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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2zrw4y
|
if cooked, would human meat be red, white, or an "other" similar to pork.
|
I thought about it, and it could be red like beef, since cows and humans are both mammals. However, pigs are mammals too, so it could be that "other white meat" category or whatever that is. I don't think it'd be white meat since that's found in poultry and humans aren't birds. I've always wondered this and I didn't really want to see for myself so.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zrw4y/eli5_if_cooked_would_human_meat_be_red_white_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cplrupe",
"cpls6da",
"cpls7o2"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"The human psoas major muscle is filet mignon in cows.",
"Cannibal serial killers like Arthur Shawcross and Jeffrey Dahmer claim that humans taste like roast pork. That freaks me out because I love roast pork.",
"It turns white when cooked by steam. Source ... me.\n\nI severely burnt my hand with steam some years ago which flash cooked some of my flesh. I can provide the whole story but it is a bit long.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
70dess
|
do all subatomic particles already exist? and/or how are they created?
|
I've been googling around but information seems scant here. Did all subatomic particles that exist get created with the advent of the universe or do they still pop into being now and then?
Watching a documentary on sub-atomic particles and how they behave got me to wondering this. So if they are what matter is made up of it's logical to assume they were created with all matter during the universe coming into existance. But it also got me wondering if certain situations have to be present to still 'birth' them. I've read a few articles that suggest subatomic particles can be 'created' during certain experiments but are they actually created or are we just rendering them visible to our instruments?
I feel like an idiot asking this but it's explain like I'm five so it's safe to assume that's kinda the case.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70dess/eli5_do_all_subatomic_particles_already_exist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn2j5v5",
"dn2nqjf",
"dn2rqjj"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"As far as I know no. Matter is just one form of energy and transference between matter and other forms of energy are possible. \n\nDuring subatomic processes particles particles with a mass break up into massless photons (aka light) all the time. The reverse can happen too.\n\nI don't know whether this has been proven possible for all known particles but the fact that it happens at all means we can safely dismiss the idea that all kinds of matter are build from tiny lego bricks that are just assembled in different ways.\n\nThe only real constant we seem to have found so far is energy. If you observe an object you can be quite sure that the energy making up that object has existed as long as the universe but it might not have always been in the form of matter.",
"I'm just going to base my answer on the Standard Model. It's the theory in particle physics that explains three of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions; it doesn't explain gravity), and also classifies all known elementary particles.\n\nSince it's theory, we need validation - this comes from testable predictions given by the theory, and experiments confirm these; amongst these would be well the presence of all the particles expected by the theory. By the use of particle accelerators, we've managed to find evidence of the existence of all but one particle (the missing particle being the graviton, the hypothetical particle that 'mediates' - i.e. carries out - the force of gravity).\n\nAll particles that exist today are due to a small asymmetry when there were particles and antiparticles being created in the big bang - the imbalance was 1 in ~10 billion (by some estimates) and when the ~10 billion pairs of matter and anitmatter vanished, the resulting fraction left over, even though tremendously small, formed all the visible matter (particles, whatever) in our universe.\n\nThat answers part of your question - all the particles exist (save the graviton whose existence we haven't confirmed), just in different bound states - e.g. protons are subatomic particles but are themselves comprised of smaller particles such as quarks and gluons), and all the particles/matter we have today is a result of an small symmetry being violated at the time of the Big Bang.\n\nThe second part - can they be created? Due to conservation of energy you cannot just create matter that lasts. This is an important distinction I'll get to in a second.\n\nOne way to create new particles is to smash together existing ones at massively high energies in particle accelerators, and hope that the spray of particles that comes out of the detector contains a few of the ones we want to observe/see.\n\nAs for popping into being, this does occur but not the way you'd expect it to. In quantum mechanics, there's a thing known as the uncertainty principle - essentially it states that we cannot know the EXACT position and EXACT momentum of a particle - there is a limit to how accurately the two can be known. Furthermore, knowing one of them exactly means the uncertainty in the other is infinite. The principle also applies to energy and time (although this explanation I'm giving is hand-wavy since I'm trying to simplify it) - a consequence of this is the following. Say you had a system that's a vacuum, and you measured it for a short period of time (incredibly short period). The uncertainty in the time would be very very small, but due to the uncertainty relation, the uncertainty in energy would therefore have to be large - therefore for very short periods of time, pairs of virtual particles and virtual antiparticles could spontaneously form and then annihilate, causing vacuum fluctuations.\n(virtual essentially means that what we observe has the properties of ordinary particles and antiparticles, but the existence time of these are very short due to the uncertainty principle).\n\nI understand that this goes a bit beyond ELI5 but I hope it helps.\n\nIf anyone finds mistakes in this please let me know and I will correct them accordingly, I'm only an undergrad student and not very good at physics so I might have fudged up a bit.",
"We don't know for sure. \n\nWe know that some subatomic particles definitely do exist because we have measured them through natural processes. However, many of them we can only detect the way a toddler might figure out what's in a toy: by smashing something bigger into little pieces. \n\nImagine you wanted to know what cars are made out of. We can take one apart and see what all the various pieces are. We know when we've found all the parts by removing parts until we see there are no parts left to remove. \n\nThe way we take atoms apart is by smashing them. Depending on how hard you smash them different pieces \"fall off\" and we detect these as different sub-atomic particles. \n\nHowever, there is a twist: we can't look at the result of a collision and judge if there are more parts left that can be removed the way we might with a car because sub-atomic particles don't behave like car parts. We have models that predict what we think we should find, just like you would predict to find an engine and tires on a car but it is possible that our model is incomplete in some way. \n\nBecause there is a limit to how fast we can accelerate a particle (the speed of light) we can only smash things so much before nature says no. \n\nAnd so, the best we can do is say whether or not all the parts we were looking for have been found yet. \n\nWe have not show experimentally what sub-atomic particles cause gravity or dark matter/energy. The Standard Model is incomplete. So, like I said: we don't know. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8733nc
|
meaning of no country for old men
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8733nc/eli5_meaning_of_no_country_for_old_men/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dw9szw5",
"dw9wa9r"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I personally saw that it was referencing how Tommy Lee Jones' character felt as if crime and increasingly immoral behavior was taking over the society he grew up in, and that the morality of his generation wasn't able to hold a candle to what is to come.\n\nSorry if that's hard to read. ",
"Both the film and the book take their titles from W.B Yeats poem 'Sailing to Byzantium' where the opening line is \"That is no country for old men\" if that's what you're asking. On a very, very basic level the poem is about growing old. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8x4fgl
|
why it's still so warm at 2am after a hot day. where's the heat still coming from and why hasn't it just risen into the air?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8x4fgl/eli5_why_its_still_so_warm_at_2am_after_a_hot_day/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e20q7g1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The sun warms the surface of the earth, which reradiates heat into the air mass above it. It takes time for both to cool down, even after the sun goes down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1uki4j
|
with all this -30º weather and such, how long can an average human or animal withstand these temperatures?
|
If we were to start "freezing alive" what body parts or organs would give out first?
I'm asking because I just watched a mailman walk for about 15 minutes, door to door, like it's no big deal.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uki4j/with_all_this_30º_weather_and_such_how_long_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cej12xj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Freezing to death does not mean you die from solidified flesh. \n\nYour normal body temperature is about 37ºC. The freezing point of water is 0ºC. There's a lot of room in between the optimal operating temperature of the body and the point at which the flesh would actually start to freeze solid. \n\nThe most likely thing to kill a person or animal who is exposed to the cold for too long is hypothermia. If you lose too much body heat to the outside environment and your core body temperature drops too much, your body systems become unable to function normally. There are medical definitions for the stages of hypothermia and what happens to the body at those temperatures.\n\nMild, 32-35ºC: shivering happens, and weird things can happen to your blood pressure and blood sugar as your body attempts to keep warm.\n\nModerate, 28-32ºC: you shiver harder or intermittently, you start to lose muscle control and get clumsy, and you might feel confused or react sluggishly to things happening. Your extremities (face, hands and feet) will lose blood flow and become numb and pale/blue-looking.\n\nSevere, below 28ºC: you get really confused and have trouble staying conscious or remembering things, and your heart and respiration start to fail. \n\nAll of this happens long before your internal body temperature gets anywhere near the freezing point of water, so you don't die from freezing solid like an ice cube. You'd be dead long before you got that cold.\n\nThe record for the coldest body temperature that a person has survived is held by a little girl from Sweden who fell into the ocean in the middle of winter a few years ago. When she was found her body temperature was only 13ºC, but she was still alive, and was able to be rewarmed. (I'm having trouble finding any information on whether she is \"back to normal\" or if she survived with permanent injuries or disabilities.)\n\nThe bottom line is that if you're dressed warmly, are healthy and fit, and are active when you're outside, you aren't going to freeze to death walking down the street like the mailman. The mailman could risk hypothermia if he's dressed too warmly, because if he sweats in his warm clothes he'll lose body heat faster. He should also be careful of frostbite, which is where extremities like ears and nose can actually freeze even though the internal body temperature is not hypothermic. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5fkrgz
|
how does your brain decide you like/dislike a certain song? what influences that? and why do we all like different songs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fkrgz/eli5_how_does_your_brain_decide_you_likedislike_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dalif4p"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Basically, it comes down to sensing versus perceiving. Generally everyone senses the same things the same way, from vision to taste, excluding those with sensory deprivations (colorblindness, deafness, etc.). \n\nPerceiving is a different story. It's all in your head. We attach meaning to different sensations. Like when you see your SO and get happy if you're in a great relationship. Basically you attach meaning to different sounds you hear. People tend to like major keys that are consonant, but of course not all because different people attach different meanings based on their experiences!\n\nHope this helps, this is the first ELI5 explanation that I've done! Feel free to ask further questions!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7ph70c
|
what is putin's and russia's ultimate goal in undermining foreign democracies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ph70c/eli5_what_is_putins_and_russias_ultimate_goal_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsh74cg",
"dsh754s",
"dsh7awc"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Russia competes with other countries for economic power and for military dominance of nearby areas. For the past 20 years or so they've been doing rather poorly. Weakening other countries' governments gives them a better chance.",
"The same as other countries who interfere with the politics of another country (the US has done this for decades) - to have a more favorable government to him. Put people in power who are pro-Russia. People who will remove economic sanctions, make profitable trade agreements, etc.\n\nThe US used to basically own Iran's government until 1979 when the revolution there deposed the Shah. The only difference is that they weren't a democracy, but the results are the same.",
"It is basic geo-politics. \n\nMost powerful regimes don't really care about the nature of other regimes. For example, the United States supports an Islamic monarchy in Saudi Arabia, a strange semi-theocratic/ethno-centric liberal democracy in Israel, and a highly confessionalist republic in Lebanon. The US supports these regimes because they are friendly to the US (generally) and are important economic and political partners in the region. The countries toward which the US has been very hostile are also \"all over the place\" politically (Iraq was a dictatorship, Nicaragua was a semi-socialist democracy, etc). \n\nRussia supports whoever supports its regional interests. Putin probably doesn't care how Americans choose to live their political lives, but the US is really at Russia's doorstep. The US has allies near Russia that impede Russia's plans. Turkey, for instance, is a barrier to warm water ports, so they are America's friend even though American kind of hates that regime. \n\nSo Putin wants to destabilize Western democracies because Western democracies impede his plans for the region. It's very boring actually, when you think about it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2rw8ks
|
if i have a 1360x768 monitor, is there any point in watching videos in higher quality than 720p?
|
1080p videos often do *seem* clearer, but that could easily be placebo :P
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rw8ks/eli5_if_i_have_a_1360x768_monitor_is_there_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnjv6h9",
"cnjy7qc"
],
"score": [
15,
5
],
"text": [
"You won't be seeing 1080p on your monitor, but the 1080p video may be better depending on the compression the video has been through. It's possible that taking the compressed 1080p video and letting your computer scale it down to 720p gets you a better result than the compressed 720p file, because the 1080p file was probably allowed to be bigger.",
"With YouTube (and many other video streaming websites) the quality might say 1080p, 720p etc but these settings are actually related to bitrate. The bitrate is the number of \"bits\" transfered per second and in this case, video bits. The higher the \"resolution\", the greater the bitrate and as such higher number of video bits. The effect will still be greater if your monitor was a higher resolution, but a choosing a higher resolution video quality will improve your video clarity despite your actual monitor resolution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2hkgua
|
why is it that even though u2's free album on apple is doing so bad, apple is still advertising it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hkgua/eli5why_is_it_that_even_though_u2s_free_album_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckthnf3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Statistics: Even if 30 % obnoxious loud redditors are kicking and screaming still leaves you with 70 % mildly happy U2-fans/don't give a shitters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
mch34
|
waterboarding, please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mch34/eli5_waterboarding_please/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2ztq78",
"c2ztwma",
"c2ztq78",
"c2ztwma"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Waterboarding is a technique that creates the sensation of drowning even though you actually aren't, by exploiting the prisoners gag reflex which is meant to stop choking.\n\nIt is used in combination with questioning to forcefully extract information from an individual (who would not have given it up otherwise) by inflicting pain and suffering until they break, that is, will give the interrogator what they want in order to stop the waterboarding.\n\nIn it's most mild form, waterboarding is a very unpleasant sensation. Leading into extreme forms of the interrogation technique: waterboarding can be extremely painful, cause damage to organs, damage to limbs (where a prisoner struggles against his or her restraints in an attempt to stop the act or free his or her self), cause oxygen deprivation and can even result in death of the individual through dry drowning (where the lungs are unable to extract oxygen) or severe physiological distress.\n\nWaterboarding can also cause severe psychological distress, often lasting years after the event.\n\nWaterboarding is used as it is relatively easy to carry out, realistically only requiring a way to restrain a prisoner so that water accumulates on their face, cloth and a source of water to pour over that cloth. Waterboarding can also be drawn out over a long period of time which allows the interrogator control of the duration and the intensity in which it is carried out.\n\nThere has even been claims that a prisoner has been waterboarded so much that their electrolyte levels dropped to a dangerously low level resulting in the death of that prisoner, because of the amount of water used diluted this balance. This suggests that the technique can be used in a controlled fashion for days on end.\n\nElectrolytes allow our muscles and nerves to function correctly and without them causes serious problems. Electrolyte imbalances can become medical emergencies if left untreated.\n\nEven though a mock execution is highly psychologically damaging (using an unloaded firearm or one that is loaded with blanks) by climaxing extremely quickly and severely, it can't realistically be controlled in the same way that waterboarding can be.\n\nI would assert (from what I have read of the subject) that you could only pretend to execute a prisoner a finite number of times before the prisoner loses the will to live (since they have more or less hit rock bottom), whereas the amount and duration of pain (even though at a much lower level) that can be caused with waterboarding allows the prisoner to consider that his or her situation could get much worse.",
"It's a torture technique that simulates drowning and in meant to invoke a panic response. \n\n",
"Waterboarding is a technique that creates the sensation of drowning even though you actually aren't, by exploiting the prisoners gag reflex which is meant to stop choking.\n\nIt is used in combination with questioning to forcefully extract information from an individual (who would not have given it up otherwise) by inflicting pain and suffering until they break, that is, will give the interrogator what they want in order to stop the waterboarding.\n\nIn it's most mild form, waterboarding is a very unpleasant sensation. Leading into extreme forms of the interrogation technique: waterboarding can be extremely painful, cause damage to organs, damage to limbs (where a prisoner struggles against his or her restraints in an attempt to stop the act or free his or her self), cause oxygen deprivation and can even result in death of the individual through dry drowning (where the lungs are unable to extract oxygen) or severe physiological distress.\n\nWaterboarding can also cause severe psychological distress, often lasting years after the event.\n\nWaterboarding is used as it is relatively easy to carry out, realistically only requiring a way to restrain a prisoner so that water accumulates on their face, cloth and a source of water to pour over that cloth. Waterboarding can also be drawn out over a long period of time which allows the interrogator control of the duration and the intensity in which it is carried out.\n\nThere has even been claims that a prisoner has been waterboarded so much that their electrolyte levels dropped to a dangerously low level resulting in the death of that prisoner, because of the amount of water used diluted this balance. This suggests that the technique can be used in a controlled fashion for days on end.\n\nElectrolytes allow our muscles and nerves to function correctly and without them causes serious problems. Electrolyte imbalances can become medical emergencies if left untreated.\n\nEven though a mock execution is highly psychologically damaging (using an unloaded firearm or one that is loaded with blanks) by climaxing extremely quickly and severely, it can't realistically be controlled in the same way that waterboarding can be.\n\nI would assert (from what I have read of the subject) that you could only pretend to execute a prisoner a finite number of times before the prisoner loses the will to live (since they have more or less hit rock bottom), whereas the amount and duration of pain (even though at a much lower level) that can be caused with waterboarding allows the prisoner to consider that his or her situation could get much worse.",
"It's a torture technique that simulates drowning and in meant to invoke a panic response. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3bkdub
|
why do we need a "leap second" added to our clocks at the end of june?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bkdub/eli5_why_do_we_need_a_leap_second_added_to_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csmxf9q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Earth is very slowly slowing down. It takes a little bit longer to turn all the way around every time. In other words, over the course of a few years, a day becomes noticeably longer -- at least, noticeable to the super-advanced computers we use to coordinate our satellites and financial / telecommunication systems.\n\nSo, instead of changing the definition of a second every year (which would be a nightmare for programmers and pretty much everyone else as well), we just throw in a bit of extra time every once in a while to keep our clocks in line with the actual rotation and revolution of the Earth.\n\nIt's important to note that this is separate from leap years (where we add an extra day every 4 years) -- leap years are a way to make up for a fundamental error in early timekeeping that left a 24 hour day, made of 60 minute hours and 60 second minutes, a few minutes short of a whole day. Again, instead of changing all our clocks, we just agreed to add in an extra day on a regular basis to keep ourselves from getting too out of sync. Unlike leap seconds though, leap years are regular, repeating occurrences."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6751ju
|
how the anti-shoplifting vertical bars at stores' exits work (if you have no clue what i'm talking about let me know)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6751ju/eli5_how_the_antishoplifting_vertical_bars_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgnq5mk",
"dgoc730"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"These panels are RFID detectors. Some valuable/high incidence of theft items have a little plastic tag attached to them, within which is an antenna and a programmable chip. If one of them gets too close to the panel's, they sound an alarm. They can be disabled by a strong magnet wiping them, which is why sometimes you'll see a cashier repeatedly wipe an item over a particular spot on the counter. ",
"There are two types of these. \n\nThe first is a passive one. Coils around those bars emit a radio signal at a specific frequency, and coils attached to products resonate (ring) at that frequency. This causes the way electricity flows through that coils to change in a way that is detectable. When you purchase something, either the tag is removed, or is disabled by a much stronger coil mounted in the counter, which provides enough energy to burn out the coil.\n\nThe second is an active one. There are transmitters and receivers in the bars, and a chip inside the tag on the product. The transmitters create a radio signal as before, and the tag's coils receive that signal, but here the signal provides power to the chip. The chip then transmits a number, which the receiver on the bars receives. The system knows when a number on a product should be in the store, and alarms. When you make a purchase, the tag is either disabled with a strong coil current as with the other type, or the cash register marks the number as sold, so the system knows not to ring the alarm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4198nc
|
mathematically, why can't a chair balance with 2 legs?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4198nc/eli5_mathematically_why_cant_a_chair_balance_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz0j2pv",
"cz0j2yx",
"cz0kwtn"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Mathematically it can. At the wonder spot. The \"house\" is built in a specific angle, on a specific slope, and one of the cool things they do there is put a chair up on a shelf, on two legs, and have people sit in it. ",
"To see if something will balance, lay a string on the ground around its feet and tighten it. (That's called the \"convex hull\" of the feet.) The center of mass must be above the area outlined by the string for it to balance.\n\nOf course when you tighten a string around two feet, it becomes a line with no area, which leaves a super tiny area that the center of mass must be in for it to balance.",
"With 2 legs, balancing is exactly what it's doing. Disrupt the balance with a shove, and it falls.\n\nWith 3-4 legs, balancing is no longer an issue. Push it one way or another , and it continues to stand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
38rz8s
|
why do some people's feet point straight while others have a "v" or "duck" shape?
|
Been wondering about this for a while. Is it a genetic thing? Is one better than the other? How does this affect the rest of the body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38rz8s/eli5why_do_some_peoples_feet_point_straight_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crxdj99",
"crxfbea"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's [a whole wiki page](_URL_0_) about pigeon-toes, but I have no idea if there's a name for the-other-direction-toes. It says some of the causes are basically when your foot bones and/or muscles grow crooked; but that it usually corrects itself as you get older.",
"you see more V shape feet in people as they age. Has to do with tight (unflexible) hamstrings and calves."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_toe"
],
[]
] |
|
5ujjbj
|
why do we sometimes yawn and feel really sleepy, go to the bed but don't fall asleep as soon as we expected we would?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ujjbj/eli5_why_do_we_sometimes_yawn_and_feel_really/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddut9o0"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"Perhaps you are not distinguishing between \"sleepy\" and \"tired.\"\n\nFeeling **sleepy** is part of a physiological cycle. Your body clock is saying that \"now would be a good time to get the required amount of sleep.\" You do not necessarily have to have run out of energy at that point any more than you have to be starving to death before you feel hungry.\n\n**Tiredness**, however, is different. It is not part of a cycle and can be caused by a number of things: using up a lot of energy and not replacing it, lack of oxygen, boredom, illness.\n\nUnfortunately, the symptoms of both are similar and sometimes you can confuse the two. Yawning is frequently a sign of tiredness rather than sleepiness. Consequently you might go to bed thinking you are sleepy when in fact you are just tired (or \"fatigued\"). A few moments rest may be enough to replenish you energy levels and sleep is neither wanted nor necessary.\n\nJust to contrast the two:\n\nPeople can spend the whole day doing nothing but watch TV. Nevertheless, at a certain time they will fall asleep easily despite not really having tired themselves in the least. \n\nConversely, after, say, running a marathon, the runner is probably extremely tired but that doesn't mean that what he wants to do is curl up under the sheets and snore."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
fvm5ht
|
snake charming
|
I've seen lots of videos of people playing music, or moving in certain ways to "charm" snakes - usually cobras.
What is actually happening? Is it like hypnotism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fvm5ht/eli5_snake_charming/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmji3z4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The snake isn't actually being hypnotised, they remove the venom and teeth making the snake submissive and then manipulate their natural striking movements in order for them to appear as if they are in a trance like state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
13qh9j
|
if we can grow diamonds that are indistinguishable from real ones, why can't we do the same with gold?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13qh9j/if_we_can_grow_diamonds_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c767xoe",
"c7680lu",
"c7693h5",
"c76andj"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Diamond is made of carbon atoms, which are extremely common. Gold is made of gold atoms, which are not. \n\nMaking a specific kind of atom is technically possible, but *extremely* difficult and expensive. You'd never be able to get enough to make even a small block.",
"Diamonds are a specific arrangement of carbon atoms. Gold is a pure element. Pure elements are not really synthesizable.",
"Diamonds are just carbon. Atoms used in your pencil are the same atoms that are in diamonds. The way they form structures is what gives them their unique properties. Diamonds are created by taking graphite (carbon that is in pencil), heating it to very high temperatures and keeping it under very high pressure. \n\nGold is an atom composed of neutrons, protons and electrons. We can make it by smashing two smaller atoms, or using high doses of radiation. However, the cost involved far exceed the gains. ",
"Diamond is compressed carbon atoms, Gold is gold atoms. While you could theoretically add electrons, neutrons and protons to carbon atoms to make them gold atoms, it would be extremely. expensive. Furthermore, gold has no real value as an element, and artificial gold would be very silly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
47eo32
|
why was there a huge dotcom crash when so much business is done via the internet now? i'd like to understand the reason behind the financial impacts it had as i know it was enormous
|
I have never understood, or honestly tried to understand why so many dotcoms went out of business seemingly overnight and why it had such a big impact on the economy. Where there trillions of dollars invested and did that money all just disappear? Were these companies not actually selling products? I'd like to better understand what happened and if/why it could or couldn't happen again.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47eo32/eli5_why_was_there_a_huge_dotcom_crash_when_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0cdcdl"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"At the beginning of the new millennium, online sales were (correctly) seen as the way of the future. A website like _URL_0_ dominated the online sales at the time, and people concluded that in 10 years retail stores would be a thing of the past. Many people extrapolated this to believe that basically all current sales -- the entire pet store industry nationwide, or even globally -- would transition to the current online behemoth who had the large market share.\n\nThis was a trend in every industry. Automotive, household, electronics, gaming, clothing, you name it. The logic was that if there were billions of sales in that industry across thousands of competitors in brick and mortar store, that the transition to online commerce would land all of those sales nicely into the balance sheets of the well-established top domain names.\n\nPrices were bid upward, upward, upward. Forecasting hugely overvalued future revenues and sales. Mutual funds, personal investors, the overall market structured their portfolios heavily around these stable performers.\n\nThe reason is exploded so rapidly is a culmination of many factors. For one, after a couple years, it was clear these forecasted revenues just weren't there. Many companies -- _URL_0_ in particular -- used their rapidly accumulated wealth poorly, such as spending several million in SuperBowl ads that were barely even remembered in focus groups. \n\nThe idea that the first-to-market online marketplaces would dominate was soon discovered to be unfounded. Competition in online sales was just as prevalent as in retail sales. No clear company would form the monopoly.\n\nLike dominoes, several of these companies went out of business and investors lost billions of dollars. The rumor that we were in a bubble was very strong, and finally had firm ground to stand on. More rapidly, the share price of other online stores were seen as bunk, and the losses went sky high.\n\nIt was the .com bubble, and it burst. A lot of money that was invested in these companies just vanished."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"pets.com"
]
] |
|
224zh7
|
why is it a dog can recognize a person over skype but a cat can't?
|
I've seen dogs go crazy when they see their 'dad' on Skype because they're in the army, or on a business trip or something. Cats...not so much. Do cats simply not give a damn but recognize the person or can they actually not recognize them? I'm in a LDR and when he goes home back to Skyping me my dog will recognize his voice when he says "Eddie!" and gets excited but my cat acts like he doesn't even exist. I know cats have a silly reputation of not caring and 'feed me human' but my cat genuinely loves my boyfriend. My cat is really nice, cuddly and meows to talk to you all the time. He follows me around everywhere and when my boyfriend is here he follows him around everywhere and my boyfriend becomes my cat's new favorite person. When he comes back to visit my cat gets super excited to see him again so I don't see why he doesn't recognize/care on Skype!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/224zh7/eli5_why_is_it_a_dog_can_recognize_a_person_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgjeoqp",
"cgjfbvk"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"They know its you. They just don't care",
"Cats don't give a shit, that's why."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
28sag4
|
why can youtube show an accurate number of upvotes/downvotes, but reddit can't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28sag4/eli5_why_can_youtube_show_an_accurate_number_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cidym2r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing they probably don't, you just think they do.\n\nYouTube ratings are not as important (or, perhaps I should so to the end user, they're not that important) and hence aren't followed as closely.\n\nAlso Google."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eyb4i2
|
it’s tax season in the us, why do us citizens have to keep track of and file their own taxes? doesn’t this mean the system is not only ripe for abuse and tax evasion, but puts an unnecessary burden on citizens? eli5 why doesn’t the us government take taxes at source?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyb4i2/eli5_its_tax_season_in_the_us_why_do_us_citizens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgg3wto",
"fgg4ljn",
"fgg59a7"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Tax returns are for you to prove that you don’t owe as much in tax as the government says you do. \n\nThe government doesn’t get notified every time you do every little thing. Taxes are the time for you to tell them I paid interest on my mortgage. I pay sales tax, I pay tax at the dmv (all of these are tax deductible).",
"Taxes are automatically collected from your paycheck, but there is no way for the government to actually know what exemptions and credits you earn through the year in advance, they can only guess. What filing taxes does is compare the estimate that they make on what you will owe (and thus what they have taken) with what you actually owe. If they estimated too low you pay additional taxes, if they estimated too high or you did not earn above the minimum threshold you get money back.",
"US Citizens are very, very dubious of tax collectors. This beef goes back to times before the Revolution. People don't like giving the government money, and they particularly don't like the government deciding that it needs more money and taking some more.\n\nThere isn't as much abuse as you'd think, because computers keep track of most ajor money flows and there are regulations that require companies to report transactions to the government. This allows the government's computers to check the numbers that people turn in and find the largest errors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
24n7d7
|
why are there so few engineers and scientists in politics?
|
According to this [link](_URL_0_), the vast majority of senators in the US seem to have either business or law positions. What is the explanation for the lack of people with science and math backgrounds in politics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24n7d7/eli5_why_are_there_so_few_engineers_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch8qvm7",
"ch8rhyg",
"ch8rmof",
"ch8rq42",
"ch8sgtp",
"ch8sk2k",
"ch8sor8",
"ch8svc7",
"ch8sz4g",
"ch8tshk",
"ch8tuy8",
"ch8u1lg",
"ch8v3b3",
"ch8vbk3",
"ch8vero",
"ch8vnud",
"ch8vo0y",
"ch8vtsi",
"ch8w9yx",
"ch8wc1g",
"ch8whp2",
"ch8wka1",
"ch8wnt7",
"ch8wpou",
"ch8x2a2",
"ch8xey7",
"ch8xgl2",
"ch8xh0c",
"ch8xisr",
"ch8xrma",
"ch8xx4i",
"ch8yduw",
"ch8yode",
"ch8z8dj",
"ch8zhg3",
"ch91c87",
"ch91d0n",
"ch91ylx",
"ch92dmf",
"ch92xkk",
"ch930nk",
"ch930zh",
"ch94b1j",
"ch96v09",
"ch97jri",
"ch993zv",
"ch99g9u",
"ch99k0b",
"ch9jga1"
],
"score": [
19,
62,
55,
3,
382,
6,
2,
7,
8,
9,
5,
3,
10,
7,
4,
2,
3,
32,
2,
2,
2,
14,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
6,
48,
2,
4,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because business and law people have a positive revenue stream (their business or firm) that allows them to run for office without having a job.\n\nAlso, my opinion is, the same type of people who go for business and law degrees are the same type of people who have no qualms with making laws that benefit a small number of people, like business owners and lawyers.",
"for the most part, the work i do is a whole hell of a lot more interesting. ",
"Engineers and scientists prefer to deal in logic. ",
"We should vote for more practically skilled individuals into our politics.\nThe more we skew our policies and agendas towards science and math related endeavours the greater our society becomes. We are all connected and every change affects the whole and so the general direction we choose as a whole changes every individuals' perception of the world they live in.",
"Because the skillsets required of the two jobs are different. Whenever this question comes up, it naively assumes politics works how we think it should work in a normative fashion. That everyone should sit down, present their facts, and the most rational decision is made based on the evidence. That's not politics. Mainly because we like to mask that in \"because they're all inherently corrupt bastards!\" which may have some truth to it, but because the decisions they're making do not have definitive answers. Politics like law involves persuasion and charisma because the answers aren't always distinct and some kind of \"compromise\" has to be made between all of the proposed solutions and ideologies. \n\nImmense amounts of scientific study and economic analysis goes into legislation. The difference is these think tanks and legislative studies are often motivated by their own political ideals and because the answers are not \"easy\", many of the projective analysis can be skewed to satisfy the agenda. But honestly the question you're asking is relatively uninformed because it assumes science isn't involved. Scientists, economists and financial experts are all *very* involved. The question is are the *best and unbiased*^^[1] scientists, economists and engineers involved. But to pretend that the fields are completely absent from the process is not only naive but also rejecting the fact that people that possess skills like charisma and the ability to compromise and negotiate are very necessary to the entire process. It's a damn shame we don't seem to have a lot of willing compromisers and negotiators anymore though. \n\n[1] This response is picking up some traction so it's necessary to clarify this. When people complain \"the insurance companies wrote ACA!\", it's not like the CEO's of UnitedHealth and Wellpoint and the politicians literally sat down to write the bill themselves while shunning scientists, financial advisers and economists. Very qualified financial experts, scientists and economists help write the bills with legal experts. The question people have is related to their motives and representation and whether these people are truly considering the proper factors in their research and writing of the bills not just related to their representative interests. The sciences are all *very* involved in the collaboration process, but it's a matter of is the field attracting the kind of experts that society agrees are most qualified and willing to take into account all interests and affected parties when crafting a bill. \n\nFinally, in the spirit of politics, there is no definitively \"correct\" answer here, but it's much more complex than \"they're too good for the job!\" and it's also just incorrect to claim science is completely uninvolved in the political process. ",
"I reckon there's a few reasons:\n\n- Politicians tend to be extroverts and people-pleasers. Scientists tend to be introverts and they don't really care much about 'pleasing people'.\n\n- Politics and politicians have given themselves such a bad reputation that no self-respecting scientist wants to be associated with them.\n\n- Governing people is always going to be an uphill battle - you literally cannot please everyone and no matter who is in charge, there will always be an opposition to the current party in power. Since it seems that there is no 'right solution', scientists tend to not have the patience for such bullshit.\n\n- Being an entrepreneur can make you way more money than being a politician. Elon Musk, for example, makes about $4 million dollars (from stock-based pay) whereas Obama's annual salary is $400,000.",
"The job of a politician is to manage an area and to work with other politicians. This is very similar to running a business, and is not very similar to research or applied science. People who study law also go into politics because you have to know and work with the law.",
"Engineers are trained to highlight important problems, used information and analysis to formulate a solution, and execute. They are not trained to ignore all facts and make decisions based on what makes people happy (constituents, financial supporters). Also, bending the truth (aka. lying) is encouraged in the fields of business and law, making them great politicians.\n\nIn all seriousness, an engineer's skill set is well suited for running a city...but not being elected to run a city.",
"[Go to China.](_URL_0_)",
"That's like asking why are there no doctors driving taxis. ",
"Consensus is not authoritative in science. Truth is.\n\nDifferent domains. Different skills.",
"Engineering and science are founded on making things work and aligning inputs to predicted outputs. Politics is about convincing people that certain inputs will result in certain outputs. \n\nReality is not entirely ignored by politicians. One useful tool among many in a politician's arsenal is to tell the truth, that is, sometimes they are fortunate enough to be arguing for a true thing, and when that happens they may be expected to tell the truth. But more common is the telling of small parts of the truth amid untruths. This is because almost every policy choice has advantages and disadvantages, and politicians a) portray their favored policies as having no disadvantages, and b) portray their opponent's policies as having only disadvantages and no advantages.\n\nYou can see this in any social group governed by interpretable and changeable rules, even outside public politics. On reddit itself you can see debates about, say whether or not to ban downvotes in a subreddit go by onesided pairs of arguments. A person who favors banning downvotes will simply say that \"downvotes are abused as a disagree button to censor unpopular opposing opinions.\" And a person who opposes banning downvotes will say \"downvotes combat spam and reposts and limit the prominence of trolls and flaming.\" Neither will conduct a full policy analysis in which the advantages and disadvantages of each policy are honestly weighed. *This is because they have already determined which policy they want, and are manipulating arguments and evidence to convince the undecided.* They don't need you to support their policy for the best reasons, they merely need you to support their policy, so they dishonestly downplay the negatives and accentuate the positives.\n\nMore sophisticated political arguments pretend to analyze the downsides of their policies and the upsides of opposing policies, but they do so unfairly.\n\nOut desire to have policy based on what is actually best rather than what merely can be made to seem best underlies the sentiment behind the OP, but it is not actually attainable. As soon as someone has an interest in enacting a policy, the difference between reality as it is and people's perception of reality will bring back old fashioned politics.\n\nThis fully explains why so many politicians are lawyers.\n\nSee this: _URL_0_\n\n > The idea that “failure is not an option” is a fantasy version of how non-engineers should motivate engineers ... Failure is always an option. Engineers work as hard as they do because they understand the risk of failure. And for anything it might have meant in its screenplay version, here that sentiment means the opposite; the unnamed executives were saying “Addressing the possibility of failure is not an option.”\n\n > ...\n\n > An effective test is an exercise in humility; it’s only useful in a culture where desirability is not confused with likelihood. For a test to change things, everyone has to understand that their opinion, and their boss’s opinion, matters less than what actually works and what doesn’t. \n\nPoliticians do not test, because they already \"know.\"",
"As an engineer, I would rather work on engineering problems than be embroiled in the drama of politics. I think that, in general, people who put in the time to become experts in STEM areas are more interested in doing STEM-related work than in government. People who major in, say, political science probably want to be in politics.",
"I'm a former engineer-politician. From my first hand experience, there are very few engineers and scientists in politics because of their disdain for and lack of patience regarding the *election process*, and not for a lack of aptitude for governing. Once elected, its much easier to stay in office based on name recognition alone, regardless of what one accomplishes while in office. Ergo: even if a engineer/scientist candidate and in turn politician is social introverted or has weak or non-existent negotiation and compromising skills, they will more than likely be re-elected and, in turn, have *some* influence on the political process.\n\nAs an engineer, I always strive to address the root cause of any problem. In this particular case, the *real* problem is gerrymandering. If redistricting at all levels were determined by algorithm (to even the playing the field and make districts more homogenized and, in turn, more likely to vote for moderates), we *might* see an uptick in engineer and scientist candidates, as they would see the election process as being more scientific and less partisan.",
"Because, and I feel a speak for a lot of my class here- we don't give a shit, science is interesting as hell and we wanna be doing that. Hell, my thesis is growing mouse limbs in vitro, just to see if it works, I'd much prefer to be doing that than enter politics. ",
"Most engineers and scientists are just too honest to do this. When they can show that something will definitely not work, they expect to be taken seriously and for others to move on (though with some hesitance, of course). \n\nPoliticians think that they can make reality happen to some degree by getting other people to go along with their ideas. \n\nThese two world-views of how people behave and how physical systems behave clash violently. And since most engineers aren't power-hungry ego-maniacs, they bail the scene. \n\n\nSource: I'm an engineer who worked for a manager who was really much more of a politician than anything else. I almost had to kill him with my hands. Twice. ",
"Because its rigged?\n\nEvery politician is basically a lawyer, lawyers being masters of the law, the law being multiple set rules that our society follows.\n\nIf you realize for a moment, these laws aren't real, they are made up. Scientists and engineers follow natural occurring laws of the lands to do what they do. \n\nIf you replace all those blood sucking leeches on capitol hill with doctors, scientists, and engineers(you know, people who actually do good for the earth) you will see MASSIVE improvements in our society. ",
"Simply put, the job of politicians in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is to \n\nenforce **laws**, \n\nwrite **laws**, and \n\ninterpret **laws**. \n\nSo by definition, lawyers and those in law are more naturally suited for a career in politics. \n\nBusiness requires intimate knowledge of law; taxes, property, finance, etc. It's the engine for economics, which is obviously a huge political issue. Those in business have experience leading and managing others, a crucial skill in politics. And last but not least, business can make you a lot of $$$, which is sadly a virtual requirement to participate in politics today. ",
"I'm qualified as an engineer and a computer scientist so I'll give my two cents. I don't want to enter politics because I would be pay paid very little, have next to no power and would become the subject of public interest.",
"Probably because they know half of it is bullshit and don't want to bother with the inane political crap.",
"Because engineers and scientist make decisions based on facts. Politics is based on feelings. ",
"Politics takes money. \n\nScientists and engineers don't make enough money to run successful campaigns.\n\nPolitics is mostly bullshit.\n\nMen of science don't like bullshit.",
"Because engineers and scientists seek the truth and politicians market in lies.",
"Scientists and engineers are actually productive members of society that provide knowledge and services to the benefit of all. \n\nSince they are useful members of society that earn their keep they are ineligible to participate in politics.",
"Because engineers and scientists go to school to become engineers and scientists.",
"(Note: I'm a scientist getting a public policy degree, and so this is mainly personal experience).\n\nThe lack is largely due to people's expectations. Scientists - contrary to some of the comments here - would make great politicians. While they aren't trained in law per se, the concepts/skills are identical. Scientists have lots of experience with analytical thinking (i.e., how to define a problem and develop a solution), and this sort of thinking forms the backbone to policy. Granted, a scientist has to learn legalese to succeed in policy, but so did the business person. Scientists are trained to try to address problems, try a solution, implement a solution, evaluate said solution, and improve upon it. And that's the same thing as politicians do.\n\nThe interesting thing is that this logic seems to be more accepted in other countries. In Asia and much of Europe, many government officials have science, engineering or related backgrounds (I can't find a link to stats at the moment, but will edit if I can). It's sort of normal there.\n\nTake the US on the other hand. I get A LOT of weird looks and questions when I say I'm a scientist who's working on policy issues. People are confused, and to be honest, it's discouraging. It reinforces stereotypes that scientists stay in their labs and are only fascinated by their own field - they don't give a damn about the world. On the contrary, many of us do, but we aren't given the chance to prove it. \n\nTo be fair, I get a similar number of weird looks and reactions fro scientists, too. They don't get what I'm doing and feel like I'm hurting the field by not putting my talents towards science. The stereotypes/expectations are endorsed by scientists as much as politicians, which is seriously unfortunate. When I explain to scientists that I want to help the field out and make policies better, I wish I wasn't facing such an uphill battle. \n\nIn short - it's a matter of expectations. The skills are pretty much the same, and so it's a pity that in the US it isn't \"understandable\" for a scientist to become a politician.",
"Because engineers and scientists give it to you how it is and do not bullshit around the questions and issues.",
"politics is a place for large egos, not large minds",
"Should be retitled: 'Why are there so few musicians in Agriculture?' or 'Why are there so few rocket mechanics in screenwriting?\"\n\nThe two are completely different fields of study and interest. ",
"Scientists and engineers like to tackle concrete problems in the most direct way possible. Does that sound like politics? ",
"I am a politician and I graduated with a BS in Physics. I used to design software and mixed signal chips for telecom purposes. I am now in business.\n\nMost politicians start at the local/state level and those positions are typically unpaid. If unpaid then, unfortunately, a typical 9-5 job with commute doesn't provide enough time to perform the service. Attorneys, business owners, retired individuals, or doctors can schedule their time around meetings and events more easily.",
"There are a lot of long winded answers in this thread, some good and some bad--cynical for the sake of cynicism. Since this is /r/explainlikeimfive:\n\nPoliticians deal in writing/interpreting/enforcing law. That's right in a lawyer's wheelhouse. Simple as that.\n\nThis is like asking why most people who write cookbooks are chefs. It's because they're chefs.",
"They have better things to do than to accomplish nothing in a 2, 4, or 6 year term.\n\nThey can create a far better world in their current positions.",
"Presidents that were engineers: Hu Jintao (and many other Chinese leaders), Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Herbert Hoover, Sebastian Pinera, Abdullah Gul, Viktor Yanukovich",
"I work in politics, my two best friends are mechanical engineers.\n\nMy friends are both extremely intelligent, but their type of intelligence doesn't translate well into things that aren't black and white. The know that the table needs to hold x amount of weight, so they know that the legs should be y strength. \n\nPolitics deals largely in philosophical ideas. A number of the things we might want have never been implemented before, or that way. I work specifically in campaigns, so I deal a lot with emotional appeals. See the [Willie Horton Ad](_URL_0_), or [LBJ's 'Daisy' Ad](_URL_0_). Much of my job requires charisma and charm. I have to sweet talk people with big egos and media types. Yeah, there is science to it, but it's not cut and dry.\n\n\nWhen I talk politics with them, they get frustrated because something seems so obvious to them and they don't get why everyone else doesn't just do it.\n",
"Few people realize what the day to day life of a politician is like. A prominent law professor who recently gave an AMA on reddit was once offered a chance to run for Senate in California. He decided against it after a friend advised him that if he enters politics, he would spend at least 2 hours on the phone everyday talking to supporters and asking for contributions until the day he retires from politics. \n\nEstablishing yourself in politics is a full-time job. From establishing your roots and finding your bearings in the local political scene to running for more prominent positions, it requires time.\n\nMany scientists, engineers, doctors, etc... spend a significant amount of time on their education (not to mention the financial investment as well). Years of experiences (work, research fellowships, advanced degrees) can directly relate to future income and career advancement potential. So spending 2 years running for a little office in town detracts significantly from the long term training of someone in a STEM field. \n\nWhat we end up seeing is a lot of people in STEM related fields lending their expertise via consulting jobs, research, etc... to policy initiatives later in their careers when they have more flexibility. \n\n",
"Because those are real jobs.",
"Because engineers and scientists are men and women of reason and logic. There is no place for people like that in politics.",
"I am on mobile but Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave what I think is the best answer I have seen to this question. _URL_0_",
"People who write laws have law degrees and are called lawyers..... Fucking mind blowing",
"I'm an engineer. I've considered running for office before. My education included a little business law, and I was surprised I enjoyed it. It's actually very systematic, and being a systems engineer, that appealed to me. However, what drives me INSANE is that while the law clearly has a systematic basis, ALMOST NO POLITICIANS (or lawyers for that matter) treat it that way. They essentially treat it like an ad hoc construction, where EVERYTHING is up for negotiation, and that really bothers me (also from a systems perspective -- you don't screw around with lower orders or higher orders of abstraction just to win some temporary advantage, unless you are intent on destroying your system).\n\nWhat keeps me from running is basically time and money. I work 40+ hours a week, nearly 365 days a year, and my job doesn't give me the freedom to run for mayor or state representative. Those jobs don't pay enough to come close to my salary either.",
"'Cause we're smart enough to stay the fuck outta politics",
"In science and engineering, the ultimate judge of your merit will be your boss, academic supervisor or client. They are very likely to also be experts in the field and will recognise technical excellence. They will thoroughly evaluate your work to make their decision.\n\nIn politics, Joe Bloggs the voter is the ultimate judge. He likely has little to no understanding of the issues (nor does he want to understand them) and his main criteria will be what you look like and how you talk. He'll likely make a snap judgement at the voting booth.\n\nYou can probably now see why scientists, doctors and engineers detest politics. The only government they can thrive in is a meritocratic, technocratic one (which also requires a degree of autocracy).",
"Engineers and scientists usually have a standard of ethics. ",
"One factor I think may hold back Scientists is the American Academy of Sciences is 72% atheist and 20.8% agnostic. So there is high incidence of atheism in the field. This does not play well in getting elected. Churches yield lots of power in local level elections (the entry level of elections). In Prince George's MD, one of the most liberal counties in one of the most liberal states, you will have a hard time being elected without the organization and support of churches.",
"Because they lack the bullshitting capabilities",
"Near as I can tell, based on what my engineer friends tell me, it's because they want to create a good, functional thing. Not to resort to an old joke, but politics isn't really that sort of position. In fact, the same people who are attracted to politics also tend to be the middle- to upper-management positions that engineers loathe. They bottom-line everything to get a product out on a schedule and within budget so they can make a profit. Engineers, on the other hand, would rather be a year behind schedule so they don't release a broken product.",
"Because they have real jobs.",
"Many people who have careers that require specific knowledge see politics as a circus ruled by charisma and connections with wealthy and influential people. They aren't willing to play a game with such high uncertainty and a culture that typically distorts facts (on which science and mathematics strictly operate).\n\nThis is a fine fit for people with a business background because the only discipline that applies to them is \"winning\" at any cost. Facts are only relevant to them when it can assist them, not when it works against a narrative that stands to reward their interests.\n\nThe term used to describe a government run by experts in relevant technical fields is a 'technocracy'. It isn't a guarantee of a good government, but it is a promising approach if implemented into democracies carefully."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.siliconafrica.com/90-of-top-chinese-government-officials-are-scientists-engineers/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2013/11/healthcare-gov-and-the-gulf-between-planning-and-reality/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
226zk0
|
how exactly do vector graphics work?
|
Here's what I know. Unlike bitmap images, vector images don't pixellate when you zoom in on them. I guess that's because they aren't made of pixels. A friend of mine tried to explain it to me, but it went right over my head.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/226zk0/eli5_how_exactly_do_vector_graphics_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgjxgsc",
"cgk2c4t",
"cgk4jbm",
"cgkbmwx",
"cgkbzi7"
],
"score": [
23,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, a vector drawing files a list of instructions - draw a line from point a to point b, draw a line from point b to point c. Fill the enclosed area with a color, and so on.\n\nThen, when you 'zoom in', the computer - effectively - makes the line sharper to take advantage of the higher resolution.",
"In a nutshell, instead of breaking an image up into a grid of pixels and then saving the color of each pixel (which is a bitmap) a vector graph save an image or diagram through math. In other words it stores a list of geometrically defined lines and points that recreate the image. This means you can zoom arbitrarily because the computer has the exact mathematical equation for the line you're looking at so it just interpolates. With a bitmap when you zoom in you can't do anything about that fact that you only have so many pixels worth of information.",
"A _drawing_ of a circle has a fixed resolution, but a _circle_ is the same everywhere.",
"As well as the explanations about drawing vector shapes on a pixel screen as given above, in the olden days as well as display screens that work like they do now, another type was true vector crt screens. \n\nInstead of drawing a frame at a time by scanning a beam side to side then up and down like most crt screens do (called raster scanning) , vector displays drew the lines directly from point to point. The original asteroids arcade machine worked like that. It gave a faster and higher resolution display with much less processing power than rasterising would have needed, at a time when processing power was very expensive. They were often only one colour though. ",
"I'm gonna quibble with /u/Rufus_Reddit's answer a bit. It's not wrong, exactly (probably), but I don't think explains it as clearly as it might.\n\nPixel-graphics are like doing paint-by-numbers on graph paper: you fill in the little squares with whatever color you're supposed to, where the list of colors for each pixel is stored in a file. Except, on modern monitors the squares are really tiny so you can barely see them, so for the most part shapes look smooth.\n\nWhen you zoom in, all you're doing is saying \"Hey computer. Make all your little squares bigger.\" Except of course that can't really happen, because your screen's hardware is fixed with respect to how many pixels it has and how big they are, so instead the software just *draws* each pixel's worth of image data onto *multiple* screen pixels. So instead of filling up one pixel with red, or whatever, it might fill up a 2x2 or 3x3 or 50x50 block of pixels, depending on how much you're zooming in.\n\nZoom in enough, of course, and those blocks of pixels get big enough to be really easy to see. That's pixelation.\n\nVector graphics still have to be displayed on screens that are made of pixels, though. The thing is, a vector graphic file is *not* a list of colors that go onto individual pixels, like a pixel-graphic file is. It is instead a list of *abstract geometric shapes* (lines, circles, color gradients, et cetera) that are defined by mathematical coordinate and can be as precise as you want. (Well, within some limits we won't bother with).\n\nA vector graphic file is not, as it were, a picture. Instead, it is a list of instructions for *drawing* a picture. Whatever software gets the job of displaying the file has to process the list of instructions and *figure out*, depending on how big of a window it's drawing into on your screen, what the zoom level is, et cetera, which pixels are supposed to be what color. It has to take a \"draw a line from point A to point B\" command, and determine for itself which pixels on your screen right now are the ones between A and B, then color them in. Ditto for circles and gradients and every other command in the vector graphics file.\n\nWhen you change the zoom, it re-calculates everything. It throws away the entire set of pixels it colored in last time, adjusts the mapping between the mathematical coordinates of all the commands in the file and the pixel coordinates on your screen, and goes through the whole job of re-calculating what color to make everything.\n\nIt's much more complex, and much more work. But the benefit is that it can keep that line perfectly sharp (well, as sharp as the individual pixels on your screen, anyway) no matter how much you zoom in.\n\nThere are drawbacks, too, though. Complexity and rendering time are higher, of course. But also, while vector graphics are great for icons, cartoons, and anything else that has that kind of visual quality to it, they kind of suck for images of stuff in the real world. The real world is complicated and messy enough that mathematical abstractions like lines and circles and perfectly shaded color gradients don't capture it very well. Also, even the problem of figuring out what colors and circles and gradients to use, when trying to take a picture of a real scene, is a pretty hard problem. (Which, by the way, is why digital cameras take pixel-based images. That's way, way, way easier).\n\nVector graphics are the realm of the graphic designer. Pixel-graphics are the realm of photography.\n\nSide-note: I should add that *today's* computer screens are pixel-based. But that was not always the case.\n\nIn the early days of computing, when even the idea of having a screen was not taken for granted, there was a screen technology that didn't have pixels, and yes, they were called \"vector displays.\" They were physically just like TV screens or old CRT monitors, in that they used a moveable electron beam to paint a picture on a glowing phosphor surface. In a TV screen, the beam scans back and forth in horizontal lines, painting one line after another down the screen, to form the picture. It does this really fast, so your eye doesn't notice, but it's essentially pixel technology. In a vector display, instead of the beam scanning back and forth in this fixed pattern, the computer can control how it moves around. So if the computer wants to draw a line, it literally moves the electron beam along that line, in a way that's conceptually identical to how modern vector graphics software draws the instructions in a vector graphics file. Except, rather than rendering the instructions by calculating which pixels to color in, vector displays could actually draw the thing directly.\n\nYou have, almost certainly, seen one of these things yourself. The original stand-up Asteroids arcade game used true vector display technology. There was a brief window, there in the very late 1970s and early '80s, when vector technology and pixel technology battled it out. I even remember a home gaming console--I believe it was called Vectrex or Vectrix or something like that--that used it.\n\nBut, largely because pixels are easier, pixels do a better job on pictures of real things, and pixel-technology was simple to adapt for use on the zillions of actual televisions out there, it trounced those old vector displays into the dust."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9b3w2f
|
the draft/conscription in the united states
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9b3w2f/eli5_the_draftconscription_in_the_united_states/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e506pce",
"e50753a",
"e507bpc",
"e507jld"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The draft was performed as a supposedly random lottery. Based on birthdate, numbers would be drawn 1-366, for days of the year, and the order of drawing determined in what order you would be called to service, if you were a man in the right age range. The process was televised and results announced by other means as well.\n\nOne problem with the most recent drawing during the Vietnam War is that they didn't mix the balls properly, so people born in December were much less likely to be drafted.\n\nDraft dodging refers to any way to try to get out of having to serve. Most common was probably trying to get a medical excuse, like Mr. Trump's \"bone spurs\". ",
"All males 18-40ish have to register under the selective service act and if a war breaks out, men are picked mostly at random (though younger men are generally picked first.) Draft dodging is doing something to make yourself inelligible for the draft. For example, self-mutilation ",
"There is no draft currently. \n\nCurrently every male upon reaching the age of 18 they are legally required to register for the draft. That registration puts their name on a list. Should the draft be activated they will start going through that list in a set order and call up people. When you are called up you will go through a medical, psychological, and mental aptitude test. If you fail any of these you are exempted from the draft. If you score exceptionally well in the mental aptitude test you can qualify for Officer training, but most of the time draftees are non-commissioned personnel. You can also get officers ranks if you are drafted and have a college degree already, or if your skill set is such that your role would require you having a higher rank to function. (seen with drafted doctors, or nuclear technicians). \n\nDraft Dodgers are those who physically hid, often by fleeing the country to avoid being drafted. ",
"So of note; the draft is not *currently* in place. Instead, we have the Selective Service System, which continues to function such that, if we ever need to bring conscription back, we can.\n\nCurrently, every man (citizen or no) in the United States under 25 years of age is required to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday, even if they're not normally eligible for service. Not doing so is technically punishable by a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison, but that hasn't really been enforced recently for various reasons. However, not registering can cause all sorts of complications, particularly if you want to work in State or Federal government, or want to receive State or Federal Benefits (including student loans).\n\nThere's also a separate system for healthcare personnel, and Congress has considered other special-skillset Selective Service systems to ensure they can draw up trained personnel in certain high-skill areas.\n\nNow, if the draft gets brought back there would be a set of rules concerning what age groups get drafted when. Assuming we stick to the Vietnam-era rules, Congress first approves a mobilization scheme including a draft. After that we have the Draft Lottery; if your birthday is called, you might have to serve.\n\nThe specific order of service is by age groups; the military takes those who turn 20 in the year of induction first, then ages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19, and 18, in that order. Sometimes they'll get everyone they need, other times they'll come up short and have to issue a new lottery to pick up more manpower. Of note, your potential for service doesn't quite end at 25; Federal Law allows for conscription of all men from 17 to 45, particularly with a militia (so, in the modern day, the various wings of the National Guard).\n\nYou then show up and either take the oath and start service, or you make a case for conscientious objection to the Local Board that runs conscription in your area (basically, if you're called up to serve you *have* to show up, even if you're in one of the groups of people that legitimately don't have to serve for various reason), *or* you try to fail the medical exam and get out of serving.\n\n > Similarly, what exactly is “draft-dodging”? How does one obtain an exemption from the draft?\n\nDraft dodging is a catch-all for those who got out of the draft by unscrupulous means, either by having the money needed to hire good lawyers or figure out a medical excuse (e.g. Trump's \"Bone Spurs\"), or by simply fleeing the country (stereotypically to Canada). At the time of Vietnam it was seen as a reasonable thing to do, but in retrospect most people generally *really* don't like the draft dodgers.\n\nNote that Conscientious Objectors aren't quite put in the same boat, as a lot of them have (for either religious or steadfast beliefs) decent reasons not to serve directly, and many are still willing to do *some* non-combat and non-military work instead.\n\nOther exemptions could be granted for given classes of citizens. For example, Kennedy exempted married men from service.\n\n > And if one were to be drafted, is it an option to first attend Officer Candidate School before deployment?\n\nStudents in college were typically exempted *so long as they remained in college*. Once you left college, if you were still eligible to serve, you'd be called up, but sent to OCS or put in a specialist role if officers weren't needed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2y16q4
|
how does this plasma-cutter work?
|
Hello, I have seen this video by The Slow Mo Guys on youtube: _URL_0_
He connects four 9v batteries together and one crocodile clip on each side. On one of the clips he puts on a pencil-lead and the other one he connects to a sheet of aluminium foil. Then when he touches the aluminium with the pencil-lead it (burns?) a hole in it.
How does this work? Does the aluminium melt? If so, why? What is the chemistry and physics behind this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y16q4/eli5_how_does_this_plasmacutter_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp59pbi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, yes the electricity from the arc is melting the metal but in a very localized area. Pencil lead is a very good conductor of electricity but when you are drawing an arc or maintaining one both materials are consumed in the process\n\nSource , went to Welding school"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcp7IY7qj8"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
29j838
|
what's the difference between a university and an institute (of technology)?
|
I want to do a computer science program after high school and I'm having trouble deciding between Simon Fraser University and the British Colombia Institute of Technology.
What do I graduate with? How long does it take to complete?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29j838/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_university/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cilgqtj",
"cilh294",
"cilhah0",
"cili64e",
"ciliid7"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For all practical purposes, your getting basically the same education.\n\nA bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree. The difference between a bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts, OTOH, is significant. The different degree requirements of the schools will differ but that's nothing to do with the name.\n\nThe university is probably going g to be larger and have a wider variety of subjects to study while the engineering school will be more focused.\n\nThis means you'll have a better chance of meeting girls at the larger school.",
"Generally in the tech schools students will focus on getting a narrow but deep understanding of certain concepts. Say Computer Science, pretty much every class you take will be directly related to your major. Because of this degrees will take anywhere from 12 months to just a few years. \n\nUniversities will try to give students both a broad understanding over many subjects (or universal) and finish with a deep understanding in one or a few subjects. If you go this route and pick Computer Science you will also need to take some humanity classes, a history class here or there, a dash of English and on and on. Because of this, degrees will be either 2,4,6 or more years.",
"It's not a hard and fast rule, but typically, universities offer a broad range of educational topics and majors, while Techs tend to focus purely on science and engineering. Their non-science departments exist almost entirely so undergrads can take required non-major courses.\n\nThe degrees they offer tend to be all in science and engineering majors.\n\n",
"If you're talking actual definition; a university offers both graduate and undergraduate programs, whereas a college or a technical institute offers only undergraduate degrees and/or diplomas.\n\nIn practical terms, this means the instructors at universities tend to have more of a theoretical basis and mindset, because they are hired as researchers first and instructors second. If you are planning on going forward and doing graduate work and research, a university will be the best bet because they are the ones that will focus on research methods, how to do design work, and will hugely push the theory behind the ideas. Instructors are usually well informed on the newest and best information in their field, because as researchers that is a vital part of their job. On the negative side, very few university instructors have worked anywhere but in an academic setting, and don't put a lot of emphasis towards preparing students for day to day reality of industry jobs.\n\nIn contrast, technical institutes tend to hire people by who will be a better instructor. It's usually people who have industry experience, and who are better equipped to get you a job straight out of school, because they have more experience working in non-academic settings. The focus tends to be on technical and professional skills that are measurable and marketable. Instructing is your instructors primary job, not research. This can work out well for student, but it can also be a con - there isn't the same threat on their jobs if they fall behind the industry, so instructors may end up falling behind the times and teaching what was relevant when they worked 10 years ago (a HUGE problem in a field that changes as rapidly as Computer Science). Also, if you do decide you want to move on to higher level schooling, attending a technical institute means you've missed out on academic networking provided at a university. This is not an insurmountable challenge, but it is a challenge nonetheless.\n\nAll in all, though - other posters are correct, and a bachelors degree is a bachelors degree. Unless you're in an Ivy League school or attending university of Pheonix online, people don't really care where your bachelors degree comes from. So make the choice that works the best for you, and don't worry about the details.",
"If you want more information about the schools there's specific subreddits for them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8wtj90
|
why can't we consume the daily required nutrients we need in pill or drip form rather than having to eat a variety of foods and having to and expel it out of our bodies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wtj90/eli5_why_cant_we_consume_the_daily_required/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1y8qxb"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You can, but it's boring. People in a coma live on nutrient paste and IV drip.\n\nYou need to expel some waste because damaged cells and useless metabolic products need to go somewhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
267fyb
|
why does the sun seem to burn hotter in the morning (ca. 10:00) than in the afternoon (ca. 17:00)?
|
I mean, it's still the same sun that shines. Why do I get a sunburn in the morning and not in the afternoon, even after 2 hours of unprotected exposure?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/267fyb/eli5_why_does_the_sun_seem_to_burn_hotter_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chocu2j",
"chocxs5",
"chod03v"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"You become accustomed to the radiant heat.\n\nAt 10:00, when you first walk outside, the feeling of heat is new.\n\nAt 17:00, when you walk out side for the Nth time, you're used to the radiant heat.",
"It has to do with the height of the sun in the at 10:00 and 17:00.\n\nIn the morning at 10:00am the sun is almost at its highest position in the sky. Because of this the sun radiates more energy towards us and the Earth. \n\nIf the sun is not so high like at 17:00, there is less surface area for the sun's energy to radiate off of and thus it is cooler in the evening. ",
"1000 is only 2 hours off of noon. 1700 is 5 hours off if noon. The morning equivalent of 1700 would be 0700. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
en7bg4
|
how do hydrogen-powered cars work, and are they a considerable competitor to electric vehicles?
|
Are hydrogen-powered cars even a thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en7bg4/eli5_how_do_hydrogenpowered_cars_work_and_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdvmnpz",
"fdvnf3l",
"fdvqlmk"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
11
],
"text": [
"Your car runs on compressed hydrogen gas, either by burning it or reacting it with oxygen in a fuel cell.\n\nThe tricky bit is making and transporting the hydrogen gas. It takes a lot of energy to make, is often made in very “dirty” ways and is hard to get to the end-user.\n\nRight now, there is not a lot of adoption of this type of vehicle. So, they are not much of a competitor to either fossil fuel or electric powered vehicles.",
"Mix petrol droplets with air and light the mix on fire. It goes BOOM. This is what powers gas-powered cars, they just take the force of thousands such explosions every second and use it to move the car.\n\nMix hydrogen with air and light the mix on fire. Mix goes BOOM... You get the idea.\n\nThere's also hydrogen fuel cells. When hydrogen reacts with oxygen, some electrons move from the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen attoms. You can use this moving of electrons to make electric current, which drives an electric motor, which moves the car.",
"Hydrogen can be used as fuel for combustion engines that are very similar to the fossil-fuelled ones. But another, less mechanically complex solution is to use hydrogen as fuel for a *fuel cell* which creates electricity that powers the car. So in that case, the car is just a normal EV where the large battery pack is replaced with a hydrogen tank and a fuel cell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tggfr
|
how do people automatically know which direction north, and consequently, south, east and west are?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tggfr/eli5how_do_people_automatically_know_which/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx5wcgx",
"cx5wjiw",
"cx5wnzz",
"cx5y9qm"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nobody automatically knows which direction north is. You have to have learned it at some point by making observations, and you might have an excellent sense of direction and be able to figure out while moving, but you're not going to automatically know where north is without actually checking. ",
"If anyone does it like I do, I find the easiest way is to use geographical knowledge of the area I am in and go based off of that. For example back in my hometown we had a lake to the north of us, so I used that as my reference point when I when I needed to give directions or to know what way when I was given directions.",
"Growing up in California, it was always easy to know which way the ocean was, so I knew West instinctively. The rest sort themselves out.",
"The easiest way ive found is to use the sun. Based on its position in the sky and what time of day it is, you can get a general idea of which way north is. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ovl57
|
why can humans start sprinting at full speed almost right away, but needs to slow to a stop over time?
|
From a standing start, we can sprint at full speed almost from the start, but you see people needing to slow down for a while before they come to a complete stop, why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ovl57/eli5_why_can_humans_start_sprinting_at_full_speed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkkiv5t",
"dkklkws",
"dkkmvbn",
"dkkspo5",
"dkl5xd9"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your feet are designed for this. They stick out in front so you can lean forward and maintain balance, necessary if you want to combat the forces pushing you back during forward acceleration. On the other hand leaning backward offers on your heels you little to no balance, and if you wanted to stop the way to begin a Sprint you would probably need to lean backwards.",
"My comment might not be sufficient for ELI5, but in my experience people can in fact start and stop quickly. It's just a matter of putting effort into it.",
"You can stop faster than you can start.\n\nIt is more convenient to slow down in a more relaxed way, so unless you have a reason to slow down as fast as possible you don't do it.\n\nIt is also more convenient to start slowly, but if you do that in a 100 meter race for example you lose.",
"[It takes sprinters 60 meters or more to reach their top speed in the 100m.](_URL_0_) I do not know of any studies of human ability to decelerate from a sprint, but just looking at youtube videos of 100m races, the athletes seem to stop (or nearly stop) pretty easily within 60 meters.",
"Humans can't go full speed straight from stand still , and infact reach peak speed after distances of 50-70 meters. \n\nThe reason we need to slow down is because we weren't built for sprinting, we are actually adapted for endurance running.\n\nImagine the lower body as a spring, we have very elastic muscles which enable us to reuse energy that would've gone to waste while running long distances. While sprinting the lower body still behaves like this so you are reusing energy as you slow down which makes us take longer to slow down.\n\nEdit: wording"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.freelapusa.com/usain-bolt-mph/"
],
[]
] |
|
wuesz
|
what happens after a failed suicide attempt?
|
What happens when someone is hospitalized after a failed suicide attempt? I've heard of "suicide watch". What exactly is it, and what goes on during it? How long does it usually last, say if someone tried to OD on pills? What happens afterwards? Outpatient care? Inpatient? How long is someone typically in the hospital after a suicide attempt, such as an overdose? Would it be different for a more violent/severe attempt?
edit: I mean in the United States, if that makes a difference.
Note: This is not a cry for help or any need to be concerned, it is curiosity. Also, I'm sorry if this is the wrong subreddit. I wasn't sure where to put this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wuesz/what_happens_after_a_failed_suicide_attempt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5gjfsi",
"c5gkmak",
"c5glfuc",
"c5gobg0",
"c5gpshh"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"You're placed on a mandatory 72 hour suicide watch if you are in Texas, I'm not sure about anywhere else.",
"Most states have laws that allow a police officer, a doctor, or a specially trained social worker or nurse to sign a form that allows someone to be held against their will for 72 hours, so that the person can be evaluated to see if they are sane enough to take care of themselves.\n\nHow it usually works in practice is this: The person commits the act, and someone calls 911. The police and paramedics show up, and take the person to the hospital. Someone along the way will sign the mental health evaluation form. If the person is really sick (from a serious OD, for example), and requires an extended hospital stay, they will be treated for the condition in the hospital as usual, they just won't be allowed to leave and they will get psychiatric care while there. If the person isn't that sick, they will be evaluated in the emergency room and transferred to a locked psychiatric facility for evaluation. If you live in a large urban area, there is also a possibility that you will be held in the ER for those 72 hours simply because there isn't anyplace else that will take you, as psychiatric wards are not money makers, so there aren't enough to meet the needs of the communities.\n\nIn theory, a psychiatrist is supposed to evaluate the person's mental health within that first 72 hours, and determine if they are a threat to themselves or others. If they are, they can hold the person until they are no longer immediately dangerous; if they are not, they release you. \n\nMost people, even those who are seriously depressed, are so fucking sick of getting the hospital runaround by this point, that they are well past the idea that killing themselves is a good idea, so they get released once they are evaluated.",
"It is illegal to attempt suicide, this is a catch all law that allows the police to more or less force you somewhere where you can be helped. It only applies for so long however, after a period of time you would have to remain there of your own free will. ",
"I'm too lazy to look up stats but im pretty sure the % of people who fail and try again is extremely high\n(I had a Neigjbor growing up who tried with pills at least 8 times. She'd get taken to hospital,therapy,claim to be alright,then try again)",
"From personal experience here is how it went for me:\n\nThe first time I tried to kill myself I overdosed on Xanax. I was taken to the hospital and put under observation. Once I was medically stable I was given the option of going to a 72 hour psychiatric facility for voluntary treatment or to the mental health hospital for involuntary treatment. I chose the 72 hour facility. I was transported there, met with a nurse practitioner who prescribed medication. I spent the whole time either sleeping, eating, or watching TV. There was no treatment other than the 10 minutes with the nurse practitioner. After 72 hours I was released.\n\nThe second time I tried to kill myself was by cutting my wrist. I was also drunk at the time so when I was admitted to the hospital, bandaged up, and they monitored my blood alcohol level until I was stable. As this was my second attempt I was told my rights had been taken away and I was going to be transported to the mental health hospital for an indeterminate stay. I was transported by ambulance and admitted. I met with a doctor and five other staff members the following day to review my case. The doctor decided to release me immediately.\n\nI was told that the next time I end up in that situation I will be taken into police custody, transported to the mental health hospital and will not be able to be released until a court says so.\n\nThis is in Tennessee by the way. Also with each attempt I was admitted to the hospital under my own free will, no police or ambulance involvement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
czn10r
|
why does everyone seem to hate vaping all of a sudden?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/czn10r/eli5_why_does_everyone_seem_to_hate_vaping_all_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyzbui5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Evidence is beginning to be found that vaping is not nearly as harmless as once assumed. Also, as it becomes more popular, rather than just assuming people won't vape were it is not appreciated it is becoming more necessary to actually post/publish rules against vaping"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1wkp7b
|
if eating a calorie deficiency, even while lifting weights and doing cardio, causes you to lose weight (some in muscle), then why isn't your heart affected by this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wkp7b/eli5_if_eating_a_calorie_deficiency_even_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf2vetb",
"cf2zp7v"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Because your body knows that your heart is a really, **really** important organ. So it will avoid burning your heart muscles as long as it can, so that you can stay alive.",
"Well for one cardiac muscle is different from the skeletal muscles. In a state of deficit your body get its energy from your diet first, the deficit will be made up from stored fat as it releases the greatest energy. Skeletal muscle that is broken down is next because it is expensive to maintain from a caloric sense. Skeletal muscle is not entirely vital to life whereas cardiac muscle is so for these reasons it is spared. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
a1rylh
|
why do investments go up in value?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1rylh/eli5_why_do_investments_go_up_in_value/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eas6uvs",
"eas72o9"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't always, sometimes they go down, but they change in price because people think they're worth more or less, and thus are willing to pay or more less for them than they used to. There are lots of reasons for that: companies release new products, release earnings statements, have a scandal that's in the news, have a competitor do one of those things, and so forth, all of which can affect how much someone is willing to pay for something.",
"A share is a piece of a company. Imagine a company is worth $1000 (determined by many things but key issues that count are property, profit, cash). The company decides to sell 1000 shares, so they are worth $1 each (this is the initial listing price). Investors research the company looking for information that might indicate the value of a company is going to go up or down. Maybe because they won a big contract or that they report an expected increase in profit. This means your shares are worth more. The goal of every investor is to buy shares low and sell them high. The actual increase or decrease in the value of the share is determined by how many are available for sale, how much demand there is from buyers, how much the seller wants for his share and how much the buyer is willing to offer. Few shares for sale with many buyers looking to buy because of good news will drive up the price. Many shares for sale with few buyers combined with bad news will make the price go down. So it is driven by supply and demand.\n\nEdit - Few additional words now I have a big boy keyboard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8k3ctw
|
what stops an astronaut from constantly accelerating in space?
|
If an object is moving at constant speed, the forces acting on it are balanced and if an object is accelerating forces are unbalanced.
I know this is how it works on Earth, which is why a falling ball originally has unbalanced forces but then when air resistance increases the forces balance and the ball reaches terminal velocity.
However, in a vacuum (say space), what force resists the acceleration of an object? For example, if an astronaut in space started accelerating because they've been hit by something, what force stops them from accelerating and what force slows them down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8k3ctw/eli5what_stops_an_astronaut_from_constantly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz4h3ov",
"dz4hocs",
"dz4hqja",
"dz4jkaa",
"dz4os5k",
"dz4peqo",
"dz4vrq0"
],
"score": [
22,
8,
2,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"F = ma\n\nAcceleration requires a force. Making something move faster requires energy. If you're not applying force to it, it will just keep moving the same way. A single impact is a single transfer of energy.",
" > For example, if an astronaut in space started accelerating because they've been hit by something, what force stops them from accelerating and what force slows them down?\n\nIn most cases, astronauts are inside a spacecraft that's filled with air, so the answer is \"air resistance\", same as on Earth.\n\nIf the astronaut is on a spacewalk, there's nothing to stop them from accelerating. However, being hit by an object does not cause constant acceleration. When you're hit by an object, you accelerate during the collision, but once the collision is over, there's no more force acting on you, and you stop accelerating.\n\nSo in the case of an astronaut in a vacuum, being hit by something will change their velocity, so they will start drifting in some direction, but since there's no acceleration outside of the moment of collision, they don't keep accelerating. So they'll just keep drifting at that same velocity, and require either a tether or maneuvering thrusters to get them back to where they were, since there's no air resistance to slow them down.",
"In the vacuum you are talking about there is nothing to stop an object from accelerating, as long as you are supplying further kinetic energy to accelerate it. Its no different from on earth. The only difference is it wont slow down. It will maintain the speed it was accelerated to.\n",
"taking your example, say an astronaut is floating around and a piece of their spacecraft hit them, some amount of momentum would be gained by the astronaut, and some would be lost by the spaceship. There are two possible outcomes, either the astronauts suit is spongy enough to 'catch' the object and the the speeds of the two objects will balance, or the suit is springy, and the two will separate. In either instance, the transfer of force stops, and therefore acceleration stops. ",
"You don't need a force to resist acceleration, you need a net force to accelerate. You will only accelerate when a forced is applied when there is no net force there is no acceleration. \n\nIt you had hit by something there will be a force between you and the object during the time of the collision. But is is only a short moment when it bounces away, you get stuck together or is passes trough you.\n\nSo there is a force applied to you when you collide so they you accelerate. But the collision is only for a short moment and the there is no net force on you.\n\nA ball fall toward the earth because the gravity is a constant force that is applied all the time but a collision is just a force during the collision.\n\n\nA astronaut i orbit around the earth is in fact in constant acceleration. The gravity is 90% of the surface level so they are accelerated by 8,8m/s^2.\n\nBut the move so fast around the earth so the miss in and is in orbit. It is like how if you tie a object to a string you can rotate it around you. You will feel a force in the string so there are a opposite direction on the object so it is accelerated towards you but move sideways so it move around you.\n\nThe same way are we in constant acceleration around the sun and around the milky way.",
"Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is speed + direction. \n\nSo an astronaut in orbit (or satellite, shuttle, etc) is constantly accelerating, because the direction of their orbit is constantly changing. And if they are in a non circular orbit, their speed changes too, becoming faster the closer they get to the center of the orbit, and slower as they move further away.",
"In order to accelerate constantly you would need a constant force acting on you. In a perfect vacuum if a force pushed you, you would have a constant velocity. You would NOT be accelerating though, just moving in one speed and direction forever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a1u950
|
in archaeology, everything from small objects to large building complexes can be found under dirt. where does all this dirt come from and how long does it take to build up? when will different things from our time end up buried? why do some buildings (ex: some castles) seem to avoid this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1u950/eli5_in_archaeology_everything_from_small_objects/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eastu1i",
"easuzfo",
"eat1qis",
"eat4gob",
"eat4q65",
"eat5xyk",
"eatbpaw"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
2,
74,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Things fall down and then get covered in dirt because they are low to ground.\n\nIf the thing didn't get covered in dirt then it would have washed away, scavenged to moved somewhere and a future archeologists would have never had a chance to find those one. \n\nCastles are made of stone and are designed to not fall.",
"Ancient civilizations often used older existing structures as foundations to the structures they were building. Fast forward a couple thousand years of this and the oldest structures have been repeatedly collapsed, filled in, and used as foundations for the next generation of building. This was a way to save time, resources, and labor when you had smaller populations with fewer resources which made carving stones, baking bricks, digging new foundations, etc much harder\n\nIn post modern times we tend to remove and recycle/destroy older structures instead of filling them in and building on top of. This is partly due to our society culture/standards, but also the modern materials we use and the needs for deeper and more sturdy foundations due to increased height, size, and weight of our structures",
"A lot of natural burial is just dust and dirt from the wind (water can bring dirt too, if there is surface runoff). Add some vegetation and you get more debris that keeps adding to the surface. Rubble from collapsed buildings or walls (like vegetation) are natural windbreaks so cause a lot of the suspended particles being carried in the wind to drop and bury whatever is on the ground (the ground \"tries\" to reach a smooth condition). Low areas fill in, and high areas erode down.\n\nNot everywhere gets buried, lots of places actually get eroded away, but of course that means that they no longer exist to be found. We only find places that got buried.\n\nHuge structures like castles haven't gotten buried or eroded yet. Too big for that. Eventually it would or will happen. Just like the mountains end up as plains, eventually. Just a question of how much time is needed. Big, strong structures need a lot of time to get broken down and buried.\n\nThere are some places that exist as prominent mounds or small hills. Those often are piles of rubble that dirt filled in and around, and eventually on top of.",
"I agree that it's weird but I saw a diagram in a Roman Ruins type museum that explained it.\n\nIf a Roman villa is abandoned because the owner died or the whole region was murdered in a war or whatever, eventually wind and rain would break the roof. Or if the villa was abandoned *because* the roof broke. That fills up the inside of the house with wooden beams and leaves and twigs and stuff. And the outside of the house gets mud and leaves blown up against it. Eventually these leaves rot into mud, the wind blows in seeds and plants start to grow, from this point it's self sustaining because now there's plants growing right on top of the house, in the kitchen and in the bedrooms etc. So more leaves and more mud.\n\nEventually it's too much mud to see the building anymore and someone plants a field of crops on top. Remember, Roman Ruins are generally only a couple of feet down not hundreds of feet so it doesn't need to be a lot of mud.\n\nWhat I don't understand, however, is how a well made Roman villa gets abandoned in the first place. Unless every for miles is dead or already living somewhere substantially nicer wouldn't some squatters move in and fix the leaky roof and repaint it etc. But thats a problem I have will all history from that era. Imagine being a 7th Century farmer in Florence or Rome, you lead your cart of turnips down a perfectly smooth roman stone road and sit in the shadow of the massive Colosseum with absolutely 0 idea how they were built and quite content that no one for a thousand miles around can fix the aquaduct if it breaks. How does a society just lose all that knowledge and go from flushing toilets to pooping in a bucket and throwing it out the window? Maybe there were entertaining mushrooms growing everywhere and the people were just dumb? ",
"There are some accounts of native people in central and South America completely burying their cities before abandoning them and moving on its pretty damn interesting. One of said builds was discovered just a year or two ago. ",
"One more extreme method that has buried buildings of the past and present is volcanic activity. A volcanic mudslide (lahar), an avalanche of hot ash (pyroclastic flow), or just ash falling out of the sky can bury buildings. Pompeii is a famous victim of a pyroclastic flow and it's neighbor Herculaneum fell victim to a lahar. There are cities that have been buried by volcanic activity in the past 100 years and are the most likely examples of modern architecture to survive for archeologists of the future to find. Modern society has a habit of tearing down buildings that are abandoned or no longer useful. \n\nOther possible buildings to survive are those in remote and cold places like Antarctic and those intentionally built to last a long time like bunkers and nuclear waste disposal areas. All things considered, we're going to leave an eclectic selection of buildings behind.",
"This is a pedantic nitpick, but the proper term here is \"soil.\" \n\nDirt is displaced soil. Dirt can be found under your fingernails or tracked into your house. But if it's outside, it's still soil. \n\nOk, answers: \n\n > Where does all this dirt come from and how long does it take to build up? \n\nSoil comes from all around us. It's made of rocks, minerals, living stuff, and dead stuff. It stacks up over time. It will stack up faster depending on the nature around it. Many times it's by water because humans like water and tend to live around water. Soil moved and deposited is called \"sediment.\" A lot of lost buildings and objects are due to water moving soil around. It's kinda natural because once the building has been flooded with soil, people tend to either move away or build on top of the flooded spot. It's easier than digging the old building out. \n\n > When will different things from our time end up buried? \n\nThis can be answered by the next question. But short answer is if we stop upkeep on our buildings or let nature take course, anything that's not a stone or plastic structure will likely degrade and fade away into history. Even metal structures will rust away.\n\n > Why do some buildings (ex: some castles) seem to avoid this?\n\nPeople. It's because of people. Castles tend to have some upkeep. These castles are constantly inhabited and the people there will try to keep the dirt and soil out of their home. Most castles are built somewhere high and away from elements that allow soil and sediment to accumulate. This is a defensive measure as it's harder to attack a fortress on a hill.\n\nWhat about the ones buried? Back to the elements. If they were built too high or near a mountain, the mountain can have debris flow and cover the castle. \n\nWhat about underwater? Well, then some sort of ecological change has happened. Either the nearby body of water has decided to flow and submerge the building, or that the rising ocean has reclaimed the structure. This happens due to poor surveying and general builder's arrogance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
53g03l
|
how devices detect faces in photos
|
Just going through the People album on my iPhone and wondering how devices detect faces in photos
There are so many different things that devices have to take into account such as skin colour, people having different placements of eyes, nose etc, spots and such things. How do devices detect faces in photos?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53g03l/eli5_how_devices_detect_faces_in_photos/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7svesp",
"d7svj3m"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a few techniques but here are three of the most common. I am talking about detecting the presence of a face or faces anywhere in the photo. This is a much easier problem than identifying who the person in the photo is!\n\n# The simple way\n\nImagine simplifying a face to an arrangement of coarse dark and light rectangles. Like if you had to make a face picture out of Lego. So the eyes might be two dark rectangles (because of the shadow of the brow). This is your proto-face. ([example](_URL_4_))\n\nThen, you are running this program on a mobile which means it's got to run quickly. Ideally you need to find the face as fast as images are coming from the camera, so you can put a rectangle round the face and display to the user in real time. This means you have about 1/20 of a second to find it.\n\nSo you can't go left to right, top to bottom over all pixels multiple times looking for this arrangement of dark/light rectangles in every possible position.\n\nThere is a clever short cut to doing it faster: you look at every pixel in the image in order, left to right, top to bottom. For each pixel you look at, you add its total brightness to a counter (let's say a number 0-100 where 100 is white and 0 is black) and save this counter. So now you have a new image where the top left pixel has a low value, and the bottom right pixel is the sum of all pixels in the original image.\n\nThe new image made out of sums of pixel values is called an [integral image](_URL_1_).\n\nNow the integral image gives you a cool trick: you can quickly calculate the average pixel value for any rectangle by taking its bottom right integral pixel value and subtracting the top left integral pixel value, the dividing by the number of pixels.\n\nYou do this over lots of candidate locations for the face in the image. So to test if a given area is dark or light you need only to subtract two pixels which is very fast. When you find a match for all the rectangles that form the face in the right position, you decide it's a face and mark it on the original photo.\n\nThis method is called a [cascade classifier](_URL_5_).\n\n# The slightly more complex approach\n\nYou can define a list of pixel arrangements that look like eyes, chin corners, etc. So if you looked at a given sub-section of your image in isolation you would know that this or that part is probably an eyebrow. [Check the screen shots here](_URL_8_).\n\nYou write a program to quickly run over the whole image and check for these patterns. If it finds a facial feature you save it.\n\nWhen you've found enough facial features you check their relative locations in the image. Obviously if they are wrongly arranged then you haven't found a face but if they slot together correctly then you can be sure there's a face present.\n\nThis method is called *facial feature detection*.\n\n# The state of the art\n\nInstead of looking for dark and light rectangles imagine walking a template or stencil of size 7 pixels by 7 pixels (for example) all over the image, left to right, top to bottom.\n\nThis stencil has numbers which you have calculated beforehand inside each of its 49 squares. For every position of the stencil you multiply each number in the stencil by the number it's covering in the photo. You put these values in a new image.\n\nYou would actually apply lots of these stencils to an image and produce lots and lots of new images as the output from the stencils. Each new image has a slightly lower resolution than the original image, and contains information about which pixel patterns were found. They could be vertical lines, corners, etc.\n\nYou apply this process of walking stencils to the new output images again and again. Maybe 20 times.\n\nAfter applying this lots of times the stencils are still detecting lines, curves and corners in the output from the previous stencil, however these patterns correspond ultimately to an entire face in the original image. \n\nThis approach is called [convolutional neural networks](_URL_2_).\n\n# How the phone does this\n\nModern phones actually don't usually have any of these algorithms written in as a normal program. Rather a special circuit board has been printed which is designed to detect faces as fast as possible. This is called [system on chip](_URL_3_). They mostly use a [combination of the first and second methods](_URL_0_) which I mentioned but [are moving towards the neural network approach](_URL_7_).\n\n[Here](_URL_6_) is a description for example for how to use the on-chip face detection on Android devices if you're developing an app. So all Android phones currently provide this functionality and it's normally on chip although not necessarily.",
"It's quite a complex process. Step 1 is to look for areas of skin colour. You can handle different races here by looking at hue and ignoring brightness. These are the same no matter your skin colour.\n\nAfter that you find shapes that are roughly ellipses. These are possible locations of heads. \n\nIn these ellipses you will find areas of contrast in the right places. These correspond to eyes nose and mouth. Based on closeness to expected positions and contrast, you can come up with a score of how likely it is to be a face. Anything that scores above a threshold is considered a face.\n\nThese days the algorithms try and identify people. This is usually done by the position and size of these features. Tends not to be too good at the moment. People are working on it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://visagetechnologies.com/face-detection-tracking-chips/",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summed_area_table",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip",
"http://opencv-python-tutroals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_images/haar.png",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_classifier",
"https://developer.android.com/reference/android/media/FaceDetector.Face.html",
"http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/farabet-iscas-10.pdf",
"http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Components-Libraries/Luxand-FaceSDK.shtml"
],
[]
] |
|
ehm1vy
|
why does cilantro taste bitter like soap to me?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehm1vy/eli5_why_does_cilantro_taste_bitter_like_soap_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fck0dr7",
"fck0v3z",
"fck40im",
"fckbb6h",
"fckblsu",
"fckjrmj",
"fckkjft"
],
"score": [
15,
228,
5,
2,
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There is some sort of genetic defect or trait that literally makes cilantro tastes like soap to some people",
"Expanding on the other guy, yes. It is genetic.\n\nCilantro and other members of that family including carrots, celery or parsley have a specific chemical that acts as a deterrent to wild predators eating it. Basically, it tastes bad to animals so they leave it alone.\n\nHumans have generally evolved OUT of being able to taste or detect that flavour, but once in a while someone will be born with that genetic code (The OR6A2 gene) that allows them to taste the bad chemical.\n\nThat is you and also me and nearly everyone in my family.\n\nLikely, if you hate the taste of cilantro, you will also find celery and carrot tops (just the tops) very bitter as well.",
"You ever heard of X-Men? You're a mutant. Something inside of you 8s different from other people and that's ok.",
"Yep, it’s genetic. My mother-in-law is like you. Same thing for bitterness in beer for example. Predominantly in people of Asian and Native American descent.",
"I thought you might want to see this story from NPR . \n\n Love To Hate Cilantro? It's In Your Genes And Maybe, In Your Head : The Salt \n\n _URL_1_ \n\n Sent from NPR One. Download now: _URL_0_",
"When people say they hate cilantro, they often attribute this food feeling to a soapy aftertaste. Thanks to a new video from SciShow, we finally know whycilantro tastes like soap for some 4-14 percent of the population.\n\n\"How cilantro tastes to you has a lot to do with your genes,\" says SciShow's Hank Green. He explains that after conducting a few separate studies, scientists were able to pin down most cilantro haters as people with a shared group of olfactory-receptor genes, called OR6A2, that pick up on the smell of aldehyde chemicals. Aldehyde chemicals are found in both cilantro and soap. Uh, yummy?",
"There is a genetic pre-disposition to pick out the aldehydes (soap flavor) but I think if you eat it over time, you gradually lose it and can enjoy the flavor. \n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://read.nprone.app/download",
"https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/09/14/161057954/love-to-hate-cilantro-its-in-your-genes-and-maybe-in-your-head"
],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/dining/14curious.html"
]
] |
||
1np5et
|
what is "drug face"? why does excess use of drugs and/or alcohol for a prolonged amount of time cause people to share similar facial features?
|
You know when you see someone and you can just TELL they've had a rough life and it always comes out that they have/had a substance abuse problem? I'm not talking about the way a drug like meth can mess up a face, I'm talking about certian discreet facial features, mostly around the mouth area.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1np5et/eli5_what_is_drug_face_why_does_excess_use_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cckot4c",
"ccksmdk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Good question. I'm just commenting because I want to come back for a good answer.",
"I think its because they loose most if not all their teeth, causing a similar pursing of the lips."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33gqnn
|
how does an object with mass increase its gravity when its density increases?
|
I'm always asking this question in my head whenever I watch some videos about black holes(I'm a visual learner), neutron stars, etc. Any object with a physical radius smaller than its Schwarzschild radius will be a black hole, which means more gravity the more denser.
Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33gqnn/eli5_how_does_an_object_with_mass_increase_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqkpjyh",
"cqkpmwd",
"cqkptck",
"cqkq1j9"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Gravitational attraction is a function of mass and proximity to the mass. \n\nIf it is denser you can get closer to more of the mass and so feel more attraction.\n\nImagine a wave machine. At the centre the waves are really big and as they get further away they die down because the energy is spread out. The water park has lots of wave machines but you can't feel the far away ones very well. If you brought them all together you'd be able to feel a massive wave.",
"The gravitational force an object exerts on unit mass is GM/r^2 where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the body and r is the radius (considering its a spherical object). If mass remains constant and density increases, volume will have to decrease. When volume decreases, the radius of the object will also decrease, increasing the gravitational force.",
"It doesn't. It allows you to get closer to it, and it's that distance reduction that increases the force of gravitic attraction.\n\nThe basic gravitic (attractive) force between two objects can be calculated by a mathematical formula that multiplies their masses and another number, and then divides by half the distance between their centres of gravity twice. So the greater the distance, the weaker the gravitic attraction.\n\nTo increase gravitic attraction, you can either add mass or decrease distance. And increasing density of an object by compressing it allows you to get the two objects closer together, decreasing that distance. \n\nTo visualize this, compare standing on our sun with standing on a neutron star of the same mass. Our sun has a radius of about 700000km. So if you're on the surface of it, the \"radius\" in the above equation which you divide by twice as part of the force calculation, is a really big number. But the radius of a neutron star that would have the same mass as the sun would only be 11 kilometers or so! So if you're at the surface of one versus at the surface of the other, instead of dividing the force due to gravity by 700000km TWICE, you're dividing by only 121km (eleven times eleven), and as a result you have a much much larger force due to gravity at the much denser neutron star's surface. (My math says four quadrillion times stronger, but I don't trust it.)\n\nEven if you fly somehow to the centre of the sun, the gravity actually becomes less, because all the mass of the sun behind you is attracting you as much as the mass in front of you, so it all cancels out.\n\n**TL;DR - Gravity increases as distance decreases. Dense objects allow you to get a lot closer to their centre of gravity, so their gravity attraction is stronger.**",
"There are three different ways to measure matter:\n\n * Mass - how much material (atom for atom) is actually in the object\n * Density - how tightly packed that material is (i.e. how close the atoms are to each other)\n * Volume - how much space the object takes up.\n\nGravity is really a function of mass. It just appears that gravity increases as a function of density because the closer you get to the mass, the stronger the gravity, and you're closer to more of the mass when you're next to a dense object than you are when you're next to an object of identical mass, but of less density and greater volume.\n\nThink of it this way - we'll take two bodies - the earth, and then a copy of the earth that's been compressed down to the size of a basketball.\n\nWhen standing on the normal earth at the north pole, the gravity being exerted by the chunk of mass around the south pole isn't affecting you as much as the gravity being exerted by the ground under your feet at the north pole. \n\nBut take all of the earth's mass and condense it down to the size of basketball, then stand on it, and all that gravitational force is right under your feet, meaning you'd feel much more gravity, and you'd be crushed. \n\nA less dense object spread over a large volume spreads the gravity around a lot more. A much denser object of the same mass but a much smaller volume will concentrate all that gravity to a point. In other words with the basketball sized earth, you're standing closer to more mass, and are therefore being acted on by more gravity. \n\nSo it just seems like it's exerting more gravity, but it's not, it's just more concentrated. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fxzpk5
|
why can't the sperm of other species fertilize human eggs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fxzpk5/eli5_why_cant_the_sperm_of_other_species/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmxixz9"
],
"score": [
76
],
"text": [
"Imagine you are a factory that makes cars. In order to improve the company and make better cars, each time you open a new factory you take half of the blueprints for cars from two other factories and combine them. Each factory takes their instruction book, takes random pages until they have half a book, and sends them to the new factory. There, they are put back together with all of the pages in order to make a new instruction book. The instructions are always very similar, but sometimes they say things like use a 3/4\" bolt here instead of a 5/8\" bolt; or, increase the thickness of this part of the frame by 1/16\". And, sure, sometimes it doesn't work quite as well, and those cars don't sell very well so that factory gets shut down and you don't use any of the instructions from that factory when you build a new one. But just as often you end up with a better product.\n\nPlus, you can't predict what conditions the cars will have to face. So maybe there's a particularly rough winter and they put down a lot of salt on the roads, so by adding that 1/16\" to the frame the car lasts longer!\n\nThis is what sexual reproduction is all about. The sperm and the egg each have half of the instructions, and by mixing them that way you are hopefully getting the best traits from both the mother and the father. To make it a little more complicated, in reality each \"half\" is actually has all the instructions for a \"car\" and when you put them together, you're doubling up. But that works out, because maybe one page of the instructions is totally unreadable. That's fine, you've got a second copy of that page to work from!\n\nBut in order for this to work, the instructions have to be pretty close. You can't combine instructions for how to make a 4-door sedan with a [Ferd Fteenthousand](_URL_0_). Sure, they are *almost* the same - they both have four wheels, two front doors, an engine of some kind... But you'd be following along in the book on how to install the rear doors of the sedan when suddenly on the next page the instructions are telling you to install a truck bed. Your factory - being mindless machines that follow instructions exactly as they are given - will try to do both and you'll get something that doesn't work as either a sedan or a truck. And then it tries to install a truck engine in the front and it doesn't fit and it doesn't connect to the drive shaft at all, so it can't even run. It completely falls apart as soon as it's put together and never even drives off the lot.\n\nOr maybe you try to mix similar-looking 4-door sedans! But they come from different manufacturers. They both need rear doors, but in one version of the instructions they put them on page 20 but in another they put them on page 30, and instead they put the instructions for building the engine on page 20. So even though they both have almost the same parts, how to build those parts is not done in the same order so when you mix them it just doesn't work.\n\nSimilarly, when you try to combine sperm and eggs from different species of animals, the instructions built into the DNA don't match up and the cellular machinery gets very confused and tries to do completely different, incompatible things. In fact, most cells have some built-in parts of the instructions that protect against even *trying* to combine them. If the genes don't match up, the newly fertilized egg destroys itself rather than waste resources trying to build an animal that can't be built.\n\nNow, if the instructions are close *enough* then sometimes you can still combine them. Say you want to mix two different models of 4-door sedans from the same manufacturer so they are similar, but they're still different models and have some totally different features. But they mix well *enough* to give you a fully functional, if strange car. In fact, maybe it even works *better*! However, there's a big problem when you try to build the next factory using half of that factory's set of instructions. See, one model you used came with 46 pages of instructions, but the other came with 44. You divided them in half each and put them together, so 23 and 22. Your new hybrid model has 45 pages. That's a problem, because 45 is an odd number and you can't divide it into an even number of pages, so you can't send *half* to the new factory. You can try, sure, but the instructions you come up with won't have matching page numbers anymore. So even if they're similar, one page will be instructions on how to install the door and the next will be instructions on how to install a wheel. Even though you need both of those things, they are in the wrong place so your machines try to install wheels inside of the doors.\n\nThat's what happens when you get hybrid animals like ligers (lion+tiger) or mules (horse+donkey). Their genes are similar *enough* for them to work, but they don't have the same number of chromosomes. When those hybrids try to have babies of their own, their chromosomes don't divide evenly so the babies get built a little wrong and can't survive.\n\nHumans are the only species in our genus. Even our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos, are [probably] too different from us so mixing our instruction books just won't work. Probably. It *might* work with chimps, but the scientific community very reasonably responds to the suggestion of trying to create human/chimp hybrids with a resounding \"Ewwwwwwwwww!\" so it has *probably* never been tried. There are claims that it was tried in Soviet Russia at one point, but those claims are impossible to verify and no one is trying very hard to verify it because, again, ew."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8P5vGcf-NU"
]
] |
||
43na23
|
how does google make money on apps such as google classroom, which they advertise as free and say they don't use advertisements.
|
It appears to me that Google offers many "free" services, such as Google Classroom and Google Scholar. These don't appear to be heavily populated with advertisements, so how is Google able to monetize this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43na23/eli5_how_does_google_make_money_on_apps_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czjgqyo",
"czjgs0z",
"czjgzi6"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe they are making there money other places;like their new wireless company, New Google fiber Internet, and nexus devices that but given the apps and other gifts is to build brand loyalty. ",
"YOU are the product. When using any Google service, be it search, maps, etc, they are constantly mining your web surfing habits. This allows then to tailor fit advertisements based on what's going on in your life at the moment and who you are. Advertisers are always willing to pay more if they know their ads are effective and personal ads are the most effective of all. ",
"Some of the services a company like google offers are truly free. It's possible they aren't making much or any money on it. Why they do this is to give their brand more recognition. If you make google programs available everywhere then people get more comfortable with google's programs and platform. Then when people have to pay for a program later on and have a choice they are already comfortable and know of googles programs, along with the fact that if they pay for the Google program compared to say, Apple's program all the free google stuff they have will integrate with the paid program, making people more likely to get the google option. \n\nI don't know the specifics of these free programs, but companies that offer 'free' products with no advertising often also collect a ton of information about the users and then sell that info. It's extremely valuable to have that kind of info on a large number of people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4fwvp1
|
why does britain still honor the queen/royal family?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fwvp1/eli5why_does_britain_still_honor_the_queenroyal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2cotyx",
"d2cpas7",
"d2cqac9",
"d2crznk",
"d2cstd3",
"d2ctbzn",
"d2cv0cj",
"d2cv6ew",
"d2cw4rn",
"d2cwysr",
"d2cwzmh",
"d2cxwsf"
],
"score": [
7,
41,
21,
4,
3,
42,
3,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Perhaps less than some might find worthy, these things being a sliding scale to say the least. But in this case, there's the Queen (then Princess) driving ambulances in WWII. Every member has served with distinction in the nation's militaries (and not sidelined either- Prince Harry was made a helicopter pilot because a helicopter is as much a target as a Prince in Afghanistan).\n\nSo the simple fact that they aren't exactly a \"do nothing\" bunch, combined with good ol' tradition means they're honoured by at least some of the realm.",
"1. Officially, the power of Britain's government is granted by the English Crown. Abolishing the crown would also technically means abolishing the power behind Parliament.\n\n2. They tried getting rid of the monarchy once. [It didn't work out so well](_URL_0_).\n\n3. The British royalty (particularly the queen) is well loved, acts as great PR for the country, and brings in massive amounts of tourism.\n\n4. There isn't any particular desire or rush to abolish the crown in Britain. The family that has the crown (with some interruptions) has been ruling England for a *thousand* years. To get rid of the crown would be to get rid of a core part of Britain's national identity.",
"- Cost's 40 million pounds to maintain, directly brings in 200 million pounds not including tourism. \n\n- Land",
"Whatever their faults they are a better figure head for Britain than a president. Without Her Maj on the throne these past 20 years we would probably have seen a President Thatcher & a President Blair. \nDoesn't bear thinking about. ",
"In modern times, it's more of a there's not enough of a call to end the monarchy, so they've kept going. In fact there's been much talk of should HM Elizabeth II be the *last* monarch in Britain? More to end the debate of why does a monarch still exist more than anything. \n\nAs people have mentioned they do cost to maintain, but they also bring in money in one way or another. Tourism, royal properties, royal events ect ect. They also do an incredible amount of charity work, both directly helping and raising money. A short google search didnt yield the exact amount I was looking for, but I heard on national radio yesterday that Prince Harry alone raised around £100 million in 2015. You could argue that this would continue if they became only celebrities rather than official royalty though. \n\nAnother final positive point I can think of is that most if not all of the prime ministers that have served Liz in her senior years have given her incredible praise in terms of her helping them begin their governing, so she helps in that respect too. \n\nPersonally as a brit myself, I'm ambivalent towards the whole thing. I'd quite like to see the crown pass to Wills and Kate, but my only fathomable reason is just to see it carry on and it's quite unique, and they dont really effect anything anyway. But I could quite easily see it undone again for no reason other than there's not much point to them and it's an incredibly old fashion. \n\nTL;DR There's pros and cons, they do a lot but you could argue they could whether they were royalty or not. It may very well end soon after Liz pops her dear old cogs",
"It can be better to have a \"politically neutral\" Head of State, like the Queen. The Royal Family are meant to be neutral when it comes to British Party Politics. If it is politically unwise for the Prime Minister to meet someone, the Queen or another Royal can step in. \nFor instance, the snubbing of Obama by the Saudis on his recent visit has been seen in Europe as politically uncomfortable or damaging to him. If the UK is having political difficulties with another country, we can send a Royal first to pave the way. \nSimilarly, the UK can choose to snub visiting dignitaries by either only letting them meet the Queen: \"Thanks for the visit, great to see you, we're not interested in talking about what's important to you; have a nice cup of tea and a slice of cake instead.\" or by only letting them meet the Prime Minister: \"Thanks for the visit, great to see you, you're not getting any tea and cake until you sort this out.\" \n\nThere are many negatives, however.",
"They're not a big deal, they're just there. I mean sure there are some people who really like them but the majority don't really care. We just get a day off when one of them gets married. But it was the Queen's 90th birthday yesterday so there was some stuff on tv about it but that's about it really.\n",
"What do you mean when you say that Britain \"honours\" them?\n\nDo you mean:\n\n*\"Why does Britain permit this family of otherwise ordinary people to own huge estates of land, and why does it vest that one person (the Queen) with the power to veto laws?\"*\n\n* Their Constitution permits it.\n* It might help if I explain the interplay between the **theory** and the **practically reality** of the British (and Australian, Canadian etc.) constitutional monarchy system. \n* **Theoretically**, under the British Constitution the Queen makes the laws \"on the advice of Parliament\". She makes a law *a law* by giving it her \"assent\" -- the \"magic touch\" by which it becomes a binding law of the land. So yes, in theory, she could withhold her assent (and thereby exercise, in effect, a veto power) against the advice of Parliament by just \"ignoring\" the advice. \n* So what happens in practice that is different from the theory?**Practically**, the Queen **has never and will never** go against Parliament's advice when it comes to making laws. Her assent is essentially a rubber stamp. (Note, in this context Parliament expresses its \"advice\" by voting in favour of a proposed law.) \n* This unspoken arrangement between the Queen and Parliament -- where the Queen *could* veto laws but doesn't -- is called a **convention**. Constitutional conventions such as this are never broken, and if the Queen ever did it would almost certainly cause Britain to remove the monarchy entirely. \n\n*\"But why do we need the Queen's assent at all? Why doesn't the UK just make a system where once a law is passed by Parliament it becomes *the law*? Why is her assent necessary?\"*\n\nWell thanks to the convention, they kind of do have that system anyway. As I said, the Queen's assent is basically a rubber stamp. \n\nBut I take your point, why continue with this charade that the Queen has any power? This is where I get a bit hazy myself (I'm a Republican Australian, so I have sympathy for this argument). Due to the rubber stamp nature of the Queen's assent power (ie the convention), you can't really argue that it's a \"check\" on Parliament's powers.\n\nI think it comes down to the fact that human societies respect a rule as *a law* if it is seen to come from some \"higher power\" which infuses it with a form of \"divine authority\".\n\nHence why British society elevates the Queen above the status of an ordinary person. Respect for the Queen and the monarchy creates an environment in which \"her\" laws are more likely to be respected and obeyed. This in turn leads to a society with a strong respect for the rule of law (which is good, right?).\n\nYou could contrast the Queen's theoretical veto power against the American President's very real veto power. The Americans created a system with a greater focus on checks and balances. Just because Congress (America's \"Parliament\") passes a law doesn't make it \"law\". The President -- both in theory and in practice -- still needs to say \"okay, that's a law\" before it will become one. People have been arguing over which is a better system for centuries, but different strokes I guess.\n\nGetting a bit off topic here, but the \"aura\" of the Presidency is intended to have the same effect as the \"aura\" of the monarch in Britain. It's just that, rightly or wrongly (rightly in my opinion), the President's aura is derived (almost) directly from the people.\n\n*\"But what about the land and wealth the royals own?\"*\n\nThey are paid an allowance by the government for reasons connected to what I just said about creating an aura around them in order to enforce their authority. Also, they as a family literally own much of the land. \n\nHowever, \"out of the goodness of their hearts\" (not really -- the English Civil War and other developments over the centuries forced them to), they have ceded control of much of that land to government. Government calls the land owned by the Royal Family \"Crown Land\".\n\n*\"But why do the British people accept this elevation and special treatment of one family?\"*\n\nIt's cultural. That's how their society has come to work over many centuries. There isn't the public will to change it because (despite what some think) it works. By respecting the royals' authority, the British have eked out a system which has created relative political stability, peace and respect for the rule of law while also having democratic oversight in the form of Parliament's controls on what the royals can do. Why change that?\n\nIf it ain't broke, don't fix it. ",
"Symbolism and Money\n\nThere is no good reason to give up thhis institution, so Britain doesn't\n\nWatch [this](_URL_0_) video of CGP Grey. I feel like it explains really welll the practical reason to keep the monarchy. ",
"While it's true on paper that Parliament's power derives from the royal family, this is not really the reason... in a democracy, power derives from perceived legitimacy by the masses, and everyone agrees that Parliament is now the true legitimate source of political authority in Britain.\n\nBut even though they could get rid of the royal family, why would they? They're a powerful unifying force for patriotism and civic pride in Britain. I think that every democracy needs some sort of symbol like that that reminds everyone on both sides of the political spectrum that they're a united people... for the US it's the Constitution, for Britain it's the royal family.",
"I wouldn't say we 'honour' them. They serve a useful purpose and the advantages of keeping them outweigh the negatives in most people's eyes. The Queen herself is well-liked and the soap opera aspect of things entertains the tabloid readers, but I don't think many people feel strongly about the monarchy as an institution one way or the other. \n\n'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' could be a national motto for the UK. ",
"Day to day we don't really. They are a combination of a celebrity and a tradition. Imagine if one of those \"personalities\" like paris hilton was also a veteran and had political value.\n\n\nThe royals are as present in the mind of the avarage englishman as the kardashians are the mind of the avarage american, only with moderately less shame. \n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
36rklf
|
today, china's richest man lost $15 billion since his stocks crashed. where'd that money go?
|
Where dat penny?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36rklf/eli5_today_chinas_richest_man_lost_15_billion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crgfigk",
"crgfkqa",
"crgfkt8",
"crgflbm",
"crgflur",
"crh69t8",
"crh7mtb"
],
"score": [
12,
113,
2,
5,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"He never had the money; he just had stocks. We talk about having money when we have stocks, but we leave out the part where we'd need to sell them to get the real money. So he didn't lose $15 billion; he lost the *opportunity* to get $15 billion because he had a thing (stocks) that people would once have paid $15 billion for but now won't.",
"It doesn't have to *go* anywhere.\n\nImagine if you had a painting that you purchased for $13 billion—it's a very nice painting. Other people agree that your painting is very very nice. In fact, many people think that you got a good deal by buying it for \"only\" $13 billion and they make offers to buy it for $15 billion, but you're happy where you are—you want to keep the painting.\n\nAt this point you have $15 billion worth of painting. There aren't $15 billion sitting around with your name on it, but the value of your assets includes that painting which most people agree is worth a lot.\n\nThen one day people have a shift of opinion and decide that paintings aren't worth that much. Suddenly nobody wants to give you anywhere close to $15 billion for the painting. Perhaps the best offer is now $1 million—1/15,000 what it had been worth. You still have the same assets, but now your assets aren't worth as much.\n\nStocks work essentially the same way. You decide that you'd rather own stocks than money, but you still get to count the stocks as part of your net worth because you own them and they're worth money. Then one day people decide that they don't want those stocks very much and the value of the stocks crash without you ever losing any asset and without any money changing hands. The value of the stocks is just gone. ",
"Say you bought a Beanie Baby for $4. You expect that they will be worth $10. And for a while they are. People offer to buy that Beanie Baby from you for $10, but you hang on to it for a while longer thinking it might go up in price. But you wait too long. Now nobody wants it for $10. The best offer you have for it is $1 now. \n\nWhere did that money go? No where. ",
"It didn't really go anywhere. He never really had it, he had stocks, not money.\n\nWhen we talk about how much someone has in stock we talk about how much it would be worth if they sold the stock today. The thing is the value of stocks rise and fall. So he didn't lose anything. The stuff he has is just less valuable now than it was yesterday. No one necessarily ended up with that $15 billion.\n\nIt's like if you spent $1 million on a plane. If someone asked what you were worth you'd probably include that plane in how much you're worth. But if that plane crashed tomorrow, where did the money you had go? It didn't really go anywhere, it's just the things you owned that had value yesterday don't have as much value today.",
"Nowhere. Because a stock isn't money. It only turns in to money if you sell it.\n\nThink of it like this if you have a car worth $10000 and I smash it, and now it's only worth $100 dollar in scrap metal. Where id the did $9900 go? The didn't go anywhere, because you didn't actually have $10000, you had a car. And the car is only actually worth $10000 if you sell when someone is willing to pay that much for it.",
"Investing in a stock is like loaning someone money.\n\nLet's pretend you like the nice old man who runs the corner store. His store is struggling so you loan him $10,000 to get back on his feet.\n\nHe uses that money to buy new groceries to restock his shelves, put on a fresh coat of paint, and pay his employees.\n\nThe clean look, restocked shelves and extra help impresses the community. More people shop there.\n\nHe makes enough money to pay you back, and then some. Let's say it's $15,000. Now. You could have taken your $10,000 back as soon as he earned the money back. But you want to help him more.\n\nThe extra money goes into a sort of shared savings account. You could take your $10,000 out which is now worth $15,000 if fair is fair. But he can dip into it too.\n\nThe $15,000 grows into $20,000 then even $50,000\n\nBecause of your investment you're now \"worth\" a certain share of the $50,000 ... your original $10,000 plus a certain percentage of the remaining $40, 000\n\n***\nBut then one day there's a fire and he forgot to insure the store.\n\nLet's say he borrowed money to put groceries on the shelf. Or he owes someone money for advertisements that he put up.\n\nHe has to use all of the $50,000 to pay his debts.\n\nSo your original $10,000 plus the extra you earned, is all gone because you kept it in the shared piggy bank.\n\n***\nThis is what happened today, but on a much bigger scale.",
"That money never existed in physical form. It disappeared because his companies became less valuable. \n\nIt's like how the value of your car goes down as it gets older. The money doesn't go anywhere, because it didn't exist in the first place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4hvm73
|
why can't doctors 3d print a bone out of the original plastic stuff rather than have to find a way to do it with cartilage?
|
Sparked by [this article](_URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hvm73/eli5_why_cant_doctors_3d_print_a_bone_out_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2sov8l"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Your body is a very, very complex machine. A picky machine. If you get a transfusion with the wrong blood, your body will reject it, violently. If an organ transplant is mismatched or incompatible, your body may reject it, violently. It could potentially kill you.\n\nYour body hates having foreign material inside of it. Plates and rods have to be made so as to not be reactive to the body, and don't inhibit the function of the bone.\n\nA bone has marrow in it. This marrow is responsible for your blood, and plays a part in the immune system. Your bones interact with your circulatory system, and with your muscular system. If the material is foreign and dissimilar and gets rejected, the response from your body can be violent, even lethal. A bone printed from cartilage is natural, it can be matched to your body, and the body is much more likely to accept it. Muscle will be happier to interact with it, and it can function at least partially.\n\nThis said, I'm an engineering brat, not a surgeon."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a19443/3d-printer-bone-cartilidge-and-muscle/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
285k72
|
when you're hungover, why does standing up amplify the nausea/headache?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/285k72/eli5_when_youre_hungover_why_does_standing_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci7w0u8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Standing up decreases the blood pressure in your head. That activates a reflex that dilates the blood vessels in your head and neck. The purpose of the reflex is to maintain an adequate flow of blood and oxygen to your brain so you don't black out. The vascular dilation is accomplished by neurons (nerve cells) releasing adenosine, a neurotransmitter (signaling) chemical that dilates blood vessels.\n\nAdenosine can also cause pain. A tiny drop of adenosine placed on the back of the hand causes localized pain and a red spot. Excessive adenosine causes headache pain. Adenosine is the endogenous (originating within the body) cause of hangover symptoms. So the adenosine released by the reflex to dilate blood vessels in your head and neck so you don't black out when standing up is added to the excessive adenosine already causing hangover headache and nausea, aggravating those symptoms. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f345ip
|
why when you get a cut does blood show up because the way i picture it, blood is just passing through in veins. i don’t understand if there’s just a layer of blood or if the veins release blood.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f345ip/eli5_why_when_you_get_a_cut_does_blood_show_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhghkkf",
"fhghye4",
"fhgi9c3"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Blood doesn't just travel through veins. To get to the final stage, blood travels through capillaries. These are tiny blood vessels that allow blood to get all the way to all the cells that need it. It's kinda like if arteries and veins are the highways, capillaries are the little side streets in town that let you get to your friend's house.",
"Blood flows from the heart in arteries and back to the heart in veins. But throughout the body there are tiny capillaries that connect arteries to veins. They are kind of like a web of small tubes. This is where the oxygen leaves the blood to go to the cells of your body and is exchanged for carbon dioxide. Because every living cell in your body needs oxygen from the blood, and osmosis (the way blood delivers oxygen to the cells) is inefficient over long distances, there are LOTS of capillaries in every inch of tissue. These tiny blood vessels are usually the ones that get severed when you get a cut.",
"Your whole body is filled with a micro-network of tubes meant to bring blood to places. \n\nThe primary version we tend to think of is known as veins. These are “large” tubes that bring blood to all the places it needs to go. Each place it brings it to, though, has smaller distribution networks. They’re not really veins, just distributions centers to put that active stuff into places. \n\nThink of your body like a delivery system for mail. There are absolutely highways, like veins. There are slightly smaller veins that are more like roads. There are larger structures, like, arteries, that are like giant highway confluences. \n\nLet’s pretend that all traffic needs to hit every road somewhat equally, for the sake of convenience. This means that while the big trucks on the freeway or the overpasses probably aren’t going to the small roads, there are cars going there. So the result is that if you snip off part of a road, even a very small road, even a backwater road, the cars start to pile up and create problems and pollution. \n\nYou might ask what about the forests, where there are no roads. That’s a good question, but those forests are supplied with resources from the roads. They have no water if not for water from the roads. They have no food if not food from the roads. The end result is that even slicing up the forest results in resources being dumped. The roads supply resources, then the smaller roads supple resources, then maybe the local infrastructure moves it around. If there’s a hole in the system it’s just falling out of it; the system can’t stop the flow directly it can only send a “plug” signal that prevents the workers from pouring. \n\n#TL;DR\n\nImagine it as a system in which there’s no direct knowledge of what’s happening at any point until a problem occurs. The only response to that problem is to send blockades. \n\nImagine a sandcastle with automated plumbing. On the majority level the water is going where the pipe says. Except that some of it leeks into the neighboring sand just because. Some of *that* leeks into even further neighboring sand. This is fine because the system keeps things moving. \n\nIf you cut the castle, though, it might bleed randomly because it has no solid way to fix that except to dry up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
626t0v
|
why do talk radio shows typically start at 7 minutes past the hour?
|
Possibly relevant: I live in the central time zone, USA. I notice this with AM and FM talk radio shows. It sure seems less confusing to start a show at 6AM not 6:07AM. As another example top of the hour breaks typically run from around 10:58 to 11:07 (or 11:58 to 12:07, etc), at which point a given talk show will re-commence. What's going on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/626t0v/eli5_why_do_talk_radio_shows_typically_start_at_7/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfk5ur8",
"dfk6b1u"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Radio stations have to run X amount of ads in a programming hour. So instead of doing one ad every ten minutes they do 3 ads at the bottom and top of each hour , then they have less interruptions during discussions and can keep on topic better. In non talk radio they are able to play more back to back songs. Why top and bottom of hours? Because that's when people are more likely to take breaks and arrive at places so they are most likely to miss programing, but could still hear a 30 sec commercial, also provides the radio host time to fill out their logs and transition personalities.",
"* 10:58 to 10:59 = Commericials\n* 11:00 to 11:06 = News\n* 11:06 to 11:07 = Commercials\n\nThere are fixed breaks at the top of the hour so all the stations can run news/weather/traffic as they see fit. \n\nIn between that, some shows have floating breaks and some have fixed breaks, for instance at 20 past the hour. \n\nSome stations have a live person triggering the commercials to play and some stations are fully automated and a (non audible) tone will play which triggers the commercials to play at the local station. If this isn't aligned properly that is why you sometimes hear one commercial overlap another. \n\nThe available commercial time is split between local and national commercials. \n\nEven if it's a totally local show they usually stick to the same time format so as not to confuse any of the employees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1y9kyb
|
when you've been pulled over by an officer, why must they take so much time to do whatever they have to?
|
I know they have to call it in, run your plates and ID and all that, but surely they can do it much faster than they normally do. Is it just added punishment? Or is it simply "you've wasted my time by making me pull you over, now I'll waste yours."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y9kyb/when_youve_been_pulled_over_by_an_officer_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfiioh4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They are looking up your vehicle tags. Once they have your license they are also looking *you* up.\n\nIdea is that criminals tend to commit crimes. So perhaps you are speeding because the car is stolen. Handy info for the officer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2x5rdc
|
if time is the next dimension, and if time can be accessed in the fourth dimension, what is next in the fifth dimension? the sixth? the seventh? etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x5rdc/eli5_if_time_is_the_next_dimension_and_if_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cox5ara",
"cox5c9d"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Time is treated as a 4th dimension sometimes in relativity because of the concept of spacetime, where three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time are intertwined. In this context, there are only four dimensions.\n\nString theory has more dimensions (it varies depending on the exact version of string theory) but in that interpretation, time isn't the fourth dimension. All the multiple dimensions are dimensions of space.",
"Most mathematicians and physicists would rather say, \"time is (like) *a* fourth dimension\", not \"time is *the* fourth dimension\". Nobody claims that it's exactly like the familiar three space dimensions; it obviously is not.\n\nThere's nothing preventing us from studying geometry with four, five, or more *spatial* dimensions, which is what mathematicians typically do. Sometimes time is treated formally as a fourth spatial dimension, but it is still treated differently from the others, in what's called a Minkowski space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4jh4ng
|
how accurate or reliable is 'psychological profiling' in real life? and what does that entail?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jh4ng/eli5_how_accurate_or_reliable_is_psychological/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d36lv9g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In general, it can be useful but should never be considered 100% accurate, simply because of how humans can vary. The idea behind profiling is patterns. Generally speaking, human behavior tends to follow certain patterns. In a criminal sense, for instance, over years and years people started to notice that certain things tended to correlate with certain crimes (I.e. Rapists tending to stay within their own race, overkill [think over 100 stab wounds on a murder victim] generally points to extraordinary rage), and eventually it was possible to make an educated deduction of what the possible motivation was behind a crime, their race, intelligence, etc. Same concept that's taught in many fields; factors a, b, and c can in many cases indicate source d. \n\nIs it 100% accurate? No. Anyone with human behavior/psychology training will tell you that there is no specific formula of human behavior. Just because a rape victim is white doesn't mean the perpetrator is white, an individual who was molested doesn't mean they will become a sex offender, etc. It can be considered a useful tool, not a handbook. \n\nOf course like anything there can be huge limitations. Sometimes a profile is built off limited information and results in such a broad profile that it may not be of help. Obviously, a profile could be incorrect because of the \"doesn't always follow the pattern\" factor, and can cause blinders to possible suspects. Probably a major limitation is interpretation of profiles. A person may not understand that a profile is meant to be a helpful suggestion and may completely limit their scope to what's in the profile. There may be incorrect assumptions. Certain parts may be picked out to support someone's assumption of someone they believe is guilty and ignore others. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2bcnj8
|
why the earth is oriented as it is in maps and globes and how we know which way is up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bcnj8/eli5_why_the_earth_is_oriented_as_it_is_in_maps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj3zj5e",
"cj3zjj5",
"cj3zkt6",
"cj3zode"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't \"know\" which way is up, because there is no such thing. We just decided as a culture which way we wanted up to be, and so that's what it is. We could flip it all upside down and everything would function just the same.",
"Europe is at the top because Europeans didn't want to be on the bottom, that's all there is to it.\n\nSince the Earth's rotational axis is tilted relative to the sun the North and South poles don't line up with anything from a cosmic perspective anyway.",
"Up is towards the sky. Everything else is just arbitrarily agreed upon.",
"The earth's tilt was calculated relative to the sun, or so to say, we noticed the irregular path that we rotated on and \"Tilted\" the planet to simplify the rotation. The question \"How do we know which way is up\" is something we also did for simplicity. Technically ANY way is up, but the Earth's NORTH magnetic pole was defined as having been in one area while it's south was on the opposite end of the earth. So, one way is up and the other is down. Though like I said, this is done for simplicity; it helps in geography and navigation.\n\nAnd for those who are about to skewer me for saying anyway is up, let me point out that in space, there are no defined planes of geometry like up or down, it's any way you want it. We just pretend that there are planes there to simplify things (and it works)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3mucs6
|
can children who need organs get them transplanted from adults?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mucs6/eli5_can_children_who_need_organs_get_them/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvi5fm4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer is yes, longer answer is \"it depends on the organ and the specific patients\". \n\nThere is nothing inherent about organs from adults that makes them fundamentally incompatible with children. The liver very easily could be transplanted to a child, since you don't have to take the whole thing; you can just cut a small section and implant that. Kidneys as well are fairly flexible, allowing for different sized kidneys to not be a big deal. Something like the heart, however, may cause problems due to size mismatch, both in terms of physically fitting it into the chest cavity and messing with blood pressure and flow rate. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2codm7
|
how come the acid in my stomach doesn't kill me?
|
Acid + skin = bad.
So surely acid + internal organs = very bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2codm7/eli5_how_come_the_acid_in_my_stomach_doesnt_kill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjhf5xo",
"cjhf7du"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Your stomach has special cells that produce mucus to block the acid from destroying your cells. If something goes wrong with that process you get an ulcer.",
"Yes. However, the lining of gut is not only specially suited for highly corrosive contents -- special *epithelial* cells in the lining produce bicarbonate, which is basic (the opposite of acidic) which helps \"neutralize\", or counteract, the hydrochloric acid produced during digestion. Further, the lining also repairs itself extremely quickly. The average Epithelial cell only lasts 5 days, while the average lifespan of all the cells in your body (and there's a lot of variance between them) is closer to 15 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4xbmkv
|
is it worth it to buy the premium/higher octane gasoline option from a gas station, or is it a scam?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xbmkv/eli5_is_it_worth_it_to_buy_the_premiumhigher/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6e3jwe",
"d6e3z7a",
"d6e405z",
"d6e5i38",
"d6efkbh"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There's a really good explanation from a few years ago here\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"It's not a scam...if you have a vehicle designed to use high-octane fuel. Usually high-end sportscar-type things. 'Ordinary' cars don't need it though.",
"Look at the owners manual of your vehicle to see what gasoline it needs. If it says 87 Octane buy 87 Octane, if it says 91, buy 91. Putting 91 Octane in a engine meant for 87 is a waste of money.",
"It's not a scam. But most cars don't need higher octane. The only cars that need it are sports cars (due to their higher engine compression ratio) and old cars that have a heavy engine knock. (The gas is igniting in the piston chamber prematurely.)",
"Cars with higher compression ratio engines (mostly performance cars) need higher octane rating fuel to operate properly.\n\nI have seen ads by fuel companies that verge on the edge of fraud by claiming cleaner, smoother, longer engine life etc claims - which in general is false.\n\nIf your car specifics higher octane gas, you should use it. Obviously this needs to be considered before you buy the car. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/161inc/eli5_the_different_types_of_gasolineunleaded/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
69990x
|
the counter-argument to the nuremberg defense-" an order is an order".
|
How did they attack this argument? And does it still make sense?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69990x/eli5_the_counterargument_to_the_nuremberg_defense/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh4rp9u"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"How did they attack it? They rendered it null and void from the start:\n\n > \"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.\"\n\nThe defense was used unsuccessfully during the Nuremberg trials.\n\nAttacks against this defense have been applied inconsistently, and the general concept has been modified (most often to include requirements that the given order was unlawful and the soldier knew it was unlawful)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3g4jb5
|
how does the small amounts of cyanide seen in shows stop cellular respiration in enough cells to kill someone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g4jb5/eli5_how_does_the_small_amounts_of_cyanide_seen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctv1ljg"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Hydrogen cyanide attaches to the hemoglobin in blood, but doesn't let go, unlike CO2 oreven carbon monoxide. So, unless you get a shitload of oxygen AND a transfusion, you're dead!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
685egf
|
what is the determining factor of identical vs fraternal twins?
|
Some fraternal or sororal twins like nearly identical.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/685egf/eli5_what_is_the_determining_factor_of_identical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgvtbav",
"dgvtbt0"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Identical twins are one fertilized egg that splits in two. They are (initially) genetically identical.\n\nOtherwise there are two or more fertilized eggs that are genetically the same as a brother and sister.\n\nBasically with identical twins there's one egg/sperm payload - a single genetic combination - that splits after fertilization to create one or more humans.\n\nIt's also possible for a woman to have more than one egg in her uterus when fertilization takes place meaning more than one sperm can find an egg. In terms of genetics, this is the same thing as brother and sister (who share only around 50% of their DNA).",
"Identical twins are born when a single egg is fertilized and splits after dividing, and non-identical twins are born when two separate eggs are fertilized at the same time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bnu3ub
|
how does jeff bezos make money without selling his amazon stock? i know that his net worth is huge because of the stock value but he can't realize any of that without selling, which would mean he would eventually lose his controlling interest. i've heard he only takes a $89k salary per year.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bnu3ub/eli5_how_does_jeff_bezos_make_money_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en982hr",
"en9aj64",
"en9bqd7"
],
"score": [
13,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"He sells his amazon stock.\n\nHe has a shitload of amazon stock, nearly 79 millions shares, which he is slowly selling off so he has money for other ventures\n\nJeff Bezos hasn't had a controlling interest in a long time. He only holds about 16% of Amazon shares(~12% post divorce) so there isn't any risk to losing a controlling interest that he doesn't have.",
"First off: Bezos doesn't have a controlling share. I couldn't find anything more concrete, but [only 16% of AMZN stock is held by insiders](_URL_1_).\n\nThat out of the way, salary is only one component. Companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc give fairly large (in terms of dollar value) amounts of stock as part of their compensation package to engineers and executives. This is unlikely to be enough stock to make a big difference in his strategic position, and he could just sell those off. Also, this sort of company will always have a large performance-dependent bonus as part of compensation. It's unclear what sort of comp Bezos got, but his 2018 wasn't exactly small, [at $1.7M](_URL_0_).",
"He gets paid partially in stock. He then sells equal portions off quarterly after holding it for a year so that he pays capital gains tax instead of income tax."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Amazon-Com-Inc.html",
"https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders/"
],
[]
] |
||
41v02m
|
why do things like mersenne primes matter to anyone but mathematicians?
|
Disclaimer: I was an English major in college. I've always hated "performing" math but am still somewhat fascinated by mathematical developments like what I linked below if only for their own sake.
So [on Slashdot](_URL_0_) there was an article about the discovery of the largest Mersenne prime found to date - five million digits longer than the previous record-holder.
My question is this: Why do things like Mersenne primes and other exotic developments in mathematics matter to anyone who isn't studying math? Is there a practical application for a number like this? Just about all I can think of would be an exercise in computational muscle - "OUR new supercomputer can calculate such-and-such Mersenne prime in 10.78 seconds!"
To be clear, I'm not bashing such developments. I'm 100% alright with knowledge for knowledge's sake - God knows how long I've spent on /r/todayIlearned.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41v02m/eli5_why_do_things_like_mersenne_primes_matter_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz5b0ee",
"cz5dvo2"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There are lots of applications for primes in encryption. But as to Mersenne primes in particular I don't know. It's quite possibly pure mathematics, done for the insights it gives into the nature of numbers.",
"It is mostly knowledge for knowledge sake and bragging rights.\n\nIt has led to some advancements in number theory that could have practical applications. It has also served as a proof of concept for some distributed computing ideas, which are being applied to more practical areas, like protein folding."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/20/0137259/new-mersenne-prime-discovered-largest-known-prime-number-274207281---1"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jdoap
|
what is a syndicated show?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jdoap/eli5_what_is_a_syndicated_show/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbdn2au",
"cbdo117"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Syndication is basically reruns. It's when a station buys the rights to an already broadcast show. Often this happens for long running shows after they have gone off the air, but more recently it sometimes will happen with the earlier seasons of a still running show (if it goes long enough). Prior to DVD sales syndication was how TV shows made their real money (because they sold the show at break even prices the first time, to get it on the air). During that time, you needed to make it 5 seasons (roughly 100 episodes) to be picked up for syndication because they generally wanted the show to play each week day.",
"A studio (Warner Bros., for example) pays to produce a tv show and then licenses the right to air each episode exactly 2 times on a tv network (NBC, for example). After the show airs twice on NBC, Warner Bros. can sell the right to air each episode to any local TV station they want. You generally need at least 100 episodes or else they'll repeat too often. The studio and producers make the money in syndication (not the original tv network that aired each episode twice).\n\nThat's how Family Guy is on 4 times a day, in addition to the new episodes on the TV network Fox. They syndicated the episodes in each city, and the studio gets paid every time they air a repeat episode in syndication. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9rilu6
|
the reason for the recent drop in us stocks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rilu6/eli5_the_reason_for_the_recent_drop_in_us_stocks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8h6vf0",
"e8h8emw",
"e8hh042"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The stock market does not like uncertainty. We're approaching an election where the Democrats may take control of the House of Representatives. Generally Democrats tend to be anti-business and favoring more regulation and taxation. Businesses and investors do not like this, so they may be pulling money out of the market in anticipation of a drop after November 6.\n\nAlso in play is Trump's tariffs. The recent stock market surge could have been businesses and investors involved in transactions before the tariffs hit. Now that they're in place, sales and business has slowed down and businesses are not hitting their goals they forecasted in the last few quarters.\n\nAnd the market was due for a correction as well. We've seen record highs all year this year. Many people cashing out their earnings to secure them, rather than risk keeping them in the market where the value may drop.\n\nOf course there are millions of other reasons the markets are down, but those are the big ones that come to mind right away.",
"Interest rates are increasing which reduces the present value of future cashflows (stock prices).\n\nAlso, the effect of tariffs is inflationary which is addressed by central banks (i.e. Fed) raising short-term interest rates.\n\nInflation is the enemy of bonds. Investors who anticipate increasing inflation are paying less for bonds which increases long-term intetest rates.\n\nInterest rate increases across all maturities (short and long) will reduce the value of stocks because they represent the present value of future earnings (cashflow).",
"To list a small set of geopoltical reasons, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is also driving volatility on top of a badly designed tariff war between the US and China, and Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest source of oil bascially being caught redhanded in a murder plot, meaning oil prices may be at stake."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9fo2sw
|
why do captcha's always ask me to identify cars, crosswalks, and store fronts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9fo2sw/eli5_why_do_captchas_always_ask_me_to_identify/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5xy4td",
"e5xy88c"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe I read somewhere it's somehow helping machines learn how to identify those objects, but what the fuck do I know.",
"It serves two purposes.\n\n1.) To provide a task that can not be reliably completed by an automated program. \n\n2.) To train automated programs how to answer such problems wiyh human input.\n\nFor RecpatchaV2 check boxes, a site owner might demand the secondary verification (the question prompt) from all users, or a single user looks suspicious for whatever reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2u87oi
|
why can certain entities charge a "convenience fee" for paying by credit card when credit card company policy is that the price cannot be more when paying by credit card
|
title
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u87oi/eli5_why_can_certain_entities_charge_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co60m2n"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Straight up: these entities are violating their contracts with their merchant services provider. There is a maximum fee of $1/transaction that merchants are allowed to charge for Debit transactions, but credit must be the amount of the sale. I don't believe minimum transaction amounts are allowed either. Unfortunately, though, it's not easy to impose penalties on these merchants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a9wq67
|
when someone rubs their fingers together rather forcefully for a while, why does black residue start to appear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9wq67/eli5_when_someone_rubs_their_fingers_together/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecn4ioh",
"ecn4si0"
],
"score": [
10,
26
],
"text": [
"It are dead skins cells, plus salty sweat.\n\nIt's the (now dead) skin cells which have been rubbed off and rolled into small balls, which all clumped together and are visible because of the collective size.\n\n",
"The friction causes your epithelial cells to slough off and the oils combined with sweat and dust and whatever else you might have on your finger (or in the grooves of) accumulate into the dirty looking matter you're asking about.\n\nIf in the shower, you can also do this on your body. Some places (like the behind the ankle) are easier than others."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1vwxdn
|
how do companies that sell domains create them, if i decided i wanted to do there job how would i do it?
|
Like if I want to create a website I must buy a domain from a company that gets them how? Was confused by this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vwxdn/eli5_how_do_companies_that_sell_domains_create/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewmngl",
"cewn2cp",
"cewpyjb"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"From my understanding of domains, domain registration companies like Go daddy technically don't create a website domain for you. You submit a domain name, and if someone else isn't using it, they license that domain to you for a certain amount of time, then when that period runs out, it either expires, or you pay to renew it. So if someone has a domain that you want, you can buy it directly from them, or if they are not using it, just wait until it expires, then register it for yourself.",
"Technically the companies that you are \"buying\" the domain name from are not selling it to you. You are paying them to register the name for you with a governing body. These companies; like godaddy, name cheap, whatever are accredited by either the generic top-level domain registry (gTLD) or a county code top-level domain registry (ccTLD). If you wanted to get in on this, you'd have to get accredited by one or both of these agencies.",
"A group called ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) maintains servers all over the globe that tell computers where to look for a .com domain, or a .de domain, or a .us domain, or a .mil domain. Each of those top-level domains has a different *registrar*. The registrar is the organization in control of all the domains under that top-level domain, or TLD. I believe VeriSign controls .com and .net, so when you visit _URL_0_ or _URL_1_, your request (if we ignore all the caching and higher-level things in place) goes through ICANN's \"root servers\" to VeriSign's servers down to a high-level registrar like GoDaddy or NameCheap's servers, and this is where the actual information for the domain is stored - what IP to access for this domain, e-mail information, etc.\n\nICANN rarely adds new gTLDs (generic TLDs like .com, .net, .gov). Your best bet is to found an independent country, wait for international recognition, and then apply for a ccTLD, or country-code TLD, like .us, .me, .tk, or .es. ICANN has actually been looking at proprietary TLDs for awhile now, I am not sure what the application process is like but I'm sure it's not cheap. In the near future you might see TLDs like .apple, .fb, .goog, .nikon, .twttr, and .tumblr floating around.\n\nOf course, you could just apply to VeriSign and ask their permission to sell .com and .net domains. I believe the application fee is $2000, and you pay VeriSign a large portion of every domain fee collected. ICANN takes a smaller cut from each sale, a fraction of a dollar if I recall. Then you just need to get licensing for all of the over 100 gTLDs and ccTLDs out there, and you're 10% of the way to becoming a successful high-level registrar. :)\n\nMost new high-level registrars actually *resell* their domains from a company named eNom. NameCheap started out like this, I believe they are independent now however. Because eNom already has certification for most of the world's TLDs, you can sell their domains under your own name, for a fee of course. So the flow of money goes from the consumer - > you - > eNom, or other reseller - > VeriSign, or other TLD registrar - > ICANN, with everybody taking a cut of the pie along the way.\n\nSome TLDs out there offer free registration under them. I believe that the island of Tokelau (.tk) used to do (still does?) this, and there's an initiative to create a .free domain for, namely, free domains. I'm not sure what Tokelau's incentive is for doing this, I believe that they make significant amounts of ad revenue by parking ads on domains. dot.free is an initiative for Internet equality, but if ICANN's disturbing thirst for profit is any indication of what's to come, they probably will not succeed.\n\nTL:DR; Venture capital.\n\nI haven't been in the domain business for a few years and I'm sure that things have changed a lot. I will do my best to answer any questions you have, although I've never been especially talented at talking to children."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"reddit.com",
"comcast.net"
]
] |
|
eit3vw
|
why does a person feel more pain during a lethal injection execution than an animal being "put to sleep"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eit3vw/eli5_why_does_a_person_feel_more_pain_during_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fctca05"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because drug manufacturers don't want their drugs associated with executions, so they won't sell the drugs used on animals to the state for that purpose. The state has to scrounge up whatever lethal drugs it can that will do the job, and it's usually not the one that are least unpleasant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1bnccn
|
formal and informal fallacies
|
What exactly are they, and can your provide examples of fallacious arguments of both varieties?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bnccn/eli5_formal_and_informal_fallacies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c988hf0",
"c988jzl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A formal fallacy is an argument where the given information doesn't support the conclusion that is made. An informal fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the reasoning, but not necessarily with the logic.\n\n\nExamples:\n\nFormal Fallacy:\n\n > If a computer turns on, then it is working.\n > \n > \n > The computer is working.\n > \n > \n > The computer turns on.\n\n(The problem with this argument is that some computers will not work, but still turn on. It assumes that the premise is always true. This fallacy is called Affirming the Consequent.)\n\n\nInformal Fallacy:\n\n > Carbon Dioxide is a gas.\n > \n > \n > Carbon Dioxide is a solid.\n > \n > \n > All gasses are solids.\n\n\n(This is called a hasty generalization, and is a problem with the reasoning, not the logic.)",
"A formal fallacy is always wrong because of a flaw in the structure of the logic. An example is something like: \n1. If Jack is in San Francisco, then Jack is in California \n2. Jack is in California \n3 Therefore Jack is in San Francisco\n\nThis is fallacious. Being in California is a necessary condition for being in San Fran. That is, if you are in SF, you *must* be in California. But being in San Francisco is not a necessary condition for being in California. It is possible to be in California without being in San Francisco. It may be *incidentally* true, but you can't prove that someone is in SF just because they're in CA. \n\nAn informal fallacy is when your arguments fail to support your conclusion, usually because of a flaw in reasoning. As in \"It is a crime to cut someone open, and surgeons cut people open, therefore all surgeons are criminals.\" \n\nIf both statements are true (\"it is a crime to cut someone \" and \"surgeons cut people\"), then the conclusion should be true as well, but the person creating that argument has failed to take into consideration that there could be times when it is OK to cut someone open. The argument itself is fallacious, despite being technically valid.\n\nThere are many, many different kinds of of informal fallacies, and they can come up in various circumstances."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ahzbhj
|
why, at airport security screenings, do electronics need to be put in a separate tray? can't scanners see through a bag/luggage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahzbhj/eli5_why_at_airport_security_screenings_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eejmhqt",
"eejphcr",
"eejs0l0",
"eejwuuu",
"eejxnn6",
"eejy9l3",
"eejzcdy",
"eek2lp0",
"eek4367",
"eek9fbe",
"eekknrm"
],
"score": [
260,
97,
2774,
659,
153,
33,
2,
338,
19,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"They can, but when you have a lot of wires and circuitry all densely packed together things can be hard to see. Remember that the scanner only shows a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional bag.\n\nSo, they have you pull out the electronics and lay them in a single layer in one of the bins so they are easier to see on the scan.",
"Security theater. It doesn't make it any easier to spot a bomb, but it makes people feel like something is being done.\n\nSince the explosion of TSA regulation following 9/11, more terrorist attacks have been stopped on the plane than in the airport, because vigilant civilians see something off. \n\nThe logic of making you remove large electronics is that if you put your bag through and they still see large electronics you might be hiding something. Unfortunately, most TSA employees wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a MacBook and a bomb made to look like a MacBook, so it doesn't matter. In the end, it just makes people feel like they're safer.",
"Large batteries and metal bodies of your laptop/tablets block x-rays, making it hard/impossible to see other things in the bag.",
"I recall there was a short time after 9/11 when TSA rules required you to turn on your laptop to prove it was a real working device. So obviously that led to a \"laptops separate\" rule. Even when TSA stopped that particular requirement, they kept the \"laptops separate\" rules, probably for the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread (i.e., better scanner visibility, security theater).",
"Several reasons.\n\n1. Batteries are so dense that they blow out the contrast in the images.\n\nImagine you're in an unlit room with a window to a bright scene outside. If you try to take a picture of the scene outside, most of the room will come out dim. Try to take a picture of the furniture in the room, and the scene outside will be washed out. The same thing happens when they X-ray your bag. They can see pretty well inside your luggage but if there's a battery in there -- especially if it takes up a big chunk of the image -- they won't see much else as the system adjusts the exposure. And they really do want to see the details of the battery, too.\n\nYes, there are ways to address this without making me people use separate bins, some intersection of improved technology and better training, both of which cost money.\n\n2. There have long been suggestions terrorists intend to smuggle explosives onto an airplane by shaping the explosives to fit in a laptop battery compartment. So they're going to get extra scrutiny.\n\n3. It's still a lot of security theater. Somebody says We should scan laptops separately, and everybody says Ooh yeah, that's clever. Nobody wants to be the one suggesting it's unnecessary because What If?\n\n4. Horseshit VIP treatment. Get Global Entry or PreCheck or whatever and you can often leave your shoes on and your laptop in your bag. Like terrorists can't exploit that? But the TSA and airports and airlines love having this two tier system. It's literally in their financial interest to make it a hassle to get through security and on to a plane unless you pony up for business class or get their credit card or pay the Feds for the privilege.\n\n",
"Lots of incorrect answers here. Laptops have a certain CT scan profile (e.g. small or no organic profile) and when you put other objects on top of a laptop, that profile becomes mixed and you can't determine if it's the laptop that has organic material or the object on top.",
"Worked as TSA post summer 9/11 in Canada. You can see through them on x-rat but it does make it harder to spot other things due to the complexity of the system board and other components. Typically when I fly I put all electronics in a separate bin.",
"I am a manager for the TSA equivalent in another country. I can shed some light on this for you. The main reason they make you put your laptop or any other large electronic device (cpap machines, gaming consoles, etc) into a separate bin is because of the way the X ray machines work. They take a top down and side on image of your bag. The screening officers are trained to look for IED components by doing things like tracing wires to their source or finding timers attached to organic masses. So if you have a laptop with a book or a sandwich sitting next to it in your bag it can potentially look suspicious. \n\nThe other reason someone already mentioned here is X ray shielding. It is quite common for people to try and hide drugs etc behind dense metal objects like a battery or hard drive. That is also why you are sometimes required to turn on your device to prove it works.",
"I recently flew from Amsterdam airport & they told me I didn't need to remove my laptop, etc from my ruck sack. \n\nEvery other airport has me remove my laptop.\n\nJust finished 4 week work trip & my rucksack was packed full of wires, laptop, electronics and random garbage. They didn't even look inside.\n\nDo they have more advanced scanners or is the whole thing a waste of time in the first place?",
"Almost every policy at the airport security is to make you feel like it's more secure than it actually is",
"it's because the authoritarian police state the USA is slipping into requires you to do any mundane tasks you're told immediately otherwise you're a terrorist "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5xzdfv
|
why do some meats need to be thoroughly cooked (e.g. chicken) and others can be cooked to varying degrees (e.g. beef) or not at all (e.g. fish)?
|
In the context of food safety, that is.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xzdfv/eli5_why_do_some_meats_need_to_be_thoroughly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dem1aww",
"dem1mu9"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Risk vs reward basically - if chicken tasted great while served medium rare, we would wager that up against the chance of getting a salmonella infection.\n\nDuring times of serious outbreaks in cattle disease, certain parts, or temporary cooking measures are implemented. \n\nFish, don't really normally have these issues - but they do carry worms, that will die if you freeze them first. So we do that. ",
"Some bacteria can live in chicken (salmonella) that is not found in raw red meat. That's why you have to cook chicken thoroughly.\n\nFish and seafood have the [anisakis](_URL_0_) parasite, raw fish must be frozen on site at certain very low temperatures (double of your freezer at home) for the parasite to die. If it hasn't been treated this way, cook the fish, please. Ever heard of anyone allergic to fish or seafood? This is the reason. Think twice before eating the next herring. If it hasn't been frozen... \n\nFish sold for raw consumption must be labeled that way. Otherwise, don't take the chance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisakis"
]
] |
|
5tksxt
|
why can you "brick" phones so easily, but not computers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tksxt/eli5_why_can_you_brick_phones_so_easily_but_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddnaeg0",
"ddnanb6",
"ddnaww9",
"ddndngl",
"ddnem2m",
"ddneox2",
"ddnexo0",
"ddnf67w",
"ddnf915",
"ddnfft8",
"ddnhe4p",
"ddnhfmz",
"ddnho6i",
"ddni5j3",
"ddniu5w",
"ddnjs84",
"ddnm73k",
"ddnmp2f",
"ddnnt3t",
"ddo0icp",
"ddo0qbl",
"ddo41an",
"ddo60ea"
],
"score": [
5034,
551,
81,
23,
9,
21,
37,
9,
412,
21,
6,
2,
19,
271,
9,
5,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bricking generally means making completely unusable at the hardware level. The reason that computers rarely get bricked is that we RARELY do any manipulation of the computer at the hardware level. To brick a computer, you would need to break the BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) which pretty much no one non-techy messes with. If you break windows, you can still reinstall windows. If you break the BIOS, you can hose things pretty quickly.\n\nThe other aspect is that even with the BIOS, I can't think of ANYONE who would be messing around with the BIOS without using the official manufacturer's files. Most of the time you're messing with phones, you are doing so with custom firmware/ROM's, which means something made by someone other than the manufacturer. If you're flashing your BIOS, you're almost always going to be doing it with something provided (and quality controlled, tested, etc) by the company who made the product.\n\nSo it comes down to two factors: \n\n1) for computers, you generally don't tinker at such a deep level that you're going to risk bricking it\n\n2) Even if you are messing at that level, you're not doing anything that is not officially approved of by the manufacturer.\n\nThe final aspect is the fact that it's relatively easy to replace a computer (especially a desktop) part. If something in your phone breaks, 90% of us are just going to give up because it's so hard to replace. Most of the stuff that's likely to go bad is also easily replaced/substituted. I fried my sound card on one of my desktops a few months back, and for $10 I just plugged in a new sound card. If I killed the speaker on my phone, I'd say fuck it and just buy a new phone.",
"You actually can brick a computer if you manage to turn it off during a bios update for example. Android has something similiar to computers bios, called OEM bootloader. It is being run before the operating system, just like bios in computer. The thing is, if you want to replace the operating system in your computer, you do not need to replace or do anything at all with your bios. Bios by default allows you to boot from usb or cd/dvd and so you can judt install the OS freely. This is not true for android, most android phones are OEM locked, and their modloader often also disables ability to access recovery mode, which allows you to flash custom OS, just like booting in your computer. Here is the key part, you as an user, have by default full access to your computer as an administrator (you can install whatever program you want, do whatever you want with your pc, you can even overclock your processor), but for your phone you do not have administrator rights , so you are limited to the OS ans settings set to you by the company . To bypass this and gain full control of your phone, you need to do something called rooting a phone. Rooting can be dangerous as it most of the time takes replacing the bootloader. If you fail to replace the bootloader properly, you brick your phone, as it is unable to start even the loading process before OS. This is a hard brick. Soft brick is when the OS you flashed (installed) is broken and the bootloader can not load it, you can still just flash another. \n\n",
"The TL;DR is that messing with your phone happens on a lower level than messing with your computer.\n\nFor context, imagine if you suddenly had to start flashing a custom bios because the manufacturer made it so it could only run their flavor of Windows 10.",
"we live in a consumerist world and that means companies wont work together any more than they have to in order to maintain market dominance.\n\n**Phones can be almost if not entirely \"in house\"**\nphones are designed to be \"good enough\" so that they can be produced as soon, volumed, and cheap as possible =the components are designed to be entirely dependant on each other with very few if any redundancies.\n\n**Computers are less \"in house\"**\ncomputers are typically made by multiple companies often that compete with each other[phones also but to a lower degree] or simply by people like you and me SO because of this in order to keep a product relevant PC parts are by nature designed to be more robust and reliable because the components are designed for a much wider compatibility = less dependant on specific archetectures. Also its simply alot easier to replace components in a PC than in a phone because a PC doesnt need to fit in your pocket.\n\n**tl;dr:** phones sacrifice redundancy for convenience, pcs do the opposite.",
"Even if you \"brick\" a computer you only basically ruin the motherboard. The rest of your computer is perfectly fine, and all you would need to do is replace that component. Phones aren't repairable in that sense. ",
"It really is fairly hard to brick a phone. You still have to make a stupid mistake. But Android phones have 3 partitions they can boot from (fastboot, recovery, and system). Mess up all 3 and you have a brick.\n\nComputers can boot from the CD/USB drive as well as internal, you the only way to brick it is to mess up the BIOS (that screen that flashes before Windows starts booting). Which normal users don't touch. The BIOS is what tells the computer where to look for something to boot, and as others have posted, it is possible to update the BIOS and if you turn it off or somehow try to use an incompatible motherboard's firmware, bad things can happen. But newer motherboards have a recovery BIOS too, so those would be really hard to brick.",
"phones have good reasons to mess around with the hardware code - since they put in stupid things that prevent you from doing things that you want and that the device is capable of, and its pretty much a requirement to fiddle around with the OS\n\ncomputers there just isnt a good reason to. you dont need to do anything to the bios in order to install different OS versions and there are no real benefits that i can think of even as a techy. ive flashed a bios once and it was with software the company provided me. years of tech experience and it only required it once... but ive flashed every phone i had. \n\ni really dont think its that easy to brick a phone. ive never bricked one and every problem i ran into while flashing it was fixable. i think alot of the time its people just getting confused and throwing in the towel rather than them actually bricking it\n",
"Many motherboards have dual BIOS. So even if you screw one up you can boot into the other. \n\nI can understand why Apple doesn't do the same as their all about iron fisted control over THEIR ecosystem but it does make you wonder why premium handsets on Android don't offer such a feature, whats Samsung et al interest in protecting Googles ecosystem?",
"PCs are built with openness in mind. Meaning on a PC you can install different OSs, boot from different media, install different hardware and so on. It's all under the users control and if you screw things up, you just boot from a USB stick or DVD and recover easily. PCs are meant to be tinkered with and handle accidents well. Even for accidents in the mids of a BIOS upgrade many mainboards have ways to recover from that.\n\nPhones, tablets and game consoles are the complete opposite, they are locked down so that the user has little to no control about what is going on. Meaning a lot of tinkering has to happen in areas that the manufacturer didn't intent to be tinkered with or actively tried to prevent tinkering in. This means the tinkerer is walking a minefield and any error might put the device into an unrecoverable state.\n\nAll of this is not an accident, but by design. If manufacturers wanted to, they could make phones as easy to recover as a PC by letting the user boot from SDcard or access the internal flash storage via USB. Case in point, many bricked PSP could be recovered after people found out that booting from the memory card was possible via a modified battery. The feature was there all along, but not documented by Sony to prevent hacking.\n\nAnother issue is that even if the device allows you to recover, you would still need the data to put on the device to recover it. On a PC you have Windows install discs, Linux distributions and all that readily available to reinstall on a blank device. Getting the OS image for your phone might not be that easy.\n\nTo make things further more complicated, the ecosystem around those devices is not standardized and discoverable, which makes it hard to create software that works across different devices. A Linux distribution will work on essentially any PC, but you can't make a Linux distribution that will work as easily on every phone as all the hardware around ARM varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.\n",
"The real answer is that you *could* easily design a phone that was very easy to customize and very difficult to brick just like a computer. The reason this doesn't happen is that the cell network operators (who are the main customer of the phone manufacturers) don't want you customizing your phone. It is intentionally difficult to modify the phone. You must break through the manufacturer security to modify things. Cracking a device to do something it wasn't supposed to inherently comes with risk of breaking it. Computers are in a completely different market where customizability is important, especially to business and government customers. Expect computers for the consumer market to drift towards to difficult to customize end of the spectrum.",
"You can wreck a motherboard pretty easily if you go fundamentally changing the BIOS. I had a BIOS update go bad once. It took about 5 minutes to go from a happy beep telling me that an update was ready to \"shit, that was a $500 mistake.\"\n\n",
"Because you have limited control and access of a phone. On a PC you can easily fix most anything as you have much more control & access.",
"There are only 2 ways a computer can be \"bricked\" :\n\n1. The BIOS can be corrupted\n2. A piece of hardware can fail, whether due to mechanical damage (you slipped with a screwdriver while tinkering) or failure due to wear out/manufacturing defect.\n\nEither way, the fix is the same. For a desktop computer, you just identify the component that broke, order a replacement, and pop it in. The only form of failure that can cause permanent inconvenience is when the hard drive fails and you don't have a backup. If you messed up the BIOS, worst case scenario you can just replace the motherboard.\n\nSome motherboards put the BIOS on a socketed chip you can replace. These days, many motherboards actually have at least 2 copies of the BIOS - some let you switch to the other copy of the BIOS via a jumper, or more commonly these days, there's a bios you cannot alter that will kick in if the main one fails to boot or if you push a recovery button shortly after power on.\n\n",
"As others have mentioned you can brick a motherboard if you try hard enough. When I was a kid, I flashed a BIOS upgrade onto my dads machine, except I accidentally flashed the file for almost the same version (think XXXXX+ vs XXXXX Pro or similar) - and it totally let it flash, and upon rebooting, the machine was dead.\n\nSo I panicked, because like, it's my dads PC right and he's not going to understand what I was trying to do, he's just going to be mad. And I can't afford to buy a device to reflash the chip, nor did I have any idea how to make one, at the time.\n\nBut then I remembered my machine had the exact same motherboard, and took a look and, yay, the chip was removable. So I ask a bunch of random people on IRC if it would be sane/possible to boot my machine, get it all ready to flash the correct firmware, then while the machine is on, pull out the BIOS chip and replace it with the dead one, and flash it from the system that's already booted. This seemed to make sense to me, but they all told me it was stupid and would break the other one. (I've since found out that, obviously, I did not invent this idea, but hey I was really young, when you're young you came up with everything first)\n\nDesperate kids will do anything an adult tells them not too, though, so I did it anyway and it worked. Didn't get hit with a belt that day! : > ",
"How to brick your PC easy..\n\n1] Attempt to flash GPU with bad BIOS code, especially if its graphic card without backup BIOS [there are some that feature double BIOS, but dont worry its possible to brick them too]. Especially dangerous can be \"unlocking\" BIOS that gives either new functionality or tries to unlock unused parts of GPU. That can actually end really nasty way.\n\n2] Any BIOS flash of motherboard can end same way, especially if it contains some unsafe tweaks or wrong default voltage. 2v into vCore = dead CPU.\n\n3] Try to flash anything and get power shortage. Or just turn off PC.\n\n4] Do unsafe badly cooled overclocking.\n\nReality is that you can brick your PC [or parts of it] very easily, if you not careful in what you do. But it applies only to ppl trying OC or flashing stuff. Experienced people usually dont brick em and general public has no idea what I just wrote [so they safe too].\n\nIn some aspects its same, if you flash your cellphone wrong way it dies, if you do same with PC components, they might die too. If you do it in really bad way, you can kill more than just one component.\n\nIMHO, read everything you can before you try anything risky with cellphone or your PC. I think it usually helps.\n\n**TL:DR - You can brick PC same way as cellphones, just most people dont try same things with PC as they do with cellphones, cause they lack knowledge or will to attempt it.**\n\n*Side note: Why you would try to flash BIOS in PC? Well, BIOS upgrades for one. Unlocking full CPU power for another. For example some time ago, you could buy cheap Xeon CPU [Intel server processors] and with simple BIOS flash unlock option to overclock it as easily as mainstream [expensive] CPUs from Intel. Obviously not many knew that, which is reason why I still see those CPUs being very cheap in store.. :D*",
"PC manufacturers don't try to use the BIOS to lock end users out of their machine's functionality.",
"ELI5 ANSWER: For phones installing OS and other tweaks generally write data to flash chips (I THINK THEY ARE ROM) to open up the hardware more, that if corrupted can be very hardhard/IMPOSSIBLE to reprogram (bricked). For pcs hardware is very open and you can pretty much install what you want with no hardware reprogramming. \n\n(FIRST ELI5) ",
"It is actually fairly easy to brick a computer if you're trying to. On a software level it would be tough, but not impossible, you can mod BIOS or some hardware code if you intend to. \n\nOne time me and a girl were building computers in a shed and I explained how the term 'bug' came from bugs literally getting into circuit boards and frying them. Just then a large mosquito-hawk landed on the exposed motherboard and it fried the board and that forced a hard shut down, bricking the computer for all time.",
"Phones are rarely bricked by (power) users though.\n\nWhen things go wrong, you generally just get a *bootlooping* phone, or a phone stuck during boot, which is analogous to a computer that you would need to reinstall an operating system on. Bootlooping/startup hangs are somewhat common, but is not generally a big deal. I'm pretty sure all my phones have had boot hangs at some point or another, or appeared to.\n\nThe familiarity of the term 'bricking' stems mostly from fear of it happening due to the high cost, and the slightly greater chance of it happening to your phone, as you are replacing more software than on your computer if you were to reinstall its operating system.",
"I thought it was easy to brick a computer- you just smash the hard drive with a brick till it stops working...",
"I've bricked so many devices, AMA. My car's OS can even be \"adjusted\" but a friend talked me out of it because bricking my car would be brutal.",
"Well... My last Mac managed to brick itself doing an OS update. Apple told me to buy a new computer. That was when I got into building PCs.... Lol",
"That's were you wrong kiddo.\n\nIt's easy to brick a computer, just delete system 32.\n\nI mean, deleting system 32 makes your PC run faster."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4ddsbw
|
what is the difference between good and bad welding?
|
I saw the recent pictures of what looked like "good" welding, in that it was pretty, and that's about all I took away from it. What does it actually mean for welding to be good vs bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ddsbw/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_good_and_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1q0r7q",
"d1q0rm4",
"d1q7x5f",
"d1qbvz0"
],
"score": [
2,
23,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Welds can be bad for a number of reasons. You probably saw a \"tig\" weld, where wire was coiled over itself to make a cool braided look. A bad weld would be made my using too little or too much heat, either causing the metal to scorch and oxidize or the wire to not make a good structural bond.",
"I'm learning this myself as I continue practicing :)\n\nThere's alot that can make a weld good or bad. What makes a weld good isn't necessarily how pretty it is, it's mostly about penetration (among other things). Penetration is basically how good of a job you're doing making sure your welding rod is melting into your work material. You want it melting together, so they become one piece of metal, rather than just molten globs laying on top.\n\nYou can still make very nice looking welds with poor penetration - they'll look great but won't hold together.",
"Good welding doesn't break when put under loads that it was designed for. Bad welding does break.\n\nAn interesting tid bit is that one inch of good weld (manual metal arc weld) should be able to support one tonne hanging from it.",
"Welding can be very basic, joining two similar materials with a simple joint. \n\nOr it can be very difficult, joining two dissimilar metals or working with metals that require specialized training and materials. \n\nGetting a quality weld though tends to be the same for both approaches. The weld needs to penetrate and flow with the surfaces being joined, be free of impurities, the flow itself needs to be regular in spacing and thickness, and the right materials must be used. \n\nHaving even spacing, thickness, and flow is mostly technique. Being free of impurities, proper penetration etc are mostly about materials and practices. \n\nThe more critical the weld is, the less tolerance there is for impurities, stress fractures from unequal heating, weld penetration, flow etc. Some of the most critical welds are done using some machine assistance due to their consistent results weld after weld, for instance robotic welding in manufacturing. \n\nSometimes the weld is ultrasounded or xrayed to determine it's quality. You can imagine a highly critical weld like in an oil pipeline, or the heat exchanger in a nuclear reactor, there is no room for error. \n\nSome of the ways impurities are dealt with are preparing the area with a wire brush or solvent and thorough cleaning. De-mineralizing it, dehydrating it etc. Flux does a lot of this in less critical applications by being so attractive to oxygen and impurities that it sucks them up like a sponge. \n\nMore advanced welding like MIG, TIG, etc use an inert gas to create an envelope around the weld so that oxygen can't penetrate and weaken the weld. You still have to properly utilize technique in order to make sure the inert envelope was well placed, at the right pressure etc. \n\nThere are tons of details about each part of a weld but in general, these are the things that make a weld good or bad. How good or how bad it is will depend on the application, and how critical the weld needs to be. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7dldw6
|
i don't understand how it is possible to cool a car engine with air alone. so how does air-cooled engines work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dldw6/eli5_i_dont_understand_how_it_is_possible_to_cool/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpykn66",
"dpylghu",
"dpym0z9",
"dpymumu"
],
"score": [
26,
2,
11,
5
],
"text": [
"There is a lot of air, and the average temperature of the air is suitable for long-term engine operation. It's simply a matter of exchanging the engine heat with enough air. Even liquid cooled engines do this, they use a fluid to move the heat to a radiator and from there into the air. An air cooled engine simply does it directly. It uses fans to circulate a lot of air over an engine structure with fins to provide enough surface area to exchange the heat.",
"Imagine when you blow on a spoon full of soup to cool it. You are pushing air over the hot soup. Each little bit of air takes a small amount of heat away. So when the car is driving fast it has a lot of air blowing against the engine. All of the air carries a little bit of heat away. The colder the air the more heat it can carry away.",
"The main difference you'd see on air cooled engines are [fins](_URL_1_).\n\n\n[Lots](_URL_0_) and [lots](_URL_2_) of fins. \n\nWhat these do is increase the effective surface area of the engine by a *lot*. This is all surface area that's going to heat up when the engine gets hot, and so air going over those fins will far more effectively be able to pull heat away than if the engines were smooth and finless. \n\nOn a motorcycle, they just rely on the forward motion of the bike to send air over those fins and keep the air cool. In cars (like the old VW Beetle) there are ducts and fans that send air over those fins to pull heat away. \n\nThe problem is it's not as controllable. With liquid cooling you pull the heat away from the engine in a medium, in the usual case engine coolant, and then the heat is dumped into a radiator, which can be easily cooled either by movement of the car itself, or with a dedicated cooling fan. Plus water has far more capacity for heat than air. Air cooling once you get beyond a certain point (power level, heat output) stops being effective, which is where liquid cooling comes in. ",
"All engines are cooled with air. Engines with liquid radiators just take the heat from the engine into a liquid then into the air via a radiator.\n\nAir cooled engines just invite that air to blow directly over the metal of the engine. To increase the ability of the (air) fluid to remove heat from the lump of metal, the engine's metal will be finned to create increased surface area for the air to blow over and absorb heat from.\n\nAlso, something I think people don't think about: the car engine will still be really, really hot. It will just be 'cool' enough to not overheat. So yes, the air is 'cooling' the engine--the engine is 'cooler' than it would be otherwise. But you hear 'cool' and think \"cool to the touch\". That's not happening, same as with water-cooled engines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://autowpaper.com/images/trabant-601-engine-2.jpg",
"http://www.justkampers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/800x400/565c3eaef733270ddeba43bc3f80484c/J/1/J10469-0_17.jpg",
"https://sc02.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Rw6vMVXXXXc1XXXXq6xXFXXX5/150cc-motorcycle-engine-for-Honda-CG150-motorcycle.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
27l3wn
|
why do us schools have such a ridiculously long summer break?
|
As a brit, this has never made any sense to me, our summer break is usually around 6 weeks between late July and early September. It baffles me to think that in the US the break is 2-3 months long! Whats the reason for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27l3wn/eli5_why_do_us_schools_have_such_a_ridiculously/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci1ub8i",
"ci1ubac",
"ci1uh28",
"ci1uqv1",
"ci1vrwa",
"ci1vupl",
"ci1vxd0",
"ci1wrif",
"ci1y0x5",
"ci1yafb",
"ci224et"
],
"score": [
34,
9,
3,
14,
4,
3,
2,
28,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The tradition is in farming/agriculture. Child labor :) ",
"I could be wrong, but I always thought it was a hangover from the time when kids would be helping their parents with the harvest over the summer.",
"Us schools only have to meet a certain amount of school days i think ita about 180 - 200 days required",
"I think UK gets a longer break over Christmas/New Years. In the US, it is about 2 weeks. ",
"Coming from California highschool, summers are from first week of June to last week of August... But here we don't plan for snow days... because it doesn't snow. I believe that is why the summer is longer for my case in particular.",
"We have short winter breaks and no snow days (in California). \n\nIn Korea and I believe in Germany, they have short summer breaks but longer winter breaks (correct me if I'm wrong).",
"Originally, it was to let students help harvest their parents crops during the summer. Now, it would just be to hard to change it.",
"Conversely, why is the British break so short? Do you hate Summer? Do you find your rainy grey Winter so gloriously pleasurable that you absolutely neeeed an extended break during its bleak days?\n\nAlso, universities have (very near) a trimester system, so that students can work for almost 1/3 of a year to earn money during the Summer. It's harder to work full time and earn money while you're in school.",
"So kids can work on the farm to help out, so teens can work summer jobs to save for college or for disposable income. So teachers can work a second job to make a decent living.",
"American schools generally meet for 180 days per year. There are a few holidays and short breaks (Christmas usually two weeks, Spring Break one week, etc.) but nothing really extended. Many schools cut back on holidays during the school year and do not even let off for Easter and Martin Luther King Jr. Day and such (which attracts the ire of some black organizations like the NAACP).\n\nA few posts here will tell you that \"some schools\" in the States have more broken-up vacations and shorter summers, but that is really quite rare. The vast majority of schools employ a long summer vacation.\n\nSome say it's because \"a lot of Americans used to be farmers and they needed their kids' help during the summer\" but that's bullshit because a lot of everyone used to be farmers and even if that's the case we're not all farmers anymore ( < 1% of the population). You'll never find a definitive answer, but I'd like to think that it's part of the culture of sprawling suburbs that we have in the States, in which kids used to be encouraged to go play outside with whoever was around and an extended summer break made use of the weather that best allowed for that. Nowadays kids don't play outside as much but in the recent past it was different.\n\nI know you've got suburbs across the pond but they're not the same; the suburbs in the States are much more sprawling, less dense, with more room to play and explore.\n\nWe also had (and maybe still have, but not really) a long tradition of summer camps like in that movie [Moonrise Kingdom](_URL_1_). Kids would go there and stay for most of the summer and partake in summertime activities. Nowadays most kids don't go to summer camp, possibly because families have less disposable income and because the erosion of the traditional nuclear family unit does not allow for it anymore. It's a cultural vestige. Except for some reason summer camps seem to still be really popular among Jews.\n\nThere is a bit of a push to lengthen the school year and spend more time in the classroom, much of which stems from the fact that American students underperform compared to most of the rest of the first world. But there is also a lot of opposition to that, partially because the kids from the countries who are beating ours spend less time in the classroom than ours do already (quality vs. quantity) and partially because many adults have fond memories of their childhood summer vacations.\n\nTIME published an article a couple years ago detailing the case against summer vacation. You can read it [here](_URL_0_). They claim that the biggest reason to get rid of summer vacation is (quite simply) because having one long, extended vacation makes kids forget much of what they learned the year before and thus necessitates \"catching up,\" which wastes time.\n\nPerhaps TIME is right and the extended vacation is part of the reason American students score lower than many of their European counterparts despite often spending more hours in the classroom. Either way, the long summer vacation is a longstanding fact of American culture and for better or for worse it's hard to envision it being changed any time soon.",
"Just to point out, this is not the length of the summer holiday for the whole UK.\n\nHere in Northern Ireland the kids get the whole of July and August off school, whereas kids in England usually don't finish until halfway through July. \n\nThat's why you book your holiday abroad in early July if you want to avoid English people stealing all the sunbeds. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005863,00.html",
"http://www.summercampculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Screen-shot-2012-01-12-at-7.53.43-PM.png"
],
[]
] |
|
42iooc
|
how is it that a cop can testify that a suspect said something incriminating to them and it is admissible, but the cop can't testify that the suspect said something exonerating because it would be hearsay?
|
In reference to a recent LifeProTip: _URL_1_
This is the exact moment the lawyer explains this: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42iooc/eli5_how_is_it_that_a_cop_can_testify_that_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czaol15"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's called an \"admission by a party opponent.\" Basically, the statements of an opposing party in litigation are always admissible and are either an exception to hearsay or not hearsay at all (depending on the jurisdiction). So the prosecution can use the defendant's own statements against him in court (interestingly, the defendant can't use police statements against the government). \n\nThe government wouldn't want to use something \"exonerating\" against the defendant nor are they required to do so. The government could however choose to do so and it would be admissible evidence. For example, I read about a case recently where the defendant called 911 and said he acted in self-defense. The government introduced the 911 call into evidence. That's perfectly fine."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=558",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/42hc3t/lpt_dont_talk_to_the_police/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
16lxw0
|
why can't canadians watch/stream the same usa shows online?
|
specificially-- whats up with the regions/streaming rights of American tv shows for Canadians. What benefit does the American networks have by not allowing Canadians to watch.
eg) Streaming shows on HBO, CBS, MTV (USA) for Canadians is impossible.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16lxw0/why_cant_canadians_watchstream_the_same_usa_shows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7x828v",
"c7x82bh",
"c7x96nd"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Distribution rights are owned by different companies/people in different countries. If your country does not allow streaming service for something that a different country does allow it is your distributor who is to blame. ",
"Licencing restrictions by the content providers who still operate under a model that continues to artificially divide the planet into discrete entities. \n\nTry [Proxmate.](_URL_0_).",
"the CRTC requires a certain percentage of Canadian content, and will not allow us to have that broad of a selection as the states (as thats where most of the content is from) as well as the other two answers, it's really a bunch of bulls... reasons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://proxmate.dave.cx/"
],
[]
] |
|
ah15b5
|
why is it a bad thing if companies and apps collect my data?
|
It seems like everyone is warning you about apps that collect much data if you use them. But to me the “worst“ thing that could happen is that I get customized ads (which I think is a cool thing). What's the big deal if you ain't got anything to hide?
I'm living in Germany and I'm wondering if this is a typical german problem.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ah15b5/eli5_why_is_it_a_bad_thing_if_companies_and_apps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eealceg",
"eealokn",
"eean9hk",
"eeanpo2",
"eeaq0op",
"eeav1k4",
"eeb4egw"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
8,
4,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you don't mind your life being prodded and mined for statistical data, being socially engineered or just them knowing every preference you have for everything and anything (and I mean anything), then it is really no big deal. ",
" > What's the big deal if you ain't got anything to hide?\n\nYour phone knows where it is every second of the day. It knows when you're driving, when you're working, when you're sleeping, etc. It knows when you're goofing off instead of working, and if you have a voice assistant turned on it listens to everything that is happening around it all the time.\n\nIf you're fine with a full 24 hour record of your life being sold to anyone who can pay, then it isn't a problem.",
"What do you mean nothing to hide? Could you give me your passwords then? How about all messages you ever sent to anyone? Maybe your photos as well and credit carf number. \n\n\nYou have lots of things to hide. Also you might have seen lots of news about big data leaks. You can't really know if the company actually protects the data well, or anonymize it enough. ",
"One thing that no one has mentioned is that these companies are turning around and selling that information. So not only are they completely invading your privacy, theyre making money for it. Are they giving you a cut? ",
"I can't speak for Germany, but in the United States, we have a right to privacy, and the appropriation and use of personal information is an abuse or outright violation of that right.\n\nYou have a lot more to hide than you give yourself credit for. A couple facts about you might be harmless, but en masse, a detailed profile can put you at real social, legal, or physical harm. History has demonstrated, time and again, that people with this sort of power will ultimately abuse it. People are being harassed for personal, religious, or political beliefs. In some countries, like China, thought crime is a thing. Even in the US, we've had the Red Scare, which wasn't that long ago, where people were brought before government tribunals for their political views. People lose their jobs, get kicked out of school, or ostracized from their societies.\n\nKids these days take revealing pictures of themselves, and leaks happen, or the recipients just dump this stuff on the internet, which never forgets. That's an embarrassment no one wants to be remembered for FOREVER. You want a potential employer searching you and the first thing that comes up is the worst thing about you? There was a recent scandal that a comedian said something a decade ago, and he's being held accountable for it now, like it just happened. This is very common, that digital history does not age, is not forgotten, and forever relevant. You can never move on.\n\nYou have a lot to hide. You can request a copy of everything Google knows about you, and as one US senator said of her request, she found Google knew her \"deepest, darkest secrets.\" Utterly terrifying.\n\nYou are being abused as we speak, and the problem is so systemic it's difficult to even comprehend just how bad it is. You are a product - to many people. People are getting very rich selling you like a head of cattle. There are so many opportunities you've lost out on and you'll never even know. Insurance for you may be higher because they know something about you that you may not know they know; ever do a genetic test? Great, you know something vague about your genealogy, but now someone knows what genetic conditions you're predisposed to that even you don't know. How many jobs have you been declined because of this misappropriation of information? How many benefits have you been denied? Etc...\n\nWhat you can do is get political and assert a right to privacy, a right to not be traced, tracked, aggregated, sold, or found. A right to be forgotten. Demand oversight and consequences. Demand transparency. Demand a cut! If people are going to sell you like a whore, you'd think you deserve a little something for making them richer.\n\nThe other things you can do is opt out of data aggregators, not use \"free\" software that exist purely to extract information, and not use social media - largely regarded as mentally toxic anyway, and exist as data aggregators. You're not even American and our government probably has an astoundingly detailed profile on you because of Facebook alone. Our government is a big consumer of aggregated data about people, since people world-wide use these international services without a single thought.",
"The worst would probably be someone at the company deciding that monetizing data wasn't valuable enough, and they threaten you with releasing your location and/or browser history to the people you regularly interact with unless you subscribe to their new, expensive \"data protection plan\". ",
"One person's data isn't much but when you put everybody's together, then you can get statistics and patterns... That's a big deal. For example: You could predict some future fashion trends and sell that info to the highest bidder. This means only the richest who can buy it will be able to foresee what will sell best and such, makes competition even harder for the smaller compagnies, makes the rich richer.\n\nWe could use it for good things too, but that's not what seems to be happening."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9bghtr
|
why are car wheels so much smaller than bicycle wheels?
|
Wouldn't car engines more easily push the bigger wheels? Bigger wheels are harder to push, but go faster, right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9bghtr/eli5_why_are_car_wheels_so_much_smaller_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e52vel3",
"e52zqgy",
"e538jin"
],
"score": [
7,
21,
3
],
"text": [
"One relevant note: it's typical on car tires to use (relatively) very wide tires on automobiles compared to tires used on bicycles. Cars typically place a much larger load per tire, and being able to to run low pressures to act as a suspension is beneficial.\n\nIn bicycles, weight and rolling resistance are at a premium, so large diameter wheels with narrow tires are preferred for pavement use.",
"While you are correct that all else being equal, bigger wheels are harder to push but make the vehicle go faster, most vehicles use gearing to have any overall ratio they want (the ratio between the speed of whatever the power source is and the wheels), making that issue obsolete. The main reason why cars generally use smaller wheels is because big wheels take up space that can otherwise be used for passengers or cargo. The disadvantage of small wheels is that they offer a rougher ride, but cars have sophisticated suspension to deal with this. Bicycles have very simple suspension, and sometimes none at all.",
" > Wouldn't car engines more easily push the bigger wheels?\n\nFor gearing, it should be the other way around. A direct-drive bicycle would work best with a wheel around twice as big (see penny-farthings), while car gearing would be best with direct drive with a wheel about a quarter as large.\n\nThis is because the engine rotation speed difference is larger than the speed difference. An experienced bicyclist has an engine speed of around 90 RPM, while a modern car has an engine speed of around 2500 RPM, and so needs a smaller gear, even after accounting for the speed difference. Your car engine spins REALLY fast.\n\nThis is all mostly irrelevant in any vehicle with gearing, which is almost everything nowadays.\n\nAll else being equal, the larger the wheel, the lower the rolling resistance. If you roll a marble over a rough surface it wastes energy bouncing up and down over every little bump, while a bicycle wheel smoothes out small bumps and bounces up and down very little.\n\nHowever, the larger the wheel, the more it or its housing catches the wind, and the higher the wind resistance. This critical in cars, with their high speed. \n\nIn bicycles, the wind resistance of the wheels themselves is more balanced with rolling resistance. For weight reasons, bicycles also have much lower suspension travel, usually the tire and frame and seat flex, and would ride roughly with smaller wheels.\n\nInterestingly, large trucks have much greater weight than cars, and a smaller wind drag increase, and suffer relatively more from rolling resistance than cars. They consequently have larger wheels, like bicycles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jw4gd
|
how did they make the first operating system without an o.s to build it on/with?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jw4gd/eli5_how_did_they_make_the_first_operating_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbiuvwe",
"cbjbdt9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the early days of computing, the \"operating system\" (although it wasn't usually called that) was programmed into ROM - Read Only Memory. When the computer was turned on, it would read the instructions in this memory and execute them. There was no way of changing what was in this memory.\n\nSo the first things that looked like operating systems would be hand-written in machine code, then the machine code would be written into the ROM when the ROM chip was made in the factory.\n\nIn fact, we still have a similar process now. Although it can be updated, the BIOS on a modern PC works in a very similar way.",
"The OS is simply the first program that's run when the computer starts. To run a program on a computer, you must prepare your program in some way and then put it somewhere that the startup sequence can find it.\n\nIn a very old computer, the \"prepare your program\" step would consist of encoding your program's instructions on a [punch card](_URL_0_). \"Putting it somewhere\" would consist of physically inserting it into the computer's processor.\n\nIn an old computer, your code might be stored on a floppy disk of one sort or another. When the computer started up, a very simple program encoded on a hardware chip would know to look at the floppy disk and start reading instructions off of it and feeding them to the processor.\n\nIn a modern computer, the operating system is stored on the hard drive, and the motherboard's firmware knows how to find it on the hard drive. As in the previous example, it grabs instructions from the hard drive and starts feeding them to the processor.\n\nNotice how in each of these examples, there's nothing special or privileged about the OS, except that it's the first program that gets loaded. The OS is a special type of program that awards itself authority over what other programs get to run/what they get to do while they're running, and most modern programs will only work if they're running inside an OS. But there's nothing that says the first or outermost program that runs has to be an OS. With a lot of work, you could make a program for a modern computer that just displays a blinking goatse when the computer is turned on, and does nothing else. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_card"
]
] |
||
1nvhhx
|
why is it when windows predicts a time to completion for moving a file it's often off by a magnitude of 10?
|
I've experienced this with a decade of Microsoft OS's. I can't believe they haven't gotten it right yet. I'll move a .mkv video file and it will say 15 seconds remaining for 10 minutes. Or it will say 20 minutes remaining and fly by and finish super-fast.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nvhhx/eli5_why_is_it_when_windows_predicts_a_time_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccmfbgi"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Say a friend asks you to buy 50 lb of food and hands you a shopping list. You go to the supermarket, read the items on the list line by line, and it says:\n\n\n- 1 lb of white rice\n- 1 lb of white rice\n- 1 lb of white rice\n\n\nThen your friend calls you and asks how long you're going to need. So far it has taken you 3 seconds to put 3 lb into your shopping cart, and you know that the total is 50 lb, so you tell him that you'll be done in less than a minute.\n\n\nThen you see the next 3 items on the list:\n\n\n- 1 vanilla bean\n- 1 pack of cilantro\n- 1 oz of pepper\n\n\nSo you call your friend and tell him that it's going to take more like 3 hours, because you'll be wasting a lot of time searching for items that weigh an ounce or less.\n\n\nThis is basically what happens when Windows is transferring files. It may say < 1 minute initially if the first item on the list is one large file, and it may then go up to several hours if the next items on the list are thousands of tiny files scattered around the drive and it has to move the head of the drive to the right location for each one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
70ydcn
|
why do photographers who take ages like mr mcfadyen to get the perfect shot, don't just use a videocamera?
|
Can't they just cut the shot out afterwards?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70ydcn/eli5_why_do_photographers_who_take_ages_like_mr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn6rrcr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Still photos can be much higher resolution since the camera doesn't have to process 24 FPS or anything. \n\nThe shutter speed is also much more customizable. The lower shutter speed required for video creates motion blur between frames. This can be desired in video but the sharpness of a still frame with a fast shutter wouldn't be there. \n\nPhotographers generally use strobes - this means the lights aren't always on, but rather they just flash on when the photog triggers them. The lights they use are hot and bright - having them on all the time would make the model overheated and uncomfortable. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cngd5a
|
how can parrots live so long.
|
The general rule with animals as I understand it is: the bigger the animal the longer the life. And smaller animals which can live long like turtles usually have a slow metabolism/inactive life.
So why is it that some parrots, which are very active animals all things considered, can live for an enormous amount of time? Even outliving their owners many times.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cngd5a/eli5_how_can_parrots_live_so_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewackae",
"ewap4zn"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Arent those sea creatures that can virtually live forever super tiny? I dont really think there is actual causality in the correlation between size and expectancy but hey, im not a specialist.",
"While it's usually the large parrots that have very long lives, birds in general live longer than mammals of similar sizes. There are a few ways birds do this: \nThe simplest to realise is that they can fly away from predators (who often can't fly). \nOn a genetic level, birds have gained a lot of ways to resist the ageing that comes from having a high metabolic process (what creates the energy needed to fly). Cells that resist oxidation (think rechargeable batteries that don't lose their charging and discharging ability as quickly). Regrowing neurons (the brain and spine wires), basically birds are just resilient to the wear and tear that comes with living."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1iu7n6
|
what has to be done to a minecraft mod to make it work with a new version of the game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iu7n6/eli5_what_has_to_be_done_to_a_minecraft_mod_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb830ad",
"cb83nq4"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"This may be better suited in /r/minecraft",
"The creators of Minecraft (Mojang) don't officially support modifications to the game, a result of this is that there is no official documentation of how the internals of the game work. Further the game code it's self is obfuscated (names of internals are changed to random characters) as a form of copy protection/intellectual property protection.\n\nBecause mod makers have no documentation they must try and figure out what has changed between different versions, sometimes this is easy when it's a minor update, sometimes it's a huge amount of work (like the last update). \n\nIt's made slightly easier by a project called MCP (Mod Coder Pack) which does a lot of the deobfuscation and provides a framework for people to write and reassemble a modified version of Minecraft. But of course it can take a long time for the MCP guys to update and figure out what's changed.\n\nIf Mojang ever finally produce the API (application programmers interface, an official way to interact with/modify the game) then hopefully mod authors will have to do nothing between updates. Though this depends on the level of functionality which Mojang will expose."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1z8eps
|
would democracy benefit if lobbying and lobbyists were made illegal in the united states?
|
I've always heard that lobbyists are the bane to democracy because of how they sway political decisions with money and/or handouts and I have always wondered if there is anything they do that might be considered beneficial for America as a whole or if I have been mislead.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z8eps/eli5would_democracy_benefit_if_lobbying_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfrgink",
"cfrgmg8",
"cfrhf0f",
"cfrim2q",
"cfrj6kp",
"cfrj6rw",
"cfrjgj0",
"cfrjizg",
"cfrjnqo",
"cfrkfd1",
"cfrlkrp"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
27,
14,
19,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The issue isn't lobbyists. The issue is that as you mention, interests with money tend to use financial support for political campaigns as a tool to build support. Government is complicated and the laws they pass have ramifications on a variety of people and interests. I want lobbyists for Banks, unions, and environmentalists to be able to lobby on a particular side. If a law can be passed that will help the financial industry without it hurting anyone else, then there's nothing wrong with the banking lobby advocating for it. The people who work in government often don't have as good of an idea of the impact of what they pass as the groups affected do. It's impractical to expect them to. It's important to here input. The right to petition the government is an important right. Lobbying should exist, but the current system in which financial support of campaigns or future jobs are traded for legislative favors is one that violates the concept of political equality.",
"We have a similar issue in the UK. In fact the Prime Minister (David Cameron) says \"lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen\".\n\nFor me, the words \"lobbying\" and \"lobbyist\" are morally neutral. Lobbying isn't always a bad thing but it can be.\n\nThe way I'd frame the argument is that it's bad when money is more important than the voice of the people.\n\nTo take an example, over here we have socialised health care. People in the UK don't have to pay directly for their health care, the money comes from general taxation. There are a few people that don't like that model in the UK but for most people they would much rather that than something like the American system with insurance.\n\nHowever, there's lots of money to be made in healthcare and so private healthcare providers try to sway our government so they can get into our healthcare market. They do this, in part, by making donations to political parties and using personal contacts in government to get their way.\n\nI would say this is an example where big money is overriding the desires of the electorate.\n\nHowever, you could have lobbyists who inform the government of a particular issue and seek government action. Say there's a small country thousands of miles away that has a particular issue they want to make our government aware of, then a lobbyist can get a meeting with government officials and encourage our government to speak out about it.\n\nIt's a difficult subject because I might be in favour of an issue and therefore I think the lobbying is a good thing but someone else may look at the same issue and think it's horrendous that someone can try to sway the government.\n\nSo controversial things such as LGBT rights, religion in public life, abortion... all these could have attached lobby groups and, depending on where your own views lie, you could think the lobbying is scandalous or a very good thing indeed.",
"I've worked for very large companies that do big and bad things and also provide the means to do big and sometimes bad things. Oil companies, weapons makers, utilities, insurance--and I never met anyone that I would call evil. Most of those companies actually talk with their employees about what their lobbying is attempting. So, I know no one is evil and I have seen a transparent agenda--but I still see a corrosive effect because there is no similar mechanism afforded specifically to regular folks. Plus lobbyists are invariably the source when actual corruption happens.",
"ELI5:Monetary Lobbying leverages the voice of the financial stronger group and therefor distorts democracy.",
"The country would be a dictatorship because you would not be allowed to petition congress for an address of your grievances. You would not be able to write, visit, or talk to your congressman about your issues. That's \"lobbying.\"\n\nThe real problem in this country is when relaxed campaign contribution limits combine with professional fundraisers and the incumbent advantage to ensure low turnover. Also, our media fails to report on hard facts and instead prioritizes \"horse race coverage\" of politics rather than properly vetting our candidates",
"I've come to think lately that we might actually need lobbyists. Without them, only the super rich would have the ear of government, the businesses, unions, any group, would have little effective representation, only papers and blogs. The lobbied-for groups as of now are heard as loud as their purses. That's the system. You're obviously disenfranchised if you don't belong to a group and that's the sentiment I hear here. Change the system. ",
"No, democracy would not benefit from outlawing lobbying. Lobbyists actually perform an important function in the democratic system. \n\nLobbyist are experts paid to inform and influence the decisions of lawmakers. Without lobbyists, lawmakers would have less information upon which to base their decisions about what laws to pass. As a rule, more information is better. \n\nOf course, this information comes with the trade-off of pressure to take a particular position. The fix for this problem, somewhat ironically, is more lobbyists. That is, the ideal situation is to have competent lobbyists on both sides of an issue so that lawmakers can get the most information from two (or more) competing sources.",
"ELI5 and then ask a yes or no question. Well played.",
"I work in government. /u/joneSee is absolutely right.\n\nNobody is solely trying to sabotage the US, or the state I work in/you live in, or the town you and I live in. Not on the level that occupy wallstreet makes out. But lobbyists and their respective interest groups aren't what conservatives make them out to be either. In short, they're really just usually passionate or paid individuals that care about one issue. They aren't out to destroy democracy, or institute a fascist empire.\n\nThey're more akin to really biased lawyers. They're trying to make a buck for themselves, and their company. It is the source of corruption, but that is more often initiated by the politician than the lobbyist because the FBI takes that seriously. You'll get ban-hammered for life from that, cuz the media eats that up. \n\nThe problem is really Citizens United. It is amazing how people on both sides hated that. That allows companies to influence people during their race. Once you are in the seat it's very hard to unseat you. But by influencing campaigns you can put in a guy or gal who you never have to pay again, but agrees with you on everything.",
"Actual lobbyist here. A lot of these answers are correct [such a lobbyist answer] but i think there are two things: (1)the real deal is that electeds and staff are so busy working on a lot of different things that it is impossible for them to fully comprehend an issue and the effect of the issue without help from outside sources. And (2) we have relationships with staff and electeds that are the center of our business. Those relationships help us move a clients agenda. That being said, our reputation and success depend on those relationships and the trustworthiness [vomit, i know] of the information or position we present. In other words, if we screw you this time, the next time we need something, we are (1) not going to get an appointment; (2) not get our message across; (3) not lobby; (4) become a shitty lobbyist. So we have to balance not lying about stuff and at the same time, advancing our clients interests, which we are not necessarily always upfront about [that is where we can get screwed down the line]. \n\nOne other thing: We all don't do evil shit all the time. We have a range of issues for clients and most of the time, its sort of mundane, like getting a contract to replace storm drain covers. Not super sexy. Every once in a while, a big issue will come up that is very controversial [i may not even agree with our position] and believe me, the activist community shows up. Sometimes they think they did more for change than the really do, but they balance things out a bit. ",
"Remember the US is not a democracy - A democracy would not work in the US since the time commitment and required education required for governing is too high for most Americans to participate directly in government regardless of lobbing power. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bsl0hw
|
if i place both waters into a bucket from where the two oceans meet but don’t mix, why do they mix just fine in the bucket?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsl0hw/eli5_if_i_place_both_waters_into_a_bucket_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eonzxkf",
"eoo0jni",
"eoo2j06"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?",
"Why do you say they don't mix where they meet?",
"The idea of \"two oceans meet but don't mix\" is more or less a myth. Most of the pictures of this you see on the Internet are at rivermouths or headlands, where a sharp contrast between water types is visible ... but it mixes away pretty quickly.\n\nTom Scott did a video on this recently.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4N4yQB_B4c"
]
] |
||
4aeaev
|
why do some people have the mindset that only a race that is "in power"/majority can be racist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aeaev/eli5_why_do_some_people_have_the_mindset_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0zlpkk"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This is part of the jargon used in sociology, ethnic studies, in related fields, where it is useful to distinguish between oppression of groups with low social status versus the general concept of racial prejudice. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that language is context-dependent, and try to assert that this special use is the one, true, correct definition because they read it in a textbook.\n\nConveniently for them, this concept also means that people who perceive themselves as being discriminated against do not have to question their own beliefs, which many people find difficult."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2hgghp
|
the black hole mathematical debunk.
|
If black holes don't exist what are those things in the middle of most galaxies and the things that bends light and have insane gravitational pull? Have we just always misunderstood what black holes are or are they really non existent? ELI5 please :)
Also, should I just post this to /r/space?
Edit: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hgghp/eli5_the_black_hole_mathematical_debunk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cksfcl5",
"cksfls9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, physicists work with two different sets of theories. Quantum mechanics for the very small, and relativity for the very large. One of the biggest mysteries at the moment is that these two theories are not compatible with each other. Though quantum mechanical laws give very accurate readings for small objects, we get results that do not make sense when using it on large objects.\n\nMy understanding of this announcement is that this physicist pulled rules from both sets of laws simultaneously, which you are not allowed to do. Even if you could, and her finding was valid the announcement that black holes don't exist would be far less interesting to physicists than the fact that she successfully united these laws. It would be rather like announcing that submarines should not be able to work properly because you have disproved gravity.\n",
"The so-called proof is bogus and will not survive the peer review process. There is plenty of physical evidence that black holes exist, *including* many examples of directly-observed gravitational lensing, which is about as close as you can get to actually SEEING one.\n\nHer claim to have resolved the differences between relativity and quantum mechanics is similarly dubious.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
eslkdp
|
if fevers are how our bodies fight infections and over the counter pain meds like tylenol are fever reducers, do they make it take longer to get better?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eslkdp/elif_if_fevers_are_how_our_bodies_fight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffaq64w",
"ffaqn6r",
"ffar7s1",
"ffawnl4",
"ffax8nb",
"ffb7aia"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
9,
9,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. A fever (within reason) is a good thing. Tylenol makes you feel better, a fever helps you get better.",
"Obligatory not a medical professional. But there are two trains of thought; the first is of course treating it with fever reducer because the physiological dangers outweigh any benefit the fever may produce. \n\nThe second is that alternative cooling methods should be used and fevers should be used to run their course.\n\nThe following study actually explains it quite well, though it's some reading:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Once I read a phrase that sums up pretty well why design is not what our body has: the virus can't survive that hot for that long, neither your body can.\n\nFever is basically your body rising the temperature to make an environment that a living being simply can't live in, problem is your body is as much of a living being as the virus, so it's important not to allow it to overheat itself.\n\nFever is just one of the tools that the body has to fight foreign invaders, but as effective as it is, it's also pretty bad at keeping you alive long term, furthermore you feel like shit every time it happens, because your body is not prepared to work at 40°C.\n\nAll in all, it's ultimately a decision but at some point it becomes less than a decision and more of a risk. There are other ways to tackle on the viruses.",
"I believe so. \n\nBut you should keep in mind that our immune system evolved in a context far outside modern society. For example, having too high of a fever can have negative effects, like brain damage. Some factors:\n\n* For ancient humans a little bit of brain damage might not have been a big deal, as they did not have to learn as much abstract stuff, or deal with as complex of a society.\n\n* For modern humans, risks are generally lower. If having a less aggressive immune system now means you have a 5% chance of dying and a 15% chance of needing to go to a hospital when you get a particular illness, for ancient humans that hospital does not exist and the 15% is mostly death. \n\n* For ancient humans there was a bigger incentive to get better faster, because taking a week off of hunter-gathering means you have no food. \n\n* Ancient humans did not have Netflix, so being sick was way boring. \n\nOk, that last one may not be a big factor. But in any case, for modern humans, it is often better to not take a chance and to just spend a couple extra days getting better.",
"Well, there's more than \"normal temperature\" and \"fever.\" It's a continuum, there's mild fevers and dangerous fevers.\n\nA mild fever, 99-101 deg F, you're probably better off to let it run its course as it kills off the invading germs. \n\nA high fever, 103+, could cause all sorts of things including deafness and brain damage. Those fevers you need to bring down. And, since most fevers are from bacterial infections rather than viral, antibiotics are, in general, a good idea.",
"I try to let my kids ‘fight it off’ if the fever is 101 or lower. Above 101 is Tylenol time, and above 103 is a visit to urgent care or the pediatrician, depending on the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703655/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7dhmez
|
how is polyester soft when it's basically plastic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dhmez/eli5_how_is_polyester_soft_when_its_basically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpxwoiq",
"dpxzq16"
],
"score": [
15,
7
],
"text": [
"From my understanding- fiber size. Bending a solid steel cylinder is a lot more difficult than bending a woven steel cable. The fabric might be essentially plastic, but it's a bunch of small plastic threads knit together.",
"Because whether something is soft or not has very little to do with its molecular structure.\n\nStudies have shown that people can feel a difference as small as 13 nanometers (that's 13 x 10^-9 meters), but atoms are way smaller (usually around 30 * 10^-12 meters) than that. In short, molecules are very very small and you can't feel them.\n\nSoftness has a lot more to do with other things, like the material's flexibility and the actual physical shape of the material. Raw cotton is pretty rough, because the cotton strands are thick and tangled, but if you run it through a spinner and draw it out into fine cotton strands, it feels nice and soft. Because the cotton is no longer tangled up on itself, and the shape of the strands has been changed, it feels entirely different from its raw form. Similarly, a block of polyester isn't going to feel soft, but if you took that block and drew it out into very thin strands you've changed almost everything important about it (for feel anyway). The molecule chains that make up the polyester are no longer rigidly attached to the rest of the block (which makes it more flexible), and they are quite a lot thinner than they used to be (which will begin to get closer to that 13 nanometers which is the smallest distance you can actually feel).\n\nDrawing a rigid material into strands doesn't always make it nice and soft, think of steel wool for an example. Even in strand form, steel still has very strong and rigid bonds between atoms that gives it a lot of rigidity. That said, I would also argue that steel wool is considerably softer than a block of steel."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5ln4lt
|
the concept of falsifiability. i just can't understand it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ln4lt/eli5_the_concept_of_falsifiability_i_just_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbwwxk4",
"dbwy36y",
"dbx0wb0"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"You have to be able to prove something is false to be able to prove it's true. \n\nExample A: I say that I can run faster than you. We race. I either beat you, or you beat me in the race. That is falsifiable because you could prove that I cannot run faster than you. \n\nExample B: I say that God is real. There is no way for me to prove that is correct. But, there is no way to prove that I'm incorrect. All we can do is debate, but nobody can prove anything. ",
"Falsifiability is a property of a statement about the world. It was proposed by Karl Popper as a way to tell scientific statements from metaphysical statements. If a statement is falsifiable, it is part of science. If it is not, it is not. That doesn't mean it's wrong or stupid, it just means it's not science. \n\nSo specifically what it means is, if there is no way to tell if a statement is _false_, then it's not part of science. That doesn't mean you have to be able to prove it false, of course — many true things are falsifiable. But it means there must be a way to \"test\" it, and specifically to test it by proving it _wrong_. \n\nLet's go with a concrete example. Here is a statement about the world: \"There is an invisible, undetectable unicorn that keeps the Sun shining.\" If this were true, I would note, the Sun would shine. I look into the sky and lo and behold, the Sun is shining! And lo, I can come up with an experiment: if I shout out, \"unicorn O unicorn, make the Sun shine tomorrow!\", you will see the Sun shine tomorrow.\n\nAh, but what if you _don't_ shout that out? Well the unicorn loves us and the Sun so he'll keep shining anyway, but I think he's probably sad to not hear his name.\n\nGreat, says Popper. That's a statement for why the Sun shines, to be sure. But your only evidence is about proving it _true_. It's not science unless there is something you can do to prove it _false_. In this situation there is no way to disprove the statement — if I call to the unicorn, the Sun shines, if I don't, the Sun shines. This statement cannot really be tested, and the fact that all visible evidence seems to align with the theory does not mean a damned thing, because you can come up with an infinite number of theories that fit the evidence _if_ they are not falsifiable. \n\nAnd so this is why this matters. You can always come up with theories that fit any evidence with exceptions. What matters to Popper are places where you've really put it to the test. So if instead I say, well, my unicorn _requires_ me to sing to it every day... I can test that by not singing to it. \"The Sun only rises because a unicorn gets sun to every day, and wouldn't rise if nobody sang to it\" is a totally falsifiable, and thus scientific, statement. It happens to be testably _wrong_. But that's not what Popper cares about. \n\nLet's take a less silly example: \"large amounts of mass can bend the direction that light travels.\" This was a consequence of what Einstein argued with his General Relativity theory. Pretty cool statement. Is it falsifiable? Yes — you can do experiments (the first involved photographing stars near the Sun during a total solar eclipse) to see if it's true. If the stars are where Einstein predicted they'd be — then the statement is judged a true one. If they aren't, then Einstein is wrong. Either way, it's still falsifiable, so it's science. \n\nPopper developed this approach because at the time a lot of people thought the key distinguishing factor between science and non-science was that they made statements about evidence (\"verificationism\"). Popper saw a lot of things that made statements about evidence that didn't look to him like science. Freudianism was high on his list: Popper thought they were essentially non-falsifiable. Freudians said their model of the mind was correct because their patients got better. If patients didn't get better, it was the patients' fault, or maybe the analyst, but never the model of the mind. The model could never be tested in a way that the Freudians thought would prove it wrong — so to Popper, whatever its value, it wasn't science. \n\nIt is worth noting that this isn't a perfect way to distinguish science from non-science, and the usefulness of falsifiability is considered somewhat limited. There are lots of sub-issues that come up if you pry into it, like, what if it's only _hypothetically_ falsifiable (e.g. it requires all of the energy in the universe to test), or what if it's just not _yet_ falsifiable, and so on. The fact that String Theory is not falsifiable (as of yet, anyway) has led a lot of scientists to declare that falsifiability is only partially useful — you can make of that what you will.",
"Example: I claim that there is always a hitler standing behind you that disappears when observed. \n\nCan you disprove this claim? Well, no, I covered my ass by saying that I'm right and that any time you check, it will disappear. Does this mean that my \"Schrodinger's Hitler\" hypothesis should be taken as fact? No, because there's no condition under which it is false and therefore is not falsifiable. \n\nLet's try again:\n\nI claim that there is a hitler in your bathroom right now.\n\nCan you disprove this claim? Yes, you could check your bathroom for Nazi leaders. If you check your bathroom and find a Führer, then we have evaluated the falsifiable parameter and have therefore established that this claim is true. If there is no hitler, then we reject your hypothesis.\n\nFalsifiability is so important because it allows us to clearly distinguish between what reality looks like when a claim is true and when a claim is false. If you cannot tell any difference, then your claim is ultimately pointless. Say that there really is a hitler behind you at all times that no one can observe. Why does it matter if it doesn't influence the world? How is it any different from the world without a hitler behind you? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
azj47h
|
in movies and tv shows that have fake pop music, where do they get the songs?
|
I'm watching an episode of a crime-of-the-week show that revolves around the murder of a pop star. You hear snippets of her music throughout the episode and it got me thinking.
I know for big movies like A Star Is Born that have full songs, they hire a songwriter. But for smaller budget movies and single TV show episodes where you hear snippets of fake songs to add depth to the plot, do they hire a songwriter as well? Or is there some sort of archive of written but not recorded songs that they can just buy pre made songs from? It seems like that would be cheaper and easier than hiring someone to write the music and lyrics that you'll only hear bits and pieces of.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/azj47h/eli5_in_movies_and_tv_shows_that_have_fake_pop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei84tr0",
"ei9cm5w"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes archived, sometimes a small band doing it free for exposure. Sometimes from a site, there are free royalty-free ones but even a small studio can afford the subscription only ones. \n\nAs an amatuer filmaker, I also have friends that play instruments and they have made music soundtracks for me before.\n\n With older filmakers such as big directors I imagine they also have more popular bands. Either as friends or one of them wanting to branch out into other industries, such as music into media or vice versa.\n\nAn example would be Jim Henson and David Bowie making 1986 Labrinth.\n\nDoes that help at all?",
"Very similar to the stock photos or stock footage used in TV or movies, there are also archives of stock music. Media makers can purchase the rights to use an individual track, or subscribe to the whole library. The musicians and songwriters who supply these archives generally work for a fixed fee, and sign over rights to the music as part of their contract, so the material is cheap to license. Larger TV networks also sometimes create their own in-house archives to cut out the middleman. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1p0fe5
|
why do some websites only show you the price of an item after you put it in your cart?
|
For instance, on Amazon and MicroCenter, a few TV's have the price listing as "Add to cart to see the price." What is the benefit of this? Wouldn't those websites get more consumers to purchase their product if the discounted price was blatantly listed instead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p0fe5/eli5_why_do_some_websites_only_show_you_the_price/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccxgkyx",
"ccxgma7"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Prices are searchable if they're published. Search engines can't get into your cart.\n\nThis practice typically follows agreements with suppliers that dictate the publication of non-MSRP pricing.",
"They do that to avoid running afoul of manufacturer set minimum prices. Manufacturers of premium goods, generally sell them in expensive retail outlets (with skilled sales staff). If customers go to the store and take lots of staff time to make a decision but buy on a cheaper Amazon the retailers will go broke, and manufacturer will lose the valuable high touch sales staff. \n\nLegally manufacturers in the US aren't allowed to set minimum prices, but they can contractually require retailers not to advertise prices below a minimum amount. Only showing prices in a shopping cart doesn't advertise prices and is a way for stores like Amazon to not violate these agreements. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9g35ez
|
if bleach removes color from fabric/surfaces, how come the sponges i use to scrub with bleach don't end up all faded and splotchy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9g35ez/eli5_if_bleach_removes_color_from_fabricsurfaces/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e612c4r",
"e6140a9"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Have you been sucking the bleach off the sponge? ",
"Bleach lifts stains out of natural fibres, while synthetics with colour as part of their makeup resist.\n\nTake cotton and polyester for example.\n\nTake a sample of each and drop em in bleach overnight. By morning the cotton will be gone and the bleach untouched.\n\nIt's less to do with design and more to do with chemical resistance. As the cotton breaks down is loses its... cottonness? and returns to cotton, which is what colour? WHITE. Since the fabric is damaged the dye is no longer bonded, which is why bleached purple is pink, bleached blue is pink, bleached green is yellow, etc. It washes out. \n\nAnd I quote\n\"Washing Bleach contains Hypocloric acid, which acts as a very strong oxidizer. It works by oxidizing dye agents in the stains so that they become colorless.\"\nThis affects dyes as well.\n\nTldr: Natural dyed fabrics get eaten by bleach so the colour holding ability fades as well as the dyes and the fabric eventually dissolves; Chemical compounds that just ARE a colour don't get destroyed/aren't affected therefore dont stain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
23rrrh
|
how do stores constantly get away with false advertising?
|
Example: The smoker friendly in my town has a sign that says something along the lines of "Lowest Priced Cigerettes Allowed by Law", then you go across the street and get a pack of pall malls for 70 cents cheaper. Just wondering how they can get away with that.
Edit: Thanks for the information everyone, and the interesting read /u/ANewMachine615. Also there seems to be a little confusion. I wasnt implying i should get the cigs at the price it cost to manufacture+ tax, just ment its obviously not the cheapest the law allows or the other stores wouldnt sell them cheaper because it would be illegal.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23rrrh/eli5_how_do_stores_constantly_get_away_with_false/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgzxhn0",
"cgzxnyg",
"cgzxo3q",
"cgzxri4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Well, they get away with it because whatever they are saying is not false.\n\nPerhaps when they say \"cigarettes\" they mean particular brands and Pall Malls isn't one of them. \n\nOr maybe their advert is outdated and the new guy has cut prices.\n\nIts tough to say without diving into it their advertising. But I guarantee its legal.",
"Depends on context. Most \"false advertisement\" comes down to a loose interpretation of what they are saying, or a lack of reading their relevant disclaimer attach to a given claim. ",
"It could be a true statement, perhaps under certain circumstances. But they are allowed to say almost anything they want, unless someone sues them and takes them to court over their \"false\" claims, and they lose the subsequent gruelingly long case, only then may they even possibly need to alter their words, or not, they could just say fuck it and not do it, then need to get taken to court again. ",
"There's a legal concept called \"mere puffery.\" Basically, claims that are unreasonable or clearly just brags are not taken as statements of fact. One of the more famous cases of puffery is *Leonard v. Pepsico*, in which someone tried to redeem 7 million Pepsi Points (purchased for $700,000) for a Harrier jet, as depicted in [this ad](_URL_0_). It was clear that there was no offer to give you a $23 million jet for $700,000, so the claimed offer/advertisement was ruled mere puffery.\n\nHere, it's clear that they're not selling at the lowest price allowed by law, as that price would be sales tax + cigarette tax, no cost of the cigarettes, no overhead, no profit. It's a brag about having good prices, not an absolute statement. Actual price guarantees, like those given by Wal-Mart or Target, have conditions that need to be met to claim the guarantee's benefits. You often have to show them the lower advertised price, within so many days of purchase, ensure that both prices are offered at the same time, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZdackF2H7Qc#t=13"
]
] |
|
f87odq
|
why is it that when one eats quickly, they get a stomachache ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f87odq/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_one_eats_quickly_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fijl9pz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your tummy and intestines need time to sort out and process what you're eating. Like on an assembly line, if the speed of the line is too quick for each station to properly assemble or modify the item, the final product has too much or too little of something it may need. So when you eat too fast, you might not have enough digestive saliva or have too much air swallowed with it that it doesn't process properly and irritates your bowels as it travels along the tract."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4dmkf6
|
what is the basis of 'open source' when referring to games, i generally see this comment about older games.
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dmkf6/eli5_what_is_the_basis_of_open_source_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1sba6m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Open source refers to the license used for the distribution of the software/game/intellectual-property. Typically open-source means that you can modify and and redistribute the software as long as you retain attribution to former others and also redistribute the source code. The most common licenses (google away!) for this are the GNU license (GPL, couple of variants), the MIT license and apache license, but many many exist: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses"
]
] |
|
tur3p
|
how a video game fits on a disk when only 15 songs can fit on it
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tur3p/how_a_video_game_fits_on_a_disk_when_only_15/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4pvzsp",
"c4pw0al",
"c4pw1hg",
"c4pw7xc",
"c4pxf8i",
"c4pype4",
"c4q1zon"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
5,
7,
7,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"Can you give a specific example? ",
"The biggest difference, at least with games and CDs today, is that music comes on a different type of disc than games do. The discs that the Wii and Xbox 360 use can hold almost 7 times as much as a music cd! The PS3 uses discs that can hold more than *70* times as much!\n\nAnother difference is how the music is stored on the disc. Most people think about the size of a MP3 file in regards to music. However, when stored on a CD the music is of much higher quality and requires much more space. ",
"Music is usually stored on a 700mb CD format . Most game discs today are DVD, HDDVD, or Blu-ray formats, which each hold a much greater amount of data than CDs.\n\nHowever, it wasn't too long ago that CDs were primarily used to distribute games.\n\n- Game code makes up a small percentage of the disc space, even today.\n\n- Texture and model qualities were far lower than today and so required less space on disc. Many were stored in 256 colour format.\n\n- Sound effects were usually of a lower quality, but can be one of the larger space hogs. Left 4 Dead 2's sound effects take up at least 50% of the entire game size.\n\n- Depending on the game, levels can take either a very small amount of space or a very large one; typical levels in Half-Life were probably approx 2-6Mb each.\n\n- Similarly, music was either lightweight or heavy, depending on if the game used electronic instruments or recorded sounds.\n\n*additional*\n\nThe original Quake, had a limited number of sounds (weapons, monsters, environment), but used up most of its CD space with actual music - you could put the disc into a stereo and play it. Track 1 was the game data which most CD players would skip, but some would play it (sounded awful). The actual game took up maybe 20% or less of the disc.",
"Everyone seems to be assuming you are talking about modern video discs.\n\nI am going on the assumption that you are talking about standard 650mb CDs.\n\nAudio is not put on the disc like data is. Audio is put on like a vinyl record. Track after track in a linear fashion. That is why CDs are rated for size AND audio capacity i.e. 650mb/70min.\n\nIt is as if you are running a mile. The 'Audio Runner' must run at a set pace (otherwise the audio sounds funny see:Alvin and the chipmunks) say 1000ft/min. It isn't written as 0 or 1, it is written as a waveform.\n\nThe 'Data Runner' can go whatever speed he wants. So if he can stop and look at every pebble on the track. Because his information is 0 or 1 it can be in groups, large chunks and even single bits. His pebbles are either 0 or 1.\n\nTL;DR: Games are written as data, audio is written like a record.",
"Music on a retail audio CD is uncompressed and in \"red book\" format written to the CD as PCM audio, similar to a WAV file. These files are many times larger than an MP3 of which around 100 could be fit on a normal data cd.",
"PlayStation 1 games came on CDs. Let's compare the contents of an audio CD to those from a PlayStation 1 game CD.\n\nAn audio CD contains stereo sound encoded as 16-bit, 48kHz PCM. That means for every second of audio there are 48000 pairs of numbers where each number needs 2 bytes. So, 48000x2x2 = 192,000 bytes per second. A 650MB CD can therefore hold 3,529 seconds of stereo audio. Or, about 58.8 minutes.\n\nA PlayStation game contains lots of stuff. Audio, images, movies, code, 3D models, character animations. Here's the documentation for the standard file formats used in PS1 games _URL_2_\n\nThe audio in a PS1 (and PS2) game is usually stored in a special form of ADPCM instead of PCM. I think it compressed the audio about 3.5 to 1. So, a full CD could hold about 3.5 hours of nearly CD quality sound. Individual sound effects don't need to be stereo or CD-quality, so they would usually be stored as mono at 8-22 KHz -which is about 6x smaller. So, a full CD could hold 27 hours of sound effects.\n\nHowever, PS1 games rarely stored their music as full stereo tracks. Instead, they would save space by storing sound effects for individual instruments plus instructions on when to play the instruments. For example, the awesome music of Final Fantasy VII fills 4 audio CDs but is less than a single megabyte on the game CD. You can see it here _URL_0_ and you can play it using this guy's winamp plugin _URL_1_ It took a lot of hard work to make awesome music that fits in less than a megabyte, but FFVII still needed 2 CDs to fit everything else in the game!\n\nLets see how much other stuff I can describe before I need to get going...\n\nPS1 movies were basically a MJPEG, which is basically just a series of JPEG images. Most PS1 games had a screen resolution around 320x224. So, that's how big the JPEGs needed to be at most. The double-speed CD could only read 10K in 1/30th of a second, so a frame from a 30 frame/second movie could only be 10k at most. That would be 37 minutes of movies at most. But, usually the frames were much smaller than 10k each.\n\nPS1 textures were palletized to 8 or 4 bits per pixel. So, a 320*224, 8-bit, full-screen texture would be 72k. A full CD could hold 9,500 full screens of textures. Usually, textures on 3D objects would be more like 128x128 or less (41,600 per CD).\n\n3D models are made of triangles. The 3 corners of each triangle would usually have a position and a texture coordinate. Each corner would fit in 16 bytes space. So, a full CD could easily fit over 10 million triangles.\n\nA 3D character animation is a sequence of joint positions and orientations. A character would typically have less than 32 joints and each joint description could fit in 16 bytes. So, a full CD could easily hold over a million frames of character animations.\n\nThe executable for a PS1 game was typically less than half a meg. The poor, little machine only had 2 megs of RAM! Games would often have to load and unload small parts of that half-meg exe just to keep it from taking up 1/4 of the memory!\n\nOff the top of my head, that's most of the common stuff.",
"Very ELI5:\n\nImagine a book of piano sheet music with 15 songs. It is about 50 pages. This is the audio cd.\n\nOn those 50 pages, you could fit all the rules of a complex board game, together with simplified music and artwork to go with it, possibly in smaller print to fit even more. This is the game disk.\n\nYou can see that for the same amount of disk space, a lot of different things can be done."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.hellandheavennet.com/music",
"http://www.neillcorlett.com/psf/",
"http://karmasociety.net/filefrmt.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
4kzaoi
|
why do amish think that 17th century had an ideal technology for a pure christian life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kzaoi/eli5why_do_amish_think_that_17th_century_had_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3iyl73",
"d3j3xth",
"d3j43yb",
"d3j4b8t",
"d3j4cqy",
"d3j4zlh",
"d3j50uv",
"d3j525b",
"d3j54pf",
"d3j56i3",
"d3j62g9",
"d3j64nd",
"d3j6ank",
"d3j6gh4",
"d3j6zay",
"d3j75il",
"d3j76wd",
"d3j7vrp",
"d3j7xj5",
"d3j8wzg",
"d3j8yez",
"d3j8zf7",
"d3j90ku",
"d3j98rf",
"d3j99pc",
"d3j9b3b",
"d3j9e6f",
"d3jaave"
],
"score": [
1849,
167,
7,
22,
40,
6,
75,
6,
8,
19,
2,
2,
3,
3,
7,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2,
10,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The Amish do not universally shun modern technology, it can vary between groups and communities. There are Amish who drive cars and use voicemail. That being said, they have a tendency to not immediately accept new technology automatically. Rather, to them they place a high value on community, family, and separation from the world at large. And in assigning these values primacy, they deliberate on whether a new piece of technology will be a benefit to them, or detrimental. For instance, a phone may be considered detrimental, because you rely on it instead of meeting and socializing with your neighbors. Electricity might be useful because it allows you more utility with nighttime hours, but being connected to the power grid reduces your separation from the outside. And so on.",
"A major part of Amish doctrine is about separation from the outside world. Along with many other evangelical protestants, they consider the world at large to be corrupt and opposed to God, so they do what they can to be independent from it. The refusal to use technology is part of this - if they owned a car, for example, this would make them highly dependent on the massive global infrastructure (auto manufacturers, gas companies, mechanics, insurance companies, the DMV, and all the rest) for a central part of their life, and the worry is that this would drag them away from their traditional, highly conservative way of life. And to be honest, you have to admit they have a point. Modern technology has completely changed the way we look at and behave in the world, and by shunning (no pun intended) modern technology the Amish have managed to mitigate the changes to traditional lifestyles that modernity has created.",
"Like some others have said, it's really a pretty in depth issue. If you have some time and want to do some reading, check out [The Riddle of Amish Culture](_URL_0_). ",
"Back when I used to work for an archery range, there was a coworker who used to live near an Amish community. He would tell me they would occasionally come in to get their crossbows adjusted. Like these are $300-500 hunting ones you can get from like Cabela's or something. Top of the line. But they would arrive by horse and buggy.",
"My understanding is that they can use the technology out of necessity and not convenience. The decision to use tractors, etc, is made in order to continue to exist in the modern world. A good example would be phones. Phones are necessary to sell their produce and goods. Therefore, it is fine to use a phone for business. On the other hand, if they need to talk to Josiah down the road about a personal matter, they should head over there on foot or buggy and talk to them in person. This may have changed in recent years, but this is how it was explained to me.",
"All I know is that they need to adopt some technology that allows them to make those life changing whoopie pies on a global scale.",
"My father was a Mennonite minister and grew up in an Amish family. He spoke Pennsylvania Dutch before English. I still have a lot of relatives that are Mennonite or Amish. \n\nFirst, the Amish broke away from the Mennonite (originally called Anabaptist) church. Many people think it was the other way around. As someone else eluded to, it was the around the turn of the century that it all went down. There was a lot of new technology being developed (electricity, cars, etc.). What I have always been told is that many thought that technology was too worldly. Mennonites are humble people. They do no believe that earthly possessions (too much wealth) are important. Hence, you see a high degree of giving and volunteering. The Mennonites have adapted to technology as it has evolved. So they may have the Internet, but none of the Tindr stuff. They also are fine with education, college, etc. \n\nThere was an element of the church that thought all of this technological advancement was too worldly and they broke away from the Mennonites. The Amish church is not as formally organized as the Mennonites are. The Mennonites have a national organization _URL_0_ . Here is what they believe _URL_0_what-we-believe/\n\nIt is much more difficult to put an exact label on the Amish. The Amish do not have to my knowledge a formal national organization leading them. At the local level they will have a deacon who is elected locally to lead them and that \"church\" typically decides how much technology to adapt. Then within families there can be variances. Think of it more of a spectrum from stuck in time of 200 years ago, to much of the present day technology and everything in between. It is estimated a 4th to a 3rd of the young adults leave the Amish church permanently, like my father did. For some they are completely ostracized from their family and others (like my dad) it is no big deal. Here is what I found on Wikipedia _URL_1_\n\nI get asked sometimes what it was liking growing up like this, it was a really good way to grow up. As I got older and starting looking around the world, going to college, etc.; I found my own way. I now attend a non-denominational Christian church. My parents are fine with that. \n\n",
"The idea is that much technology after that point removes the self-sufficiency of their communities. These are closed off groups that do not want to rely on the outside world and things like electricity, cars, gasoline, tires, and so on require needing outsiders to survive.",
"I live in Lancaster, PA right in the heart of Amish country. Most of them have cell phones. Usually iPhones. ",
"Gelassenheit is the Amish principal of submission to the will of God. Modern \"conveniences\" are just that: convenient to the individual, but not indicative of pious submission to God.\n\n\nMoreover, the Amish split from Swiss anabaptists *in* the 17th Century and migrated to the US in the early 18th Century. Their *Ordnung* (document prescribing their community rules) also dates from this time. In terms of the technology of *that* era, they were pretty bang up to date.\n\n",
"They don't _have_ the specific belief you're asking about, so it's not a very good question. Rather, as people are explaining here, they prefer a simple life, and to keep themselves separate from the outside world. But there's no specific belief about exactly what level of technology is ideal. You'll find that the level of tech they use varies quite a lot. ",
"Just to give a weird perspective on this:\n\nThe Baha'i faith believes that religion is made for a **certain time and place.** \n\nFor example: The Baha'i faith's main theme is unity. It was released in 1800s with conjunction with planes and radio, which can connect people who would have not met otherwise. \n\nSo maybe the Amish are onto something. Religion is tough to interpret already as it is, but adapting it to new technologies? Maybe it's not meant for that. Maybe. ",
"I've always thought that the Amish were the type to live with the land. So... when you get to the point of technology where you aren't providing everything you need for your immediate group, you have become dependent on others. Maybe there's a lot to be said about that, and why they want to keep it that way.\n\nI would assume a lot of pride comes into it, but it's also practical. The amish would have a pollution free world, no overpopulation, and other things I'm sure I'm overlooking.",
"They must be doing something right, it's estimated that by the year 2100, the Amish will makeup 7.5% of the population of the US due to their high birth rates.",
"It's just that 1) the modern fast pace of rapid transportation can take a toll on our inner peace & calmness by disrupting the stability of communities & families with everyone rushing around & coming & going. And 2) artificial lights can interfere with our instinctive connection with the sun's cycle, hence interfering with our connection to nature & the universe which is a grounding influence. And 3) staring at screens for entertainment or pastime or even work can drive a wedge between human interaction. I might be happier if I'd been born Amish. Modern society has taken a toll on my human wellness.",
"Technology gets in the way of interpersonal communication between communities. Going to someone's house and talking to them in person builds a bond that cannot be matched by speaking on the telephone.",
"My parents came from the Amish and they referenced this [bible verse](_URL_0_) as part of the reason why the Amish don't partake in technology (at least in their community, every community is different). ",
"What I dont get is similar along the lines to the question, why is 17th century tech ok, why not 16th century? Why not caveman?",
"There's a lot of really good answers here, but here's my two cents; there's a lot to be said about the whole idle hands make the devil's handiwork. Sure, it's easier to farm if you use a truck to haul stuff, but it also frees you up to do something less meaningful, morally bad, or nothing at all ( which anyone who's spent 36 hours in front of Netflix can attest is almost than just doing something evil).",
"There is an Amish community outside of my city and many of them have trucks for coming into town to get supplies and stuff. They use regular stores and sometimes you will even see them at a restaurant. I think they are more slow to adapt new technology and societal things rather than shunning it altogether.",
"Edit - You can't really explain like you are 5 here, because Amish/Anabaptist theology believes in a \"believers baptism\" where a person must be at a reasonable age of accountability to understand the faith.\n\nI am a Mennonite (our group is Beachy Amish). Yes we do have some technologies and also filtration on the internet (and yes, Reddit sets it off all the time). Yes, we do drive cars and pretty much live modernly except for media (TV, Movies, Video games) Amish are Anabaptists like us. Anabaptists consist of Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites. \n\nAmish do not shun technology actually, they just VERY slowly embrace it. Anabaptists distinguish very directly a 2 kingdom principle. We see a worldly kingdom, and also a kingdom belonging to Jesus Christ. (my kingdom is not of this world).\n\nWe try to live in a kingdom ruled by Christ. This means that each church makes it's own ordnungs (rules) of how we believe we should live for the kindom of Christ. No churches vote for the worldly kingdom. No churches participate in any government function. We see the world as \"lost\" and evangelize to the world to come to Christ's kingdom. We do pay our taxes however, but do believe the world to be ruled by evil people and principalities. We don't pay social security though and don't accept it. Our community all pitches in and takes care of the elderly's needs. We also have our own in house homeowners and auto insurance (it's WAY cheaper). \n\nSome believe that no electricity keeps you from worldly principles. Yes, most people like dishwashers, but Amish (Old Order & strict horse and buggy) would believe that dishes are a great way for mothers and daughters to spend time together. Put in a dishwasher, and that will ruin those bonding moments. This is generally the thought process. Put in electricity and the next thing you know you'll have TV and games and never see your children again which will break up tight families.... (Again how the Amish would think). \n\nFor us Beachy Amish, we believe in casting off worldly sin and the worldly kingdom. So we generally don't allow TV and movies into the home. So many of them we see distinct sin in the movies and shows. Violence, Blasphemy, bad language, lust, etc. We don't see automobiles as causes of sin, but just a tool (unless somebody is buying a vehicle for prideful purposes). We don't see the internet as bad per se, but treat it like we would a chainsaw (better use it right or it can harm your faith). So it's not really shunning for a \"pure Christian life\" per se, but being very careful. Amish (Old order like Horse & buggy type) would just take things further than we do. We feel we are more practical, but other more liberal Mennonites would see Beachy Amish as taking it too far.... \n\nWe do dress differently. Not in styles or fancy clothes. Men dress typically in slacks and plain shirts. Our women wear cape dresses and headship veils. It really removes a lot of competition between women and men in clothing. We never hear \"oooohh look at what she is wearing\".... or worry about provocative dress in church. For our brotherhood and sisterhood, we don't want competition, but a true relationship as family. There is no jewelry (bible talks about costly array and its avoidance). It's a different life.... Plain and simple but we are really busy!\n\nThe fruits of it do pay off though. (Can we blame media for bad families today?) We pretty much do have functional families. Most people only get married once and stay married. We do have HUGE families... My wife and I are expecting our 6th child and we are pretty much considered \"getting a bit bigger\" in our church. Many have 9 to 13. But there is nothing greater than seeing grandparents show up at events (which are Gigantic) and seeing a SEA of 70 little running bobbing heads swarming the grandparents. \"GRANDPAS is here!!!\" is shouted and it's like watching a school of fish go running.... Grandma & Grandpa both smile with big open arms accepting 10 grandchildren per hug.\n\nIt's a different life. It is an amazing life. It is a rewarding life. The life comes with sacrifice though. We would believe that we sacrifice things in this world, and most importantly, crucify our flesh daily from worldly lusts, greed, and seek the kingdom of God. \n\nNo I don't know about superheros. I see them on billboards. I don't really know what Trump and Hillary are all about, as we don't vote or get involved. I don't really know what worldly music is (we do hear it in stores and such), but I saw a billboard with some young girl named Cyrus and she was not dressed nicely. It looked like she was trying to promote lust. On Reddit here seeing some comments, I really think Jesus will come back soon.... \n\nOur life is different, but we do have a good brotherhood and typically very tight families. We have events all the time and constantly have people over (in fact we are hosting families tonight from church). Our children do have \"real\" childhoods of exploring the woods, fishing, hunting, and sometimes just climbing trees. We just don't want it to be filled with what we'd consider \"fictional and non-practical fake realities laced in sin\" movies and such. So we'll never embrace stuff like that. Things such as Facebook my group is very hesitant as we know it can be used for good but also for pride, stalking, and worthless fights. \n\nBut as for TECHNOLOGY in and of itself, it is not seen as bad for us as Beachy Amish - it's more how it is used. Amish simply see technology as \"the world\" and cast it off UNLESS it can be shown as a need, and not connected to the world. (May have solar panels for small things). \n\nBut anyway, I hope I gave you some insight. Mostly, never think of Anabaptists as the \"same\". It is so greatly varied I can't even begin to explain it. Old Order Amish & Mennonites are the horse & buggy people. Once you get into people who will accept driving, it varies so greatly how the life is.\n\nThe old order Amish would appear 17th century, but they are really not. Look for their milk coolers and solar panels.... But you'll never find their homes grid connected to \"the world\". \n\n\n",
"I live near Amish country in Ohio. While there are some universal beliefs that unite them, most Amish are very different in their respective communities. Their \"off the grid\" style of living is based mostly on the belief that the modern world is too dependent on technology, rather than God. Most of the Amish around here:\n\n* Live close together. A single driveway can lead to several homes on a single property.\n\n* One home serves as a school and all the children attend there during the day.\n\n* Most are very strict communities. No electricity, horse + buggy, etc. Most are farmers.\n\nThese communities, while geographically close, can still be miles apart. It's not like they all live on the same street. Families are known for their trade skills. One specializes in leather, another a blacksmith, etc. We also have Mennonites here...or as we affectionately refer to them: Amish Lite. They look Amish. Married men have the beards and wear suspenders and funny hats, the whole nine yards. But they are much more modern. Farmers have tractors (usually old and outdated), and will often sell fruits and veggies out of parking lots for money. Some even have construction or landscaping companies.",
"They don't. Not specifically. What they believe in is an emphasis on family and local community over being connected \"ethereally\" (my choice of words, there) to the \"world at large\" via any kind of an extended network. So it's not electricity that's wrong, or the use of it; it's literally \"being connected to the electrical grid.\" There is the \"idle hands are the devil's workshop\" belief at play, but some things just can't be managed practically by hand, and they don't take issue with this as long as technological innovation stops prior to becoming simple convenience.\n\nThe New Order Amish take a much more progressive view on this. Many of them use cellphones and laptop computers, but they avoid connection with the outside world and power them via generators. Basically, they can *have* an outside connection, as long as they don't *use it* to connect to the outside. \n\nOld Order refrains from this, but even they use generators for refrigeration in their barns: they sell dairy products to the outside world, and all relevant laws apply to them. ",
"It looks like you've gotten the answer to your question, but there's one other thing I've always found interesting - as I understand it, the Amish place importance on the process of doing something, not just the result. So when you make a quilt or a barn, the act of making it should be satisfying to you just like the end product is.\n\nI think that philosophy plays into the technology question, because tech is about more results with less effort. So while sending a Facebook message to your friend may achieve the same goal of communicating with them that a letter does, you've theoretically lost something in terms of what you get out of the process of writing them a letter.",
"No one is actually answering his question. \n\nWhy are they focused on the 17th century?",
"Not the 17th century per se but the idea that the world (non believers/non amish) are doing new things all the time. They want to be in the works but not of the world so if the cool thing is to drive cars then they want to be separate from that crowd.\n\nSame goes for fashion, their views on using violence, swearing oaths, and yes technology. They aren't patterned after an area in time but a whole thinking process of being different.",
"It's not about technology, it's about simplicity and leading as simple a life as possible. It's about staying disconnected from the 'sinful' world of 'The English' (their word for everyone else not them). The simplicity creates purity for them in their worship of God (and Christ). If they think a piece of technology will help them in that goal, they will adopt it. Thus you'll see Amish with solar power, cell phones, chain saws, etc (those are all things that aren't connected to the world). Source: I live 45 minutes away from a large Amish community.",
"I don't know anything about the Amish, but I know exactly what they were thinking when the first group of them to confront technology noped out of modernity. \n\n\nA lot of the scientific advances made in recent years are amazing and beneficial, particularly in medicine, etc. The thing is, does the rest of it really enrich our lives? Is the life of a typical 2016 twelve year old sincerely 'better' than his counterpart 100 years ago? In some important ways yes (he's less likely to die of all sorts of things) but in other ways, in terms of quality of life, no. It's actually much worse and our neck-deep involvement in technology plays a huge role in that. \n\n\nWhat's great about modern communications: being able to keep in touch with old friends who, a generation ago, would've been mostly lost forever as the winds of change blew us to different places in life... but am I really better off knowing what you had for breakfast? Am I really better off knowing that the guy I played guitar with in high school 23 years ago is getting a divorce and his kid is strung out on heroin? Am I \"better off\" when I get a text reminding me to pick up yogurt when I'm out talking a walk? \n\n\nIn the end, it's all about balance, moderation, but I can totally sympathize with the Luddite impulse that just says \"fuck it all\" and abandons the whole technological show; sure, I'm thankful for that weird looking machine at the doctors office and whatever it does but really, the rest of it can piss off, says a guy on Reddit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Riddle-Culture-Center-Anabaptist-Studies/dp/080186772X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464187679&sr=1-1&keywords=the+riddle+of+amish+culture"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mennoniteusa.org/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish",
"http://mennoniteusa.org/what-we-believe/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A15-17&version=ESV"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5kl2s2
|
why is heart failure such a quick death when suffocation takes so much longer under the exact same circumstances?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kl2s2/eli5_why_is_heart_failure_such_a_quick_death_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dboo3rs",
"dbooi7u"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're probably thinking of cardiac arrest, not heart failure. Cardiac arrest is when the heart stops pumping blood, heart failure is when the heart can't keep up with the body's oxygen needs.\n\nWhen your heart stops, your brain stops receiving oxygen, and you pass out in less than 30 seconds. \n\nWhen you're suffocating, your body can still draw plenty of oxygen from the air in your lungs to keep you going for several minutes or more.\n\n",
"The blood in your body is still partially oxygenated even after it returns to your heart and lung. Also, you lung still have some oxygenated air in them. So long as your blood continues to circulate, some oxygen is delivery to your body.\n\nBut when your heart stops pumping, your blood no longer circulates. Cells only have access to the whatever oxygen is in the nearby blood and soon become oxygen deprived, even though there is oxygen left in other parts of their blood."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.