpowder and pre-electricity as “medieval.”\n\nEdit: Check out r/askhistorians and search for \"medieval\" or \"fantasy\" or other similar terms (or check their FAQ - it's well-organized). There is a lot of information about how the real medieval world differs from fantasy worlds we often see in RPGs.",
"It's much easier (and makes more sense for some reason) to have magic exist in a medieval world rather than a modern one.\n\nNot to mention the fact that it's easier to become immersed in a place you've never been to, like medieval times than somewhere you could reference and find errors"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5q63v2
|
how exactly is recycling good for the environment when it almost always requires a source of fuel to break down and re-purpose the materials(in turn creating more air pollution and also requires the excavation of more fossil fuel)?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5q63v2/eli5_how_exactly_is_recycling_good_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcwluyp",
"dcwm14y",
"dcwm2ok",
"dcwmuyi",
"dcwnl1l"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is less harmful than excavating new material deposits, by far. It's also the fact that if you just throw it out, it has to go to a landfill, which uses up land and can take hundreds of years to even start to decay (if it ever really does - look at the Pacific Garbage Patch).\n\nIn order of benefit to the environment, Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.\n\nReducing means you need less to begin with, and thus don't even add any pollution from the start.\n\nReusing something means you only need to create pollution once - when it's first made.\n\nRecycling means you create pollution more than once, but it's less than if you just went out and bought more unrecycled material to begin with.",
"It depends on the material in question. For some materials, the cost, both financial and environmental, for producing a new product entirely from raw materials vs recycling is much higher. To start from scratch, you have extract the raw material (time+money+pollution), transport it to be processed (more time+money+pollution) and then you can begin turning it into something. With recycling, you basically skip those first two steps. You do have to transport the recycled good from the collection point to the processing facility, but that's often a much shorter distance than going from wherever the raw material came out of the ground to wherever the finished product is produced.",
" > the only logical explanation must be is that it is less harmful to recycle than it is to excavate new raw material deposits and manufacture them(but of course it's still harmful to an extent).\n\nThis is exactly the case.\n\nFor as much energy as it takes to recycle metal, glass, plastics, and asphalt, it's a fraction of the energy it takes to extract those base materials from ore/crude/etc. Paper is arguable whether it's energy or cost effective - for any paper saying it's effective, there's another that says it's not. What I can say is A) we're not cutting down the rain forests to make paper (they do so for agriculture, and tend to burn the wood on the land), and B) you can only recycle paper so many times before the fibers break down to the point they're no longer usable.\n\n > It's kind of depressing if that's the case.\n\nWhy so? Did you think we'd get a net zero or net gain from recycling? How did you come to conclude that's one possible explanation? Recycling is a good thing because we don't have to consume the resources and produce the pollution necessary to extract and process ore, and that should be celebrated.",
"Compare strip-mining a pristine forest for aluminum versus recycling a ton of cans.\n\nLots of energy is used to recycle, true. Lots of energy is used to refine and process raw material as well. A ton of recycled aluminium or plastic is one ton less being extracted from the ground which is often dirty and destructive, not to mention *limited*.",
"edit-added more refs.\n\nRecycling is not necessarily better for the environment than not recycling. In many cases, recycling is far worse for the environment than not recycling. However, there is a massive recycling industry that makes it's money by convincing people that recycling is better for the environment than alternatives. Take a look at the use of ultra efficient incinerators in northern Europe and the massive PR battle against them by recycling companies( waste to energy plant info- _URL_3_ and the pro-recycling lobby groups that work against them _URL_0_ )\n\nRemember, recycling centers are often private businesses (heavily subsidized by the taxpayer) that benefit from convincing people to recycle so that they can sell the product of recycling for a profit. Consider this, if you recycle a plastic bottle in rural kentucky, chances are it will end up getting shipped to China to be turned back into plastic. If you happen to leave a bit of food in the bottom of your bottle, the Chinese can't turn it back into plastic since it is dirty, so it just gets buried in a landfill in China (_URL_1_). Clearly shipping trash to China is energy intensive and is usually omitted from arguments for recycling. \n\nAlso, recycling is expensive. No one wants seems to ever think about opportunity cost with environmental efforts. Maybe instead of building a massive recycling plant and twice as many garbage trucks (one for garbage one for recycling), we instead could get a better environmental benefit from some other activity. Preservation of the Amazon rain forest from slash and burn comes to mind as an alternative.\n\nHere is a recent cost benefit analysis showing that recycling is worse than incinerating even with a large cost to C02 included: _URL_2_\n\nTLDR: Recycling is greenwashing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.no-burn.org/",
"https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/chinas-green-fence-cleaning-americas-dirty-recycling",
"https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/145346/1/16039.pdf",
"http://www.cewep.eu/m_1073"
]
] |
|
3hge3b
|
if big pharmaceutical companies make all these negative effect drugs, they can obviously make ones with excellent side affects. is there any types of medicines that are like this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hge3b/eli5if_big_pharmaceutical_companies_make_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu73u6v",
"cu73wc3",
"cu743pa",
"cu744zc"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you have a very distorted view of pharmaceutical companies. The vast majority of drugs have side effects less bad than the disease they treat, especially when you consider that most treated diseases can cause death, and that these pills cause death only vanishingly rarely, if at all.\n\nIt is absolutely true that certain cancer treatments can sometimes cause horrible side effects and not do anything helpful, but that isn't due to malice on the part of Big Pharma. Chemotherapy drugs are basically poisons which we hope kill the cancer faster than they kill us, but sometimes due to genetic factors we don't fully understand yet they don't work on certain people. That's all.",
"Viagra is an example of good side effects. It was originally created as a blood pressure medication. It had the side effect of giving you boners and now almost nobody takes it for blood pressure reasons.",
"Truly, there is no such thing as \"side effects.\" There are only effects. If you have a decongestant that makes you sleepy, it's side effects are \"may cause drowsiness.\" The same drug could be marketed as a sleep aid but now the side effects are \"may cause dry mouth.\"\n\nPropecia was initially used to treat prostates but some people noticed a side effect or hair growth. Whether this was a positive or negative depended on whether you were bald and wanted to grow hair again.\n\nSo you just have to look at the total effects (not side effects) of a pill and decide whether or not its worth it. Good or bad depends on the person.",
" > i know that when you take certain medications the side affects are worse than the actual thing you may be taking the meds for\n\nThat's not true at all. There may be detrimental side effects, but if they were *worse* than the actual illness, then people simply wouldn't take the medication in the first place.\n\nAnd it's not like pharmaceutical companies say, \"Hey, let's make something that has negative side effects.\" The human body is *incredibly complex*, and pretty much all drugs are essentially just throwing a chemical at the entire body and hoping that it fixes the problem. Sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it does. And when it does, they have no control over what the side effects are, because that's just how your body responds to that specific chemical. \n\nWe simply don't have the ability to make drugs have specific lists of effects. We just try to find chemicals that cause the body to respond in a way that is mostly positive, but we can't force human biology to do precisely what we want most of the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4tnzqm
|
if all wavelengths of light travel at the same speed, what causes them to rainbow after exiting a glass prism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tnzqm/eli5_if_all_wavelengths_of_light_travel_at_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5it848",
"d5iteup",
"d5j8lhg"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"A prism causes light to refract, which is described by the *refractive index* of the material. The refractive index is different for different waves of light, so that rays of different wave-lengths get refracted at different angles. White light, made up of many wave-lengths, is split up by the refraction and each colored ray will be cast in a slightly different place from the others. That's what produces the spectrum.",
"In materials like glass different wavelengths travel at different speeds.\n\nAll materials have this property ([dispersion](_URL_0_)) to some extent. \n High quality lenses are designed to cancel it out, at least over the frequencies of interest.\n\n\nRelated fact: light only travels at *c* in a vacuum. So you could also say that transparent materials slow down different wavelengths by different amounts. (Typically blue is slowed more than red.)\n",
"The light thingies move the same speed through empty space. But when they pass through some stuff they all move at different speeds.\n\n\nThey all run the same speed through a field, but when they jump in the river they all swim different. The current will push the slowest guy farther down river than the next guy, and so on.\n\n\nWhat's neat is that our atmosphere is like a giant Pink Floyd thingie! It makes the suns white light into stupid yellow, it's also why things really far away look a little more blue than they do up close!\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_\\(optics\\)"
],
[]
] |
||
dzolh2
|
how does skin hold in moisture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dzolh2/eli5_how_does_skin_hold_in_moisture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8ab5yw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your skin has several layers which serve multiple purposes. Remember that your skin is an organ so keeing that in mind it has a specialized goal , one of which is retaining a level amount of moisture it does this through tiny pores and epithelial tissue wich are basically tiny spongy tissues"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3p1kxk
|
every time people breathe, why don't they naturally take in the maximum lung capacity, which would be more efficient?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p1kxk/eli5_every_time_people_breathe_why_dont_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw2crlo",
"cw2e6v2",
"cw2h6cu"
],
"score": [
14,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"What makes you think it's more efficient? ",
"Actually, it has to do with differences in the matching of air flow and blood flow to different areas of your lung, called ventilation and perfusion, respectively. Your lungs are filled from the bottom up with air and blood, so taking in a maximal breath ventilates the top of your lung fields, which are not perfused well. This leads to wasted air space relative to the bottom parts. Your body naturally breathes using only the most efficient lung fields, namely the bottom third.",
"The majority of the respiratory system is what's known as \"dead space\" where oxygen-co2 gas exchange doesn't occur. The only part of the lungs that take any significant part are the alveoli which are very thin and gas permeable. They don't require a very deep breath to inflate. The rest of the respiratory system mainly serves to warm, moisten and filter the air you inhale."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bl0tb9
|
why do formula 1 cars look the way they do?
|
F1 cars are known as the "ultimate racing cars". i wonder why, the further up on the racing leagues you go, cars don't look anything like traditional cars at all, and especially why they all look the same at that.
i understand the details of aerodynamic wings etc are changed over the years, but why are all of the cars looking mostly alike? do the rules state that F1 cars have to look exactly like that? if so, why? when/where did this design originate? if i build a car that is faster than an F1 car, but looks like a dump truck, could i race in an F1 tournament?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bl0tb9/eli5_why_do_formula_1_cars_look_the_way_they_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emkrncl",
"emks7ps",
"emkss13"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"F1 and other racing leagues have a lot of rules to ensure safety and competitiveness. That tends to lead to the cars eventually all being very similar as there is rarely more than one general body-form that is competitive within the rules.",
"F1 cars are super light as they are as bare bones as possible, they are largely shaped the way they are to provide optimal downforce/weight ratio allowing for more grip and stability.\n\nFun fact, for certain turns F1 cars need to go faster (thereby increasing downforce) rather than slower to avoid crashing from lack of grip.",
"F1 was all about an open wheel, open cockpit racing series. No you cannot make a dump truck and race with them because there are very strict and tight rules that restrict the way an f1 car can look. Firstly the size of the car cannot exceed and preceed a certain length width and height and all the aerodynamically elements cannot exceed a certain length and width.\n\nThis goes for the front wing, rear wing and sides of the cars and all the aero bits attached to the car. Cars would be much faster if the wheels were covered and the cockpit was closed. That's why the front wing was introduced and gave teams a major leap in performance because air was directed above and away from the wheels so no air is giving the car unnecessary drag. These front wings also give a large amount of downforce which helps the car corner at very high speeds and adds to the fact that its the ultimate racing series. Formula 1 cars aren't very fast in a straight line, they top out at about 330-360kmh whereas the koenigsegg agera rs, the fastest production car makes it to something like 450 kmh.( I don't know the actual figures so I'm pulling this number out of my ass. But I do know it's above 400kmh and their new car would get up to 500kmh which hasn't been released. So an average was taken.)\n\nThe rear wing, along with the front wing, is also a major part of the sheer downforce the formula 1 car has. The rear wing being behind the rear wheels and the front wing being infront of the front wheels are the most efficient ways to make use of the downforce generated by these cars. These front and rear wings are also regulated by what size they can be.\n\nThe low nature of the car is to help lower the centre of mass as low as possible to prevent the car sliding around. The very little space between the road and the car is so that there is little as possible air to come underneath the car and lift the car giving it an up force and reduces how well the car sticks to the ground. Airplanes have lots of space between the wheels and the wings so that there's a large amount of air to be used to lift the plane up.\n\nThe shape of the back part of an air f1 car is like that to direct as much air to the rear wings as possible and gives the car even more downforce. The key thing here for the formula 1 car is downforce so they can go as fast as possible around corners. Other racing series do not come close to this.\n\nThe front is a cone shape because it's just more aerodynamical that way and it's more practical for air to enter the sidepods and cool the engine and electrical components in the back. All the aerodynamical bits on the side of the car help direct air along the body of the car away from the rear wheels and again prevent drag."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
334me0
|
why do we accept plastic surgery in entertainment, but not steroids in organized professional athletics when it's essentially entertainment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/334me0/eli5_why_do_we_accept_plastic_surgery_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqhgp4u",
"cqhgrxo",
"cqhgsmq",
"cqhsfsc",
"cqhta76",
"cqhu6ab",
"cqhvx24",
"cqi59fj"
],
"score": [
181,
2,
37,
6,
26,
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In a word... Gambling. No one bets on the outcome of a movie. Steroids are an unknown variable which affect the outcome of a game. ",
"Performance enhancing drugs would change the sport to drastically, and are usually harmful. A lot of records in baseball, for example, are from people who didn't use the drugs, people who do you use the drug can't be fairly compared to these people. Steroids have harsh side effect, where plastic surgery isn't as risky. \n\nA similar question has been posed about runway/fashion models. The argument is that showing extremely (unhealthy) models causes a lot of harm to models and people who emulate them. This has caused France to ban such models. ",
"Two big things. Sports are a competition, entertainment not so much. Also, a lot of sports fans are very much traditionalists. With those in mind, a lot of people view steroids as cheating, and doing a disservice to the natural talents of players in years past.",
"Plastic surgery doesn't make you a better actor",
"A lot of people still have no idea how rampant the use of steroids and similar drugs is in sports AND entertainment.\n\nDo you seriously think these hyper physical hyper competitive athletes don't use every advantage they reasonably can get away with? \n\nCompare Christian Bale in The Machinst and Batman Begins; this took 6 months. While I can't categorically say it would be impossible naturally, it isn't silly to think there was some chemical assistance. \n\nFeel as you want about the issue, but be aware that the use is fairly widespread as is. And there is no serious chance of it decreasing, only increasing.",
"I think a good example of this can be found in competitive swimming. Of you remember back to 2008 and 2009 (more likely 2008 for non swimmer) fullbody stood began haggling a guide impact on the spey due to the use of buoyant materials like polyurethane, which resulted in basically every world record falling. Then in 2009, suits were made entirely from polyurethane, which lopped even more time off of already impossibly fast world records. Suddenly big names like michael phelps took a stance against these suits, as they detracted from the sports competitive value, with crazy expensive suits giving a huge boost to swimmers who feel within a certain body type. Long story short, suits got banned and now there are a handful of world records that aren't likely to fall for good 2 knows how long. \nWatch the 200m freestyle from the Beijing Olympics where phelps absolutely destroys the competition, to 2009 whee he gets his ass handed to him by someone who was essentially a no name wearing a far superior suit. \nInb4 check your spelling this was a lot of shit to wright on a phone in a college union over dinner",
"That is a question a lot of professionals ask themselves. Performance enhancement drugs only work if you have natural talent in the first place. Why is it different than cyclists that train at altitude or sleep in hyperbaric chambers?\n\nAlso, records are irrelevant when it comes to this. Sports have new rules, better equipment, more specific training and so on. For example, Pelé scored a shitload of goals yet at his time off-side did not exist.",
"Because being a great actor isn't neccessarily how you look. Most people actually have to be able to act. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6iwc0j
|
credit reports
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iwc0j/eli5_credit_reports/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj9lfrx",
"dj9li4v",
"dj9lk5i",
"dj9lsky",
"dj9lyr4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A credit report is a list of all accounts you have and the monthly reporting from those account isuers that you've paid/are in good standing, etc. A credit score is calculated from that data by looking at the following aspects of your credit: length of credit history/avg. account age, number of accounts, utilization rate on credit lines (what % of credit card limit is used, ie. $1000 balance w/ $5000 limit is 20%), late payments, derogatory comments, different types of credit accounts, number of hard credit pulls (the kind done actually applying for loan/credit). The exact levels of how each are calculated and the weight of each is the propriety secret of the credit bureaus who sell the credit scores. But to elevate your score, you want to have a low utilization rate, make all your payments on time, etc. and over time your score will climb. \n\nIt can be sort of a catch-22 with establishing credit early on... often credit cards will issue cards with low limits, like $500 or even ones with a deposit required. Store credit cards are also often issued with lower requirements... always pay on time and pay in full. Diversity of loans helps, so when you have a mix of credit cards, car loans, mortgage, etc. it helps your score when they're all in good standing.\n\nThe score matters if you want to buy a car or house, or open other lines of credit... it affects whether you can get the loan or not, and what interest rate you'll pay. Somebody with a 800 credit score might get 0% financing on a new car for 5 years, while somebody with 600 will only be offered a loan with 15% interest rate.",
"So the thing that most people don't understand is that a credit report isn't for you, it's for lending institutions to see if they should lend you money. There are a lot of factors for your credit score; and in the US, three companies run their own reports: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Because we are relying more and more on credit, the government has come in and put regulation on the field. But here's hopefully some very basic answers to your questions:\n\n > What helps it? What hurts it? \n\nYour credit grows by 1) having open lines of credit aka loans or credit cards and 2) paying back the money loaned to you in a timely manner. If you miss payments, or are late, it hurts your credit. \n\n > How does one bring their score up if it's really low? \n\nIt's a long process, but again, paying your loans and credit cards on time is the best way to do this.\n\n > How does anyone get started when they have no credit and therefore no credit?\n\nThere are a couple ways. For loans, you can get a cosigner, someone who will back you up. You're responsible for payments, but if you don't pay, then your cosigner is on the hook. If you have limited or no credit, you can find someone who is more established, and it will help you out.\n\nFor credit cards, there are often cards specially designed for those with bad or no credit. These cards have low spending limits and higher interest, but simply having one open and using it for small purchases builds up credit. These cards may also require a cosigner. \n\n > Does it really even matter if your credit sucks?\n\nYou don't need credit, but it is helpful. Chances are you're not going to have 30k in cash to buy a car, or 200k to buy a house. If you need the money, then loans and credit are often the easiest, safest and most direct ways to get it. \n\n",
"Having no credit history doesn't make your credit score low, you just don't have a credit score. You will have trouble getting a mortgage if you don't have any credit history, but it can be done through an alternate credit check such as showing that you have been paying bills regularly and not been late. ",
" > What helps it? \n\nPayment history, credit utilization, length of credit history, credit types, and new credit requests/inquiries in that order. \n\nBeing late on payments is the number one factor, and is a strong predictor of eventual default. \n\nHaving available credit is the number two factor (that means a sudden emergency is less likely to trip factor number one). \n\nLength of credit history is the number three factor. Would you rather loan money to someone who has paid everyone back on time for 20 years or someone who has paid everyone back on time for one year? \n\nThose three are 80% of your score. Types of credit (people with experience repaying mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards are better able to judge their ability to repay new debt than people who've only ever had a credit card. Finally, one of the first signs of trouble is people looking for new sources of credit or requesting credit several times over a relatively long period of time. \n\n > What hurts it? \n\nThe opposite of the above. Paying bills late, borrowing more of your available credit, closing long running accounts, seeking new credit. Some key tricky ones include closing unused credit lines (since they increase utilization) and mean a long active account is no longer active. \n\n > How does one bring their score up if it's really low? \n\nDepending on how poor it is, typically by getting a more expensive loan (usually the only option available) and paying it back on time. Some lenders will loan to higher risks with a co-signer (note that it's largely unwise to be the cosigner for many loans).\n\n > Why does having no credit make it low? \n\nBecause new borrowers are riskier than established good borrowers. \n\n > How does anyone get started when they have no credit and therefore no credit? \n\nThere are often certain types of lenders who loan money to higher risk borrowers, though they often have higher rates than lenders to lower risk borrowers. You could try applying for a credit card. They may make low limit cards available to new borrowers. \n\n > Does it really even matter if your credit sucks?\n\nOnly if you want to borrow money. Note that ownership of housing can be quite difficult (it's not impossible but it's not easy either) to accomplish without borrowed money.",
"Paying loans and having a good history of not pulling out too many too fast is how you keep a good credit score. Having a small amount of credit cards and loans makes you look a lot more trustworthy to lenders than someone who has 8 credit cards maxed out asking for a car loan.\n\nInquiring about getting loans also briefly harms it, so it isn't wise to go to multiple banks asking for loans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2lpwrt
|
what happened to myanmar(burma) throughout the 20th century after british rule? how did it go from an emerging nation to one of the most isolated countries in asia?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lpwrt/eli5_what_happened_to_myanmarburma_throughout_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clx1z2s"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Essentially the military seized power, formed a junta and viciously suppressed democracy, leading to diplomatic isolation and trade embargoes.\n\nThey have also engaged in long-running and extremely violent repression of minorities, most notably the Karen, Kachin and Shan peoples although there are many others amongst the 135 ethnic groups in Burma/Myanmar who have also come into conflict with the central government.\n\nFinally they have also engaged in border wars with China, whilst also providing a safe haven for the (now no longer actively fighting) remnants of the Nationalist Chinese following their defeat by Mao-Tse-Dung, meaning that China - who are usually OK with ignoring international approbation and Human rights abuses - weren't ready to help them either.\n\nRecently, however, the regime has allowed more democratic voices to be raised and made efforts to repair bridges with many countries. This has allowed them to update their military somewhat (a useful weathervane for observing international relations) and led to renewed diplomatic ties. As a great deal of the motivation behind such efforts has been to improve the economic situation and stimulate tourism whilst at the same time events such as the repression of the Rohingya people have been taking place, some doubt must remain in people's minds as to the junta's motives and sincerity.\n\nEdit: pressed save too early, came back and finished"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2x2x7s
|
how to "dry wipe" and why it's preferred in your country than using a bidet.
|
Five seems to be the perfect age to learn this skill.
Anyway, I live in a country where using a bidet or using a bucket + hands is more preferred than using toilet paper when it comes to cleaning the butt.
I always feel uncomfortable every time I use toilet paper. I also seem to use a lot of toilet paper in the process. Furthermore, after dry wiping, I always feel uncomfortable, as my ass still feels dry and dirty.
How do I efficiently wipe my backside? And why does your country prefer it rather than using a bidet?
Thanks.
This is a legit problem.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x2x7s/eli5_how_to_dry_wipe_and_why_its_preferred_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cowezv9",
"cowf85v",
"cowfge6",
"cowhgz7"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Whatever method you grew up with will always feel better and like it gets you cleaner.\n\nYou just wipe until there's not poop on the paper anymore, then you give it one more for good luck and you're all done.",
" > I also seem to use a lot of toilet paper in the process.\n\nYou are not alone. I grew up in a place with only toilet paper and I know I use way too much, but any less just doesn't feel right and I feel dirty, for lack of another term.\n\nI would love to use a bidet just twice in my life. I know the first time will be awkward and uncomfortable since I'm not used to it, but the second time seems like it would be quite enjoyable. ^Obligatory ^that's ^what ^she ^said",
"... What do non-dry wipe nations do for pooping at work?\n\nAnyways as a non-bidet owner I've found the perfect solution is to poop right before your morning shower and hop in to the shower for your morning cleanse. ",
"Well if you're in a public place, institution, or business with cheap, thin, grainy paper, you're in for a bad day.\n\nAt home with more expensive, soft, quilted, 2-ply toilet paper, much better. Tear off two sheets and fold for a thick, soft, 4 ply sheet. Wipe. Repeat. Might only need a non-folded 2ply to finish the job. Scrub hands.\n\nFlushable wet wipes are great to have on hand when you need extra help or it's a hot day and you have a swampy butt.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
eokca7
|
how do you make money from a currency that's depreciating by exchanging currency.
|
I was watching a show, spice and Wolf if anyone has seen it understands. Where they use old style silver and gold to make currency. Now the scenario is one country is subtlety decreasing how much silver they put into the coin, so they're currency is becoming weaker, but no one has noticed yet, but in the end the main character ends up making a lot of money by trading in one currency for another? Which I didn't really understand.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eokca7/eli5_how_do_you_make_money_from_a_currency_thats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fedaavs"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"If he's trading new for old, he'd be trading it for face value but gaining money in raw silver. \n\nWhen nobody notices he can do it easily, but once they realize old currency will technically be worth more because of the silver content.\n\nSince your character has been stockpiling these coins he can now sell them for more than he originally got them for and profit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
11e2xk
|
if energy is neither created nor destroyed, what happens when light is pulled into a black hole?
|
I know that black holes are really dense, and that their density is so great it can pull in light, making it black... but what happens to all this energy when it is pulled into the black hole?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11e2xk/if_energy_is_neither_created_nor_destroyed_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ln46w",
"c6ln53k",
"c6lnzg0",
"c6lug2a"
],
"score": [
16,
129,
44,
2
],
"text": [
"It sits in the black hole.",
"The energy increases the mass of the black hole, via E=mc^(2). A photon of visible light (at a wavelength of 555 nm), would increase the mass of the black hole by about 4×10^(-33) grams.",
"A black hole doesn't actually destroy light (energy) or matter. It just compresses energy and matter down into a single point we call a singularity. In fact black holes even release some radiation back by blasting out gamma rays and such.\n\nIt's a bit misleading to call a black hole a \"hole\" because black holes don't lead anywhere. It's not like when you take the plug out of the bathtub and the water goes away.",
"Here's sort of the central part that most people who don't nerd out about physics don't understand.\n\n1. Gravity has energy. For example, if you drop a big rock out of a plane, when it hits the ground, it will exert energy on it (a.k.a. shit will get all fucked up.) Think of the ability to fuck shit up as energy.\n\n2. Note that everything doesn't have lots of gravity! You don't have gravity, but somehow the Earth does. And the sun--well, that mofo's got so much gravity, that the sheer force of it creates nuclear reactions in its core. If you were strong enough, you could push two rocks together to create a nuclear fusion reaction! But you're not... and you never will be.\n\n3. What makes the sun so special? Why do it and the planets get to have gravity, but you don't? Is it because they are floating spheres? Not quite. It's because the sun has mass (defined: stuff). The more stuff (mass) you have, the more gravity you have. \n\nTo connect it all together... there is a clear relationship here. More stuff = more gravity = more energy. Therefore, mass is a form of energy in its own right! \n\nIn this situation of the lightbulb, it's mass is contributing to the great big ball of energy that is the black hole (in fact, black holes are formed when stars with an especially ridiculous amount of mass die). If the lightbulb is somehow magical and continuously emitting light, its photons (particles of light energy (just like mass is particles of gravitational energy)) will also be sucked in and contribute to the black hole's energy.\n\nGood job asshole. You just made the black hole EVEN MORE POWERFUL. Now it will surely destroy us all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6dfcsu
|
how is it that i'm occasionally able to hear sounds miles off in the distance (e.g. trains, motorways) as if they were up close?
|
I live about three or four miles away from a railway line. I very seldom hear anything, but very occasionally (and usually in the morning) I'll hear a heavy freight train clacking down the tracks as if it's right outside my window. What causes this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dfcsu/eli5_how_is_it_that_im_occasionally_able_to_hear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di29ldc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The time of day is relevant. \n\nSound is a pressure wave, think of it like a ripple in a lake. The source of the sound is the rock being thrown into the lake, and the ripples are the sound waves. They spread outward and get weaker the further out they go. \n\nThe air during the day has a fair bit of movement in it. Mostly wind, which is driven by the heat from the Sun, hot air coming up from the ground, again from the Sun, animals, birds, etc etc. \n\nAt night, once the air cools, it becomes a lot more still, because those constant air movements being driven by the heat from the sun aren't there. \n\nThis is why if you go outside at one in the morning, generally outside seems a lot quieter, and the smallest sound seems very loud.\n\nThe early morning, before the sun properly rises is the coldest time of night normally, so everything will be the most still it's going to get. Once the Sun comes up and starts pumping heat into things, the air will get moving again. \n\nBack to the thought on the lake. If you imagine a mirror smooth lake, and someone wayy out throws a rock into the water. You'll be able to see the ripples go out for a really long way, right up until they have no power left in them almost. \n\nContrast that to a lake that has boats going back and forth, the wind going across it creating small surface ripples and waves, and so on. That rock will barely make a dent in it. \n\nThis is the same thing. At night, still air, sound carries a *lot* further than during the day, when the air has a lot more turbulence in it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3trl8g
|
why do people fight to prohibit publicly funded research into gun violence*, despite funding research into tobacco, food safety, etc? (see comments)
|
If the NRA is right that guns don't kill people, but people kill people, then why did they lobby against proving them right? (*My understanding is that the stipulation in the Dickey Amendment was added by the NRA lobby, and that yes, technically you can research it, but you cannot take action on that research... so there has been none... am I mislead, or is this actually true?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3trl8g/eli5_why_do_people_fight_to_prohibit_publicly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx8ly2b",
"cx8pplw"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"The problem is that the Executive branch and Justice Department wanted the Centers for Disease Control to try to make a criminal justice issue a health issue.\n\nThe FBI already maintains and provides extensive data about gun violence ages, races, genders, circumstances and weapons used, which is publicly available.\n\nThe reason the research has been blocked is because the CDC doesn't have anything to contribute to the issue which won't be used as a political tool. Their job isn't to empower political agendas, but to try and understand diseases and afflictions.",
"Because it doesn't belong in the lens of epidemiology. Guns are not a pathogen. The mission of the CDC is the study of disease. Treating crime involving firearms as if it were a public health issue is fundamentally deceptive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
20v761
|
what is happening under the hood my car that makes it "go" when i press the gas pedal?
|
Sorry if that's confusing. I'm basically looking for a simple explanation of how an automobile works. How does putting gas in the gas tank, turning the ignition and pressing the accelerate pedal make the car actually "go" forward, in an explanation for someone who knows nothing about cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20v761/eli5_what_is_happening_under_the_hood_my_car_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg71o0b",
"cg72n64"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically controlled explosions. Each car had a certain amount of cylinders ( v6 v8 4 banger etc) that's what people mean when they say that. In each cylinder their is a piston connected to a shaft (crank shaft). Fuel and air are mixed into the cylinder and ignited by a spark plug. The explosion forces the piston downwards and turns the shaft. The shaft is connected to the Transmission which is connect to the wheels. Now this happens thousands of times in a few seconds. There is more too it but that is the basics...",
"The acceleration pedal opens air vents to allow more air to come into the engine. The computer calculates the air flow rate and injects the right amount of fuel vapor for the optimum fuel-air ratio. This then goes into the cylinders where it is compressed and ignited. The explosion pushes against the postion which spins the crankshaft. This is where the transmission takes over to put power to the wheels. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
audphf
|
how do astronomers calculate distance through redshift?
|
So Hubbles Law. I get that observing light from distant stars seen though a spectroscopy can detect a redshift (or blueshift) to indicate if an object is moving towards or away from us. What I cant seem to wrap my head around is how an astronomer can say “the redshift indicates the star is X lightyears away”. What calculations are used and how can we be sure they are accurate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/audphf/eli5_how_do_astronomers_calculate_distance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh7h5q3",
"eh7hzlk"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Redshift does not directly indicate the distance but only the relative velocity. Basically, you can calculate what light a star should be sending, based on its mass and you know what you received. The difference in the wavelength is, what the object traveled during the frequency relative to you.\n\nI believe you can model the position using an universe-expansion simulation, but I'm no expert so I wouldn't bet on it.",
"It works on the assumption that the entire universe is expanding evenly. This means that the further an object is from you, the faster it's moving away. And proportionally so.\n\nAll you need to do is look at the spectrum of light coming from a distant object, determine how far the colors are shifted towards the red, and this tells you how fast the object is moving away. This is a pretty exact science.\n\nAfter that, if you assume that speed moving away from you is proportional to distance, you can get the distance from that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ut5ke
|
how did whaling work in the age of sail? why couldn't the whales easily escape?
|
It seems like the whalers could only see where the whale is if it was close to the surface. Whales are pretty smart - why couldn't they just dive and swim in a random direction?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ut5ke/eli5_how_did_whaling_work_in_the_age_of_sail_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxhllur",
"cxhrkkz"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Whales were much more numerous, for starters. Spotting a whale wasn't a rare occurrence. They traveled in great huge pods and were unafraid of men, so it was easier to harpoon one than you might imagine. Later, whaling ships worked together and trapped whales in harbors.",
"Well the short of it is that boats are hard to sink, if undamaged and displace enough water. If you harpoon a whale, get it bleeding and your ropes, anchoring, and buoyancy devices are strong and purpose built for whaling, then the whale is unable to break free or drive.\n\nThe Whale will attempt dive, escape and begin swimming erratically. When it surfaces for air it is attacked with spears and harpoons, increasing the bleeding. Eventually the whale will become weak from exertion and excessive blood loss, and succumb to its wounds. A big part of why it worked so well was shooting the whale with harpoons attached to buoy's. Using buoyancy to your advantage was huge, it prevented the whale from diving despite the great lengths it went to. \n\nAll and all it was a very messy, painful and cruel way to kill a creature, particularly such an intelligent one. But whale oil and fat was absurdly valuable, and can you think of another way to kill them reliably?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
10p8cm
|
why is dog "man's best friend?"
|
My dog means the world to me and every dog-owner I know feels the same way. Even people without dogs love to pet and play with them. What is it about dogs that makes us as humans so compatible with them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10p8cm/eli5_why_is_dog_mans_best_friend/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ffl6u"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Dogs were really the first animal that man domesticated. Before cattle and other animals for food and work, we domesticated the wolf to be hunting partners! Since we've been selecting which wolves we like best for their depositions for such an extended period of time (maybe 80,000 years? (check)) they are by far more loyal and helpful than most other animals we have domesticated :) hope this helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2o9hg5
|
why do i love sleeping so damn much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o9hg5/eli5_why_do_i_love_sleeping_so_damn_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmkzqn4",
"cml0soz"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It's possible that you're not sleeping enough, or that you're experiencing low-quality sleep.\n\nNormal stages of sleep: _URL_0_\n\nIf any of these stages are interrupted in any way, you may wake up feeling listless or physically fatigued. In the worst case, you may wake up completely (but temporarily) disoriented and unable to reason or negotiate your surroundings.",
"You probably love eating too, or anything you have to do to survive. Its an evolutionary trait that keeps you doing things that are in your own self interest. We know that after ~10-20 days without sleep, you will actually die, but we still don't have the greatest understanding of why we actually need it. As long as your body says, \"hey bro, I'm gonna make you tired cuz its sleepy time so we don't die,\" and you say \"fuck yeah bro, I love sleep,\" then I think you are doing it right."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/sleep-101"
],
[]
] |
||
6oha7a
|
why do some english professions have variations for both genders such as "actor/actress" but most don't?
|
Actor/Actress; Steward/Stewardess
Doctor; Nurse; Teacher; Driver; etc.
I tried looking up origins for doctor and actor but both come from latin.
Does it have to do something with the fact that females weren't, for instance, doctors in past?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oha7a/eli5_why_do_some_english_professions_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkhc1ma",
"dkhfhft",
"dkhsmx0"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of it depends on when it opened up to allow women (or men) to work the job. But this is not a hard set rule as there are few hard set rules in language. \n\nActing opened up to women in the 1600s. Women were not allowed to commonly be doctors till the late 1800s or early 1900s though you did have a few earlier than that who were actually referred to as Doctresses depending on who was talking about them. \n\nNursing is the opposite of Doctors. Men were generally not allowed to be nurses till the late 1800s and there is still a negative attitude toward it even into modernity. \n\nFor Stewards and Stewardesses you have an odd mix of things. They are an invention of the modern era as they work on airplanes, but they are modeled after the servers who attended Nobles/Aristocrats in Europe during important meals and banquets. These relatively high status servers were in use well into 1600s if not earlier so had the gender distinctions. These kinds of Stewards mostly fell out of use by WWII as the world wars destroyed much of Europe's traditional society structures. The remnant is standard society is the low class variant of a server at an inn and later a restaurant which we call Waiter and Waitress. But Airlines wanting to seem higher class when they started went with the higher class servant name structure. ",
"The \"-ess\" in \"actress\" and \"stewardess\" comes from French, as does the related \"-ette\" (as in \"usherette\"), while \"-trix\" (as in \"executrix\") comes from Latin -- although that one has mostly fallen out of use except in \"dominatrix\".\n\nMostly, it was words of French or Latin origin that had these endings for the feminine version, but this practice is now falling out of favour in our more egalitarian times. There used to be far more of them: [\"doctoress\" was listed in the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary](_URL_0_), for example.\n\nWords of Germanic origin tended not to have feminine version: the \"-er\" ending was simply added to an activity or a thing to denote a person who did that activity or made that thing, whether male or female.\n\n\"Stewardess\" is an exception. The word \"steward\" is Germanic, and is about 1,000 years old. The word \"stewardess\" isn't recorded until the 17th century: for some reason, it was felt necessary to stick a French ending onto a Germanic word, creating something of a Frankenstein's monster. This actually happened quite a lot, but the practice died out and many of the \"Frankenstein's monster\" creations disappeared, although some survive.",
"Just thought I'd point out that \"actress\" is falling into disuse more and more. Both male and female actors are often called the single noun these days."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.websters1913.com/words/Doctoress"
],
[]
] |
|
1krztv
|
lebanon and hezbollah? pakistan and taliban? how these political situations work and how they came to be like this? (other examples?)
|
Hi there,
my deepest apologies if this indeed turned out to be a repost, I looked through the search bar for ELI5 explanations to both of these situations however I could not find answers to either of them.
So basically I am curious as to how the Lebanese and Pakistani governments are able to co-exist with groups such as Hezbollah and the Taliban living in the country amongst them. Is this what would be considered a power-sharing agreement? I understand that Lebanon underwent a civil war in the 1980s however I was born in 1991 so my idea of middle east policy is biased towards 9/11 and the war on terror. I have done lots of research into the conflicts of the 60s 70s and 80s but have never managed to figure out how both of these supposed militant groups came to be so prominent in these two countries?
Thanks for the help in answering my questions and if this was indeed a repost, a link to either one the explanations would be great!
Sincerely,
A curious American.
Cheers!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1krztv/eli5_lebanon_and_hezbollah_pakistan_and_taliban/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbs0uas",
"cbs45bc"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Lets start off with Lebanon, because I *know* how that works.\n\nHezbollah is a political party in Lebanon. Lebanon has a parliamentary system that isn't like the American one. They literally do share some portion of the power in the country - but in a \"power sharing\" sort of way that you would think about between State-and-Federal, but in a power sharing sort of way the same way that Republicans and Democrats do (it's a bit more nuanced than that, because the systems operate differently.. but the gist will hold). Since this ELI5 isn't about how parliamentary systems work I'll refer you [here](_URL_1_) (to wikipedia) for a general overview and [here](_URL_0_) (again, to wikipedia) for an overview of Lebanon's Parliament specifically.\n\nTo get into a bit of Hezbollah's history - they're pretty much an extension of Iranian will. They're largely funded by Iran, especially for their paramilitary branch (whose training comes directly from the Revolutionary Guard originally, and may still).\n\nWell, I forgot about that, sorry. They're more than *just* a political party. They also have a paramilitary branch. This is the branch typically called the \"terrorists.\" Hezbollah itself started off as a group of adherents to Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I had to look up how to spell that), trained by the Revolutionary Guard, in Lebanon, with the permission of the Lebanese government during the Invasion of Lebanon by Israel (which was in response to multiple terrorist attacks, each side naturally disagrees whether those were sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation). \n\nAfter this, they grew extensively. They went form a minor paramilitary organization to a real organization with some international presence and a lot of national (Lebanese) influence. They are currently participating in the Syrian Civil war and have ~10% of the seats in the Lebanese Parliament. \n\nThere's some dispute whether one of the more violent factions (Islamic Jihad Organization) is a \"Front\" for Hezbollah or a splinter group. The former would mean that Hezbollah actually controls it, the latter would mean that they're a group who split and while originally part of the group is now separate...\n\n\n... Give me a while and we'll talk about Pakistan and the Taliban - their situation is *far* different, and I've got some things to do at the moment. ",
"Lets go one by one...\n\nLebanon and Hezbollah, \n\nIn the from 1979 there was a civil war in lebanon between Maronite Christian, Sunni and Shiite factions, The thing is that the PLO which was also fighting a war of attrition against Israel had its HQ in Lebanon at the time, Israel saw the political tension in Lebanon and the looming civil war and sported the Maronite Christian Lebanese front and the Sunni SLA, Israel thought that if they won they could turn Lebanon in to an ally against Syria, Israel got heavily involved and in 1985 with the support of Iran some Shiite groups with economical, logistical and technical support from Iran established Hezbollah to fight against the SLA and Israel advances in Lebanese territory, Israel managed to complete 1 of its 2 goals, the PLO was forced out of Lebanon and was forced to relocate to Tunisia meaning it no longer had direct access or a direct land border with Israel for direct assaults and attacks,\n\nWhen the civil war in Lebanon ended and there was a UN observation force to maintain political stability, all foreign powers were to leave Lebanon and all paramilitary groups were to disarm, Only 3 parties violated this accord, Israel by keeping a buffer zone in south Lebanon, Hezbollah which claimed it needed its weapons to expel Israel from that buffer zone and the SLA which was the main military power in that buffer zone backed by Israel. \n\nThe thing is that under Heud Barak in 2000 Israel retreated from Lebanon, This lead to the SLA being disbanded, Some people thought that This would allow Hezbollah to put down its arms and integrate in to the Lebanese political system, but they didnt, The major controlling current on Hezbollah is Iranian, And Iran uses them to apply military and political pressure on Israel, Unfil cant do anything against them because they are a peace keeping force, and Hezbollah has put the emphasis on Liberating \"Palestine\" and the Sheba farms area which is actually Syrian. \n\nMost of the Lebanese hate Hezbollah because they see them as a Iranian pupped that fucked the now quasi stable Lebanon, But they have a strong following among the Shiite community and the poor because they also provide social services in many poor Muslim communities, they are also seen as one of the few military organizations that managed to stand up to Israel and win (if you call that winning...)\n\nPakistan and the Taliban is another story... \n\nBetween Pakistan and Afghanistan there is a area which is mostly ruled tribal leaders, The civil administration there is fairly weak while civil militias are quite strong. \n\nNow we have to go back to 1980´s and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Since the US could not directly involve itself in a direct confrontation against the Soviet union because it might end up with nuclear weapon deployment, and that's bad for everyone. \n\nSo the CIA started a program where they would grab this religious civil militias, give them money and weapons and help them declare a Islamic Jihad (Muslim holy war) against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, Long story short they turned a few religious hicks with rifles in to a organized resistance army, When they managed to kick the Soviet union out Afghanistan they were \"holy shit... we just beat a superpower\".\n\nThey were divided in to 2 main groups, The Taliban (means \"the students\") which stayed in Afghanistan and fought to bring strict Islamic law to all its territory and the Mujahedin (the warriors) which was basically an Islamic traveling cir... army to fight for islamic causes around the world, this would later develop in to Al Queda when the Saudi and Kuwaiti Royal families reject their offer to fight against Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war in favor of accepting help from the American \"christian crusaders\" which in their opinion did not respect Islam and should not be on Saudi soil. \n\nTL;DR : both are complex topics which are hard to explain but I´ll try to shorten it.\n\nHezbollah : Iranian backed Shiite militia which originated in the Lebanese civil war to counter the Israeli intervention in favor of the Sunni and Christian forces, Remained active as a Iranian proxy against Israel. \n\nTaliban : A bunch of Tribal hard line Islamic hicks empowered by the US logistical intervention in building up the Afghan resistance to Soviet military forces in the 1980´s, Remains active in their insistence to impose strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan and fight external pressure. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Lebanon",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system"
],
[]
] |
|
lpxdi
|
body temperature
|
I was thinking, why do we need and have a body temperature? And why is it subject to just being 98.6? Why couldn't we have something higher or lower? This just popped into my head one day and I couldn't help but wonder about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lpxdi/eli5_body_temperature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2unwub",
"c2unwub"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The specific temperature naturally evolved this way.\n\nThe higher the temperature, the faster we can move/the faster we can burn calories to do tasks/the better we can fight infections/the more energy we have.\n\nAt the same time, keeping a higher temperature also requires much more energy present... meaning that we have to eat 3 meals a day just to keep up. This was difficult to do when we were still evolving. We essentially have to eat almost constantly to replenish our energy reserves. When food was hard to come by, this became a problem.\n\nSo, while hotter is usually better, during evolution, those who were too cold were slow and ended up dead. Those who were too hot starved to death because they couldn't find enough food to replenish the calories burned. Those who were just right, around 98.6 degrees, survived to make more babies.\n\ntl;dr, hotter = better performance but more caloric usage. 98.6 is the natural balance for humans.",
"The specific temperature naturally evolved this way.\n\nThe higher the temperature, the faster we can move/the faster we can burn calories to do tasks/the better we can fight infections/the more energy we have.\n\nAt the same time, keeping a higher temperature also requires much more energy present... meaning that we have to eat 3 meals a day just to keep up. This was difficult to do when we were still evolving. We essentially have to eat almost constantly to replenish our energy reserves. When food was hard to come by, this became a problem.\n\nSo, while hotter is usually better, during evolution, those who were too cold were slow and ended up dead. Those who were too hot starved to death because they couldn't find enough food to replenish the calories burned. Those who were just right, around 98.6 degrees, survived to make more babies.\n\ntl;dr, hotter = better performance but more caloric usage. 98.6 is the natural balance for humans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
e1lbv2
|
why is it easier to keep balance (while standing on one foot f.e.), when you focus on a specific point?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e1lbv2/eli5_why_is_it_easier_to_keep_balance_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8q21uz",
"f8q7k41"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain collects information from multiple sources to maintain balance. One of those sources is what you see with your eyes, this is why closing your eyes makes it harder to balance. \n\nWhen you focus in a static object, your brain can more easily detect when it's tipping out of balance (because it knows that static object shouldn't move if you're balanced) and trigger you to make the necessary conditions. Try focusing on a moving object and you'll likely find it harder to balance.",
"Focusing your vision on a point allows you to detect and adjust to body movements more quickly than relying solely on your inner ear and kinesthesia."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
mn5ar
|
if i eat way more chile peppers, and build a tolerance, will i also have lower sensitivity to pepper spray?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mn5ar/eli5_if_i_eat_way_more_chile_peppers_and_build_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c328yzs",
"c329e9j",
"c328yzs",
"c329e9j"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"No. The way \"hot\" or \"spicy\" for foods specifically peppers is the scoville scale. Most peppers will be between 0-100,000 scovilles. Common ones are Banana peppers at 100, jalapeno at 5,000, tabasco pepper at 50,000. The hottest peppers are around 1,000,000 scovilles but Pepper spray is usually at or above 2,000,000 scovilles. Maybe in theory, but the pain and time it would take would be too much. Not to mention pepper spray goes right into your eyes, which is much more painful than just eating it.",
"I think you would have to practice rubbing hot peppers on your eyes for this to really take effect. People don't generally pepper spray you in the mouth. They spray you on the face/eyes.\n\nI don't think anyone should ever try and mess around with that kind of thing anyway, considering there have been cases of blindness and death from pepper spray.",
"No. The way \"hot\" or \"spicy\" for foods specifically peppers is the scoville scale. Most peppers will be between 0-100,000 scovilles. Common ones are Banana peppers at 100, jalapeno at 5,000, tabasco pepper at 50,000. The hottest peppers are around 1,000,000 scovilles but Pepper spray is usually at or above 2,000,000 scovilles. Maybe in theory, but the pain and time it would take would be too much. Not to mention pepper spray goes right into your eyes, which is much more painful than just eating it.",
"I think you would have to practice rubbing hot peppers on your eyes for this to really take effect. People don't generally pepper spray you in the mouth. They spray you on the face/eyes.\n\nI don't think anyone should ever try and mess around with that kind of thing anyway, considering there have been cases of blindness and death from pepper spray."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1mksuj
|
how does fiji water justify their inflated price?
|
(And why do people buy it?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mksuj/eli5_how_does_fiji_water_justify_their_inflated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cca5buq",
"cca5cep",
"cca61up",
"cca678y",
"cca6jd7",
"cca6oa2",
"cca9y0k"
],
"score": [
4,
13,
7,
3,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The second question answers your first. And people buy it because people are dumb. My only question is why you're asking about Fiji specifically when there are more expensive brands.",
"The claim is that their water from Fiji “comes from an artesian aquifer .“ Their unstated premise is that this water is somehow more pure and better for you. Their price comes from peoples willingness to buy it despite the high price. And people's willingness to buy it comes from their unstated premise.",
"They don't need to justify it beyond what justification people need to buy it... Basic market forces at work. If people are willing to buy it in a quantity that is enough for the company to profit & survive then it is priced right. If it was too inflated they wouldn't be able to sell it and the product would fail.\n\nTons of companies do this. How can Rolex justify $10,000 watches (it tells time the same as a $5000, or $1000, or $200 watch)? How can Starbucks justify $4.50 for a cup of hot milk with some espresso in it? How can Ferrari justify a quarter of a million dollars for a car?\n\nImage= some people willing to buy it at an inflated price. They will sell less product than \"cheaper brands\" but they make more off each transation.\n\nIn short: they don't need to \"justify\" it if people are willing to purchase it for whatever reason. Quite often it is due to image, or perceived quality, or brand loyalty rather than actual quality or function.",
"Supply and demand, they wouldn't sell it for that price if people weren't buying it for that price.",
"What do you mean by justify? They can charge whatever they like.",
"Bottled water, one of the worst environmental catastrophes in recent times, has always functioned off the cache of being a premium product/better than the tap/super pure. In reality, the bottling standards for water are worse than what comes out of your tap, and you're paying for pretty pictures of a glacier on a bottle. \n\nFiji water (which I've heard is just terrible to the native people) rides on a boat a lot longer than some waters, and has a nice clear bottle to go with it. People will pay for this it turns out -- and when compared to a drink at a club, etc, it's no longer expensive. You see Voss water left on the table, or in a hotel room sitting there, often as an upsell (because Fiji is no where pricey enough). \n\nIt's genius for a bar/restaurant to get you for a $20 bottle of water when it used to be free -- just so you don't look cheap ordering tap water, etc.",
"Cool bottle, bro."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3t5e0u
|
what's the reasoning behind the "pause" and "play" symbols as we know them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t5e0u/eli5_whats_the_reasoning_behind_the_pause_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx37daz",
"cx3epm3"
],
"score": [
61,
5
],
"text": [
"Their origin is not clear but I think the \"play\" symbol was supposed to be an arrow that indicates the direction tape was moving in old reel-to-reel tapes, which would explain why the fast forward symbol is a double arrow. \n\nThe pause symbol on the other hand, is even less clear. Some say it's a variation of the \"stop\" symbol (a square), that indicates no direction of movement. By carving a chunk out of that square, you show that \"pause\" is only a temporary stop. ",
"The play symbol symbolizes time moving forward, because in the western world we read from left to right. So an arrow to the right points to the future. And fast-forward is just 2 arrows overlapping.\n\nPause on the other hand represents 2 timelines (the bars) with a pause between them (the empty space between the bars)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
c7o6gx
|
does the breakdown of carbon life forms add mass to the earth?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c7o6gx/eli5_does_the_breakdown_of_carbon_life_forms_add/
|
{
"a_id": [
"esgktyf",
"esgkvsh",
"esgv583"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, or yes. It depends on how you define the Earth.\n\nIf you are talking about everything from the atmosphere down, then no mass is added since the mass from the lifeforms is already accounted for.\n\nIf you mean just the soil and whatnot below our feet, then yes the bodies decompose and make their way into the Earth. The elements from those bodies are also used by plants and fungi and animals for growth, so it is taken out of the Earth too. The net difference between the bodies going in and being used is effectively nil, so the Earth's mass stays the same from that.\n\nThe Earth does gain mass over time though. This is done through small meteoroids that enter the atmosphere and usually burn up before they hit land. It also loses mass because lighter gases such a as hydrogen and helium leak out of the atmosphere into space. I'm not sure which is greater though to decide if it's a net gain or loss.",
"The staple law of physics is that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. \n\nHowever, that does not mean that it can’t be transformed. Carbon life forms take mass from the earth upon creation, which is why when they break down no mass is added, only returned. \n\nFor example, if you were to dig a hole at the beach, the sand that you dug out would be misplaced but it would still be there, just as when carbon life forms are created the mass is “misplaced” into us, but it’s still there.",
"The Earth is a jar full of soil air water and whatever. We live in the jar, are made from stuff in the jar and when we die we're still in the jar. The jar weights the same.\n\n \n\n\nMeteors are stones that fall in the jar from time to time they increase it's mass.\n\nThere's something called solar wind it's made of some sort of particles they add to the jar like dust in a basement.\n\n \n\n\nRadioactive stuff inside the jar is losing weight and heating the bottom of the jar.\n\n \n\n\nThe sun is heating the air in the jar and adding a lot of energy to it, that moves water and air trough the jar and makes life possible in the jar with plants using it to convert some chemicals into other chemicals no mass is lost or gained on this one but the molecules become more complex (than we've found in other empty jars full of dust and methane).\n\n \n\n\nWant to know something else, these complex molecules tend to crumple and fold into eachother, and for some reason every living thing in the jar has them twisted in the same direction (same aminoacid chirality). Weirder tho all critters in the jar from the slime on the glass to monkeys shooting rockets are made from the same recipe, using the same 4 words like they're all related."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s7nf2
|
why does america still have a farm bill?
|
ELI5:Why does America still have a Farm bill? I've had a quick look at it, and for a free market economy it seems to impose the complete opposite.
If someone can provide a more details explanation of what it is and why it continues to be that'd be great.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s7nf2/eli5why_does_america_still_have_a_farm_bill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdusntm",
"cduy60v"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, the United States *doesn't* have a completely free economy. It's more free than many other countries, but there are still a lot of protectionist industries, with the notable ones being Steel and various Agriculture products (especially Sugar).\n\nThat said, there are three basic reasons for the Farm bill.\n\n1) Protection for farmers if a drought or storm kills the crop or cattle. This would wipe out the farmer/rancher, and prevent him from using his skilled expertise (Industrial farming can be considered skilled labor) in subsequent years to grow food as he is bankrupt/can't get a loan. That's not to say the government swoops in and completely pulls the farmer back on his feet, but the government does offer a stretched out hand. \n\n2) Provides subsidies for a farmer so he can afford to leave some land fallow (unplanted) for a period of time. This preserves and builds up nutrients in the soil, which is necessary even in this age of chemical fertilizers. Otherwise, the farmer has an incentive to maximize his profit by planting all his fields all his time, which would wear out the soil even with soil saving techniques such as crop rotatoins. \n\n3) The government essentially subsidizes many articles of food for the farmer to make it profitable for him (fertilizer/GMO crops can be expensive, etc) to grow it without selling it a high price to the consumer. Lower prices for consumers = more money spent on other products and services in the economy, especially by the lower economic classes. \n\nThere are also downsides. For example, Refined Sugar in the US is more expensive than in other parts of the world because we're very protectionist of our sugar industry. This causes higher sugar prices than if we allowed free trade. ",
"Thanks for your response. So is it worth it? Or does it make your agriculture industry lazy through the use of guarantees?\nI once worked for a plant producer, who lost his crop in a once in a 100 year flood. He had no choice but to survive on his own, without assistance.\nIn response to (2), it would make sense to look after your property if you were in it for the long term. Farming is a long term business.\n(3) Doesn't this just support the fertilizer/GMO industry with the money passed through to them?\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
54815k
|
howcome no matter how much we brace ourselves for something startling (loud noise, etc...), we always still jump at it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54815k/eli5_howcome_no_matter_how_much_we_brace/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7znafi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"People have different reactions to startling events with some on the extreme end being people you can literally scare out of their seat with a \"BOO!\" every time, literally every time. Other people can train their reactions better, but it depends on who you are.\n\nThe reason though is pretty simple, and it's that our fight-flight instinct is powerful and can occur without conscious thought. We've evolved as a species for millions of years, and the animals who didn't have the fastest possible reactions to potentially new and dangerous stimuli didn't tend to survive and have offspring. In short, we're the product of tens of millions of years of nervous mammals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16p2rt
|
can someone write a dumbed down version of the "23 gun laws" that obama has came up with?
|
Incase I am incorrect of what is going on, here is what I am talking about.
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16p2rt/can_someone_write_a_dumbed_down_version_of_the_23/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7y0nxl",
"c7y18mm",
"c7y1nru",
"c7y2ydc",
"c7y5j01",
"c7y6ddq",
"c7y6ke4",
"c7y6wxw",
"c7y9sib",
"c7ybdyj"
],
"score": [
237,
179,
14,
84,
41,
12,
5,
15,
3,
40
],
"text": [
"The White House Press Secretary put out an easier-to-read summary document. The Chicago Sun-Times has a copy [here](_URL_0_)\n",
"I'm really liking the one about health insurance providing for mental health.",
"It says \"Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines\"\n\nIs that for all guns, or just ARs?",
"If by \"23 gun laws\" you're referring to the 23 executive orders he's signing, it's important to distinguish these from the \"laws\" he's proposed to Congress. Notably, Obama DID NOT ban assault weapons (as defined by prior legislation), high capacity magazines, or unregulated private sale of firearms and ammunition. Nothing Obama signed into effect will have any impact on citizens' legal ownership of guns and ammo. They were mostly bureaucratic changes to more effectivtly enforce already existing gun laws, and suggestions for Congress to take further action to actually modify existing gun law. All Obama did was attempt to enforce the existing laws concerning background checks by removing bureaucratic obstacles -- no meaningful changes have yet been made.",
"With the \"research\" portion of the bill, does this mean they can finally (conclusively) put an end to the whole 'violent video games/movies = violence in real life'?\n\nI sure hope so...",
"Since these are just Executive Orders, the next President could just invalidate them all if they desire, right?",
"[_URL_1_](_URL_0_) is actually a pretty great resource for those who have never been. They make all of the President's executive orders available online.\n\n[Here's](_URL_2_) their new page on gun control.",
"Why was there a freeze of gun violence research?",
"Can anyone expand on the assault weapons ban? Is this a full on ban for all people? Or could a \"sane\" citizen still legally purchase an assault weapon in the US? I ask because the way it (what I have seen regarding the assault weapons ban) is worded, the exec order is a ban the legal sale of \"assault weapons\" to everyone.",
"The 23 executive orders basically stack up to this:\n\n* 6 are about making the background check system more effective. \n\n* 3 are about safety training and equipment. \n\n* 5 are law enforcement of existing laws. \n\n* 1 is allowing research. \n\n* 6 are about mental health. \n\n* 2 are about school resource officers and planning."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/16/list-obamas-23-executive-actions-on-gun-violence/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=W480DYNQoWmjWtPssH2PiW08KPqTQGj1bVIjXWhRUINygAgzGeHJ7JG3mDPF39SK4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&CONTENTDISPOSITION=obama-CST-011713.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions",
"Whitehouse.gov",
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#what-we-can-do"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6jtp6m
|
why can't the body differentiate from a real threat vs second-hand anxiety symptoms?
|
i.e when your hands get sweaty when you're watching someone else do flips on a skyscraper
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jtp6m/eli5_why_cant_the_body_differentiate_from_a_real/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djgw7kj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We are social and empathetic creatures. We may not be experiencing it for ourselves, but our brain knows that it would be a bad idea so it triggers an anxious response in most people so they won't want to do it. It doesn't work all the time, obviously, and there's no way for your primitive instincts to know about the safety measures, it just sees someone jumping off a building."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
29h64u
|
how can you see through something that's physically there, like plastic wrap or glass?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29h64u/eli5_how_can_you_see_through_something_thats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cikv58g",
"cikxdn9",
"cikyma0"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Light consists of waves(ish). When it hits an object, depending on the size of the crystals in the object and the chemical makeup, different wavelengths of light are reflected/scattered/absorbed. Plastic wrap lets through visible light, if the crystals are small enough they won't scatter the visible wavelengths significantly. If you were to look through the plastic wrap with infra-red light, you would see that it is no longer transparent!",
"The same reason you can see through air: the photons hitting it on one side are re-emitted with (nearly) the same properties on the other side.\n\nCertain materials have this behavior for certain wavelengths of light. Your home wifi makes it through the walls of your house, but the same wavelength is used in your microwave and doesn't make it through the grating on its door.",
"It's called the Engery Gap\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/Omr0JNyDBI0"
]
] |
||
6t8fsf
|
what happens to the water used to make concrete?
|
Can the concrete degrade, until the water escapes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6t8fsf/eli5_what_happens_to_the_water_used_to_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlioovi",
"dlip401",
"dliqls8",
"dliqplg"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
9,
6
],
"text": [
"Concrete setting is a complicated process and depends on the materials used. But part of the process is the hydration of the ingredients. The water actually becomes part of the ingredients. The water remains but is part of the chemical components. Concrete is also produced which will set under water. The Romans understood how to make concrete including underwater concrete. It is part of how they were so good at construction.",
"The concrete can degrade but the water will not escape until the concrete is heated to a pretty high temperature where a chemical process occurs that allows the water to escape, the concrete will lose it's strength and crumble during this process.",
"What happens to the water when you bake a cake from dry mix?\n\nMost of the water becomes the **hydrates** in the concrete. Some of it boils off. Making concrete is highly exothermic (the process gives off heat). \n\nOther off gasses from concrete are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Chemically, concrete is much like human digestion and it produces a good amount of the greenhouse gasses from construction. ",
"Concrete doesn’t just *dry*, it *cures*. This means that the water and cement go through a chemical change, and join together in a new form.\n\nThink about putting dry pasta in water and putting cured concrete in water. The pasta absorbs water again and becomes similar to how it was before it dried out. The concrete stays hard and solid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1kmegf
|
how do photographers get cameras in animal dens or hives?
|
You always see wide shots of the insides of bee hives or of an animal sleeping in a tiny den. How do they do that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kmegf/eli5_how_do_photographers_get_cameras_in_animal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbqfc2b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've seen cameramen literally just elbow their way into rabbit holes and such. or they can use lightweight camera's on sticks basically. or sometimes there's a lot more room in there underground already, when a small animal has made a den in an existing but abandoned bigger den. \n\nas for bees, they're easy. they live in hives, but the footage you'll see is from man-made hives, which the bees inhabit. the side of those can simply be made of perspex or glass, so you can see everything going on inside. a lot of the classic wooden hives you'll have seen, you can lift the top off, looking down onto the frames that hold the honey. you could simply put a glass sheet on top of there as well, it wouldnt bother the bees in the slightest. my dad was a beekeeper, and he had a sheet of glass in the top. if it wasnt too sunny I'd take the top off sometimes and just look at them move about. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7bd9oj
|
difference between necessary and sufficient conditions
|
Philosophy major here. I some how managed to get a distinction in informal reasoning, and yet I never managed to grasp the distinction between a necessary condition, and a sufficient condition. I'd appreciate an ELI5 on how to tell the difference between them, and a definition of each.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7bd9oj/eli5difference_between_necessary_and_sufficient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dph0zkm",
"dph5c94",
"dph8ufw"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"A is a necessary condition for B if it's always true whenever B is true. In other words, B implies A.\n\nA is a sufficient condition for B if whenever it's true, B is true. In other words, A implies B.\n\nThe meanings are actually just their regular English meanings. If A is necessary for B, then you can't have B without A, because A is necessary. If A is sufficient for B, it means that as long as you have A, that's sufficient to show that you have B as well.",
"Water is a necessary condition for making lemonade.\n\nWater is NOT a sufficient condition - water alone does not meet all of the requirements to make lemonade.",
"P is a necessary condition for Q if Q can *only* happen if P is true. You can't drive a car unless it has gas in it, so having gas is a necessary condition.\n\nP is a sufficient condition for Q if can *always* happen when P is true. You can always unlock your car door if you have the key, so having the key is a sufficient condition.\n\nA condition can be necessary but not sufficient. You might have a full tank of gas, but you aren't going anywhere if you don't have your keys.\n\nA condition can be sufficient but not necessary. You can unlock your car with a coat hanger if you have lost your keys.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3idq8e
|
was the economic stimulus act of 2008 at all effective in helping the recessed economy?
|
Did the $158 billion dollars invested in the economy end up doing what lawmakers thought it would? Did the government see any returns on this investment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3idq8e/eli5_was_the_economic_stimulus_act_of_2008_at_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cufiajz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Did the $158 billion dollars invested in the economy end up doing what lawmakers thought it would?\n\n[Yes](_URL_0_) it raised consumption and increased consumer spending.\n\n > Did the government see any returns on this investment?\n\nThe government was looking for no particular \"return\" on this investment, merely to stimulate demand as much as possible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.voxeu.org/article/did-2008-us-tax-rebates-work"
]
] |
|
33h2pu
|
in academia, why is communism still seen as a viable option while fascism is viewed as the biggest evil of all time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33h2pu/eli5_in_academia_why_is_communism_still_seen_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqksnag",
"cqktoiu",
"cqktyfw",
"cqkyrui",
"cqkzlyf"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"No, that's not a \"No true Scotsman\", because USSR and PRC weren't in fact, communism. \n\nAlso, more importantly the parts of the USSR and PRC that were \"Evil\" aren't part of the communistic ideal",
"Communism generally presumes far greater democracy, leading to people collectively choosing equality (or vice versa). Fascism is practically the opposite. Fascism actually exists in many countries and have been demonstrated to be less effective than republics. No traditional state government has ever practiced democratic communism, and no government with state control of property has ever had free access to the global market - Cuba will be the first.",
"What class are you taking where they propose that communism is a viable option? What example could they possibly use? It's been tried and failed each and every time. ",
"USSR was as communistic as USA is a laissez-faire.",
"Nobody thinks that Leninism or Maoism are viable options. \n\nBut Scandinavian style social democracy is clearly functional. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1cq9ok
|
why do some people get sweaty hands?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cq9ok/eli5_why_do_some_people_get_sweaty_hands/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9j2iyj"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"In addition to the posts you will get about why the body produces sweat (like to cool off the body, or our body's response to fear/stress) I will tell you this bit of information. \n\nMy girlfriend has hyperhydrosis. The body normally produces sweat as a way to cool itself down. In her case, her body does this more often than needed. So it could be kinda chilly out and her palms will sweat a lot. \n\nIt's annoying to her, and effects her life to a small degree. Touch screens don't work well for her, and fingerprint readers almost never work. On top if that, it's not something other people can see, so if she's trying to dry get palms on her hands, people think she's acting odd. She's says it's very embarrassing. \n\nEvery 6 months, she goes to get botox injected into her hands, and that pretty much solves it for half a year. But it costs a few thousand dollars. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2r8ev1
|
why do prices of goods so often end in a nine, rather than a multiple of ten?
|
In America, at least, the title seems to be true, and it doesn't make sense. I remember when I was young I asked my mom (I think it was mom) why prices were that way, and she told me it was for tax purposes, though in more words and possibly with an alcohol-induced slur, and that sounds like a bullcrap, be-quiet-annoying-little-child answer. Can anyone give me a good (and correct) reason? Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r8ev1/eli5_why_do_prices_of_goods_so_often_end_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cndecjd",
"cndecpg",
"cndef7e",
"cndfcdl"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"People are much more likely to buy something for $9.99 instead of $10.00.\n\nSource:\n_URL_0_",
"Often times, it's a psychological thing. Statistically, people are more likely to buy something that's $19.99 instead of $20.00\n\nIt's usually just about how the number LOOKS to the consumer. Unless you are in a store that includes the tax price on the price tag.",
"It's actually something called [psychological pricing](_URL_0_).\n\nIn a nutshell, in America, we read left to right and tend to ignore the numbers on the right. So, having a price that ends in one or more 9's lets the seller maximize the price before needing to increase the cost to the point where the buyer would really notice.\n\n > Consumers tend to perceive “odd prices” as being significantly lower than they actually are, tending to round to the next lowest monetary unit. Thus, prices such as $1.99 are associated with spending $1 rather than $2",
"Most of the times it's because of two reasons: 1. It's a psychological thing, people will buy something that is 99.99 instead of a 100 and 2. I know it sounds extremely stupid but people will often leave that 1 cent behind. Back in this place where i worked stuff went for ridiculous prices like 18.97. I know it sounds miniscule but over time that adds up, especially when there is a lot of sales happening. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing"
],
[]
] |
|
1x7zgt
|
why is i go #2 before i shower, and wipe thoroughly, there's always a burning & itchy sensation in my my rear, which causes me to re-wipe an hour later, and i end up with tp coated with dookie?
|
Ok, I will wake up, take my morning dump and wipe my heart out(using wet and dry toilet paper), until I get a clean piece of white TP. An hour or so later, I will get a burny/itchy sensation between my cheeks and would go to the bathroom at work and wipe; lo and behold, there's crap there. I have not farted or had any type of issues since my bath, so what gives?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x7zgt/eli5_why_is_i_go_2_before_i_shower_and_wipe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf8wubh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Only wonder this once a day..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
20nbfo
|
why don't creationists believe that evolution and their god could work hand in hand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20nbfo/eli5_why_dont_creationists_believe_that_evolution/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg4wskg",
"cg4ww1d",
"cg4x54m"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many do. The Catholic Church, for instance:\n\n > in the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.\n\nFrom wikipedia.",
"There are many creationists who believe in what is called 'Biblical inerrancy', that every word in the texts of their chosen version is the divinely inspired word of God and factually true, without any exception for metaphor or allegory. Naturally, this would conflict with evolution where the book of Genesis is concerned.",
"That's the way I see it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3v75ha
|
on moon, where does the height of mountains "begin", when there is no sea level?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v75ha/eli5_on_moon_where_does_the_height_of_mountains/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxkw2m5",
"cxkw660"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Even on earth, the sea level isn't perfectly level. It's a little higher at the equator than it is at the poles. What is called sea level is often really above mean sea level. So in some places, the mean sea level is actually below the surface of the water, and above it in others.\n\nLikewise, there's there are valleys, and mountains on the moon. So there's a way to calculate the mean surface level. Once that's calculated, the height above the mean surface level is an easy calculation.",
"Altitude is calculated from a reference sphere with a radius of 1737km. So the sea level (or altitude 0) is defined as being 1737Km 'above' the center of mass of the moon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2yw9m9
|
how do sites like ez tv and kick ass torrents not easily get shut down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yw9m9/eli5_how_do_sites_like_ez_tv_and_kick_ass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpdiwwj",
"cpdv9t8"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It's difficult to shut down torrent hosting sites because they don't technically host any pirated content. EZTV doesn't even host any torrent files, it only links to other sites that do host torrent files, which is one more degree of separation between them and the actual piracy. \n\nOf course, in many places, aiding/encouraging piracy in this way is still against the law. This is why they're careful to only use servers and domains in countries which aren't as strict.\n\nEven then, these sites are watched very closely. EZTV had a .tv domain but that was taken away from them by the regulators in charge of .tv domains, now they've moved to a .it domain instead while they'll have until a case is raised against them with the regulators in charge of that domain. The Pirate Bay is famous for having moved servers/domains a large number of times.",
"My go to torrent site has a report copy right link. Basically send them proof of ownership, and they'll take it down, but chances are that same link is 100+ other places on their sites. \n\nAlso rules. \n\n_URL_0_ isn't hosted in the US SK US laws don't apply to them"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"Kickass.to"
]
] |
||
6u8v88
|
dropshipping
|
I know there have been few posts about dropshipping here but most of them didn't really answer what I was kinda thinking.
So i understand that the concept of it is that you dont deal with the goods yourself, but you provide your customers the goods through a distributor that you have and up the price that you bought it for to make profit.
But what I dont understand is how this can be a market? Why would the consumer go to me if they can purchase from the distributor where they wont have to pay the profit gap I make? and considering that you have to be paid by the consumer prior to making the purchase yourself for the consumer, wouldn't that also mean that now your customer will have to wait extra day(s) for the shipment to arrive in comparison to buying from distributor themselves?
Or is the idea pretty much keep your distributor unknown to the customer and then sell it? But then what I thougth is once the product arrives to your consumer, they can pretty much look up the product you sold them and eventually find the pricing that is lower than what I sold for (ie my distributor)?
So from what I've read through, it really doesn't seem like a possible market, but I've heard lots of stories on people making money from it. Is my understanding of the concept wrong?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6u8v88/eli5dropshipping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlqtu8c",
"dlqu0sm",
"dlqx9co",
"dlqx9l7"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well dropshipping is profitable, but not as buying wholesale, since you aren't buying large quantities of the product.\nPeople don't buy from the distributor, because often they are hard to find, and even if you do manage to find it, sometimes there are minimum order prices, or even subscriptions. All of this stuff takes too much time for the consumer to do so he just doesn't bother and buy the product for a few bucks more.\nP.S. dropshipping doesn't take a longer time to deliver products. If you sell on ebay or amazon, you're not gonna get money straight away. First times you'll have to wait as long as 2 weeks. So in these cases, just use your money to buy the product and after a few days you'll get money from the customer into your paypal.\nSorry for mistakes, I'm not fluent in english ;d",
"The reason dropshipping works, is because you are doing research to find a distributor of a product at dirt cheap prices. Oftentimes this means wading through chinglish laden, undescriptive and misleading sites and product pages until you find the item. The consumer you are ideally selling to, probably doesnt want to deal with that, or just doesnt know that the product is being sold cheaper. Its easier for them to spend a little bit more for someone else to figure out what product is good, how to order it, etc. ",
"A good dropshipper provides a service to their customer. It can vary, but the most common ones are:\n1) finding products that are difficult to find by a normal consumer (poor websites, difficult companies to purchase from, that type of thing)\n2) putting together a collection of goods that are high quality and specifically the stuff that a certain customer likes, making \"finding cool things\" easier for the customer\n3) finding cool stuff that is poorly marketed, and market it better so that you as the consumer now see the value in the product\n\nThe key is that the upcharge dropshippers charge has to be small enough that a significant group of customers don't mind paying it. They have a very small window where they can be successful, and have to work hard at 1,2 and 3 to always be ahead. Because all the other dropshippers are also working on 1,2 and 3, and all three services are relatively easy to copy of each other. ",
"In the end the buyer will choose you based on the value added. You are a single point of contact who will most likely stand behind the product where your supplier is more interested in fast turn over while you are interested in return business. So the buyer feels more secure purchasing from you than from some obscure back door operation. This is what makes stop shipping successful. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6aby9e
|
why does microsoft care so much about people using edge?
|
I understand pushing Bing over Google due to revenue from advertisements, but what benefit does Microsoft gain from people using Edge over chrome?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aby9e/eli5_why_does_microsoft_care_so_much_about_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhdat0c",
"dhdaten",
"dhdfi16"
],
"score": [
30,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Your user data is a valuable advertising tool, directed ads are *worth money*.\n\nYou may recall that a law was passed saying your isp gets to sell your browsing data.. **Google has been collecting that kind of data for years!** That's why you get targeted google ads. If you search for a new deep fryer on google, then you start getting ads for deep fryers nestled in your gmail and on websites with google ads. They sold you out for those valuable clicks.\n\nIf you use Edge, Microsoft gets to farm that data instead of google and Microsoft gets to target you for targeted ads instead.\n\n",
"Having control over a major web browser gives a company a lot of control over the development of web standards. There's also a lot of money to be gained by telling people which web search engine to use by default.\n\nInternet Explorer is and old & awkward codebase to maintain. If they can get people to use Edge, they keep the control without all the effort of taking care of a legacy codebase.",
"What's even better than knowing what you search for? Knowing everything you do on the sites you searched for. \n\nAlso, with significant market share in the browser market, you get a strong voice in how browsers should work in the first place. Back when only IE was big, there was no real standard on how to develop webpages, you basically made it so that IE would show it properly. The competition like Firefox had to modify their browser to work like IE (even when it was a horrible idea) cause otherwise their user base couldn't visit the majority of web pages.\n\nNow the era of a single browser dominating everything will likely never return, but having significant market share still gives a voice in the development of future web standards.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3u1iq3
|
why are ceiling fans worthless if there's no one in the room?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u1iq3/eli5_why_are_ceiling_fans_worthless_if_theres_no/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxb3hjh"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Ceiling fans mostly make you feel cool because the warmest air is pulled up and the cooler air moves below at person level. However, the temperature in the room doesn't actually get any lower--it only helps cool down someone on who the air is currently blowing. In fact, the heat generated by the fan will make it slightly warmer in the room."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ejwa4
|
how time works?
|
I don't really understand this. How can they say the universe for example is roughly about ~14 billion years old when time is skewed based on how long it takes light to reach an object? When they observe really far away galaxies and stars it's like looking into the past since that star might already be long gone before it's light reaches Earth. Also, wouldn't a really far away planet that has advanced life be viewing our planet from the past? They might be seeing dinosaurs or even earlier.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ejwa4/eli5_how_time_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck061ul",
"ck06ju1",
"ck07ipw"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"The time dilation that occurs from gravity and speed according to relativity is fairly insignificant in most places in the universe, and \"~14 billion years old\" gives enough wiggle room to account for that.\n\nTo answer your other questions, yes when we see a star that's 1000 light years away, we're seeing that star as it was 1000 years ago. Intelligent life on another planet could be looking at us and seeing the dinosaurs, however that would imply they're looking at us from another galaxy, since our milky way is only about 100,000 light years in diameter and the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.",
"The universe may be much older than that. That number is an estimate based on a few things like star clusters and how long certain sized stars take to burn out.\n\nAccording to calculations, the Universe must be at least 11 billion years old, but could be much older. We can't see past a certain point because any light there hasn't had a long enough time to reach earth.\n\n[More info on the universe's age here] (_URL_0_)",
" > How can they say the universe for example is roughly about ~14 billion years old,\n\nWorking backwards, if you see something is 100m away from you Traveling at 50m an hour, You can know it was probably where you were 2 hours ago.\n\n > Also, wouldn't a really far away planet that has advanced life be viewing our planet from the past? They might be seeing dinosaurs or even earlier.\n\nYes! Cool Right? In fact our own galaxy is about 100000 light years wide, and we are about 27000 light years from the center of the galaxy.\nSo if there were some awesome alien civilization at the center of the galaxy looking at us they would see late stone age man walking around making stone tools and bumping in to Neanderthals that were still around then."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html"
],
[]
] |
|
c2t0n2
|
i've heard many times that honey is actually a superb home remedy for burns. how true is this, if at all? what's the science and chemistry behind it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c2t0n2/eli5_ive_heard_many_times_that_honey_is_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ermf8zn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's at most *maybe* true. There was a metastudy conducted in India on whether honey was useful for healing burns, and its findings were that honey can be effective for improving the healing of minor, surface burns; its effectiveness was not proven on deeper or more serious burns, however. Since there's only one study, and the results have not been repeated, it's difficult to say how accurate the results were.\n\nThe study did not explain why it may be effective, but honey does have mild antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties which *may* help promote healing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6aewyf
|
why do news websites insist on using terrible video players when it would be easier and more user friendly to embed youtube videos?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aewyf/eli5_why_do_news_websites_insist_on_using/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhdz15z",
"dhe0rux",
"dhe1u7e",
"dhe3xdi",
"dhe8j42",
"dhe8sth",
"dhe910j",
"dhe9664",
"dhe973r",
"dhe9equ",
"dhe9mj9",
"dhe9y3o",
"dhea1cg",
"dheaazd",
"dheat1e",
"dheat8d",
"dhebe2z",
"dhebrpa",
"dhebuu6"
],
"score": [
597,
65,
148,
24,
18,
8,
7,
2,
13,
10,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Youtube has an infamously crappy report system that can be abused, so a breaking news story might be yanked because it offended some 14-year old in a basement somewhere. I'm also not sure about the rights situation, Youtube might stake a claim in the news station's video if they upload it there. ",
"Have you seen what's happening with YouTube and demonetization? That wouldn't affect what you're talking about, but it's a good example of why you shouldn't always just use someone else's platform if you can provide your own. Their video players might not be as good, but it means they don't have to rely on YouTube at all. ",
"When using embedded Youtube videos they are not able to easily control ads (it is possible to layer in a video prior to the video but then Youtube may also serve an ad prior to the video).\n\nAlso, by controlling the video player/ads shown, they can change the length of the adspace. This is huge because they can charge different rates for videos on the Homepage versus one on a deeper page as well as different prices for longer ads vs shorter ads.\n\nFinally, as another person already said, Youtube is not the best to be able to track analytics. So by using other video players they are usually able to better gauge the demographics of viewers (further enabling them to sell more specific advertising space to partners).",
"Even if I don't like the crappy video players, i'm glad they don't all use youtube. YouTube is not really great for analytics, videos get pulled all the time or audio muted completely randomly, it seems tedious / impossible to get delisting issues resolved with YouTube - overall the only thing Youtube does right is let you upload videos for free, and it more or less ends there.",
"Money. The news stations can choose how many and what ads to play before, during or after the clip, and don't have to share the revenue with YouTube. They also don't have to deal with the Youtube TOS which may forbid even the slightest nudity, which is usually no big deal in most European countries. ",
"Why would you want to store your valued possessions in your neighbors house when you have a half decent safe at your own?",
"You have complete control of the vid if you don't use a 3rd party. Plus the reporting system and comments can add unwanted drama.",
"Youtube has virtually no DRM. News websites want the promise of DRM baked into their video players, so they can guarantee that they are tracking exactly what people are watching, and nobody's making unauthorized copies of their content. As a result, you get badly-written players with DRM hosted on AWS, Azure, Cloudfront or the like, using some third party as the DRM middleman.\n\nThis way they control their own content, and the third party is beholden to them, not the other way around, as it would be if they were using a video locker service.",
"Also, why do these video players often not include volume control?",
"Control of ad inventory, and being able to sell ads directly. It is all ad value. YouTube not only splits the revenue of all the ads sold, the CPM is less. A dedicated gaming website might be able to sell directly to a game publishing company and guarantee the viewing audience will be people interested in buying games. YouTube is also pretty well ad-blocked and that makes each view less valuable, while proprietary websites are always trying different creative ways to get around that, or baking in ads. \n\n\nIt might seem like a small difference, but 10k views on that shitty player might be more valuable than 100k YouTube views, and revenue drives almost all decisions.",
"Reporting, editing, and producing can add up to thousands of dollars in labor costs alone, and Youtube (or similar hosting services) not only share none of that expense, but using them requires transferring the end product to a third-party, which can monetize it, give it away, or bury it without any consideration to the content producers. For the news sites, it's better to sacrifice user experience in the name of having complete control over the content.",
"The platform has to be owned by the content creators in journalism. Otherwise the content has the potential to be censored/tampered by the platform. ",
"The best solution is to instead use HTML5 and MP4 video instead of the garbage they usually use.",
"Publishing on YouTube grants YouTube ownership rights to the content. Unless you have a written agreement that says otherwise. I'm guessing those agreements don't come cheap.",
"YouTube does not allow preroll video via their terms and many news sites sell ad's locally. They need to use a custom player so they can do whatever benefits them the most with the video.",
"In order to use YouTube to embed a video on their news site, they have to upload that video to YouTube.\n\nOnce they upload that video to YouTube, it's available across _URL_0_.\n\nGoogle makes the money from ads on _URL_0_, sharing only a small part with the person who uploaded the video.\n\nThe news organization sells the ads for their own website, keeping ALL the revenue.\n\nTherefore, the news site would like their video to appear on their own site but NOT across _URL_0_\n\nOther video providers offer similar functionality as YouTube, even if you think the older is not as good, which allows the news organization to own the advertising and sometimes added features like better analytics or copy protection or regional targeting, etc. \n\nI wish YouTube would offer similar functionality and crush all these other companies, but that would be in some conflict with their primary business model, and so far they haven't chosen to go there.",
"Youtube and these websites offer you free video. Have you wondered how they pay for their employees, bandwidth, etc? \n\nYou are the product. If they use youtube, youtube gets the money earned from \"you\" being there. The way they monetize this is:\n\n1) Ads, ads are shown to you, that advertisers pay for\n\n2) \"Data\" They are able to collect information from you when you visit, then sell that data. Like, lets say you watch a lot of Trump videos, well now they know you're a good person to target anger management classes to. (This is a joke, just in case somebody doesn't get it)\n\n3). They add cookies, that further watch you after you leave, which is just more data they can sell. ",
"1. It's not hard to build a crappy video player. This is important, no one wants to write their own Windows because that's obviously harder to build on your own.\n2. News agencies are not run by developers, who would be more interested in building video player features.\n3. YouTube is a middle-man. They will take portions of all ad content. If you do it yourself, you get all the ad revenue.\n4. YouTube may change things on you, then you have to update or compensate for it. Especially if they remove some feature.\n5. YouTube has baggage, such as needing a G+ account or copyright restrictions/takedowns. Maybe the news site wants you to comment freely, or from their own accounts.\n6. YouTube is a competitor for sites like IGN or anyone else that might focus on videos. It's better business sense to not rely on a competitor if possible.\n7. You have to use their API (their code). Maybe you want to track clicks or something different.\n8. Maybe they have adult content or other content that violates terms of service. This seems to be Vimeo's niche.\n\nIf you find a company that doesn't care to profit more from video ads (I don't know why) and also doesn't have the resources to build their own (though they likely have a website as well), then I can see someone just using YouTube. For now, this is probably small companies or fan projects that want to quickly get a video up. Any mature company will want to spend resources for the reasons above.",
"Some of the answers here are pretty solid, but I haven't seen anyone mention click retention.\n\nAfter YouTube plays a video, it shows what it believes to be intelligent suggestions. Unfortunately for the site owner, those suggestions can be for other products or services, or simply a recommended video may not be of the site owners brand. At that point you're wasting your site real-estate and your users' time with content that isn't yours."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"YouTube.com"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8mf1fs
|
how do modern vehicles prevent wireless keys from being locked inside?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mf1fs/eli5_how_do_modern_vehicles_prevent_wireless_keys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dznhzr2",
"dznpyf8",
"dzo3gdf"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They generally have key sensors both inside and outside the vehicle. If there's a key inside, they'll warn the driver and won't lock.",
"As a person that’s worked at a Car rental place. They really don’t, most cars will give you a message in the dash about keys inside but that’s about it. I’ve had to deal with locked cars that are keyless and having to unlock them with tools. Hell, you could even start your car up go back inside and leave the keys inside and you can still drive the car without the keys just don’t turn off it off. ",
"My car has keyless ignition.\n\nThere are radio antennas inside the car that allows the car to be started if the key is present inside the car.\n\nThe exact same system also refuses to lock the doors from the outside if there is a key inside the car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2j9h1n
|
why have the planets in the solar system assumed relatively perfect circular orbits?
|
Many other objects in the solar system have eccentric orbits. Dwarf planets like Pluto and Sedna, and comets all have very eccentric orbits. Asteroids can also have odd orbits. The planets supposedly formed when asteroids smashed into each other to create a large object in the violence of the early solar system. Yet now the planets have relatively circular orbits while other objects in the solar system maintain highly elliptical orbits that sometimes aren't even on the same plane. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j9h1n/eli5_why_have_the_planets_in_the_solar_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl9m51s",
"cl9mfzw"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The planets have elliptical orbits. They are close to circular, but they're not perfect circles. And anyway, a circle is just a specialized ellipse with the centers in the same place.",
"Both the tilt and the orbit are involved in the seasons. The relatively circular orbits are thanks to gravity. The Sun is pulling inward while everything else in the Universe is pulling out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5eqz40
|
when did tobacco companies start adding to cigarettes all of the carcinogenic properties we know about today? were cigarettes ever safe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5eqz40/eli5_when_did_tobacco_companies_start_adding_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daeilvp",
"daevh31"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Tobacco smoke contains most of those carcinogens naturally (there are such things as cigarette additives but they're mostly flavorants and they're regulated)\n\nTurns out burning a dried leaf and inhaling the smoke is bad for you. Go figure. \"Natural\" is not the same as \"good for you.\"",
"For the most part they didn't, they were already there, that whole carcinogenic additives thing is a bit of a distortion.\n\nTurns out that burning complex organic substance creates a lot of weird molecules, and a whole lot of them are carcinogenic. This is true whether you burn cabbage or petunias or tobacco. \n\nSo while tobacco smoke does technically contain lots of carcinogens, it isn't particularly noteworthy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5ps1jn
|
why are trick plays in american football so rare?
|
They seem to work profoundly well if done correctly. I thought the whole point of football offensive strategy was to creatively devise a plan (or a play as they are called) to get the the touchdown by catching the defense off guard. Trick plays are just really creative plans. Also it would sell a lot more tickets wouldn't it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ps1jn/eli5_why_are_trick_plays_in_american_football_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dctcpdd",
"dctd3od",
"dctd5tk",
"dctdmww",
"dctea8j"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Trick plays do not have a terribly high chance of success, and usually put the team in a bad position if the play fails. So they are pretty rarely used and mostly reserved for last-ditch attempts.",
"Because trick plays only work if the defense isn't ready for them. If the defense correctly recognizes a trick play as it happens, they are easy to stop, usually for a big loss.\n\nTake the simplest trick play, a \"reverse\". The whole offense flows to the right as if the RB is running a sweep right, trying to get the defenders to commit to stopping a sweep right. Then the RB flips the ball to a WR heading back the other direction, trying to sweep around the left side. This play only works if the backside defender (usually a DE or OLB) has completely bitten on the fake sweep. If not, he's right there to stop the WR in his tracks for a 6-8 yard loss.\n\nOn a well-coached team, defenders are often coached to \"stay home\", which means to stay in their assigned area and not chase plays that are headed to the other side of the field, for this very reason. If they go chase the play elsewhere, they leave their area vulnerable to a trick play.\n\nThe reason that trick plays *sometimes* work is when the offense has established power over the defense. They keep running sweep right again and again, picking up good yardage every time. If they keep running it again and again, they'll grind their way to a victory. So the backside defender gets frustrated and impatient, and he abandons his area in an attempt to chase down the sweep before it gets any yardage. Once he starts doing that, *then* the offense hits him with the reverse for a huge gain.",
"I think a lot of trick plays have been exploited already and are known. A trick play only gets a few uses before the opponents in your league know the setup and what to expect. In a single game the opponents learn first hand what to do by being tricked once, in a season opponents learn about trick plays by watching film of previous games. Considering the time spent thinking up a play and practicing flawless execution, trick plays cannot be used enough to make them worth while. By comparison, normal plays key in on a specific player or offense's ability and exploit that. It takes more effort but will work multiple times in a game and over the season because it is based on more long term strengths than a novel idea. \n___________\n\n Certain trick plays have actually had rules made against them because they are too effective. A great example of this is the 'forward fumble' where the QB will place the ball on the ground immediately post-snap. A lineman or back picks up the ball after the play appears to have moved away from the line of scrimmage, and runs down field. In this case, the ball drop happens so early and in such a dense cluster of players it is very very hard for linebackers to read. To compensate for the success and difficulty countering this trick play (which was also uninteresting to watch), there is a rule now about the quarterback dropping the ball in front of him while in the backfield.\n____________\n\nOther trick plays, like the flea flicker (quarterback passes ball off like a reverse, back with the ball makes a throw) are common enough now that they aren't really considered trick plays. They work, but are easy to read and about as effective as a normal option. ",
"The 'trickier' the play, the lower the chances that it will actually work. Sometimes a play that doesn't work is OK, but sometimes a 'broken play' can mean a huge loss of yards or a loss of possession. \n\nIn other words, there is a lot more risk involved with trick plays. Some coaches are riskier than others and will use more trick plays. But coaches are also prone to getting fired if their team isn't successful, so not only do they risk the game, but they might be risking their job and even their career. Coaches, for the most part, don't care about selling tickets....they just want to win games. If they can win more games with no trick plays, they will do that. \n\nThis usually means that coaches will play it safe unless they have a strong reason to use a trick play. For example, if they are behind in the game and are not playing well against the other team's defense, then they might try a trick play out of desperation. \n\nAnother reason that a team might try a trick play, is if they spot a weakness on the other team. For example, if the defense is constantly stopping them from running the ball, because most or all of the defensive players are rushing to the ball carrier very quickly....then they might try a 'reverse'. A reverse is when you run the ball to one side of the field, but one of your players starts on that side and runs back toward the ball carrier. The defense follows the ball carrier, but as he runs by the reversing player, he hands it over to him, reversing the direction of the ball. This hopefully catches the defense off guard, and because they were so good at getting to the ball carrier quickly, they are likely to be out of position for the new ball carrier.\n\nBut, the risk of a reverse is that if the defense players are smart, they won't be easily caught out of position and might be able to tackle the new ball carrier for a huge loss of yards. ",
"You know what you call a trick play that works? A play.\n\nTrick plays involve taking more risk, by increased complexity and by having players do things they normally don't do. They usually only work when the other time makes a mistake, and when they fail, they often fail spectacularly.\n\nTrick plays that wind up being successful will usually make a highlight reel, which gives a false impression of how effective they are.\n\n > Also it would sell a lot more tickets wouldn't it?\n\nTrading one exciting play for nine crappy backfires? Yeah, not buying a ticket to that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
asxnfx
|
is it built in to the genetic code of a virus to make its host sneeze or cough in order to further spread itself and ‘grow’? or is it just the body making an effort to expel the bad stuff?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/asxnfx/eli5_is_it_built_in_to_the_genetic_code_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egxdwgt",
"egxe49m",
"egxe570",
"egxk9gl",
"egy99tw"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Some viruses and bacteria use our body functions against us, to aid in their spread. Cholera is a bacteria, it injects a toxin into the causes the body to inject more water into the intestine causing diahrea, and hopefully contaminating more food & water sources so it can spread to other people. \n\nCold viruses do the same thing with cough and runny nose. Typically they don't directly control the cells, they cause the cells to react to something, and that reaction is the symptom we see. Some fungus and parasites do it too. ",
"I suspect it’s the body simply trying to remove irritation.\n\nYour body may not know it’s going to expel anything in particular, but is probably trying to remove excess snot and other crusty stuff that is hitting on “sneeze now” nerves. Or coughing, or even nose-running and eye-watering.\n\nThe virus probably doesn’t know enough about the host to know it could sneeze, or even that sneezing might be an effective way of relocating itself.",
"Those particular behaviours - sneezing and coughing - are not built into the virus' dna.\n\nBut our body's response to fighting the virus is to cough and sneeze....so in that sense, the virus can spread itself by hijacking our bodies' natural response.",
"Flip the question around, viruses that cause sneezing, coughing, etc help it spread easier, continuing the cycle. ",
"IT is a combination. Both the virus and the body have no conscious end goal, they just do what their genes allow them, and those genes stick around because it happened to allow your ancestors to survive a cold a few hundred years ago. A virus with a mutation for a protein that accidentally makes the body sneeze will be passed on to another person and will spread further, just happening to survive. A virus without the mutation to produce a sneezing protein will stay inside a single host, kill it, and slowly die out. Its progression will be halted, and it won't be able to pass along its genes. The mutation survives. The virus makes people sneeze.\nHowever, in the case of sneezing, the human body a million years ago accidentally mutated to sneeze when its nose was poked. This mutated individual managed to sneeze away dust that irritated its nose, and survived because it didn't breathe in harmful dust. This meant they survived long enough to pass on their mutation to their kids, where non-mutated individuals might have died before having children. Slowly, the mutation spread across the whole population, and now we sneeze when our nose gets irritated. \nSomewhere, the two combined, and sneezing became a response to illness, and viruses became very good at making people sneeze and living in snot. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
532d6o
|
what makes liquid "bounce" when falling?
|
Like if you were to spit off a platform and it hits a wall and then seems to bounce and go in another direction.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/532d6o/eli5what_makes_liquid_bounce_when_falling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7peo5g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Most liquids you're likely to encounter are going to be comprised heavily of water. Water is a polar molecule, which means one side of it is slightly negatively charged, and the other side is slightly positively charged. Because of this structure (one slightly negative oxygen atom, two slightly positive hydrogen atoms), water molecules fit nicely together with other water molecules. This gives them a property known as \"cohesion.\" That's why a water droplet on a surface won't flatten out infinitely, and it's why certain bugs can literally walk on water. It's also how trees are able to transport water up the length of their trunk without applying pressure.\n\nWater also is really good at bonding with other polar molecules, and ions. It's not so good at bonding with atoms with a neutral charge, or molecules in nonpolar covalent bonds. These are generally considered to be \"hydrophobic.\"\n\nSo, if you were to spit at a wall, and the spit bounced off, you could probably assume two things:\n\n1. Whatever material is on the outside of that wall is mostly hydrophobic, so the water didn't bond with it.\n2. Since the water didn't bond with anything, and it's cohesion kept it from splitting apart, it it was able to remain in a singular unit while having it's force redirected. \n\nObviously, this is working on the assumption that your spit is purely water, which is completely wrong, but things such as mucus would only add to the cohesion of your spit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
whma2
|
intel core i7 processor
|
From what I have read, the processor claims to have "virtual cores"? I can't comprehend this. Also, what is the difference between the "northbridge" "ivy bridge" and "sandy bridge" etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/whma2/eli5_intel_core_i7_processor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5def0d",
"c5dfnl1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, the \"virtual cores\" you're talking about are a feature called \"HyperThreading\". Hyperthreading can increase the performance of your computer if the following points are true:\n\n* The program you're running is limited by your CPU\n* The program you're running is heavily threaded- meaning that more performance can be gained by running more instances of itself\n* The program you're running doesn't take up all the execution resources of a core that it runs on\n\nBasically, HyperThreading allows Windows to see additional processor cores that can be used to execute programs. However, these are only useful if there are still execution resources available on those cores; if they're already being used at 100%, you won't see any increase.\n\nAs far as northbridge/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge, you've lumped two similar things in with one dissimilar thing.\n\nThe northbridge of a motherboard is the chip that interfaces directly with the CPU- it's where signals are converted into USB, PCI, or memory interfacing. The nomenclature isn't used anymore, because northbridges as such aren't really in use any more- more interfaces have been moved directly onto the CPU, meaning that that particular chip handles fewer and fewer operations.\n\n\"Ivy Bridge\" and \"Sandy Bridge\" are codenames for different generations of Intel's CPUs. Ivy Bridge is the same architecture as Sandy Bridge, but shrunken down, for greater power efficiency and lower heat dissipation. Next year, an entirely new architecture called Haswell will be released, and a year after that, one called Broadwell will be released that's just a shrunken version of Haswell.",
"Hyperthreading is a trick, of sorts, to get more computing power from a core.\n\nIt's fairly complex how it works. The best analogy would be doing something like listening to music while brushing your teeth. Part of the brain works with your ears and lets you hear the music, another part allows you to control your hand to brush your teeth. In a normal processor, you'd need to issue a 'brush teeth' command and wait for it to finish before issuing a 'listen to music' command. In a hyperthreading CPU, you can issue both commands at the same time, and both tasks will be completed, even though there is only one person.\n\nHowever, having a single person who can do two tasks at the same time isn't as good as having two people. For instance, you can't issue a 'brush teeth' command and a 'clip your fingernails' command - the same part of the brain controls both, and it can't do two things at once. Hyperthreading just allows the part of the brain you're not using for your primary task to work on something else. In real world performance, a hyperthreaded core is about 25% faster than a non hyperthreaded core, but that's 75% slower than having two normal cores.\n\nHow useful this is depends on your task. Since we're talking about quad cores, let's say we have four people who can do two things at once. That's 8 total cores - 4 physical, 4 virtual.\n\nIf your task is \"read these four books\", there's no benefit to being able to do multiple things at the same time. You can't read multiple books at once.\n\nThe programs you run determine how the tasks are divided. For instance, many old programs cna only utilize one or two cores, because they were written before quad cores existed. So if you've got an old program that tells your processor \"read this booK\", you'll see that one of the cores goes to 100% load working on the task, but the other three just sit idle.\n\nAs haikuginger pointed out, at the moment, the best multithreaded applications are video encoding, distributed computing, and other tasks that can be split up. If you've got a movie, and you want the processor to write a description of each scene and a transcript of the dialogue, you can split it up very easily. Each of your four guys can look at a different scene, and they can watch and listen at the same time, so all eight cores are fully utilized.\n\nIf you've just got a game, though, the tasks might be \"calculate where I am going\", \"calculate where I am\", and \"calculate what the world is like around me\". In this case, the game utilizes three cores, so there's no performance difference between a three physical core cpu and your 4 physical, 4 virtual i7. Generally, for gaming, the real world data points to a 4 physical core, non hyperthreading Core i5 as being the best choice for the money. The i7 is better, but the games don't really take advantage of the hyperthreading, and you will get a bigger improvement by spending the extra money on your graphics card, which the game can take advantage of.\n\nThe overall performance depends on how many threads can be utilized, and how fast they are. For encoding a movie, for instance, eight 2GHz cores will be as fast as four 4GHz cores. The load can be spread out well. For gaming, the game doesn't really know what commands to issue to any more than 4 cores, so the eight core has half the cores sit idle, whereas the four core performs much better, since it can finish those tasks in half the time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5r1bg1
|
why do .gifv files play so much better than .gif files if they have the same content?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r1bg1/eli5_why_do_gifv_files_play_so_much_better_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd3mlg5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Graphic Interchange Format, usually indicated with file extension `.gif`, supports multiple frames that can be played in sequence. This allows it to support simple animations, and is the reason that most browsers by default will loop GIF animations. However, people started using it as a format to share videos--GIF was widely supported by browsers, while real video formats did not have universal codecs or required plug-ins like Flash, so that sharing videos was difficult. The downsides are that GIF does not have important features that video formats do: GIF doesn't compress frames (which would greatly reduce the size) and only supports a few colors, so that you get slow and low-quality videos.\n\nThe `.gifv` file extension is misleading, and doesn't indicate any particular format. Websites like Imgur use it for files that were uploaded as GIFs but which were converted to a video format like MP4 or WebM. They started doing this because the great majority of popular browsers now support at least one or the other format, so the reasons people used GIFs in the first place are gone. Converting them automatically saves space and bandwidth for the host, and is easier than changing people's bad habits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7lyyol
|
why are some acids such as hydrofluoric acid and hcl so good at dissolving solids on contact? what causes this?
|
I have basic Chem 1 knowledge behind me but I still don’t see how a solution can simply eat through something on contact. What is happening here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7lyyol/eli5_why_are_some_acids_such_as_hydrofluoric_acid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drqal2p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the time, the behavior of acids depends on two things: the strength of the acid and what the anion of the acid is (as an example, the anion in HCl is Cl^- because dissolving HCl will give H3O^+ ions and Cl^- ion).\n\nHydrofluoric acid is an odd one. Unlike all of the other halogenic acids (HCl, HBr, HI), HF is a weak acid; this is because the fluoride anion has a very high affinity for electrons and will hold on to any it can get a hold of. So this means that HF eats through materials because of the fluoride anion. Fluorine is the most reactive element, so as an ion, it will always find ways to be more stable; this means that it is willing to eat through glass (to form fluorine-silicon bonds), plastic (to form fluorine-carbon bonds) and even human bone (to form fluorine-calcium bonds; a small amount of HF on your skin can give you a heart attack because of this). \n\nAs for HCl, things are a little bit different. Chlorine, while electronegative (having an affinity for electrons), is not as insane as fluorine; unlike fluorine, chloride anions are able to remain stable in an acidic solution and have no desire to bond with literally anything around like them, unlike its crazy brother fluorine. This means that HCl is reactive because it is a strong acid; this means that all of the H-Cl bonds break apart in water, so you have a glass of hydronium (H3O^+ , which makes an acid acidic), water, and chloride anions. Because billions of chloride anions are available to react, they can readily attack anything which will allow the chloride to obtain a lower energy level; a common example is magnesium. All of the chloride anions will readily react with magnesium, and because there is so much chlorine, the acid will eat through the metal like it's nothing.\n\nI hope this answered your question. Please let me know otherwise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fa9fv1
|
why does it feels sometimes that by laying down on your back will help to relief a hiccup ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fa9fv1/eli5_why_does_it_feels_sometimes_that_by_laying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiwp8s6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hiccups are the result of a irritation of the diaphragm, Its a membrane/muscle below your lungs which causes air pressure in the area around the lungs to rise and decrease by moving, causing your lungs to take in and push out air. \n\nby lying down you´re relaxing it a bit, so in some cases it can ease hiccups, but it depends on whats irritating the diaphragm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8icuuq
|
why does classical music have such an effect on us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8icuuq/eli5_why_does_classical_music_have_such_an_effect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyqryu7",
"dyqscn9",
"dyqtbpc"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Modern day music is made to sell, classical music is made to experience. But to get realy into it youtube 432hz classic music. Believe or not thats up to you. Yes its a conspiracy, no i don't believe all of it. Yes it works. ",
"Someone told me that music activates certain areas (like mood) in the brain. You will feel the difference by listening to Rock or Hiphop. You get in different moods. So i guess listening to certain classic music lets you calm down.",
"Sometimes classical music is played in public areas to discourage young people from loitering at the location. Young people are more likely to commit crimes and be a nuisance. Less young people equals less crime."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4b7uph
|
what do websites have to gain by making their visitors annoyed (from excessive popups/poor formatting/etc) to the point that they leave and never come back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b7uph/eli5_what_do_websites_have_to_gain_by_making/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d16soix",
"d172wkc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They can't attribute the lost visits to the ads. They're not trying to make a site that produces value. They're focused on \"making money.\" \n\nI work in tech. Far too few people understand that you can't make money if you don't produce value first. Many think it's the other way around.",
"I think you may be talking about a specific type of site. They're not actually trying to provide value and they know you'll never come back. I'll simplify the numbers here but the obtrusive ads and sheer volume of them mean they get paid 2 cents in total for the page view where you saw the ads. \n\nThey paid 1 cent (directly and indirectly) to get you to view that page (leaving aside those listicles where you have to click through to a new page to see the next item in the list). They made 1 cent (revenue less cost) on your visit. \n\nThey repeat this a million times and presto, they've got $10k profit. Rinse and repeat. \n\nThey don't bother trying to keep you there by providing value because that increases their costs significantly. Once you're at the page and the ads are loaded, the content doesn't have to be useful or interesting at all. They've made their money from you and that single pageview was all they wanted. \n\nThis is basically Web spam. There's different variations of this but this is the most basic. An arbitrage of sorts. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
29uxcs
|
in animated shows, why is the object that the character is about to interact with look different than the background objects?
|
When I was younger and watched a lot more animated cartoons, I could always tell what object the character was about to interact with next, even before they were in-frame, because that particular object was normally a different (oftentimes brighter) shade of color than the background objects. This difference could even be seen in other stationary objects that were placed *around* the object in question. Does anybody have an explanation for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29uxcs/eli5_in_animated_shows_why_is_the_object_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciopxgg",
"cioupzc"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Because rather than re-animate the background for every frame, the foreground objects are animated separately and placed on the stationary background. \n\nThat's why you can always see what Bugs Bunny is about to do to Daffy Duck before it happens. ",
"It also has to do with complexity of the object.\n\nYou can 'realistically paint' a rock that Wile E Coyote is about to pass when chasing the Roadrunner because that rock is a static image. It might move as the animation occurs, but it's just sliding around without getting repainted.\n\nNow Wile E Coyote slams into the rock and it cracks into pieces over four seconds. Suddenly one painted rock is thirty or forty frames of rock that change every fraction of a second, and you have to paint it thirty or forty times. So you don't make it complex, filling it instead with a simple single colour so it doesn't look like it will \"wiggle\" all over the place while it's cracking because it's so complex and every detail isn't the same from frame to frame.\n\nSo, objects that will be interacted with are often extremely simple and monocolor for that reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9g7up8
|
how come newer phones only have hybrid sim (sim+sim or sim+sd card) when old phpnes were able to have 2 sim slots and a micro sd slot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9g7up8/eli5_how_come_newer_phones_only_have_hybrid_sim/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e624ti7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Space is at an ultra premium in newer generations of phones, the less they have to deal with for stuff like this, the better they can design the phone. Adding more slots and sizes and places a user needs to interact with the external portion of a phone drastically alters their design ability. In a perfect world, we’d want NO slots or removable stuff at all for optimal designs. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2blhzo
|
stephen hawking's theory of imaginary time
|
I've read that imaginary time can be imagined as an axis perpendicular to the axis of real time, but I have no idea what that means.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2blhzo/eli5_stephen_hawkings_theory_of_imaginary_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj6hc0x",
"cj6jrf5"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"LI5: In a black hole and the Big Bang, everything is squished down to zero size. But this doesn't make sense and makes it impossible for physicists to work out what is going on in that situation. Imaginary time is a way of getting around this by treating time as having two dimensions instead of the one dimension we are used to. (There is nothing \"imaginary\" about this second dimension of time - it's just a word that physicists [and mathematicians] use to mean, at its most basic, \"in a direction at right angles to the direction we are used to\".)",
"Do you know Pythagoras's Theorem, c^2 = a^2 + b^(2)? Well, it turns out that's is just a specific application of the distance formula in 3D space. Generally, if a point has coordinates (X, Y, Z), then its distance from the origin, the point (0, 0, 0), is D^2 = X^2 + Y^2 + Z^(2).\n\nOk, now let's go to relativity. Instead of points in space, we have events in spacetime. If an event has coordinates (T, X, Y, Z), then its spacetime interval distance is S^2 = -T^2 + X^2 + Y^2 +Z^(2). Notice the negative sign for the time component. The sign difference between space and time is crucial for all the weird things that happen in relativity.\n\nBut suppose we invent a new variable t that is related to the old T by T = it, where i is the imaginary unit. Then T^2 = (i)^2 t^2 = -t^(2). So the spacetime interval becomes S^2 = t^2 + X^2 + Y^2 + Z^(2). All the signs are the same!\n\nBy using imaginary time, you convert the time dimension into a space dimension *indistinguishable* from the other spatial dimensions. So spacetime becomes a 4D space. This allow us to study spacetime as a pure geometric object.\n\nWhy is this useful? Well, for starters, it eliminates the question of \"what happened before the Big Bang?\" Let's suppose that after transforming spacetime into a geometric spatial object, you get a sphere. So the time dimension becomes just a space dimension on the sphere, say, the direction of north-south. Asking what happened before the beginning of time is thus like asking what's north of the north pole! \n\n(For simplicity, I assumed the speed of light is equal to 1 in this post.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.