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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9ff1b1
|
geostrophic wind?
|
Hey all! What is the simplest way you guys could define what is the a geostrophic wind?? I know it is related to the Coriolis effect but what is it exactly? thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ff1b1/eli5_geostrophic_wind/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5w7pgk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Weather is all the processes happening in the troposphere - the lowest layer of the atmosphere which we reside in. The bottom of an ocean of air if you like. Air pressure is not the same everywhere in the troposphere, the Sun heats the Earth unevenly, creating pressure differentials. \n\n\nThis is what causes wind to occur. Air wants to move down the pressure gradient, from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. This makes intuitive sense - when you think of a bunch of tightly packed air, then of course it will want to go and mix with any neighbouring air which is not as densely packed. So the pressure gradient dictates the direction of air flow.... except the Coriolis effect also comes into play. The Coriolis effect deflects movement to the right with respect to direction of travel (in the Northern Hemisphere. Other way around for SH). The constant movement of a wind, and the constant deflection due to Coriolis means you have a balance going on so that the wind must take the path in the middle of the two. \n\nImagine two arrows front of you pointing left and right:\n\n < --------•-------- > \n\nTowards the left is the region of low pressure that you, a parcel of air at higher pressure, is constantly moving towards. However, as you travel your movement is constantly deflected by Mr Coriolis, who keeps shoving you right because you are in the northern hemisphere. You never stop trying to move down that pressure gradient to the left, and so the result is a situation where you move forwards into the central dot, perfectly balanced (as all things should be) by the pressure gradient and the Coriolis effect. Congratulations, you are now a geostrophic wind. \n\n\nThe same thing happens in the oceans and so there are currents with geostrophic flow too. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1xk8t1
|
why aren't the obvious inhumanities in north korea receiving as much attention as the holocaust currently does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xk8t1/why_arent_the_obvious_inhumanities_in_north_korea/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfc3eqf",
"cfc3jaf",
"cfc3zmb",
"cfc5c7r",
"cfc6c0h",
"cfc7rmd",
"cfc7vd5",
"cfc9d98"
],
"score": [
70,
5,
4,
27,
11,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If Hitler had stayed in Germany and only killed German Jews, and only messed with the German people, we might not have cared as much as we did.\n\nThe two scenarios are not comparable.",
"The two things aren't comparable. The Holocaust was a deliberate attempt at the industrial extermination of certain ethnic groups. Whilst a lot of what goes on in North Korea is utterly abhorrent, it is not on the scale, nor is it based on the same ideology, as the Holocaust.\n\nWhy doesn't it get as much attention? Well, firstly I'd argue that it *does*: North Korea is under heavy sanctions, and there are constant news reports about its governments actions - that is nothing like the attitude towards Nazi Germany before WWII broke out. North Korean refugees are given asylum in pretty much any other state, unlike Jewish refugees from pre-war Germany, and the international community is aware of, and responds to, what happens there.\n\n",
"Germany invaded all its neighbours and slaughtered their people. Only a small % of Holocaust victims were from Germany. North Korea is sitting inside its own borders and starving its own people to death by spending so much of its GDP on its military to support the largest military on Earth.\n\nIt's seen as worse when you invade your neighbours and kill them. Killing your own people through starvation is seen as stupid.",
"For one, the Holocaust was multinational while North Korea does its atrocities within borders. The Holocaust affected anyone who was in a Nazi Occupied Nation or Territory. This obviously leads to more being known about it than we know about what the North Koreans do. Moreover, North Korea is extremely isolated so we don't know the full extent... Heck, we aren't 100% sure about anything going on in North Korea. \n\nIn addition to that, North Korea doesn't affect anyone but South Korea, China and Japan. It affects China due to the refugee's and the ROK and Japan are enemies of the state. Assuming you live in the US, UK, AUS or CAN, it doesn't affect you. We promised but that doesn't mean we'll follow through with it. Look at the Rwandan Genocide or the War in Darfur which is easily compete with the Holocaust, but you don't hear much about it.\n\nHistory is written by winners to demean the enemy. We hear of the Holocaust because Nazi Germany lost. If they were still alive today and stayed within border, we wouldn't hear about it. North Korea, Rwanda etc... nobody lost, nobody won so nobody talks about it. That's how I see it. \n\nYou could argue that they're also on two totally different scales as the DPRK's goal is to maintain power, eliminate enemies and eventually unite the ROK. Fascist Germany's goal was to exterminate the undesirables or force them into, basically slavery and use the conquered land for living and farming space. \n\nTL;DR - The Holocaust affects more people and we know more about it than about anything going on in the DPRK. It doesn't affect us (Western Nations) and we aren't revealed to it as much so it stays within the borders. Also, events similar to the Holocaust have happened since 1945 (see: Rwandan Genocide). ",
"Hitler was doing it to citizens of *other* countries.\n\nThe Kim family is more comparable to Stalin or Mao, rather than Hitler. \n\nAlso, there doesn't seem to be any racial discrimination or anything like that, it's pretty equal across the board for your standard NK citizen. ",
"As Eddie Izzard said \"oh, you're killing your own people? You're spot on mate! We've been trying to kill you for ages! .. Hitler killed people next door. Oh ... stupid man.\" ",
"I'm not saying I condone this, but white people slaughtering other white people tends to be a rarer occurrence as well as a bigger deal in the media than other conflicts.\nSource: I'm Armenian, and no one cared about us",
"Because it doesn't affect %99+ of the world.\n\nNo one cares about what doesn't affect them, so they don't talk or do anything about it.\n\nExactly what the illuminati wants, man."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ixr3x
|
am i doing my body a service by not taking medicine, i.e not taking advil for a common headache or cough syrup for a slight cold?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ixr3x/eli5_am_i_doing_my_body_a_service_by_not_taking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl6gn1c",
"cl6gprx",
"cl6gx77",
"cl6gyuj",
"cl6h3yy",
"cl6h6f4",
"cl6hn2y",
"cl6hpim",
"cl6ism6"
],
"score": [
186,
3,
128,
16,
4,
23,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, your liver, kidneys and various other parts will thank you when you're 80. \n\nTaking Advil as an example (and basically any anti-inflammatory drug that isn't outright steroids), it seems very safe because it's hepatic impact is very low, so your liver metabolizes it pretty much straight away with no build up of negative effects - so at first glance you might think it was safe to take very often, however, it has a negative impact on your kidneys over time, restricting blood flow causing high blood pressure and kidney damage. \n\nThis kind of thing is true of many drugs. Even if they don't have explicit short-term side-effects (which a lot of drugs do) they may have long term, damage-through-attrition type side effects if they're taken often. \n\nWhile, some are more damaging than others, taking drugs when you don't *really* need them is generally not a good idea. That said, if you use common sense you should be OK. If you're vaguely aware that they have *some* side effects, and still need choose use these drugs so frequently that they do a lot of damage to you, I'd wager you have bigger problems than slow-onset kidney-damage. \n\n\n > Honorable citizen Brobi_WanKenobi: I think OP is asking whether taking things like Nyquil when he's feeling a cold coming on is in fact diminishing his immune system's ability to fight these things off on his own, sort of like building a tolerance for it and then quitting.\n\nIt's possible that I misunderstood the question. Generally speaking, if you're taking an over the counter medicine, it's treating the *symptom* of whatever it is that ails you and not the actual problem itself. So when you *feel* better, that's the medicine, but when you actually *get* better, that's still your body doing it's thang and fighting off infection etc. \n\nSo no, in this case, if you're just taking over the counter medicine, you're still letting your immune system get a work out - you're just feeling less miserable in the process \n\n(again, *very broadly speaking*, I can't speak for every medicine and every eventuality) \n\n > Honorable citizen jackruby83: It should be noted that this is chronic heavy use that affects the kidneys (someone with chronic arthritis taking it every day)... Not just if using it as directed for a couple days, if you have the flu, for example. The effect on the kidney is acute reduction in blood flow to the kidney, but constantly having the acute reduction in blood flow can cause long term damage, as you can imagine.\n\nYes, to clarify, these drugs cause side effects (dilated blood vessels) that are otherwise relatively harmless *unless* you take them frequently enough that these side effects aggregate rather than dissipate, building to a point where they cause damage that won't self-correct when you suspend usage of the drug. It's not terribly unusual to hear of someone taking drugs for headaches every other day, for example. It doesn't seem like they're abusing the drug, but this is still frequent enough to pause-for-thought. ",
"No. Unchecked, pain and inflammation can become chronic and much more difficult to manage and control. ",
"Yes and no. It depends on how bad it is.. generally, the less medicine you put in yourself, the better. But if you do take the medicine, it doesn't necessarily mean you are causing yourself harm. That really depends on what you take, how much and how often. Its always a risk vs benefit thing and which one outweighs the other. Panadol.. if you take it within the recommended dose, and your liver is fine then you're all good. Advil however if taken long term or too much well yes that will start to impact your kidney and stomach lining. But most of the time, the drug goes in, does its work, body metabolises it and out it goes. Some of the food we eat probably causes more damage. \n\n\nSo yes.. you are doing your body a favour if you dont take the medicine and you dont need it.",
"Somewhat.\n\nMost medicines for sore throat, cough, etc are designed to reduce the symptoms of an illness, not the actual cause.\n\nFor example, medicine for a runny nose gets rid of the runny nose, but doesn't cure the virus the body was trying to flush out.\n\nThis can work against your body as you are no longer using that defense mechanism.\n\nAt the same time, sometimes your body works too well. Nasal passages get blocked, fevers run too high, and swelling restricts your body from healing properly. Medicine can help in these cases.",
"I take diklofenakalim (Voltaren) over the counter pain meds, every month for menstrual pain. It is so severe I have to take them as soon as a feel the tension comming on. If I wait too long everything cramps up and the lack of bloodflow to the affected areas means the meds dont help at all. - That means I probably take more than the daily recommended dosis 2 days every month, and I do worry about the long term effects. I dont really get headaches or any other aches that require treatment, and I never take meds for muscle pains or similar. I hope that its ok to take painkillers for menstrual pain because I litterally have to curl up and wail for 6 hours if I dont take them on time. I can't imagine going through that every month. I'd rather have my uterus and ovaries removed.\nI do worry about it having long term effects, particularly since diklofenakalium apparently is a pretty nasty drug, but other types of pain meds dont work on the same level as it does, and Im allergic to opiate type drugs, so codeine and spasmofen give me anafylactic shock, which I experienced once luckily in the emergency room, but still. My doctor suggested diklofenakalium depositories which are higher strength than the oral ones I take now, but I'm afraid to use them because of the dosage. And since the over the counter ones do work, as long as I take them early before the pain shows up.",
"This is the sort of question to ask your doctor, I'd think.\n\nIn my medical experience, there is no known benefit to avoiding reasonable symptomatic relief with standard OTC medications in submaximal doses in patients with no exacerbating comorbidities like renal or hepatic impairment. In terms of quality of life, an annual cold or monthly headache can be limiting and symptomatic relief might outweigh the risks of eventual potential nephrotoxicity anyway, which is unlikely in any sort of reasonable dose unless you've already got low GFR etc.\n\nTL;DR 200mg ibuprofen po qds isn't gonna kill you unless you have CKD. Don't worry about it.\n\nEdit: heh, reddit and its medical 'knowledge'. Don't believe people on the internet, kids.",
"ELI5 remember. Some of these answers are over my head. ",
"You have some defense mechanisms, like runny nose, coughing, sneezing, fever, inflammation. These are designed to get immune cells to the site of infection, flush out the bacteria/ viruses, and generally make your body inhospitable to bad bugs. \n\n\nSometimes, your immune system just goes overboard and makes too much inflammation, to the point where it's damaging your own cells as much as the invader. Or, some bacteria pull a Hans Gruber and intentionally create huge amounts of inflammatory molecules (superantigens), thus creating an immune response that is so over the top as to be ineffective. Sort of like a diversion. This is often why people with severe pneumonia will get steroids as part of their treatment. \n\nSo if you have severe cold/ flu symptoms, you can help your body fight off the infection by lessening some of the inflammatory process. But if you have mild symptoms, probably better to let nature take its course. \n\nAs far as advil (ibuprofen) for headaches, there is some evidence that small doses of NSAIDs over time have protective effects against heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune disorders. Although I think most of that research has focused on aspirin. At any rate, it's unlikely for a healthy person to have kidney troubles as long as you follow dosing instructions, and don't take it long term. Of any OTC pain med, Tylenol (acetaminophen/ paracetamol) is the one to watch out for. Can be highly toxic to the liver even at therapeutic doses. ",
"No. You are putting yourself through unnecessary discomfort. What's important, as with most things in life (from medication to recreational drug use), is *moderation* and proper, informed use. \n\nThe human body is resilient-- it can take some abuse. Taking an ibuprofen (or various similar NSAIDs) or two on occasion, for headache or other pains, is harmless. However, taking multiple ibuprofens daily is dangerous, because it can lead to ulcers and internal bleeding from the stomach. Taking many ibuprofens at once is also dangerous, and even as a suicide method would be EXTREMELY painful and unpleasant. \n\nDXM cough medicine is even more harmless (it doesn't cause ulcers or anything like that). When people seek the dissociative effects of DXM, they take several hundred milligrams. There are only 15-30mg in a standard therapeutic cough medicine dose of DXM. As you could guess, if you can consume 200-400mg without incident (and many people do this unhealthily frequently), 15-30mg even taken every 6-8 hours throughout an illness, is going to have no long-term effect on your health (except to reduce the harm that your cough causes you). \n\nAll drugs are different, with their own pharmacological effects, their own metabolites, and their own set of contraindications (drugs that shouldn't be taken together, due to potentially dangerous interaction). It's overly simplistic to say \"Yes\" or \"No\" to a question about the effects of all drugs. However, there is not a single over-the-counter drug I can think of that will do significant harm after one (or even occasional, moderate) use. Some should be taken with food, while sitting up for a while (both of these instances are true of ibuprofen), or with other stipulations, but in general modern medicines are quite safe.\n\nThere are two steps you should take when deciding whether to take meds. First, inform yourself. All drugs are different, so do some research about the drug in question. That's how you figure out how to take it safely and whether you should seek an alternative. Secondly, it should always be a matter of cost-benefit analysis. Once you have researched and can make an *informed* decision, weigh the benefits of taking it against the potential risk. For the most part, the risk of taking a drug once (even relatively harmful recreational drugs, let alone FDA-approved OTC medicines) are VERY low, next to none-- utterly negligible. However, if the reason you're taking it doesn't bother you much, consider whether it's worth bothering. For instance, I don't take ibuprofen *every* time I feel a headache coming on, but if one gets bad enough that it bothers me, I do (on food and water, and then sit up for at least 20 minutes). The same is true of prescription drugs. For example, antibiotics are an example of drugs that *do* have a legitimate risk associated with them. Regular antibiotic use is linked to higher rates of cancer and other illnesses. Does that mean you *shouldn't* take them? Absolutely not. They're miraculous drugs, and can heal you from illnesses that, just a couple hundred years ago, would've been a potential death sentence. But they should NOT be the first line of defense every time you get sick. They're a last resort, to be used on potentially severe illnesses or after surgery. It's all about the unique risks and benefits of the drug in question, and making sure you use them moderately.\n\nOnly you can take responsibility and do the research to make wise decisions. You shouldn't have a paranoid fear of modern medicine though. To answer your general question, OTC drugs (and most prescription drugs) generally have a very good safety record and there's very little objective evidence that they do lasting harm if used once in a whole. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5bfdq3
|
why does a human get hurt if they fall 10x their height, but an ant doesn't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bfdq3/eli5_why_does_a_human_get_hurt_if_they_fall_10x/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9o1j3n",
"d9o1kim",
"d9o1r5u"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"[Here's](_URL_0_) some previous threads.",
"This is known as the Square-Cube Law, which essentially states that as the dimensions of an object increase the volume will grow faster than the surface area. The result is large objects have a small surface area to volume ratio, whereas small objects have a large surface area to volume ratio. \n\nFor an ant, this means that it is able to resist stress considerably more than a larger object would if it fell from a proportional height.",
"It's the square-cube law. That's the answer but unless I say more the bot will delete my answer.\n\nYou could look up the square-cube law and find clearer descriptions than I could write.\n\nAs an object, like an animal, becomes bigger its size becomes visibly bigger but its mass increases at a much higher rate.\n\nIf an ant could suddenly become as big as a human it probably would be too heavy even to be supported by its legs; wouldn't even need to be dropped 10x its size to be hurt. It's the mass, the crushing weight. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=human+ant+fall&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2iojph
|
how do they make baby carrots and baby corn?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iojph/eli5_how_do_they_make_baby_carrots_and_baby_corn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl3yv6n"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Baby carrots: Full-sized carrots that are cut down to the baby size.\n\nBaby corn: Harvest it when it's very young instead of waiting until it is big."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ah9e3
|
what exactly is going on in cyprus right now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ah9e3/eli5_what_exactly_is_going_on_in_cyprus_right_now/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8xdyhn"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Banks in Cyprus lent a bunch of money to the Greek government before. Now because things are so bad in Greece, the value of the I.O.U's from Greece went down in value a lot. So now some of the banks in Cyprus are having problem.\n\nIn order to help the banks, it was decided that there was going to be a one-time tax on the money in people's bank accounts. This Tuesday, people were going to lose up to 10% of the money in their accounts, as if they never had it.\n\nWell the people of Cyprus don't like this. So they're doing the completely predictable; rushing to take all their money out of their bank accounts before Tuesday. Which is usually okay, unless it happens all at once, like it is right now. This is called a bank-run. So instead of helping the banks, they're probably worse off then where they were to start."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
uv1z1
|
recessions
|
Economics tends to be nonsense to me. I just can't understand how there is all of a sudden less money when there are the same amount of people able to produce the same amounts of goods and services. Please explain as if to a very unintelligent 5 year old.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uv1z1/eli5_recessions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ytktq",
"c4ytmlj",
"c4ywz8k"
],
"score": [
20,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine you work at Starbucks and I work at McDonald's. \nEveryday I buy a coffee from Starbucks on my way to work. And you buy mcdonalds for lunch. Now I go and buy a house on my limited income. Everything's fine and dandy until the bank raises the interest on my mortgage increasing the monthly payments. This puts pressure on me so I try to save money by not getting a coffee everyday. \nSince I'm not buying coffee from you anymore there is no need for you to work at Starbucks so you get fired. with no job you can't buy McDonald's anymore and therefore I lose my job too. \nNow I can't pay for my mortgage and my house gets foreclosed. \nNow multiply this scenario by thousands and what you will have is a economy in a recession. \n ",
"Less eli5 explanation:\n\nOne persons spending is another persons income. You know how when you spend $10 at the store that money is gone? It's not gone, the store just has it now. The money you spend is their income, which means if you stop spending it then they stop receiving it. If enough people stop spending money there then the store doesn't have enough money coming in. You already know this :-p But it's important.\n\nThe problem is that this spending/income is true for everyone. I'm not being as clear as I want, so I'll give an example:\n\nImagine a town with only 3 stores and 300 people. Acme, Sackme, and Whackme. They employ 100 people each. 100 people shop each store each month. Something happens (like a financial crisis) and Sackme has to fire 5 people. We now have a town of 300 people and only 295 earn money. This means only 295 spend money. Instead of each store having 100 people shop at it: Acme has 99, Sackme has 99, Whackme has 97.\n\nWhackme now doesn't have enough money covering in. They have to fire 5 people. We now have a town of 300 people and only 290 earn money. This means only 290 spend money. Instead of each store have 100 people shop at it: Acme has 95, Sackme has 98, Whackme has 97.\n\nAcme now doesn't have enough money coming in. They have to fire 10 people. We now have a town of 300 people and only 280 earn money. This means only 280 spend money. Instead of having each store have 100 people shop at it: Acme has 92, Sackme has 97, Whackme has 91.\n\nWhackme now doesn't have enough money coming in. They have to fire 10 people. We now have a town of 300 people and only 270 earn money. This means only 270 spend money. Instead of having each store have 100 people shop at it: Acme has 91, Sackme has 88, Whackme has 91.\n\nAnd so on. The employees/consumers didn't do anything wrong. The employers/producers didn't do anything wrong. It's the free market. There are two main trains of thought at this point about what should be done:\n\n1. The government should intervene. The federal government can borrow money incredibly cheaply, so they could do something like intervene when the first 5 people were laid off and give them unemployment payments or hire them. That way the numbers would be \"300 in the town, 295 employed and spending, 5 unemployed and spending\" or \"300 in the town, 295 employed in the private sector and spending, 5 employed in the public sector and spending\". The idea is to minimize the pain and prevent the cycle from happening. This is, broadly speaking, the Democrat liberal Keynesian train of thought.\n\n2. The government should not intervene. By intervening, the government is merely prolonging the pain. A readjustment is necessary and putting it off more - while appearing to minimize the pain - is actually worsening it. By intervening, the government is both getting deeper into debt while worsening the economy. This is, broadly speaking, the Republican conservative Austrian school of thought.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMore eli5:\n\nImagine your parents give you $20 a week. You spend $20 a week at a clothing store. The clothing store has a contest where they give away $20 worth of clothes every week. Your parents stop giving you $20 a week. The clothing store stops running the contest because they can't afford it.\n\nThe same thing is happening to a lot of people. Except instead of stopping contests, many clothing stores have to fire people who are parents. When that happens, those parents have to stop giving their kids $20 a week. Eventually a lot of kids won't be getting $20 and won't be able to spend it. But if a store isn't getting money then they have to fire more employees including parents. But when they do that then *even more* kids can't spend money *because their parents were just fired*. \n\n----------------------------------------\n\nIf any of that was unclear, please let me know.",
"Meh. This isn't going to be an ELI5 version, but there's a lot of misinformation in this thread. \n\nBasically, almost every recession we've had has happened because of currency or interest rate issues. \n\nIn order to understand how these things happen, we need to understand what interest rates represent in a market. \n\nLet's say you have a job that gets you 40 grand a year. You only have 30 grand in necessities. This leaves you ten grand a year for recreational expenditures. \n\nThere's now two options for you:\n\n* You can spend the money\n\n* You can save it, either through stuffing it underneath your mattress or by putting it into a bank\n\nIf you pick option 2, you now form two *more* possibilities: \n\n* If you just stash your cash, you're investing in the currency itself. By removing the money from circulation, the market sees less of it, which means its value goes up. When you want to \"cash in\" on this increase in value, you can pull out the money and use it at its temporarily higher value\n\n* If you put it in a bank lending program, it gets lent out at an interest rate (we're getting there!)\n\nNow, imagine everyone's actions regarding the money they have after necessary expenditures. A free market represents the interests and desires of humanity; money is allocated to the things that are most sought after. Supply and demand comes into play. You probably know what S & D is. \n\nWell, in a free market, interest rates are determined by supply and demand. The *supply* is how much money has been allocated by individual actors for investment, and the demand is how much investment individuals are looking for. So if the supply is high, that means that there's a lot of interest in investing in *new* capital. If the supply is low, that means people are currently less interested in long term projects and more interested in short term gains.\n\nThis works out fine and dandy; money is allocated to investment when investment is desired, and there aren't any recessions because bubbles can't form. \n\nIn our current markets, we have a few issues. For one, there's the fact that a currency is forced upon the market, with all other currencies banned. That's a different, more complex issue, so I won't get into it now. \n\nThe second major issue is that the *interest rates themselves* are manipulated. This creates a problem, as it distorts what people are truly interested in. \n\nLet's say the government sets the interest rates at, I dunno, 15 percent. If the market was given reign over the rates, it might be 20 or 30 or even 100%! We don't really know, because it's a sort of \"emerging trait\" of the economy; no one person can say for sure what the standard interest rate would be because it's impossible to gauge human interest objectively.\n\nSo, the interest rate is lower (or higher) than what it should be. What does this cause? Malinvestment.\n\n* If the interest rate is *lower* than it should be, this means that the ability to create new capital is too easy, which means more new capital is created than is desired. Because the market doesn't react instantly, a bunch of new capital is created, which then creates significant growth in other industries (e.g. the housing market boom created growth in glass, lumber, insulation, metals, etc), which means capital's allocated to those industries. But wait! There's a problem here! That \"demand\" (as in, the capital being allocated) isn't actually desired! Nobody's buying it (hawhaw, pun intended)! So what happens? The industries crash back to their pre-boom (and possibly even lower, depending on how much debt they accrued) levels. Resources have been devoted to things people aren't actually desiring, which means less resources to go to what people actually desire, which means less economic circulation of goods and services as there's less available for \"consumption\" or trade.\n\nThe above situation is probably the most common form of recession.\n\n* On the other hand, let's say the interest rates are *higher* than they should be. So, people actually do desire more long term development, but the interest rates reflect a (fake) desire for short term development. This has a similar effect as the one above, except instead of industries involved with long term capital getting inflated, industries involved with short term capital get inflated. Compounded with that, the fact that the possible new capital is never created makes a sort of \"unseen\" injury to the economy; think of all the things we would have made, if the market had actually reflected our desire for long term investment!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dczssb
|
why does a mammal's fur mostly point backwards?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dczssb/eli5_why_does_a_mammals_fur_mostly_point_backwards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2d9jd1",
"f2da8qb"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because most of the time, the animal is moving forwards. If it's hair grew the other way, it would be pulled out whenever a brushes against things.",
"Since they move forward, it would be counterproductive to have alle the hair growing foward. \n\nRidgeback dogs have the hair along the spine growing in the opposite direction. Hard to say if such a thing could have any benefit. But it is a feature of the breeds.\n\nAs for curly hair. I dont know if it would have a direction if it was straightened out somehow. But it wouldnt be of any benefit if it did. But i will have to look closer next time im near a sheep :P"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bjfvvw
|
effects of mixing sleeping pills and alcohol
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjfvvw/eli5_effects_of_mixing_sleeping_pills_and_alcohol/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em7ruhw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This needs a TL;DR. They put your brain to sleep. No pain. If you are considering suicide please call the hotline."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6dhdab
|
why do we contort our face when we are in pain or discomfort?
|
I'm brushing my hair and there's a few tangles yet I scrunch my face anticipating the pain from brushing out the knots...why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dhdab/eli5_why_do_we_contort_our_face_when_we_are_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di3lxza"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Part of a face's job is communication. So we are good at both making facial expressions to communicate feelings, and interpreting faces to understand those feelings. A lot of the expressions we make are unconscious reflections of our internal experiences, because it's often useful (in an evolutionary sense) for people to know what's up with us. Pain is one such experience which we unconsciously react to. If someone was watching you, they'd know to avoid the painful thing!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
s4u9b
|
calculating power for statistics.
|
I'm currently taking a statistics class and we somewhat glossed over power. I want to understand it better, but I can't find any good sources online that I can parse. The textbook does not explain it very well either, and I have a class during the prof's office hours.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s4u9b/eli5_calculating_power_for_statistics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4b7aog"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As you have probably figured out by now, 99% of statistics consists of the following two-step process: (1) write down a null hypothesis (which I will write as \"H0\") and (2) decide whether to accept or reject that hypothesis. As such, at the end of the day, exactly one of four things is going to happen:\n\n* you can accept H0 and be right (a good thing)\n* you can accept H0 and be wrong (a bad thing)\n* you can reject H0 and be right (also a good thing)\n* you can reject H0 and be wrong (also a bad thing)\n\nBecause statistics professors are a bunch of crotchety old bastards, the first thing they tell you about are the bad things. So, you probably already learned that if you reject H0 and are wrong, that is called a *Type I error* (also called a *false alarm*). The *probability* of a Type I error is called *the level of significance of the test* and is usually denoted by the greek letter alpha. You get to pick an alpha; you probably recognize the customary value of 0.05. This leads to cool lingo like: \"we reject H0 at a 0.05 level of significance.\"\n\nYou probably also know that if you accept H0 and are wrong, that is called a *Type-II error*, also known as a *missed detection*. The probability of a Type-II error is usually denoted using the greek letter beta. Alpha and beta are not independent; making one smaller makes the other one bigger. Deal.\n\nWith \"power\" we finally give a name to a good thing. \"Power\" (or, to use more correct language: *the power of a statistical test*) is the probability that you reject H0 and are right (other definitions in common use are \"the probability of not committing a Type II error\" and \"the probability of not making a false negative decision\" which are about the biggest rape of the English language I've seen anywhere outside of hip-hop. But I digress).\n\nHow do you compute power? Easy peasy: power = 1 - beta. And since power is a good thing, you want to make it as big as you can. Clearly, one way to embiggen power is to make beta small. Bad news: this makes alpha big (remember what we said about alpha and beta?). A *better* way to increase power is use a larger sample size. There are other tricks too. You will learn about them. Oh, yes.\n\nIf that was not any help, there's lots of YouTube vids on power. I like [this one](_URL_0_) - it's a nice concise 4 minute talking head rather than a half-hour of MS Paint."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-D6VmG7aLA"
]
] |
|
7dvvd2
|
why is the wind stronger the higher you go?
|
For example there will be barely a breeze when on the ground but if you go up to the roof of a tall building you almost get blown over
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dvvd2/eli5_why_is_the_wind_stronger_the_higher_you_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq0qmfv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's due to increased friction at ground level compared to higher altitudes, where the air flow tipically does not encounter as many surfaces to collide with/brush against. Also, a cool case study is about how cities and buildings generally interfere with air flow inside and outside of them and, as such, create micro-climates and channel these flows."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a0rfff
|
how do face washes that claim to work over the course of hours, do so if you're rubbing it on and immediately rinsing it off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0rfff/eli5_how_do_face_washes_that_claim_to_work_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eajvu0f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Perhaps it’s a matter of molecule size of a specific active ingredient in the product they’re marketing that penetrates deeper into the layers of the epidermis to do what it’s meant to, even after rinsing it off your face. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ehbpmk
|
why do men have more blood than women of a similar size?
|
I had donated blood recently and was curious as to how much blood my body has. So I googled a blood volume calculator for a rough estimate and noticed that a man of my weight and height would have slightly more blood than me according to the calculator.
Edit: This got way more attention than I thought it would. And I want to thank everyone for their comments, they are very informative.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehbpmk/eli5_why_do_men_have_more_blood_than_women_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fchw9ff",
"fchxoe2",
"fcilj37",
"fcilyd8",
"fciq8eh",
"fciyiwd",
"fcjezyl",
"fcjz79d"
],
"score": [
6342,
173,
78,
473,
18,
21,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"1 - blood is inversely proportional to body fat percentage. And on average females have more fat then males at the same weight and height\n2 - menstruation causes women to lose some blood, that needs to be replaced\n3 - it has been shown that higher levels of testosterone causes more blood production. (And faster clotting times)",
"Probably has more to do with muscle mass. In general males hold on to more muscle than females. \n\nMuscles definitely need more blood supply than long term fat stores do. \n\nWhen a female is pregnant, she can pretty much have 50% more blood than she did before pregnancy.\n\nThe vascular system is interesting and definitely not just influenced by biological sex but also where you live and what your lifestyle is like. People in higher altitudes have more blood than people at sea level. An athlete will have more blood than a couch potato of the same height and weight.",
"It should also be noted that testosterone increases hematocrit (percentage of red blood cells) and hemoglobin (the substance in blood that carries oxygen (O2) ). Those on T supplements for example must be monitored for polycythemia (basically too many red blood cells). \n\nSo that’s another potential reason for the increase compared to females of similar mass. Possibly the main explanatory reason.",
"Androgens (e.g. testosterone) drive red blood cell production. Since men have higher levels of testosterone, it follows that they have a higher percentage of red blood cells. There is an old myth that the difference comes from women’s menstruation, but this myth has been disproven, most notably by the fact that post-menopausal women do not see an uptick in red blood cell percentage.",
"I believe there is another reason other than what is stated here, it has to due with men's livers. Men have bigger livers which is just full of blood. Its also why men don't get as drunk as female on the same amount of alcohol. more blood and bigger liver means lower bac.",
"The menstruation blood loss thing people have mentioned is v minuscule and shaky as a relevant fact because of that bc it's usually shedding uterine tissue and lubricant that comes out during menstruation but! \n\n\nUteri and fallopian tubes are what's called hollow organs- like stomachs, intestines, or bladders, which just refers to organs that aren't solid masses of organ tissue or contain/produce something other than blood. \nMeaning that, in addition to regularly taking up more space than any rough equivalent you could think of for men (such as ureters, testes, prostate glands, etc.) they're also not filled with or filtering blood! Even prior to menstruation, it's actually building up uterine tissue instead of blood, and the blood that's lost is so little your body remakes it as its lost. \n So your uterus/fallopian tubes do reduce your overall carrying capacity for blood volume. \nAnd, while your first thought may be that boob mass makes up for that taken space, that's actually filled with breast tissue, which is a combination of glands and hollow organ tissue, and fat, which needs no blood; compared to muscle, which is live tissue that needs blood for perfusion, and also what men usually have in that area. (Obvi it very slightly increases veins/capillaries that need to perfuse the surface area but mens bodies have external genitalia and on average tend to have better circulation so I assume that part kinda evens out) \n\n\nSo the menstruation fact wasn't quite right, but your reproductive organs do factor in on their own to having slightly less blood volume than a male of your size!",
"Muscle mass?\n\nMuscle demands more oxygen.",
"ELI - 5 - \n\nMen have more muscle than women on average.\n\nMuscle requires more blood.\n\nMen have more blood on average than women."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1iwdxo
|
why is sexual reproduction necessary? aren't there asexual lifeforms? why does the male/female system in biology even exist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iwdxo/eli5_why_is_sexual_reproduction_necessary_arent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb8ong3",
"cb8p4ry",
"cb8pg9a"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's absolutely not \"necessary\" but sexual reproduction makes it a lot easier to get a bunch of different individual things, which means the whole group is more likely to survive a different situations.\n\nIt'd be like if you went to build a house and you had a bunch of plumbers. I'm sure the plumbers would eventually figure out how to wire up the lights, but it'd probably save some time if we had an electrician.",
"Sexual reproduction creates more variation without lots of the problems that come with other ways of getting that variation. Asexual lifeforms produce offspring that are close to genetic clones of themselves. They can have some mutation, but mutation is often harmful to the lifeform. A very high mutation rate would most likely not be viable. However, sexual reproduction allows offspring to be fairly different from their parents without a high mutation rate. Variation is useful because it can keep a species alive in changing circumstances.",
"There are several reasons why sexual reproduction is necessary. There are also reasons why it isn't necessary and in some cases is of detriment. Let me run through both.\n\n**ARGUMENT AGAINST:**\n\n* *Wasteful*: organisms spend energy on producing gametes, on producing sexually \"attractive\" attributes (for example, the peacock's tail, which is elaborate, but draws females). The \"life history\" theory of biology states that we have a finite amount of energy that we can spend on reproductive efforts, on food-gathering efforts, and on physical size. The more energy we spend on our reproductive efforts, the scrawnier we are and the less efficient hunters/gatherers we are.\n* *Risky*: as humans, this is fairly easy for us to understand. Close (ie sexual) contact means easier spread of diseases, including (but not limited to) sexually transmissible ones.\n* *Disruptive*: finding and attracting mates takes both time and energy that could be spent doing other things.\n\n**ARGUMENT FOR SEX**: there are two main theories that -- according to biologists -- makes sex a favorable characteristic that would be selected for, not against.\n\n1. The *Red Queen Hypothesis* states that we use sex as a way of mixing up our genetic material in order to avoid parasites. Why does mixing up genetic material help avoid parasites? Because many parasites are able to target/tailor their offensive capabilities to specific genotypes. So if Parasite A can attack genotype AA, it's beneficial to be able to create offspring with genotypes AB, BB, etc.\n\n2. *Muller's Ratchet* addresses the phenomenon that in asexual lifeforms, bad mutations cannot be \"removed\" because there's no sexual reproduction to mix up the genetic material and (hopefully) remove the aforementioned mutation. Say you have an asexual lifeform that develops a bad mutation. Fine, it keeps asexually reproducing -- it only has one bad mutation, after all! But after a few generations, this lifeform develops another bad mutation...and then a few generations later, another. So the mutations accumulate, and the only way to escape the 'ratchet' is through sex.\n\n**TL;DR**: it's advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, helping avoid deleterious mutations and/or parasites.\n\n[edit: formatting]"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2o8lap
|
why does the us use the gpa system instead of percent grades?
|
Why do most US Universities opt to use the 4-point GPA System rather than percentage grades?
Edit: Thanks for all your help!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o8lap/eli5why_does_the_us_use_the_gpa_system_instead_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmkrnbh",
"cmkrtaz",
"cmkuvox",
"cmkvo78",
"cml3cxt"
],
"score": [
61,
21,
3,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"It allows teachers to have different grading scales. So I might make a really hard class but give people with an 85 an A. Or I may have a class that you need at least a 75 to pass either because the information from class is required to move on or because I require more from my students. ",
"The short answer is, because it gives the information the Universities care about.\n\nA longer version...for grades, generally a University cares about 2 things, which are closely related. How well a student has mastered material, and how capable a student is of mastering material. If a student is about average, they should be receiving a C, good, B, amazing, A.\n\nSo why doesn't this translate directly to percentages? In short, because not all professors are good at translating an assessment of their knowledge to standard percentages. Take something like Quantum Physics; I've had a class where the average on a midterm was ~20-30%, with the amazing students getting 40%. Now, that may speak to the professor being terrible (for some definition of terrible), it may speak to terrible students, or it may be because the test was designed to be so difficult that a student could only complete 2-3 out of 5 problems in the time given, but half the test was in recognizing which of those problems a student could complete best. If the whole class is designed like this, and \"percentages\" are used, someone outside looking at the scores from the class would simply only view a student's score in isolation, see it as depressingly low, and view it as a mark against the student, even if they had the highest score in the class. Grades, then, are a way for the professor of the class to say \"Well, I was using a teaching/grading method that doesn't match up exactly to your expectation of 90%+ = Great student, anything below 60 is awful, but here's a way to view my evaluations in a standardized way.\"",
"During my college years we had grades between 1 and 10, with 1 decimal, so for example 5.4.\n\n\nThe standard rule is that the grade needs to be 5.5 or higher to pass. The way the grade is calculated depends on the test itself. Some simply are a test where you can get 45 points, multiply by 2, divide by 10, add 1 and there is your grade.\n\n\nIf you needed e.g. 75% correct, the grade would displayed as that percentage or recalculated based on different scale (e.g. 50% = 1 and 100% = 10, so 75% correct = 5.5 - > pass)\n\n\nIt might be less pretty but to me, it says a lot more about your performance than a B+ or A-.",
"Something else that hasn't been mentioned yet, sometimes the school doesn't want you to get tied up in minor differences.\n\nSay Student A got 95% and Student B got 94%. Does this make Student A \"better\"? Looking at percentages, it may certainly seem so, but most people would also realise that many other factors like condition on the day of exam also have an effect. So schools basically smooth things over and give both of them the same grade.\n\nEdit: To add, the CFA exams are perhaps an extreme example of this, as the only possible results are Pass or Fail.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I just think it's tradition by now. Different locales use different scales, but as long as everyone knows what the scale means, it's not big deal.\n\nSome examples:\n\nKrygystan uses a 5 point scale.\n\nUniversity of Mumbai has an 8 point GPA scale. \n\nIndian Institutes of Technology has a 10 point scale, with an S higher than an A. \n\nIndonesia says 80-100 is an A and worth a 4.0.\n\nA lot of countries use a 20 point scale.\n\n[Wikipedia article](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_systems_by_country"
]
] |
|
83cd63
|
why are sugarcane and beets used heavily for sugar production, but not sweet fruits like apples, pears and oranges?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83cd63/eli5_why_are_sugarcane_and_beets_used_heavily_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvgqyqv",
"dvh16tw",
"dvhgir7"
],
"score": [
23,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"So there are actually a lot of different types of sugars. The most common table sugar is sucrose, which is a molecule composed of glucose bounded to fructose. Fruits have high concentrations of fructose but not sucrose, therefore they’re not as useful for producing table sugar— sugar cane and beets on the other hand do have high concentrations of sucrose.\n\nEdit: [Data](_URL_1_) for sugar content of various fruits for those interested. It does appear in fact that some fruits would be better candidates than sugarcane for a sucrose source, which only provides about 20% sucrose by dry weight. Sugarcane is very [easy](_URL_0_) to grow, however, and may be inter-grown with other crops unlike fruits. The other consideration is, why grow a fruit for its sugar when you can sell it as a whole product. ",
"Fruits do not actually have a very large amount of table sugar (sucrose) in them. They have a large amount of a different sugar called fructose. While chemically similar they are not identical and do react somewhat differently when stored and used in things like baking. \n\nAdditionally the fruit is more valuable as a fruit than it is for sugar so any orchard would lose money selling it for sugar production. Whereas Corn, Sugar Beets, and Sugarcane can be processed for sugar at a lower cost than fruits can for the same volume of sugar produced. ",
"Sugarcane, beets, and sugar can be planted and harvested in one season.\n\nTrees that produce fruit take years to mature. If a flood or draught destroy an orchard, you are likely economicly destroyed. Years of work down the drain, and years of work before you will be able to harvest again.\n\nAnnual crops are much safer for farmers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/home_blog/2012/01/growing-sugar-cane.html",
"http://www.enzafoods.co.nz/the-company/technology/fruit-sugar-chart"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
47kfza
|
why are things so expensive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47kfza/eli5_why_are_things_so_expensive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0dj85y",
"d0djtc7"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Overall, things will gradually become more expensive due to inflation. Basically, the government prints more money than is taken out of circulation, causing the buying power of money to slowly decrease over time.\n\nIn the short term for food, things like droughts or widespread livestock or produce disease may disrupt the food supply, causing the price to increase.",
"Please search before posting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
evasmw
|
why does background music prevent deep sleep?
|
I’m reading a baby sleep training book and it says that music will prevent deep sleep after four months old. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/evasmw/elif_why_does_background_music_prevent_deep_sleep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffujozg",
"ffulzku"
],
"score": [
40,
14
],
"text": [
"When your asleep, your body runs a delicate balance between cutting itself off from the world so it can sleep, and being aware of it just enough to keep itself safe if need be. Music can help block out thoughts and other noises to help you fall asleep, but, as the track changes to a different song, or even as one song moves to a different part, you can register a sudden change in your environment, bringing you out of your deep sleep to check it out. This can disrupt your regular rhythm and make sleeping more difficult and less restful.",
"It doesn't unless they have been conditioned for silence while sleeping. \n\nForget whatever that book says, don't change you household noise to suit the baby, walk normally, have the tv or what ever going at normal volume and flush the toilet whenever you like. It will be hard for the first 2 months but after that you will be much better off as your child will not be alarmed every time something happens or you watch a movies etc.\nTo the extreme end of the scale party parents can still get there kids off to bed and sleeping by 7:30 and have them sleep through music and other noises, sure it may be seen as scummy parenting in some echelons so maybe a better example would be a traditionalist family who the father is a classical pianist whom host band practice every Tuesday and Thursday."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7nknam
|
rule against perpetuity
|
Can you please explain to me the rule against perpetuity like I am five? Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7nknam/eli5rule_against_perpetuity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ds2iybq",
"ds2yhtg"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Short version: Your interest in a property ends with your death. You cannot make rules for what happens long after you die.\n\nSo you couldn't, for example, pass down a property in your will with the condition that it never be sold.",
"The basic concept is that a person can't exert control over property forever (in perpetuity). As you can see from people in this thread attempting to explain it, the rule is confusing to apply and has been giving law students headaches for a long time. Over time the law has accounted for the difficulty in applying RAP and now the rule is pretty much irrelevant and a transfer will NOT be invalidated if the rule is violated. Because of these reform efforts, generally a transfer that violates RAP will be corrected by the court."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fdbhmd
|
what is a "betting pool" how do the odds work, and can you bet on any uncertain event or outcome?
|
hey guys, another quick question, i'm watching the original die hard one, and john mcclain and the black cop are talking, and the black cop mentions that they have a "pool" going on john mcclain coming out alive. john asks what type of odds he's getting and the black cop says "you don't wanna know"
& #x200B;
i have a few questions, what is a "betting pool" how do the odds work, and if some cops can bet on john mcclain coming out alive, can you hypothetically bet on any uncertain outcome?
& #x200B;
also, here is a clip of the movie i am talking about in case you are wondering, [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)
& #x200B;
thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fdbhmd/eli5_what_is_a_betting_pool_how_do_the_odds_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjgdmdu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are 2 outcomes. He's alive or he's dead. All the cops put in a predetermined amount i.e. everyone puts in a dollar to bet on either alive or dead. Everyone that gets it wrong loses a dollar and everyone that gets it right splits the pot."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKSYBQTgGcQ"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
g0b3g6
|
how do ships in bottles work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g0b3g6/eli5_how_do_ships_in_bottles_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn8spyy"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"They build the ship outside the bottle, with the masts able to fold down, and then they put it in and extend the masts.\n\n[Video](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zAtvrfiw8Y"
]
] |
||
2ysmh9
|
what's the difference between "english (united state)" and "english (united kingdom)" when i'm installing app, software or os?
|
Like the title said. What is the true different between those two since both of them are english.
English is not my main language, so whenever I install those stuff, I'd pick english (US), but kinda want to know the difference of those two.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ysmh9/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_english_united/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpcj50k",
"cpcj6ig",
"cpd0v7s"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're different dialects of the same language. Some words are different, and some spellings are different. For instance, an American would say \"What color are your pants?\" whereas a person from the UK would say \"What colour are your trousers?\"",
"I would assume the spelling differences between the two (e.g. colour, flavour, behaviour, harbour, honour, humour, labour, neighbour, rumour, splendour vs. color, flavor, behavior, harbor, honor, humor, labor, neighbor, rumor, splendor Things like that).",
"A great little side theory as well is that the American spelling of English words were dumbed down (i.e. removing the U from colour) because of a higher amount of non english speaking people in the country. The spelling was changed to work better with its pronunciation. To make it easier to learn."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2i6uty
|
how we know that the co2 in the atmosphere is man made.
|
I know there is research out there that states that ~25% of the CO2 is man made but i can't find it or understand it (spectrometer signatures). I would need this to correctly debate idiots.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i6uty/eli5_how_we_know_that_the_co2_in_the_atmosphere/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckzd7ro",
"ckzdbbj",
"ckzdcaa",
"ckzdln7"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We know we put it there because we have some data on how much CO2 was in the atmosphere historically, and that the current levels are completely out of line with that historical data and coincide nicely with the widespread burning of carbon-heavy materials like coal and hydrocarbons like most oil-based products.",
"To add, we have ice cores from antarctica that we study to see what the air was like thousands of years ago. Thats how they find historical atmospheric data.",
"If you include everything from farming, 7 billion people, dying forests releasing their carbon and our general reliance on fossil fuels 25% seems far too small of a number to me.\n\nMaybe try explaining to them how big the number 7 billion is and how would you expect humanity and all the carbon we release into the atmosphere to not have an effect.\n",
"Here is a very good video to give you basic explanations about this topic:\n[13 misconceptions about global warming - Veritasium](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU"
]
] |
|
ff50zb
|
how is global oil supply verified?
|
There are dozens of countries that produce oil, and hundreds of companies. Who is monitoring this supply and communicating it to the necessary parties (who can then presumably further verify the numbers) so that eventually there is a global supply total?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ff50zb/eli5_how_is_global_oil_supply_verified/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjvto9p"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Each entity which is producing oil is doing so in order to sell said oil to another party. They will declare how much they produced as part of their desire to transfer it to other parties, who will of course desire to verify that they actually received what they purchased.\n\nInherent in that process is producing the goods for inspection. If someone says they have a million barrels of oil for sale and another entity tries to buy them, they have to turn them over. What would they do, say \"Uhh... well, you can't have them. I mean, yes I said they were for sale, but you can't see them right now. But they totally exist!\"\n\nIn order to come up with a global total an entity need merely collect the declared supplies available for sale from all the producers and add them up. If an entity says they have oil but refuses to sell it (because it doesn't really exist) then it isn't part of the supply as it isn't actually available. Even if it was real but hoarded away for whatever reason it isn't part of the supply."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
44kpvn
|
why, in biblical stories and other ancient texts, are there people with ages listed well beyond a normal lifespan? is it meant seriously or symbolically?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44kpvn/eli5_why_in_biblical_stories_and_other_ancient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czqw7wn",
"czqwkpi",
"czqwmws",
"czqwxh1",
"czqxe01"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Bible stories and ancient text were largely passed from generation by word of mouth. Since something like 5% could only read and write. Exgerrated stories were the norm. Just take a look at all the Greek and roman god and goddess stories. The incredible lifespans were usually shown to give a larger than life persona. And even god like. Seriously or symbolically? Well it depends. It's sort of like asking today if the bible is to be taken seriously, word for word, or symbolically, or just plan nonsense. Depending who you are talking to you will get many different awnsers. Plenty of Romans thought the stories of their times were a complete joke. ",
"It's common for ancient myths to contain greatly inflated lifespans. [Here's an article](_URL_0_) with a list of many dozens of similar claims from other religions.",
"This user is deleting their account, possibly killing themselves. The reddit bandwagon wins.",
"I don't think you'll ever get a real answer for this.. none of us know for sure. I always assumed it was because they used different calendars/systems/ideas about time. I think in the bible, the oldest dude lives to be 999 ages. If we assume \"an age\" is one month, based on a lunar calendar, the dude was only 76.\n\nI have no other people to align this idea with and it could probably be over easily proven faulty. Am atheist and assume it's all warped BS anyway.",
"A possible explanation is that long ago, people generally counted in lunar cycles of around a month, rather than solar cycles of a year, which was mistranslated over time. So Methuselah, who lived to 969, would actually have been about 81."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_myths#Extreme_longevity_claims_in_religion"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
62ge6p
|
how active is our brain during a coma?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62ge6p/eli5_how_active_is_our_brain_during_a_coma/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfmjuz8",
"dfmml8j"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Somewhere between almost completely active and almost completely dead.\n\nThere are different degrees of coma that run the gamut of the various levels of brain activity.",
"Without firing neurons you go from a coma to brain dead. On the e other end of the spectrum some patients enter a coma secondary to sustained seizures, essentially all of their neurons are firing like a hurricane. The issue is that the neurons aren't firing in a pattern compatible with cognition. So... yes your brain is active, just not sensible. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ets4mn
|
how does the tab on the bottom of a car’s rear view mirror work?
|
When you flip the tab down to reduce the glare from the light of the car behind you, how does that work? How can you still see everything behind you as if the mirror didn’t move at all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ets4mn/eli5_how_does_the_tab_on_the_bottom_of_a_cars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffiau2p",
"ffib79d",
"ffjpxc7",
"ffmdjsz"
],
"score": [
24,
76,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The glass in rearview mirrors isn't actually flat like it seems. It's a wedge-shaped piece of glass that is thicker on one side than it is on the other. So when you move that tab, you see the reflection from a different side of that wedge.",
"They basically made of two mirrors, placed in an angle opposed to each other. When you dim it, the \"inner\" prismatic mirror reflects your cars ceiling (making it darker) while the front glass reflects the bright car lights behind you.\n\nEdit: this video explains it best [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"The mirror is behind a sheet of clear glass. Imagine looking into a store window. Just inside the window is a mirror. Stand directly in front of the mirror looking through the window and you see what you'll see when the car's mirror is in its daytime position. Now, stand off to the side where you can no longer see yourself in the mirror inside the store. You can still see a dimmer reflection of yourself in the store's window. This is like when the car's mirror is moved to the night position. You are now just seeing the reflection from the front of the glass.",
"Why do vehicles with LED lights have a Blue light underline when viewed in rearview mirrors?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjQlD7E7QY"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
40gmtu
|
how are we sure that humans won't have adverse effects from things like wifi, wireless charging, phone signals and other technology of that nature?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40gmtu/eli5_how_are_we_sure_that_humans_wont_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cytz8yz",
"cytz9ee",
"cytzg0h",
"cytzyxa",
"cyu0c9o",
"cyu223i",
"cyu2j82",
"cyu2jk3",
"cyu2r17",
"cyu3b85",
"cyu3kmi",
"cyu5030",
"cyu58f6",
"cyu5eoc",
"cyu5i3f",
"cyu5q9d",
"cyu6rlk",
"cyu6wdm",
"cyu6xdn",
"cyu6xya",
"cyu7til",
"cyu878n",
"cyu8x5d",
"cyu985v",
"cyu9ips",
"cyu9kd6",
"cyub26k",
"cyucmnp",
"cyucpvh",
"cyudsee",
"cyue3fr",
"cyuf7d2",
"cyugr01",
"cyuiau1",
"cyujb7c",
"cyukqqy",
"cyults7",
"cyum2d4",
"cyumrrb",
"cyunhyp",
"cyup8sh",
"cyupib3",
"cyuq28t",
"cyuqgy5",
"cyuroqt",
"cyurxxo",
"cyutovn",
"cyuv3ov",
"cyuvxpc",
"cyuwnir",
"cyuxtbs",
"cyuyia6",
"cyuz2f9",
"cyv2r9r",
"cyv5k44",
"cyv6ipp",
"cyvbt4n"
],
"score": [
25,
16,
129,
355,
4282,
3,
5,
94,
2,
4,
5106,
3,
2,
14,
4,
121,
2,
2,
2,
9,
2,
4,
5,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
36,
2,
17,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
7,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"On one side, you're never sure. At one time we were sure smoking didn't have side effects for instance. \n\nOn the other side most of these technologies use principles that we have been exposed to so long that we can safely say it doesn't harm us. Very simply put: Wifi is very similar to radio and we've been studying radio much longer than wifi has been around. \n\nOver the decades and centuries of science we've become quite aware of that things in general are harmful and which aren't. For instance, a hundred years ago you could buy a watch with radium on the dials that would light up in the dark very nicely. Little did they now that radium is radioactive and wearing something like that on your wrist isn't a good idea. There is a broad understanding what categories of technology are more or less safe and what aren't. Uncertainties are tested thoroughly, but we'll never know for sure what long term exposure to technologies does to our bodies until this long term has passed.",
"These technologies all just use light to carry their signal. Radio, tv, and other EM waves we've used for communication for a long time have had no adverse effect and these technologies are fundamentally the same.\n\nLow energy light like the types that are used simply don't have the energy to do damage to your DNA like, say, X-rays and gamma rays. Other than high energy light's potential to break chemical bonds in sensitive structures like DNA, there's really no way for light to hurt us.",
"the WHO (World Health Organization) did a study of Electromagnetic Frequencies and it's health effects in 1996. So far, the full frequency range (0-300ghz) have not shown any adverse effects.",
"Some people claim that WiFi signals do have an adverse effect on them however the general scientific conciseness is that this is a placebo effect. There have been many clinical tests on the effects of WiFi on people that support this finding, however my favorite was a study done exclusively with people who claimed to feel adverse effects from WiFi. They were put in a room with a WiFi router rigged to turn its lights on and off independently of weather it was actually broadcasting a signal or not. The people in the study would claim to feel the effects of the WiFi whenever the lights were on even when the router was not broadcasting any WiFi. Furthermore the subjects felt no effects when the router was broadcasting without its lights announcing that it was doing so.",
"Cancer is usually what we're most worried about with EMF radiation, though crazy people will claim all kinds of crazy things. Headaches, insomnia, poop that smells like electricity. But let's focus on cancer. Two things are worth considering here. \n\nFirst, we've studied these devices and radio waves well enough to say that at the very least they aren't *strongly* affecting cancer rates. If they are causing cancer, it's such a small effect that 20+ years of solid data hasn't been enough to pin it down conclusively. \n\nSecond, all that research is based on statistics that simply ask the question: given this pile of data, what are the odds that the difference in cancer rates among cell phone users and non-users is due to chance? This is basic frequentist statistics and doesn't take into account the question: is it even remotely plausible that these devices would cause cancer? If it's super implausible, the statistical bar to show harm needs to be really really high. Plausibility matters a whole lot. Why? Well, imagine you imagine two different studies with the same statistical results:\n\n1. A statistical test says there's a 95% chance that horses can fly, 5% odds that the statistical test is wrong.\n2. A statistical test says there's a 95% chance that people think kittens are cute, 5% odds that the statistical test is wrong.\n\nIn the first case, you immediately jump to \"the test is clearly wrong\" because you know damn well that it's implausible to suggest that horses can fly. In the second case, the test is confirming something we already suspect to be true, so it's much safer bet to accept the results as truth. [Relevant XKCD](_URL_2_). If you want the deeper version of this, you can geek out about this stuff on your own time [here](_URL_4_) or [here](_URL_1_). \n\nSo this is where we step away from what a bunch of iffy research suggests and delve into cold, hard physics. The great news is that physics says [it's very implausible](_URL_0_) that the stuff coming out of our phones and power lines and wifi routers is something to worry about. \n\nRadiation coming out of anything electronic is electromagnetic radiation. This radiation doesn't come out in a constant stream of energy, but instead takes the form of little packets called photons. Any given photon has a certain amount of energy packed in it, determined solely by its wavelength. \n\nA really powerful transmitter throws out lots of photons, and a weak one throws out just a few photons. But—this is very important to remember—the *individual* photons from the powerful transmitter pack exactly the same punch as the ones from the weak transmitter. \n\nThese individual photons can be broken down into two broad categories of radiation: ionizing, in which the photons are powerful enough that they can knock electrons off of atoms and molecules when they collide; and non-ionizing, in which the photons might make an atom vibrate, but aren't powerful enough to change its structure. \n\nBy the way, congrats, you are now learning delving into quantum mechanics without realizing it.\n\nIn order to get cancer, you need a damaged DNA molecule. To damage DNA directly via electromagnetic radiation, you have to break the molecule by slamming a sufficiently energetic photon (a single 'particle' of electromagnetic radiation) into it. Non-ionizing radiation simply isn't powerful enough to harm DNA. [Microwaves are very solidly in the non-ionizing part of the spectrum](_URL_3_), so it's pretty easy to understand why cell phones/wifi/power lines/etc are no biggie. \n\nYou can see from that chart that our electronics are producing photons that have less energy than plain old visible light. Things only get troublesome as you move up past the visible light spectrum into ultraviolet (hello, skin cancer and cataracts); more concerning a bit farther up with x-rays; and outright terrifying as you move into gamma radiation (nuclear explosions, cosmic sources). \n\nThat's not to say microwaves are *entirely* benign. A super powerful commercial microwave transmitter is no toy. The individual photons it emits aren't any more powerful than the photons from a cell phone, so they can't bust DNA up. However, microwaves are just the right frequency to make water molecules wiggle. Any individual photon- > water molecule collision results in a bit of a wiggle. In the case of a strong transmitter kicking out zillions of these low-power photons, you wind up with a lot of wiggling. If you stand in front of one of these things, all the small interactions with the water molecules in your body will make them vibrate back and forth so much that you'll cook. You're not dead of cancer, but you're gonna get burned. \n\nOne last note: there's an outside chance that we're hastening some sort of naturally occurring damage process by heating up the water around or brains with cell phones. People who refuse to stop being scared of cell phones cling to this. However, given the power levels involved that's sort of far fetched. Think about how hot we get when we have a fever, and compare that to localized heating you might see with a little 1 watt omnidirectional transmitter 3 inches from your brain for a few minutes each day. ",
"There's a really good documentary on this by the BBC. It's called\n\n resonance: beings of frequency",
"If nothing else, we should *by now* be able to conclude that they haven't had any strong effect.",
"Let me ask a follow-up question that might help you--even if we *did* know that WiFi was killing us slowly, would that stop us from using it? ",
"We aren't \"sure\", what we are is very confident, for all the reasons outlined by others in this thread.\n\nIt's important to not look at the world in a black-and-white safe/unsafe way. The whole world is very dangerous, we know this well. The question is, what do we expect the risks are around this thing to be, and what are the benefits. If the benefits are more than we think this risks are, then go for it.\n\n",
"A documentary came out in 1995 called Johnny Mnemonic that explains what will happen to humans due to all our technology. ",
"I'll address the Wifi part, as that's what I've looked into.\n\n* Wifi operates in either the 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz spectrum.\n* Your home router puts out somewhere between 100 mW (milliwats, or 20dBm) to 400 mW.\n\n* Water \"resonates\" at 2.45Ghz. (more accurately, the too-heavy-on-one-side water molecule will respond and change position when you alternate the field)\n* The average home microwave operates at 2.45Ghz centered, but will waffle down to around 2.3Ghz or so (they're not super accurate, and do not need to be).\n* The average home microwave puts out around 1000 W (Watts).\n* There's no such thing as perfect shielding; 1-2 W escapes from your microwave.\n\n* From this perspective alone, you get more 2.4Ghz radiation when you microwave a cup of tea in the morning, than you would ever get from your Wifi router all day.\n* From this perspective alone, if you stand in view of a gigantic fusion reactor for a few minutes, you'll get more 2.4 Ghz radiation than your router would likely provide you in your entire life. We call this state 'daytime' and 'going outside'.",
"Because the waves aren't strong enough for damaging or burning the cells and producing cancer. Maybe when Wi-Fi will be developed with x-rays we should be worry. ",
"Basically, we have more than a century of experience of using electromagnetic devices and communications and numerous clinical trials conducted. They show that the specific devices that we use, with a certain frequency bandwidth, power and usage patterns, do no cause any observable harmful effects. While it could be the case that there are some really minor effects that only become apparent over tens of years, it is both unlikely and not significant enough on the background of other effects. Think about how many things we do with our lives that can have adverse effects. Does shaving your legs have long-term effects? Does sugar depilation have long-term effects? What about the water you drink? The tea you make from that water? Your car? Your electromobile? The way you put furniture in your house? The side on which you sleep? Etc etc. All of these concernes are equally valid and mostly equally uncheckable. Pretty much unless you live in a wooden cabin in the mountains then there are always possible unforeseen long term effects. So it doesn't make sense to worry about one possibility more than about the others, but it's still useful to keep your mind open to possibilities and stay vigilant. Even if it affects almost no one else it could still affect you, because you're special. Or it couldn't. Maybe it's just a placebo. You never know 100% certainly.\n\nBy the way, besides unforeseen long-term harm we could also have unforeseen long-term benefits. You never know.",
"Your cell phone runs at about 2.4-5.9ghz.\n\nYour light bulb runs at about 400-700THz.\n\nSo your light bulbs in your house are far far closer to giving you cancer than wifi.\n\nIonizing radiation that can give you cancer starts around 750THz but our skin blocks it until around 1PHz (1000 THz) which is UVB.",
"These things are **radio**. We've been using radio for over 100 years. Natural radio waves move through us all the time. We'd have noticed by now if they caused damage. The people who first discovered x-rays and gamma-rays had negative effects. The people who discovered radio did not. People who say they are \"electrosensitive\" can't tell if the radio is on or off; the issue is in their minds.",
"Long time lurker, first time poster. I haven't seen a proper ELI5 answer yet. The simple answer is that the waves are too big to cause damage to the little machinery of the cells and, perhaps more importantly, the DNA. Smaller wavelengths (higher frequencies than those allowed in WiFi, cell phones, etc.) can be ionizing as they are small enough to knock out a screw (electron) that has the potential to break the machinery in the cell and or DNA. But, as this is not the case with WiFi etc, the only way for damage to occur to humans is to pump so much power into them that they overheat the machinery which causes breakdowns in the cells when the body can't cool them fast enough. This second scenario will never happen. The FCC has very stringent regulations in this regard to prevent it from happening and many other things would go wrong before damage to humans would occur. \n\nAs a side note, even screws that get knocked out by smaller waves (electrons by ionizing radiation) are even necessarily harmful as the body has methods for fixing such problems and \"putting the screws back\" if you will. Also, fear of this radiation is almost entirely unfounded, but that is a discussion for another post.\n\nSource: I'm an MS in Biomedical Engineering ",
"How are you sure that you're alive?",
"Wifi is made out of the same things that comes from space, in smaller supplies, so if wifi would have done anything to you, space would already have done something to you. We also know from testing that there is nobody who can prove that their illnesses are caused by wifi and not something else. Some people feel a nocebo effect (which is the bad version of a placebo, which basically means \"Your mind makes it real\" like from The Matrix) in response to their mind *thinking* that wifi is hurting them, but in reality it's not doing anything that they would be able to detect.",
"The first three articles to report an increased risk of brain tumors in cell phone users were published between 1999 and 2002. One article appeared in the International Journal of Oncology, and two others appeared in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention.\n\nIn the 2002 article, people using a cell phone more than 10 years had a two-fold increase risk of glioma, and a three-fold increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor on the nerve leading from your inner ear to your brain.\n \nAt least four articles published between 2004 and 2009 reported an increased risk of brain cancer associated with increasing cell phone use. One article was published in International Journal of Oncology. Two others were published in Archives of Environmental Health. Another was published in Pathophysiology.\n\nA 2009 meta-analysis, published in the Journal of Surgical Neurology, incorporated data from eleven long-term studies on the use of cell phones and the risk of brain cancer. The combined data found that using a cell phone ten-years or more was associated with a two-fold increased risk of brain cancer.\n\nWhile the INTERPHONE study is widely cited as showing that cell phone radiation does not cause brain cancer, it proved no such thing. The INTERPHONE data showed that using a cell phone for 1640 hours, or more, was associated with a 2-fold increase risk of developing a brain tumor. Heavy cell phone use over a shorter period of time was also associated with an increased risk of developing a brain tumor. \n\nA 2011 study in the International Journal of Oncology, reported that people who started using cell phones as teenagers, and have done so for at least ten years, were five-times more likely to develop a brain tumor.\n\nA 2013 study in Pathophysiology reported a three-fold increase in glioma in cell phone and cordless phone users. \n\nA 2014 French study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, reported a 3-fold increased risk of glioma after just 900-hours of smart phone use. That’s just 30-minutes per day for 5 years. \n\nA 2014 study in Pathophysiology reported a 3-fold increased risk of glioma if you used a cell phone more than 25 years. \nThe risk was 4-fold in those using 3G phones more than 5 years.\n \nAnd so on, and so on, and so on….\n\nIt takes twenty, thirty, or even forty years for lung cancer to develop from smoking. If we assume a thirty or forty year latency from first exposure to cell phone radiation to the development of brain tumors, we won’t be able to statistically prove a connection between cell phone use and brain cancer until the year 2025 or later. It takes that long for low dose radiation to show its full biological effects.\n\nWe (Straight Talk MD) just released a podcast on this topic this morning! Here is the iTunes link for anyone interested in learning more: _URL_0_",
"Yeah, it seems that natural sunlight runs a much higher risk of causing cancer than Wi-Fi or a cell phone. ",
"wireless charging? are you from the future?",
"Because the technology they're using is the exact same technology that was in place in the 20s: radio. \n\nTo date, there has been zero credible evidence of a negative effect at the power and frequencies we're using. \n\nRadiation doesn't become carcinogenic (ie: non-ionizing vs. ionizing radiation) until you reach ultraviolet and x-ray waves. Radio and micro waves are well below that. Just plain old light is more powerful than micro waves. \n\n_URL_0_ \nThe chart on the right breaks everything down - even high-frequency microwaves are 300 Ghz. Ultra-violet is in the peta hertz range. Radio is way down in the Megahertz range - not even close. ",
"There is a fair amount of evidence that there are adverse effects from cellphone usage at the least. Hardell et al (International Journal of Oncology, 1999) found correlation between cellphone usage and brain tumor frequency, as did Baan et al. (Lancet oncology, 2011). The cancer/cellphone link is still somewhat tenuous in terms of its actual mechanism as well as the strength of the effect, but there is another effect that is much better documented. \n\nThere is a slew of research indicating that carrying a cellphone in a pants pocket has significant impacts on a man's sperm health. There's a good list of relevant research [here](_URL_0_). ",
"The beauty of the null hypothesis is we can never be 100% sure WiFi *doesn't* cause cancer, but for all operative purposes we can just roll with the assumption it doesn't, we've never found any clear positive correlation.",
"Ahhh-I used to say the same thing about microwave ovens when they became common. I said in 10 years all of our right hands were going to shrivel up and fall off due to reaching into the microwave oven to get our warmed up soup.\nI'm kinda still waiting for that to happen...",
"A friend and I once did the math. We found that the amount of EM you would receive from living in a room with an access point for a year is roughly the equivalent to a single long conversation on an iPhone (an hour to three, depending on several factors). iPhones put out way more power and it goes straight to your brain. If you aren't worried about cell phones, don't worry about WiFi.",
"The radiation from Wifi, phone signals, and radios is a tiny percentage of the radiation we receive from the sun. If wifi was going to hurt us, the radiation from the sun would be a far bigger issue.",
"So I had lecture on electromagnetic radiation and health. (The lecture was part of my education of my EE course) I learned that electromagnetic radiation is investigated since invention of radar during WW2 (so for 70 years) and the posibility that scientics would overlook something is so small that its almost impossible. So all that stuff about dangerous mobile phones and wifi and stuff is BS, because electromagnetic radiation is completely safe until you get to UV or UR wavelenghts.",
"I'm probably late to the party here, but I actually work in testing phones and other devices for this kind of radiation. It's called SAR (Specific Absorption Rate). In the US, human absorption of radio frequency radiation is limited to 1.3 Watts per kilogram of body mass. \n\nMost radio frequency devices operate around the same frequency as microwaves (2.4GHz as another comment mentioned). What is really happening when you talk on your phone is you're microwaving you face very gently. \n\nRF radiation at these frequencies isn't ionizing, meaning that it doesn't damage your DNA, it just heats up your flesh.\n\nI can add more details when I get home, if anyone is interested.\n\nEdit: spelling",
"There is a lot of misinformation and hysteria surrounding this subject. I think the best thing for anyone concerned is to be an informed consumer, and asking questions like this on a public forum are a good first step. The FCC OET (Office of Engineering & Technology) has several excellent publications on the topic, with specific measurement criteria and guidelines for sale and operation in the United States. It's mostly \"deep geek\" engineering stuff, but I'll point out some exceptions here for anyone interested.\n\nOET Bulletin 56 2- This is a good primer for anyone interested or concerned about rf exposure risk.\n\nOET Bulletin 65 - This is dry reading, but table 1 (pg-16) should be of general interest. It covers the entire frequency spectrum, with the exception of VLF and the commercial Broadcast band, both of which have very stringent emission requirements of their own, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Table 1 charts the maximum power to the antenna by frequency band, below which there is deemed to be no public safety risk (and believe me, as someone who has worked in the industry, these numbers are conservative and err on the side of safety). Note that throughout the frequency spectrum, the power level that must be exceeded to even be subject to measurement scrutiny is in the range of 50-500 watts. By comparison, our Zigbee and Z-wave devices operate in the single digit milliwatt (mw) range (1mw = .001 watt), and Wifi is limited to 1 watt max. The stated limits do not automatically indicate a hazard if exceeded; only that exposure measurement is required to determine IF there is risk to public health & safety. Also remember that the guidelines were established based on average antenna gain. The small wire stub or PCB trace antennas used by our HA devices are negative gain (i.e., less than \"one\"), so any risk is further mitigated.\n\nIf you haven't already figured, my opinion is that there is no risk. The power levels and duty cycle are just too low, even when the power of all devices within our homes are aggregated. As for the suggestion of power line transmission, that's a _URL_0_ (BPL) has been proven to cause more incidental radiation that the intentional radiation it attempts to prevent. Local loop powerline distribution (i.e., within a single building) is viable, but somewhat limited compared to available wireless solutions (Ref. HomePlug Alliance1).",
"TL:DR; We're not sure at all, actually we may be suffering already. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nEdit - ELI5 explanation:\nTimmy! Don't stick that in your mouth! Don't you know that cell phones can hurt you?\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhile I was studying electrical engineering (98-2006, multiple degrees), one of our first projects in Advanced Electromagnetics was to model the propagation of EM waves such as those in question, as they radiate from a cell phone located 3\" away from the head, into the brain matter. Every possible model we and the instructors created showed definitively that such frequencies will (in fact) bounce around inside your head and create local hot-spots and cold-spots of radiation. The results, of course, are heavily dependent (proportional to 4*Pi *r^2) upon distance. At close contact the radiated brain is, well, much much much more radiated. Interestingly, if you read the manual on your smartphone there will be some very very small text saying you should always keep it several inches away from your head.\n\nAnyways, now we're seeing glioma rates (brain tumor of specific types) going up and some studies ARE showing a correllation.\n\nRadiation does not necessarily need to be ionizing to cause cancer, that is a gross fallacy. If radiation can, as example, create localized heating (eg water), then it necessarily creates a non-equilibrium in the thermo-chemical system. Such non-equilibriums can create alternative pathways to carcinogenesis. \n\nSo, maybe cell phones don't directly cause cancer, but they open the door for other things to cause cancer that normally wouldn't.\n\nHere's just one study re-eval from 2014:\n_URL_0_\n",
"The easiest way for a layman to be convinced is to realize that radio personalities broadcasting from studios with 100KW signals back in the day didn't get cancer. \n\nAnd cellphones, wifi etc aren't even a tenth of a percent as strong. But they're also electromagnetic radiation. \n\n\nThis isn't a complete answer, different wavelengths and whatnot so it's not necessarily a satisfying answer, but it's the answer for 'people who are lost when you start talking about wavelengths'. ",
"All form of radiowaves are just a very low energy form of radiation. (Essentially, Gamma and XRay are just very high energy radiowaves)\n\nThey aren't safe like radiation isn't safe, there is no \"here are you dead\" limit or \"here is cancer\" limit.\n\nEach human reacts differently to different amounts of exposure.\n\nThough it should be said that the effects are minute at best, the energy an average cell phone puts out during active times is almost nothing compared to what else we are exposed to.\n\nMost energy comes from radio stations and power lines (quick heads math correct if wrong), which have been around for a while.",
"As the use of such devices boomed rapidly, we'd expect a similar increase in diseases, which is not the case.",
"\rTL;DR: They probably don't. Many studies show they don't, and the ones that say they do are flawed.\n\n----\n\nWhenever my parents see me put my phone in my pocket, they tell me that it’s a bad idea, that phones cause cancer, and that I shouldn’t keep the phone so close to my body. I respect my parents, and I appreciate that they care, but I wish they had proof that my phone actually causes cancer. Whenever I look it up, I get varied opinions. Some articles insist that phones cause cancer, and that I should never have a phone. Those articles tend to be very insistent, very sensational. But then other articles state that phones don’t cause cancer, but sometimes I wonder if those sources are biased, because they usually tend to be written by technology journalists, people who have some sort of investment in the cell phone industry. There’s no in between, and the issue is pretty controversial. \r\n\r\nNow, I think that anyone who’s writing an article like this is writing with some kind of agenda. I feel like they have something to prove. But I really want to know, without bias, or without an agenda: do phones cause cancer?\r\n\r\n*\r\n\r\nLet’s start with the problem: electronics emit radiation. Any appliance that runs on electricity will have some sort of radiation. It is near impossible to avoid exposure to this radiation; many people have grown concerned over its relationship to a person's health. These fears were not without reason. In my class at Brooklyn College, I recently read Ruth Ozeki’s A Tale for the Time Being, a novel in which she describes how damaged nuclear power plants released toxic radiation into cities where people lived. The novel was based on a real incident, near the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. In the novel, characters discussed how the nearby towns had to be evacuated and how the wildlife was dying out. The horror stories we hear about deformed animals around old nuclear plants, while perhaps not always true, are certainly frightening. \r\n\r\nHowever, the radiation I want to discuss is very different than that kind of radiation. Damaging radiation from nuclear fallout or the sun is known as ionizing radiation. This means that the radiation has enough energy to change the atoms in our body. These changes can happen to our DNA, and subsequently they can cause diseases such as cancer. For this reason experts advise that one should not stay in the sun unprotected for extended periods of time. It is for this same reason that you may see people on TV or in films working with radioactive material, dressed in thick protective suits\r\n\r\nFrom these images, one may draw the conclusion that all radiation is lethal, which just isn’t true. Most of the radiation we are exposed to is not as strong as the sun or a nuclear meltdown. Most of the radiation we are exposed to is significantly weaker, and consequently it is non-ionizing. This means that it cannot change the atoms in our body, and is therefore not harmful. The radiation given by cell phones is pretty weak, and so it is non-ionizing too: so, perhaps there is no problem using cell phones at all. \r\n\r\n*\r\n\r\nThe answer is not so simple. \r\n\r\nCell phones radiation has very similar wavelength to that of a microwave. If you’ve ever taken a Hot Pocket out of the microwave, you know how hot the insides can get: hot enough to burn your skin. I wouldn’t want my brain to be this hot, so I was scared that perhaps that’s what my phone was doing; cooking my brain. After researching the issue, I learned of an important distinction between cell phones and microwaves: the radiation from a phone is at least a thousand times less powerful than a microwave. And not nearly powerful enough to melt your skin, or cook your brain.\r\n\r\nThis radiation does have side effects though. \r\n\r\nAccording to Maryland researchers, cell phone use causes the brain to release a higher level of glucose than is normal (Volkow et al). Not much was known about the change, and whether or not this had harmful side effects on the brain. It didn’t seem as if the extra glucose was doing any harm. A study in Sweden would like to prove that it does (Hardell and Carlberg).\r\n\r\nIn the study, researchers questioned patients with brain tumors, --specifically, glioma-- about their cell phone use. Patients would answer questions such as: “How often did you use your phone before you got a tumor?” and “On which side of your head did you use your phone to speak?” Based on the responses, the researchers found that usage of a cell phone can increase the chance of contracting a brain tumor by thirty percent. More so, they said that a person who uses a cell phone for twenty-five years was two hundred percent more likely to get a tumor. These findings were tremendous, and very frightening. Here was actual proof that cell phones cause cancer!\r\n\n*\r\n\r\nIt seems as though this would be conclusive, that we know cell phones cause cancer, but it’s still unclear.\r\n\r\nMany challenged the results of this study, questioning the validity of the methodology. They said patients who have glioma would remember their cell phone use differently, in an attempt to give reason for their disease, and so the findings were not concrete. This problem is called ‘recall bias’ and it is a huge issue when it comes to any study that involves questioning patients. This issue, combined with the high mortality rate of glioma patients made conducting a study nearly impossible. It was difficult enough to find glioma patients --the disease affects only five in ten thousand people every year-- now we can’t be certain that survey responses are even true! \r\n\r\nDespite the objections that were made against this study, the World Health Organization classified cell phones as ‘possibly carcinogenic’ (“Electromagnetic Fields”).\r\n \r\nThis added fuel to the now burning question: Are cell phones harmful?\r\n\r\n*\r\n\r\nA study done in Denmark tried to answer this question (Frei et al) . The study collected the cell phone records of all Danish citizens over 30 and born after 1925. They took the data from the cell phone records and compared them to data on the rate of cancer patient, expecting to see a link between the two. To their surprise, analysis showed no clear link between cell phone use and cancer. This contradiction of the Swedish study seemed irrevocable; perhaps now we could be sure that cell phones don’t cause cancer. Not everyone was satisfied by this. They challenged the study, saying that the cell phone records didn’t show how much the phone was used, only how long the subscription lasted. They said that this oversight could invalidate the findings. Still, there was now some evidence that perhaps cell phones aren’t the silent killer the Swedish study made them out to be.\r\n\r\nAnother study was done, this time in the UK (Benson et al). The study observed the health of more than one million women over the age of 50. The study collected information about hormonal replacement therapy. Because the study was so big, they were able to collect information about other topics, such as cell phone use. The results of the study showed no link between cell phone usage and cancer rates.\r\n\n*\r\n\r\nDespite all these big, complicated studies, there is an easier way to observe if there is a link between cell phones and cancer. It would involve everyone who has ever owned a cell phone, yet it would be simple. All that needs to be seen, have cancer rates gone up since the advent of cell phones?\r\nIf cell phones really do increase the risk of cancer, then cancer rates will have risen when so many people began using them.\r\n\r\nAccording the study in Sweden, which showed that cell phone use increased the risk of glioma by 30 percent, it would make sense that the occurrence of glioma will have risen since the popularization of the cell phone. Did it? \r\n\r\nThis is what a study in the United States decided to find out. They compared the rate of glioma as it was predicted in Sweden, to the actual rate of glioma. If the findings in Sweden had been true, cancer rates would have risen by over 30 percent. What did they find?\r\nIt did not.\r\n\r\nThere was no increase in the rate of cancer patients. This is a confounding piece of evidence against any study that says cell phones cause cancer. According to this study, the Swedish study is untrue.\r\n\n*\r\n\n(cont.)\n\r",
"RF engineer here. Pretty sure the correct answer is that we don't know. The OP seemed to ask about all wireless signals, not just WIFI. It's nearly impossible to test because it takes a long term test and where will you find someone that isn't exposed to EM fields? Maybe some guy in Botswana and then how do you know the difference in his health isn't due to nutrition which I'm guessing has a much larger effect? Remember when you are outside it's not just one signal you are exposed to. It's cell phones, pagers, garage door openers, commercial radios, etc. There are studies that show that people who live near power lines have higher instances of lots of illnesses. I think it's best to try to limit your exposure where you can without checking out of modern society. I do little things like take my phone out of my pocket and put it on the table when i go out to eat. I try to use the speaker phone when i can to keep it away from my head and so on. \n\nNo offense was meant to the people of Botswana who probably have faster Internet than me. ",
"All these techs are based on electromagnetic waves. The energies that electromagnetic waves can carry are solely determined by their frequencies. The higher the frequency the higher the energy it carries. Visible lights are electromagnetic waves too. Visible lights have higher frequencies than WiFi, phone signals, etc. Will you get adverse effects by exposing to visible lights? (Not sun lights btw since sun lights contain UV lights which have higher frequencies than visible lights).",
"Atoms are held together into molecules because of interactions between the clouds of elections whizzing around atomic nuclei. The electrons can absorb passing electromagnetic photons and when they do they jump up to a higher orbital. If a passing photon is carrying enough energy, it can actually knock an electron off of an atom entirely, which messes with those chemical bonds holding molecules together. Below that level we call that passing photon non-ionizing and above that level we call it ionizing. Ionizing means to change the number of electrons orbiting the atom. The transition frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum where photons carry enough energy to knock electrons off of a host nucleli is roughly around the ultra violet segment of light. Below that point, electromagnetic magnetic radiation physically cannot ionize matter. The photons simply dont carry enough energy. What they *can* do however is heat up the matter. In the case of Radio Frequencies like radio, wifi, cell phones ect, the frequency is WELL below the threshold of ionization so all it can do is heat your tissues but the power outputs are so low that the induced heating isnt even detectable unless you are using a Microwave oven out in front of an air search Radar. \n\ntl;dr: because physics",
"All wavelengths longer than visible light: infrared < microwaves < radio waves are non ionising, they only affect things by heating them up or inducing electric currents in aerials. So unless the transmitter next to your head in your cell phone, is powerful enough to cook regions of your brain like a microwave oven there is no known mechanism to cause you harm. Cell phones have a signal strength between 0.6 and 3 watts compared to a microwave oven typically produces over 1000 watts. Although there is no known mechanism to cause you harm there are some epidemiological studies which do suggest an effect, but perhaps it is just that those who live in houses under powerlines etc take less care in other aspects of their lifestyle also.\n\nDespite being called microwaves, microwaves are actually quite long compared to visible light, a typical microwave oven uses a 122mm 2.45ghz wavelength.\n\nThe radiation that causes DNA damage are those wavelengths that are shorter than visible light: ultraviolet > X rays > gamma rays. These wavelengths are ionising radiation, their wavelengths are short enough (or from the quantum perspective their photons are energetic enough) to knock electrons off atoms creating random chemical reactions. When this happens in DNA you can get mutations.\n\nAnother form of radiation is particle radiation subatomic particles like neutrons given off in nuclear reactions. These can also cause mutations.\n\nEven in the middle of a nature preserve you will be exposed to low levels of all forms or radiation from stars in the sky or radioactive elements in the Earth. If you are unlucky these will knock out all the cancer preventing genes in the same cell. The more ionising radiation you are exposed to the less improbable this coincidence becomes.",
"A skin cell measures about 10,000 nanometers across. The UV-B light that damages DNA, causing skin cancer has a wavelength around 300 nm, much tinier. Visible light, considered relatively harmless, is around 390-700 nm. 2.4ghz wifi has a wavelength of 12.5 centimeters.\n\nNot that it proves anything by itself but they seem to be entirely different ballparks, like trying to shatter a wine glass with the resonance of tidal forces.",
"Please keep in mind this is grossly simplified and also not addressing everything.\n\nWe don't have adverse effects from it because we understand how radio waves work, and how radio waves can harm people.\n\nRadiation from radioactive materials is harmful to people because of the distance between the waves. When we talk about frequency in radio waves we are talking about the distance between the waves. Radioactivity has waves very close together. So close that the waves passing through us actually tear apart our cells, causing cancer.\n\nWiFi and the like have waves that are relatively far apart. Too far apart to damage the cells in our bodies.",
"This will probably get buried under the guy who was gilded for talking about microwaves, but the ELI5 from a radiation physics standpoint is this:\n\n & nbsp;\n\nNot all radiation is the same. There is a vast difference in the way that *ionizing* radiation interacts with cells than *non-ionizing* radiation. Ionizing radiation has the ability to cause single and double strand breaks in the DNA sequence. This can cause a cancer to emerge. Non-ionizing radiation, like radio, microwave, and the visible spectrum, do not. Watts is a measure of radiative power, but it is NOT a measure of absorbed radiation dose (Gy, Rad). Absorbed dose is affected by the wavelength of the radiation. It is the ionizing radiation that you need to worry about in regards to cancer. Things like Polonium 210 in cigarette smoke, or naturally occurring Radon gas. And of course, nuclear fallout constituents like Caesium-137 and Cobalt-60. These are all high energy, ionizing alpha and gamma emitters that will cause cells to become damaged and die. This isn't to say that it's fine to go near a 1000w microwave source. I wouldn't recommend it, but you're going to suffer severe edema from the heating of the skin rather than the damaged cause to cells by stochastic radiation effects. \n\n\n & nbsp;\n\nSource - graduate student in medical physics, taking the ABR in June. ",
"Because 10 seconds in direct sunlight is pretty much infinitely worse than anything you're likely to encounter in your day-to-day life.",
"If you are really interested, most science on this is on _URL_0_\n\nThe problem with all the answers in this thread and much of the published research, is that they all simplify the biological body to water..\n\nBiology is not so simple. \n\n\n",
"What a lot of people don't realize in this thread is the fact that it's not the frequency that can cause damage, it's the power behind that frequency. A 300ghz signal at .5W most likely will do nothing to you, however a 300ghz signal at 500W just might.\nSource: Am a satellite communications specialist",
"I'm not sure if this right, but microwaves, wifi, mobile phones use radio waves and microwaves, which are like the lowest frequency of all the EM waves. Frequency is proportional to energy. The highest frequency (thus the highest energy) waves are the ones that can cause cancer easily UVC, xray, gamma ray. Light and heat are also a type of EM wave, and they higher frequency than microwaves, which means more energy. You get way more higher energy radiation (light and heat) by going outside than you do lower energy radiation, so why would it be worrying?",
"A lot of people are saying these things are harmless, but cell phone signals aren't completely harmless. There are records of people having head tumors in the exact shape of their phone antennas. But this is because they are talking on the phone. Texts and stuff won't be nearly as dangerous.\n\nSource: read an article somewhere once. ",
"The university I went to was the only one in Canada that didn't have Wifi because the president believed it caused cancer. He retired when I was in third year snd the new Prez implemented it. This was in 2011",
"Not going to be ELI5, but I'll try to keep it simple enough. As a heads up, I am using arbitrary sizes throughout this because I don't feel like looking up specifics right now :P\n\nFirst thing you need to look at is harmonic resonant frequencies. When the wavelength of any wave (be it audible, radio, microwave, or anything else) is the same or an even multiple of length of a rigid object, the rigid object absorbs energy from the wave. For example, if you played the right wavelength out of a set of speakers you can make a penny vibrate around on a table. If that wavelength was twice the size of the penny, essentially the same thing would happen. Again if that wavelength was 1/2 the size of the penny it would vibrate. However, if that wavelength was 2/3 the size of the penny, it would just sit there unphased. The multiplier that seperates the two sizes is the harmonic level. The greater the harmonic level, the less impact on the object the wave has as well.\n\nNow, think about one or the other moving extremely far in one direction. If the wavelength gets extremely small, the odds of the length being an even multiple is much more likely. With a wavelength of 1m, and an object sized at 1m the balance is broken easily. If the wavelength shrunk to .9m it would be out of sync. However, if that wavelength is 1mm, the change to .9um is still going to line up pretty darn well with the 1m stick. The important thing isn't the size of the object or the wave, but how relatively different they are. Lower harmonics (closer to the same size) that match up are going to have the biggest impact on the object, but any harmonic will transfer energy into it.\n\nNext think the size of a cell. Cells throughout your body are flexible, so they have no defined size. If a cell was 5nm and was hit by a 5nm wave, it would initially absorb energy, but as a result of that energy would change shape and size so that it no longer absorbs that energy. If you use a 1pm wave even as the cell tries to shift size, it still keeps lining up and gets blasted with energy until it is destroyed (radiation therapy). Within the cell, there are other smaller components. These are less flexible and as a result are more easily destroyed by the waves.\n\nNow that I think I've covered how you can determine what wavelengths can be absorbed by an object, comes the ugly part that is an endless debate with no exact answer. Everything this far was based on perfectly clean signals. What if in the last example there were waves ranging from 4nm to 6nm because the device didn't tune well? Now that cell has to shift from 5nm to 3nm to escape downwards... but that again makes it a harmonic of the 6nm top end... so it shifts to 2nm and lines up with the 4 and 6! When signals are not entirely pure the cell loses its ability to escape the energy it is trying to run from and is damaged. For those subcomponents within the cell that are even less flexible it happens even more easily.\n\nWhat we end up with, is that a perfectly clean signal that is perfectly tuned from your phone or wifi will pose absolutely no threat. Studies that focus on these clean signals will conclude this again and again as it is absolutely correct. However, we don't live in a word of perfect signals. As the device ages, the reception cuts out, or a multitude of other issues arise the wavelengths quality degrades. We end up with imperfect signals that will vary greatly depending on the exact environment and devices being studied. This in turn leads to very confusing studies where recreating a 'real world' scenario would mean recreating the scenario every individual experiences every day, which to say the least is impossible to study. Instead researches select what range they will experiment with, and how evenly distributed along that range the energy of the signal is. Depending on how they decide to set those conditions they have complete control over whether the signal is dangerous or not. In the end we have nothing but studies where the researches got to choose the result before even conducting any tests. Maybe someone will do a study sooner or later where they record the exact spectrum someone experiences throughout a year of their life, but that would require wearing quite a bit of lab equipment 24/7 and in turn means you could not live a 'typical' life.\n\ntl;dr\nThe issue is study design. It is easy to prove either safety or cataclysm because these are near impossible studies to not bias and 'real world' conditions are a lot harder to recreate than you might assume.",
"I don't see a very good *eli5* explanation here so let me try.\n\nImagine a rainbow. You can see it, white sunlight broken into colors. Not visible but present are other \"colors\" past red at one end and past violet at the other.\n\nThe light past the red end is light that can heat stuff up. The light past the violet end is the stuff that gives us sunburn and skin cancer. \n\nThe hot invisible light (infrared), the red, orange, yellow, blue, indigo and violet visible light and the skin cancer invisible light (ultra violet) are a small part of a much bigger \"rainbow\" called the electromagnetic spectrum. We only see a small part of it because that's the bit the sun shines strongest in and we evolved to hunt and evade predators under this sun.\n\nHere's the kicker - the part of the spectrum past violet, the skin cancer ultra violet light is just the beginning of the bad news. X rays and gamma rays and other nasty kill-you-quickly stuff is out there. If you go in the *other* direction, past the \"warm you\" infra red invisible light, *that's* where the technology you ask about exists.\n\nThat means that if (say) wifi *is* dangerous then it would have to be dangerous is a new and different way than ultraviolet and X-rays and gamma rays. (It's also why you don't see gamma ray wireless charging solutions or asbestos lined pajamas.)\n\nThis is called \"prior plausibility\" - we can't even imagine a way it could be harmful.\n\nSeparate from that we have other data - all of Scandinavia is playing with Nokia phones years before us laggards in other countries catch up. If they were harmful (in some previously unknown way) then it would have shown up in the data in these countries- a spike in some new disease or surge in new cases of an existing disease would mirror the rollout and adoption rates of cellphones.\n\ntl;dr we literally can't even think of a way it can hurt us *and* we have millions of people in the richest countries in the world holding transmitters against the side of their heads over several decades and no harm visible in the data.",
"Basically, stuff only causes cancer if it's ionizing radiation. That means it can free electrons from atoms and molecules. The energy it takes to ionize something is about 1eV.\n\nIonizing radiation causes cancer because it damages your DNA by breaking bonds - they may not be re-attached in the correct way and if you're really unlucky you get a cell that goes crazy - replicates nonstop, refuses to die, etc.. This is cancer.\n\nHowever, the energy of a photon in microwave frequency is about 10^-5 eV, so it's very far from being able to do this to your body. UV light, on the other hand, is about 3eV, because it's at a **much** higher frequency. (750THz vs. 2.4GHz)",
"we don't, but hey, fuckin' yolo, right?",
"Uhh... you mean how are we sure that humans won't experience adverse effects from low levels of radiation? How about the fact that radiation is literally everywhere, and has been literally everywhere, from the beginning of time, and we have been fine. Heck, even light is a form of radiation. The only time where radiation has been found to be bad is where it is in much higher concentrations that that found in wifi.",
"An old coworker told me this story about one of the places she used to work:\n\n > User has wireless AP mounted on ceiling of her office. User puts in a ticket requesting it to be moved, claiming that she could feel it burning her skin. IT staff shove it up on top of the ceiling tile where she can't see it and tell her that it has been moved. User claims to feel better.",
"Non-ionising radiation has no effect on living organic tissue. Even the most sensitive cells like the ones pigeons use as a biological compass. This is why Tesla kept pidgeons. To be sure even they weren't affected by his experiments. The idea that e-smog causes headaches in people is ridiculous, there's something else causing the problem.\n\nExtreme levels of this type radiation will cause localised heating in cells that contain water or fat. This was proved by the early radio antenna technicians who were made sterile by climbing active radio towers, their junk got cooked.\n\nThe only electromagnetic radiation that can damage living cells is Ultraviolet light, it actually damages DNA. Its why UV light is used to sterilize medical tools and why it causes things skin cancer.",
"“ELI5: How are we sure that humans won't have adverse effects from things like WiFi, wireless charging, phone signals and other technology of that nature?”\nSurely we just stand by the methodology that has served us so well over the years. Namely “Suck It and See”. Allegedly responsible for such catastrophic fails as, mass lead poisoning from Roman pipes designed to carry water but then used to convey wine. Or first born Egyptians, annihilated by receiving the first ‘preferential’ (but contaminated) helping off the top of each family grain store. In short we act first, then pick up the pieces afterwards. Because the one thing that can be said about humans is, there are plenty more where they came from. That is until we line ourselves up for that final fall, none of us will get up from. Which is why we really should spread out from this planet, before it’s too late to utter some simple eulogy for our kind. “Well, who on Earth could have ever seen that coming?”\n",
"Think of the early 20th century. Cheap consumer devices flooded the market that could emit gamma rays, x-rays, UV, microwaves, and radio (and visible light if you count light bulbs). Truth be told, the thought behind it all was \"if it doesn't kill you immediately, it must be safe.\" In the past century we a lot of fast learning happened.\n\nGamma emissions from irradiated water products tended to make your jaw fall off. Long exposure to show-store foot x-rays gave people terrible foot issues. UV gave skin cancer, but rather slowly, and those UV lamps give you such a great tan! There was the people-going-blind issue, so UV goggles are used to reduce that. Anything of lower energy that UV (visible light, infrared, microwaves, radio waves) has yet to cause any issue even after this century of so many people using them without reservations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-data-on-cell-phones-and-cancer/",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3657986/",
"https://xkcd.com/1132/",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/EM-spectrum.svg",
"https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/prior-probability-the-dirty-little-secret-of-evidence-based-alternative-medicine-2/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/straight-talk-md/id1060256849?mt=2"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum"
],
[
"http://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-damages-sperm-studies-find"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"non-starter.It"
],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468014000649"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.microwavenews.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
68k1r9
|
why do kids have so much trouble pronouncing words like spaghetti and cinnamon?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68k1r9/eli5_why_do_kids_have_so_much_trouble_pronouncing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgz3dt5"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"\"Hard\" syllables that require more adept use of the tongue like S or T take time to develop. Try saying those letters and think about how you move your tongue. It seems instinctive but is difficult if you've never done it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7ez2sf
|
how far can electricity travel down a power line?
|
Does electricity travel down a power line indefinitely?
If you had a power station in France, and you somehow have a super long power cable connected to australia, will the power station be able to send electricity to australia?
If not, where does the electricity go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ez2sf/eli5how_far_can_electricity_travel_down_a_power/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq8ddja",
"dq8dli2",
"dq8e1z4",
"dq8e75z",
"dq8fwdh",
"dq8ozrk"
],
"score": [
26,
4,
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A far as you like. Some will be lost to the resistance of the line (it becomes heat). That heat is sometimes called I squared R losses, because it's proportional to the resistance (R) multiplied by the the square of the current (I). So you can reduce the amount of loss by reducing the resistance (not really practical) or lowering the current. But how do you send the same amount of power at lower current? Up the voltage! That's why long-distance transmission lines use such high voltages. Which is one of the reasons we use AC power; it's much easier and cheaper to change voltages with AC power than with DC power, so you can transmit it long distances cheaply and with little loss, then make it safe for consumers to use.",
"No it cannot travel indefinitely. It's actually a common problem when trying to move electricity over long distances. Usually what we do is increase the voltage so the loss is reduced over longer distances. Electricity is not a thing it's just electrons moving around. So over long distances those electrons will likely hit some atoms and lose their energy producing heat. Likelyhood of electrons hitting atoms depends on many things such as the material, length and radius of the wire. Electrons move because they experience a charge. Like magnets like charges repel. So on one terminal they'll be an abundance of electrons all of which are trying to get away from each other to the positive side. If there is no difference in charges current won't flow i.e. electricity won't travel. \n\nIf you want to google this stuff search for power transmission. ",
"The short answer is that yes, this is possible but it will depend on how much energy the lines have to carry, what voltage they operate at, the electrical resistance of the line (which is affected by the metal used, it's thickness, and loads on the line like transformers, peoples houses connected to it, etc. Generally speaking, for power transmission it is possible to overcome much of the electrical resistance of a wire by increasing the voltage. High voltage and lower amperage, sends the same amount of power down a wire as a lower voltage at a higher amperage, but it encounters less resistance on the wire as less of that energy is expressed as heat. \n\nThe higher the amperage, or amount of power being delivered, the more electrical energy is converted to heat. A light bulb for instance glows because the tiny filament wire in it has a lot of current going through it, more than the wire can handle, so it heats up until it glows brightly. Think of a gun. Amperage is like the total mass of the bullet, and voltage is like the speed at which it's shot. Wattage is the total power of speed multiplied by mass. If you have a gun that shoots single electrons, they are traveling at a good amount of the speed of light, but they have almost no mass, so not much energy is sent. On the other hand one that shoots bowling balls at 10 miles an hour is pretty slow, but they are so big they start to do damage. Electrical lines operate with lower resistance if you \"shoot rice grain sized bullets at 10,000 miles per hour\", where as normal household power is more like \"large rocks hurled at a few hundred miles an hour\"\n\nLong distance powerlines operate at blistering voltages and how far they run is more of a matter or economics than technology. At a certain point it becomes cheaper to build a closer power plant than to create one massive power plant, and try to deliver it's power hundreds of miles away. \n\nSay that you are trying to push a shopping cart. Pushing just a few feet of cart is pretty easy. But pushing several carts, or one very long cart, would get harder and harder. Eventually you could find a shopping cart that's distance was so long, that you couldn't push it at all, it would just stay in place as you struggled. You're putting work into pushing it, but it's not moving, so where does the energy, or work you put into pushing it go if it doesn't move? \n\nThink of it like a balancing act. You exert a force, and that force is resisted by resistance because of friction, entropy, and all that stuff. If the force you exert is greater than the resistance, then the difference is energy that does work. If however the resistance is higher than the force exerted on it, then no work is done and the energy or work, put into it is turned into heat from the resistance. This is true whether you're talking about current moving along a wire, or friction from a rolling wheel. (to be honest, some of the force in a wire is also lost as it's converted to electromagnetic energy which radiates out from the wire. \n\n",
"Imagine a pipe just large enough to fit a single continuous line of marbles. If the pipe is full of marbles and you push a new one in from one end, then the one at the other end pops out. Now if it's a short pipe with only a few marbles, it will require very little effort to accomplish this. As the pipe gets longer, it's still possible, but requires increasingly more strength because you are pushing on more marbles. Increasing the voltage as others have mentioned is basically analogous to pushing in the new marble with more strength.\n\nSo, for a very long electrical line the electricity isn't disappearing. The power requirements just aren't being met for the given distance. The marbles aren't getting lost, they just haven't been pushed hard enough to move yet. ",
"There are several problems with sending power down a long power line. These problems depend on many things: the total amount of power, the voltage, whether you are using AC or DC and the design of the power line (overhead power lines, underground cable, or underground power pipes).\n\nThe biggest problem is \"resistance\". This is the fact that there is always a bit of \"friction\" when you push electricity through a wire - just like friction when you push water through a pipe. Resistance interacts with the electrical current to waste energy as heat.\n\nAs others have said, there is a way to reduce the resistance problem, which is to increase the voltage, because higher voltage allows the same amount of power to be transferred with less current. AC power can easily have voltage increased and decreased, so you can use 120 V for homes, and 500,000 volts for power lines connecting 2 cities.\n\nAC power has some additional problems however. This is a complicated concept called reactance, which can also limit the capacity of a power line. It is possible to compensate for reactance, by adding \"compensation equipment\", but this is expensive. \n\nReactance is a big problem for high voltage underground power lines. At low voltages (like 120 V) resistance is the main problem - the lines can't be longer than about 1 mile or so, before the resistance is too much of a problem. But at 500,000 volts the reactance is the main problem. The maximum length of underground (or under water) 500,000 cable is about 5-10 miles, before you need a compensator. \n\nSo, if you want to use an underground/underwater cable, then you have to design the cable voltage carefully, to balance the power wastage from resistance, to the cable limit due to reactance and whether you can put compensators in place (you can install a compensator yard on land no problem, but you can't in the middle of the ocean). \n\nThe solution to the reactance problem is to use DC power instead of AC power. This requires very expensive power converters at each end of the power line ($100s of millions for each end), but it has the advantage of getting rid of the reactance problem completely, and it also cuts the resistance problem in half, allowing overhead lines to go further. High voltage DC power lines can go thousands of miles over land. The longest underwater DC cable is 360 miles from Norway to Netherlands, but longer ones are planned of up to 1000 miles. \n",
"You would need superconducting cables to get a **reasonable amount** of power from France to Australia. Normal wires have resistance and capacitance which attenuate the energy. Most of the losses will be in heating of the wire. Some will be induced into other conductors and then converted to heat. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ftkkk
|
what factors can take a polarizing, box-office dud (i.e. a christmas story, fight club, blade runner) and years later, be elevated to a cinematic classic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ftkkk/eli5_what_factors_can_take_a_polarizing_boxoffice/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckcl1y9",
"ckcl239",
"ckcm3et"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Box office duds that become cult classics are usually held back initially by crappy marketing by the studio who end up misrepresenting the movie, or by the studio relying on badly chosen focus groups and test screenings and therefore eating the loss by burying it to a single weekend-release on a handful of theaters before pulling it.\n\nThere was a fantastic story on Buzzfeed last week about [what made Empire Records so special and how the studio managed to screw up its release so badly](_URL_0_).\n\nThere are plenty of interviews with Kevin Smith he tells a similar story of what happened with Mallrats.\n\n",
"If a movie opens during a particularly busy time in theaters, it might not get the attention it would otherwise receive. It could also be mis-marketed. \n\nAdditionally, some movies take a few viewings to fully appreciate, this is too expensive for theater goers with other options, but in the rental/ownership market, it is much less expensive to watch a movie a second time. It is therefore easier to share the movie with friends/family.",
"I don't really think it's fair to call those movies duds. Fight Club and a Christmas story both made a decent profit when they were released.\n\nBlade Runner, OTOH, got a bad rap at the time for being a confusing, complicated film. It doesn't help that the studio managed to make a mess of the editing - they've released 7 different cuts of the film, changing the meaning of some scenes entirely. It was also up against Star Trek II & ET.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/how-empire-records-became-the-unlikely-film-of-a-generation#h1cjpv"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3lqqki
|
why are switchblades illegal, and spring assists not?
|
Switchblades actually seem to be safer, more reliable knives, from what I've seen.
Edit: specifying USA
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lqqki/eli5_why_are_switchblades_illegal_and_spring/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv8i2si"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That depends on the country. In Russia litrlerally all weapons are illegal unless you have a hunter's ID, and getting that is more trouble than its worth.\n\nWell, pneumatic guns are still okay because you can't kill anything with them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
51mea9
|
how come things like space exploration, disease cures, and environmental progresses cost so much money when it benefits the entire race.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51mea9/eli5_how_come_things_like_space_exploration/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7d1bgy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The fact that they cost so much is entirely unrelated to their benefits. I think your questions really means to ask \"Why aren't we throwing much more money into space, medicine and environmental change when the benefits to all are so evident?\"\n\nThese things cost so much because people don't work for free. So education and materials and scientific research and engineering aren't free. If you could magically convince everyone to stop working to pay bills, feed their family and buy things they want, but instead work altruistically for the betterment of mankind, meanwhile have others like farmers and resource gatherers work for free and make food and resources available to all who need, suddenly everything would be cheap. And then we'd be in some Gene Roddenberry future. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2hywmq
|
why is it so easy to suffer identity theft if you lose your social security number? eli5 to non americans.
|
As a non american I noticed there is so much security involving those SSN cards. Here in Mexico we have curp or the voting registry number, but I never hear about identity theft using that kind of information.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hywmq/eli5_why_is_it_so_easy_to_suffer_identity_theft/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckx9ya4",
"ckx9ysl",
"ckxb29j",
"ckxixec"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's the closest thing that the U.S. has to a national ID and it's necessary to get a job (usually), apply for credit cards, sign a lease, obtain a passport (usually although there are exceptions), etc. The issue is that the number itself isn't vetted or checked that often against the social security database and numbers can be obtained from someone's mail or just guessed at random. Often, people will steal a number of someone they know or someone who is deceased. \n\nAlso, when you apply for a credit card or sign a lease, no one asks for the social security card itself just the number. This can be problematic.\n\nSo, if someone has your social and another piece of info they can get credit cards and do all sorts of other things in your name that would ruin you.",
"The short version is that the social security number has become entwined in the banking industry as a way of tracking people and verifying their risk as a debtor. How we got to this point is kind of a long and arduous story, but basically if you can provide your name and your social security number, you're most of the way to convincing someone that you actually are who you claim you are.",
"From what I understand it is a matter of banks and other credit institutions valuing new business more than customer protection. Couple that with the \"customer is always right\" attitude that exists in America and you get people coming in with false credentials that get credits in your name that are never repaid. \n\nSince systems in America are generally built around validating info with the SSN once you have that it's pretty easy to fool anyone, especially if you do a bit of social engineering.",
"The biggest scam has been the renaming of 'Bank Fraud' into 'Identity Theft'\n\nIf a someone lends money to someone without sufficient proof of that persons identity, it should be the lenders fault and liability, not the random person who the lendee claimed to be, and the lender negligently failed to verify completely."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4mvmj4
|
why does down-shifting help a manual go faster uphill?
|
I drive a manual that has 5 gears and have noticed that sometimes going up hills, the 5th gear tops out around 60-65 mph and starts slowing down a little but going down into 4th actually makes the car go faster.
What makes this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mvmj4/eli5_why_does_downshifting_help_a_manual_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3yobyw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Shifting down a gear increases the mechanical advantage from the motor to the wheels, meaning that you can provide more torque. So when you are going uphill, the car probably can't provide enough force to maintain speed going up the hill. \n\nI remember when I was younger, I had one of those Lego robotics kits and I tried to change the gear ratio to make the wheels spin much faster, but as soon as I tried to run it on the ground, it would go much slower. The wheels weren't getting enough torque to push the car forward, so despite spinning quickly in the air, it practically stopped dead. It's the same concept here and the same as why you can't just start your car in fifth gear. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3idrj6
|
why does the bank want to cash a check if i only send a picture?
|
Doesn't this open up a whole new world of check fraud? It just seems really risky for the banks, but lots of them do this via smartphone apps. Also, what about endorsements?
Edit: thank you all for your helpful responses!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3idrj6/eli5_why_does_the_bank_want_to_cash_a_check_if_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cufijss",
"cufilvp",
"cufinx4"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"they can see the endorsements in the photo. Banks take a scan of the check and destroy it anyway, they stopped retaining the original about a decade ago when Check 22 regulation was passed.\n\nIf you make a fake check to submit a photo of, you could just as easily deposit it at a bank. And its quite easy to do unfortunately.\n\nYou still need an account to cash it against, and if the check bounces, they will know where to find you. Check fraud is a federal crime that racks up years per check, so its a risky business considering the deposit limits are a few hundred per check and no more than a few grand per month (often much lower if your account history is weak)",
" > Doesn't this open up a whole new world of check fraud? \n\nNo, all a check is is a piece of paper with infromation on it. You can make a valid check just by writing down everything on a blank piece of paper. Nothing about a physical check is actually special.\n\nTaking pictures is just a way of giving them the check without physically bringing it to them. If someone were to send a picture of the same check again then it just wouldnt go through.",
"If you're able to deposit a check by phone, it means that the bank already has all your information on file.\n\nIf later on, it turns out that the check was bad, the bank just takes the money back out of your account and then demands any remaining balance from you.\n\nIf you do this too many times, you wind up with a criminal investigation and black listed from banks in general.\n\nIn short, there's no easy way to get away without getting caught."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9jzqdw
|
how do competitive eaters do 10000-calorie challenges on youtube and still stay in shape?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9jzqdw/eli5_how_do_competitive_eaters_do_10000calorie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6v9o5z",
"e6vagtl"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Even at a TDEE of 3000 calories this is a 7000-surplus. Do they run a 1000-per-day deficit for 7 days to compensate? Or are there some digestion limits taking place, as well as energy spent on thermodynamics?",
"Eating 10000 calories at once isn't going to do that much. There's a limit to how much you can absorb at once and there's a limit to how much you can store. It takes time to build fat cells and it's a waste of energy to do that if you're only having one rush of fuel. To get fat in the first place you have to have a long term, consistently high calorie intake. Individual spikes won't affect you much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3leu6f
|
christian mystics
|
I might not be using the correct term but those guys that make people fall in trance or unconcious and people start talking in tongues, how do they do it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3leu6f/eli5christian_mystics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv5p41i",
"cv5pgr4",
"cv5pp7y"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's not the same as [Christian Mysticism](_URL_2_), which is a more traditional thing, often related to monastic life - ie a guy living in a cave on his own in the 3rd century in Egypt. As the link shows, that's a hell of an abridged synopsis on my part. \n\nThe snake handlers and whatnot work their congregation into a state of [religious ecstasy](_URL_0_). They use techniques that get the audience out of a 'rational' space and into an 'emotional' one. Rhythmic, fast-paced singing/music, energetic preaching ... they're also in a crowd, so their inhibitions are lowered : it turns people to jelly. They're already susceptible to be 'open' to the message, so their natural defences are even lower and they fall 'into' it. It's not dissimilar to voodoo drumming. \n\nWhat is interesting is ... this is not dissimilar to meditation, it's just that the method is different - but in such a ceremony there could be a very real shift in brainwave oscillation that changes the way people are perceiving the world. _URL_1_",
"TL:DR Faith is a funny thing. Miracles are performed and if you are not agreeing to it, it's your faith in the miracle that led to it's failure. Ergo, any miracle you don't see is the result in your lack of faith. You weren't changed by your deity? You didn't believe enough. To deny change means you are not worthy.\n\nPersonal experience, vote as you will.\n\nMy mother was a strong believer in faith healing. Even after I pulled scripture to show her that strong walkers of the faith also got sick to an almost fatal degree, she still believed that lack of faith was directly attributed to her failing health.\n\nWent to a faith healing when visiting her, it was Sunday. The preacher pulled me to the front to witness the power of faith in healing as he told a woman with obvious back injuries (which I shared and knew intimately) that the cause of her pain was that her legs were not the same length (as I watched the pastor's wife slide her thumb under the \"patient's\" shoe and pull her shoe out. I looked at his wife, then him, then waved my hand and pushed her shoe back where it belonged.\n\nThey made a mighty show, professing God's healing power and claiming her healed. I whispered to the patient she needed to have back surgery.",
"\"Speaking in tongues\" (glossolalia) like you see in modern pentecostal churches is simply a learned behavior that mimics the speaker's native speech patterns but doesn't contain enough internal structure to give it meaning. Just an odd thing people do when they get together, apparently."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ecstasy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_activity_and_meditation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism#Mystic_traditions"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
bjb17o
|
what’s the purpose of colonizing the moon?
|
There’s all this speculation about colonizing the moon asap. Why? What will mankind accomplish by doing so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjb17o/eli5_whats_the_purpose_of_colonizing_the_moon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em6qxx5",
"em6r56o",
"em6s19y",
"em7s03q"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"What speculation? Provide some specific examples please?",
"Mining resources. A place to launch farther missions from that's way easier than from Earth.\n\nbut the most important one would be all of the technology from the research and development that would trickle down to civilian life from doing this.\n\nSome of the most incredible technologies humans have today came directly from research and engineering from space missions. In fact it's said that NASA is the most profitable government organization contributing around $7 to the economy for every dollar the government budgets for them bc of these advancements. \n\nthe amount of cool shit our civilization will have after successful Mars missions and moon colonization missions will be incredible",
"Science. If you can think of a reason to colonize the Moon, thats a reason to do it. \n\nThe question you ask isnt a really good one because you can literally answer it in a billion ways and youll never be entirely accurate. Same goes for space exploration in general. \n\nBut the main purpose of colonizing the Moon is to establish a way for us to permanently and directly observe, record and explore the Moon from the surface to its core. \n\nThink about what the Apollo missions accomplished with just days on the Moon. Now extend that time out indefinitely. \n\nNow, thats all well and good but im sure youll ask what the point is. Problem is, that science is the point. Exploring space isnt something we do because we expect oil or gold, and while we still use this as a reason it definitely isnt about national prestige either. \n\nThe only way to learn how to get to the Moon is to get there. Live in space? Gotta go live in space. Live on other worlds....you get the idea. \n\nAs far as getting there asap, its a political issue. Not just for prestige but also for funding. This is why human exploration is so important beyond just how benfeficial it is when paired with an effective robotic program. Astronauts get funding, robots dont. \n\nAnd as administrations change, so too do priorities change. Hence if we want a Moon base, we need to do it when we still have support. \n\nThis is why our ability to go beyond Earth orbit with humans went away after Apollo. We stopped funding the technology.",
"The moon would be the experimental area before we went out and colonized the other planets and asteroids\n\nIt’s a lot easier to get to the moon than any other place. \n\nWe would learn the difficulties of colonizing off planet and make the necessary changes before heading out into the solar system"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
67jls5
|
is it true when your parents tell you that when you play video games that it rots your brain??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67jls5/eli5is_it_true_when_your_parents_tell_you_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgqw99d",
"dgqwub0",
"dgqwvuq",
"dgqwx40",
"dgqx9dp"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's probably doing the opposite. Keeps you alert and improves your hand eye coordination. ",
"No, however it can mess up with your \"reward system\" because most winning at most games is waaaay easier than winning in real life (requires no extensive training sessions, you don't have to run, etc..)\n\nThere are some studies that prove that Video games help in problem solving and reactions. Also stimulates your coordination / timing in some aspects.\n\nJust don't spend a lot of time on it. It also can hurt your vision because your are focused in the same point for hours.\n\nPlay for fun, don't get addicted.",
"It doesn't rot your brain. Video games have been proven to be able to bolster hand-eye coordination, creativity, and problem solving. However, like anything, you can have too much of a good thing. Video games have also been found to cause addiction similar to gambling. If playing video games takes over your whole life, then it can be a problem.",
"It's not \"rotting\" your brain.\n\nThere are some parts that are good, like hand-eye coordination, and some mental stimulation. \n\nBut it **is** limiting your focus to a screen, and training you to react in very specific, limited ways. It teaches you to only look forward, and expect sounds to come from that direction. It will teach you reaction speed, but only from limited reactions. \n\nVideo games are like sugar: a little is OK but a lot will make you sick. ",
"There have been a number of studies about this very thing, often funded by people on both sides of the ideological divide regarding video games. None has ever sufficiently proven a link between video games and any sort of decreased mental or emotional capacity. Indeed, if anything, study after study has demonstrated some positive correlation between playing video games and improved attention, focus, coordination, problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9e5oy3
|
how do rockets get fuel out of its tanks in microgravity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9e5oy3/eli5_how_do_rockets_get_fuel_out_of_its_tanks_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5maxfv",
"e5mb0mu"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The fuel system would not be a gravity-feed system. Even on earth high-performance aircraft (fighter jets, aerobatics) have pressurized fuel cells (which have also been used in auto racing). There's basically a balloon inside the tank forcing the fuel against the suction.\n\nAlso rockets commonly use solid fuel.",
"They accelerate. \n\nOn the Saturn V there were small solid rockets, callel Ullage motors, on the bottom of stages two and three that fired just long enough to settle the fuel. \n\nThe Command Service Module used the RCS thrusters to give themselves a small push is the right direction. \n\nThe RCS themselves IIRC, used telescoping fuel tanks that were never any larger than the fuel inside required. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5oqx81
|
how come some countries go from million to billion when counting, while other countries have an additional step?
|
Personaly I'm from Norway and when we count we go million-milliard-billion-billiard and so on. What has caused this split and which is the most common?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oqx81/eli5_how_come_some_countries_go_from_million_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dclejvh",
"dclequ9"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"You're talking about Short Scale vs Long Scale number systems (_URL_0_)\n\nThe split isn't easy to pinpoint exactly, but it falls largely along linguistic lines and geographic regions. There was an attempt in 1948 to create a standard and bring everyone to the Short Scale (million-billion-trillion) but it didn't go through.",
"It seems like we have different definitions/translations for these words.\n\nFrom my googling, in Norway, million | milliard | billion | billiard is equivalent to English million | billion | trillion | quadrillion, which both line up with 10^6 | 10^9 | 10^12 | 10^15.\n\nThis is a result of \"long scale\" vs \"short scale\"; Romance languages (and others, including Norway) tend to use long scale, in which each \"major\" step (million, billion) is another 10^6, while English speakers use short scale, in which each major step is another 10^3 after the first 10^6 (million)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales"
],
[]
] |
|
3n8nl3
|
why do suddenly all video players ask me to allow fullscreen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n8nl3/eli5_why_do_suddenly_all_video_players_ask_me_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvlsnjr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a security measure to prevent a malicious website from going fullscreen without you knowing, and mimicking your computer desktop, thus tricking you into entering login credentials, or (for example) making you think that you're logging into your bank's website when you're still on that same webpage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
c7nnsj
|
how come the sound of electricity buzzing stopped when i'm near it?
|
An outlet, with a minifridge near it and a multi-outlet plugged into it, was making a buzzing sound. A rolled up paper was leaning on top of the plug and stopped whenever I got anywhere near it without touching it. I moved the paper and pushed the plug in more and the buzzing stopped. What is the physics of that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c7nnsj/eli5_how_come_the_sound_of_electricity_buzzing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"esgkpb5"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It sounds to me like your outlet is either worn out and not gripping the plug very well, or someone bumped it and didn't notice that it was only partially inserted. The fact that it stopped when you got close was probably just a coincidence. Things like this tend to be intermittent. It's also possible that it is so loose that you walking over there caused enough movement in the fridge (or its cord) that it re-positioned itself. Unless they're concrete, floors can have a good amount of flex in them.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe buzzing sound was an arc due to the poor connection between the outlet and the prongs. In addition, appliances like fridges draw a lot of current, so you will more likely get an arc than with something like a table lamp.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEither way, keep an eye on it and get an electrician to replace the outlet if it does it again. Arcs create a lot of heat, so it can cause a dangerous situation. Especially with that piece of paper down there -- perfect recipe for a fire.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit: Also, mini fridges should really be on their own outlet. They should never ever be on a powerstrip (or an extension cord) and they really shouldn't share an outlet with a powerstrip."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
65n07s
|
egyptians were one of the first people to establish a civilization, invent tools, architecture, and were rich in resources. how did other civilisations catch up to them and left them behind in modern technology?
|
Was it a one-time revolution? Or a sequence of events? Or the tools built by the newer civilizations more innovative?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65n07s/eli5_egyptians_were_one_of_the_first_people_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgblhrd",
"dgbmwxq"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"The Indus Valley actually predates Egypt by around 1000 years or so. \n\nTools were invented before humans were a species, as were cultural elements of civilization like art. It is also likely that architecture in the form of basic structures were also invented pre-humanity but we do not have evidence as it has decayed. ",
"Technology isn't like a tech tree in Civilization where you progress from one end to another. Egypt was a powerful and rich area for centuries (well past what you think of when I say \"Ancient Egypt\"). \n\nDefine what you mean by \"modern technology\"? What do you feel Egypt is missing?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
711wwi
|
what causes the aura around a light source when you look at it, and what are the little striations that point outward?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/711wwi/eli5_what_causes_the_aura_around_a_light_source/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn7z4it"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"TL;DR: imperfections in the lenses in your eyes. \n\nThink of it as \"nature's lens flare\" and you won't be far off. Your lenses aren't made of material that's hard enough to generate perfectly articulated lens flare of the sort you see in movies. They're also not perfectly transparent or uniform. The slightest irregularity or fuzziness can and does cause optical artifacts of the sort you describe. \n\nIn most situations (absent some kind of disease/abnormality), this isn't a big enough deal to be noticeable. Indeed, your brain filters some optical artifacts out automatically. But in high light conditions, the effects can be so large as to be impossible to ignore. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6oxc0k
|
why can bacteria grow as colonies on agar plate but not in other environment?
|
For example, there are bacteria everywhere but I have never seen real life colonies beside petri dishes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oxc0k/eli5_why_can_bacteria_grow_as_colonies_on_agar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkkwup2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Oh they are everywhere, you just don't see them. If you were to examine your own drinking glass or silverware or tongue under a microscope, you would see colonies containing literally millions of bacteria. Much worse still on a piece of food left out overnight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6e7dn5
|
why is it that so many people in the southern united states are so patriotic and all about america when the south wanted to secede from the union?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e7dn5/eli5_why_is_it_that_so_many_people_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di85u2d",
"di8iw7v"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"From my experience it's about the flag representing freedom. Technically the civil war was about, in the south's mind, government overreach. The issue at heart was a racial one that they were on the wrong side of, but not being told what to do is at the core of southern identity, for better and worse. \n\nNot to mention, many southern states also have high poverty rates, which then leads to increased military enrollment, which leads to increased patriotism. \n\nYou could also roll into that a little xenophobia, which I don't mean judgmentally. Conservative values are typically skeptical of other cultures' ways of life (which bring diverging values, religious beliefs etc). The American flag and patriotism then represents an identity in contrast to those of whom they meet with skepticism. ",
"Well, the people today who are so patriotic *may* have grandparents' grandparents' grandparents who wanted to secede (lots of people have families that moved into the south after the Civil War and have no ancestors who wanted to secede, after all). Do you know what your grandparents' grandparents' grandparents stood for? And do you still care about it?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3798pd
|
turbochargers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3798pd/eli5_turbochargers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crkq5py"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"\"Exhaust goes into the turbocharger and spins it, witchcraft happens, and you go faster\" - Jeremy Clarkson"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5s1byv
|
how do people chug entire bottles of alcohol (750ml) without overdosing or getting alcohol poisoning?
|
I've seen plenty of videos online of a person opening the top to a brand new bottle and chugging the entire bottle in less than a minute. They visibly look phased but usually the videos will cut off before you see them recover.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s1byv/eli5how_do_people_chug_entire_bottles_of_alcohol/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddboixh",
"ddbolr3",
"ddbsvjs",
"ddbtcbb",
"ddbtitj",
"ddbuufn",
"ddbwhkq",
"ddbxseb",
"ddby659",
"ddbyjf2",
"ddbz40x",
"ddc32ca",
"ddc8tcc",
"ddc8ub6",
"ddcbkwe",
"ddclc7e",
"ddcto1l"
],
"score": [
38,
190,
47,
3,
14,
48,
2,
6,
137,
28,
2,
4,
22,
48,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Alcohol does not hit your system immediately. So unless the videos you are watching are a half hour or longer you will not be seeing them at the point that alcohol poisoning would be noticeable. ",
"Most people you see doing that end up in bad shape. They likely start vomiting and pass out. The ones who dont get alcohol poisoning have made it to that level of \"ability\" have done so through practice. A person develops a tolerance to alcohol just like anything else. \n\nEdit: body mass and fat do have a lot to do with it but mostly only as a beginner. Ive seen thin/low body fat people drink like a pro and larger people get stupid with a couple drinks. I was a \"power drinker\" at 6'1 165 lbs. I quit drinking many years ago and now at 225 lbs, i would bet 2 beers would severely impair my motor skills. Practice and tolerance.",
"Those people will end up throwing up. When they throw up they will be losing much of the alcohol they just drank. \n\n750ml of 40% will get a 180lb male to a BAC of about 0.47. At this point they are certainly passed out and could possibly die.\n\n600ml of 40% gets the same person to 0.37. Here they are close to passing out or already are. There is still a chance of death.\n\nA large danger with alcohol is that you can stumble and fall then hit your head. Or you could pass out and hit your head. Or once you are passed out you could throw up and drown. Or the alcohol can cause liver damage.\n\nGoing past .2 BAC is definitely stupid. I'd argue that going past .1 is stupid. You have all the positive effects by .1 and you only pick up more and more negatives as you get drunker. ",
"I usually will leave a comment on those videos: whoever this is, they either puked or died. There's few other outcomes",
"A lot do it just takes a little time after said chugging. I knew a kid in high school who chugged 1/2 of a 40 of vanilla vodka, got alcohol poisoning within about 40 minutes and was rushed to the hospital. I also went on a school trip and one of the kids chugged a mickey, he threw up with an hour and was down the rest of the day. Some people drink daily so their body has an immunity to making them feel sick of it, they are still trashing their bodies but they can maintain themselves enough to not throw up. \n\nTL:DR Normal people would, alcoholics don't throw up as easily as normal folk, they are the ones who chug and stay awake. ",
"shoenice checks into the hospital and gets his stomach pumped after serious chugging videos so he doesn't die. i just have a feeling that's who this question is about.",
"Tolerance, I used to be able to polish off a 2/6 no problem then have 12 beer on top of that but now a 12 pack of beer gets me pretty drunk because my tolerance is nothing ",
"From personal experience...I did when I was 20 under peer pressure. It's all fun and games, but it smacks you over the face after about 30-40 minutes, which is what you don't see on video. It is one of the worst things I've ever experienced and recommend that if anyone sees someone doing it, make them stop. I shit and threw up green for about 2 days. I wasn't back to normal for a few weeks because of how sensitive my stomach was.\nI would say majority of people who do it have some ill effects in one or another; some don't simply because of built up tolerance over a long period of time, as another poster has said.",
"Like some others said, size has a lot to do with it. Also, so does your enzyme balance. Alcohol gets broken down in your body by enzymes and eventually is used to make or store energy (as fat cells or for production of ATP). Someone who's body regularly deals with larger quantities of alcohol has their cells making more of those enzymes so that they can break the alcohol down faster. That doesn't mean it's healthier for them though, because all that effort is a huge strain on the liver, which not only filters impurities but also plays an important role in metabolism regulation. ",
"Well, I've only seen this happen two times. once was at a drinking party where a friend of mine was trying to prove she was a better drinker than a guy from Saskatchewan, she won but we immediately took her to the bathroom to make her throw up so that we wouldn't have to take her to the hospital an hour later.\n\nthe second time was while watching Archer. The various individuals seemed to managed to keep the alcohol down seemingly due to high tolerance to alcohol and by being cartoons",
" > They visibly look phased but usually the videos will cut off before you see them recover.\n\nThat's because they vomit immediately after video cuts out to get the alcohol out of their stomach.",
"I'm 6'6\" and close to 400 pounds and a pure bred alcoholic. Anything less than a-bottle-of-rum/hour and I won't get drunk ",
"I absolutely hate having to argue with the people who say this amount will make you vomit etc... I hate it because to my alcoholic husband this is just the opener for his day. He will tell me he's going to be sober, go out to \"smoke\" and another 750ml of vodka is gone. Yes he will pass out eventually but the only time he gets sick is if he is detoxing (which never lasts more than a day or so, why put your body through that?) if you have the tolerance, and a serious problem, you can easily consume this much alcohol and go back for more. It breaks my heart...",
"Tolerance.\n\nSize in both height and weight do factor into it, but in most cases it's all just a matter of tolerance.\n\nNormal people don't need to hit around the 8-10 standard drinks mark just to feel an effect. If a normal person that hasn't got a daily or even weekly drinking habit tried to skull a bottle of spirits(hard liquor) it will very likely kill them, because it's just too much too fast. \n\nThink of it like running a marathon. If you practice everyday your tolerance for pain increases. Meaning you can push yourself further before you feel like you are on the edge of dying. If you have ever tried running long distances without that training you would know very well that simply a few hundred meters can be enough for your body to give out. \n\nTolerance in this sense is a form of conditioning. In a way alcoholics condition themselves to ingest larger quantities of alcohol. \n\n",
"I guy I knew in high school beer bonged a 26 of jack Daniels. He left the party in his truck, crashed it and walked back hours later. He was visibly drunk but had been known to have a drinking problem. It was stupid, but to him not even enough to knock him off his feet. \n\nHe unfortunately died shortly after high school....",
"Tolerance, weight of the person, what they ate before hand and what u dont see most of the time is them puking all the alcohol out...bodys first defence mechanism ",
"It is very possible to drink that amount of liquor without dying.\nMost of the time this is seen in a video. They manage to slam it, they look at the camera to prove they are okay, and the video ends within seconds of them finishing the bottle.\n\nWhat you don't see is the important part. Even an alcoholic might get sick from that. And all that booze is probably going to irritate the lining of the stomach and cause vomiting before the body can even absorb and metabolize it. \n\nIf you could manage to somehow not throw up, and have a good tolerance, you'll probably just end up very drunk and in a stupor.\n\nI think a lot of people don't realize that they've given themselves alcohol poisoning before and just lived to tell the story about how, 'They got soooo fucked up, dude.'"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2iu0ab
|
what is the "life expectancy" of the human civilisation?
|
Like how long until we're all likely gone. Or could we actually make it 10000 years more at this point?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iu0ab/eli5_what_is_the_life_expectancy_of_the_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl5h7ow",
"cl5hj5s",
"cl5tl75"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Honestly, there are thousands of predictions for this. You have millions of variables that could alter the timeline hugely.\n\nRead this Wikipedia entry: _URL_0_",
"That's way too complicated to possibly predict, and as far as we know, there's likely not anything we could do to ourselves (nuclear warfare, anthropogenic climate change, etc.) that would wipe us out completely, even if it would be catastrophic. Some humans somewhere would somehow limp to survival. Although we do know that at some point, increasing solar radiation will make the Earth uninhabitable, but that's like a billion years from now (literally) so it's nothing to worry about for now. I would say it's extremely likely there will still be humans in 10,000 years. Will the year 12014 look as good as the year 2014? Who knows. It depends on whether or not we get our act together and tackle all the problems that are easily solvable if we stop being a bunch of dumbasses. It's seriously not that hard to completely dismantle all nuclear weapons, institute 100% clean and renewable energy worldwide, end hunger and extreme poverty. But for the life of us, the people in power can't seem to get it done. \n\nBut humans won't die out that soon. Global agricultural-industrial-information capitalist civilization may die if we don't solve these problems, but humans themselves ain't going anywhere, even if we (I should say THEY) have to revert to primitive agriculture or even hunting and gathering. ",
"Out of all the various possibilities, I like the idea that we continue to evolve, and okay so sure, while we end up as no longer *Homo Sapiens Sapiens*, \"we\" are still around. \n\nThere are still people, you know? There's still love and music and compassion, and still hate and noise and brutality. There's still sentient life experiencing itself. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
41nm7p
|
how the fuck can this snake fly?
|
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41nm7p/eli5_how_the_fuck_can_this_snake_fly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz3qu8j",
"cz3s1y8"
],
"score": [
58,
6
],
"text": [
"It's not really flying. It's gliding. You remember from Toy Story, \"that wasn't flying; it was falling with style\"? \n\nIt's the same thing here. \n\nFlying assumes that it can create sustained flight in the air, including ascending. This snake slows its descent so that it doesn't drop like a rock, but it's only gliding. It has the ability to suck in its abdomen and flare out its ribs to make itself more wing-like, so that it more slowly drifts to the ground. \n\nCombining that with the undulating, serpentine movement you see in the .gif, and it can stabilize its descent.",
"That's a *Chrysopelea*, there's a good description of their gliding dynamics in the [wikipedia article on them](_URL_2_). The 2005 Journal of Experimental Biology has a [brief article on the Paradise Flying Snake](_URL_1_), but the [National Geographic article](_URL_0_) has what's probably the most concise explanation.\n\nIn short, they expand and broaden their rib-cage, so that they trap air a bit like a long, thin kite. Their undulations in the air make the whole body act like a single broad airfoil rather than one long skinny one. By changing the angle of their undulations they can bank and turn as well. Their shape and motions trap a layer of compressed air underneath, providing support, a bit like how a pelican rides the compressed air above a cresting wave. Some reports indicate that the *Chrysopelea* are some of the best animal gliders, better than flying squirrels.\n\nThe Golden Flying snake is found on the island I live on, but actually seeing one glide is really rare. I've seen the snakes a number of times, but always on the ground or on the rocks.\n\nEDIT: There is [this more detailed article](_URL_4_) as well, but it's behind a paywall. The [NPR article](_URL_3_) does a good job of breaking it down though."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://gfycat.com/AccurateIckyChanticleer"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/flying-snake/",
"http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/208/10/i.2.full.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysopelea",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/theprotojournalist/2014/03/07/286833436/the-elegant-secrets-of-flying-snakes",
"http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pof2/26/3/10.1063/1.4866444"
]
] |
|
f8h5rp
|
how can we “feel” the texture of a substance that we touch indirectly, like when we poke something with a stick?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f8h5rp/eli5_how_can_we_feel_the_texture_of_a_substance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"filbdyc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"We have vibration -receptors in our fingers which are super sensitive to this kind of small movement of the stick"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
50nm7x
|
what makes our brain to feel as if our whole world is spinning and lopsided whenever we spin ourselves a crapload?
|
I should say, when we STOP spinning ourselves so much. Everything spins like crazy even though you're standing still.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50nm7x/eli5_what_makes_our_brain_to_feel_as_if_our_whole/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d75gjlc",
"d75hcdj",
"d75pqcd"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You have fluid in your inner ear that helps your brain figure out which way is up so you can balance. When you spin you slosh the liquid around.",
"It's lag, basically. Your eyes have noticed that you're standing still, but it takes a while for your ear fluid to balance and for your brain to figure out you've stopped.",
"A little more detail on the human balance system: In addition to the hearing system, each inner ear has three circular tubes filled with fluid. The inside walls of the tubes have delicate hairs connected to nerves to your brain. When your head rotates, your head moves but the fluid stays still due to its own inertia: the hairs detect the relative motion of fluid past them and tell your brain you're turning.\n\nIf you keep spinning for a while, the fluid starts rotating in sync with your head. Now, when you *stop* spinning, the fluid keeps going on its own inertia, so the hairs once again sense motion, and tell your brain you're spinning -- even though you aren't.\n\nAnything that causes fluid to flow inside these tubes will make you feel like you're spinning. Alcohol is one example: when alcohol enters your bloodstream, some of it filters into the tubes, changing the density of some parts of the fluid. This causes it to flow, so to the little hairs, it seems like you're spinning. Drinking heavy water (which has a heavy isotope of hydrogen) will also make you dizzy, but without all the pleasant parts of being drunk. Flushing your ears with very cold water will cool the fluid unevenly, again causing a density change, flow, and dizziness.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://chemistry.about.com/od/heavywater/fl/Can-You-Drink-Heavy-Water.htm"
]
] |
|
eblgc4
|
why isn't the eye tissue transparent, so we can still see when we blink?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eblgc4/eli5_why_isnt_the_eye_tissue_transparent_so_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fb5pg0h",
"fb5pqlp"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Our eye tissue is not transparent because we use it primarily to protect our eyes. The eyelid is not thin and contains more muscle than you think. If it were clear, there would be veigns blocking your \"view\". Also, closed eyes allow us to properly sleep due to darkness and protection from light.",
"There are a couple of answers to this.\n\nFirst answer is that we *can* to some extent see through our closed eyelids, but only enough to know whether or not there is light hitting our eyelids (in a well lit room, close your eyes, then after a second or two put your hand over your eyes, you'll perceive a difference in light. If you want to remove confounding variables, you can have a friend hit a light switch rather than using your hand).\n\nThe more important answer is that there wasn't evolutionary pressure for us to develop such a trait, especially with some of the other benefits opaque eyelids can provide us (like blocking out the harsh sun or squinting our field of vision to focus our pupils), and our brains being able to essentially fill in the gaps in what we would see during our blink by piecing together a before/after. Blinks are also just incredibly quick, so quick that a lot of the time you don't realize you've done it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
93olzm
|
confession booths at a church, when someone confess's something really illegal that they've done
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/93olzm/eli5_confession_booths_at_a_church_when_someone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3eq388",
"e3eqaap"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The priest is supposed to keep confessions secret, unless that confession is of something that endangers other people.\n\nSo you could tell a priest that you stole a million dollars and they wouldn't report you, but if you told him you planned to kill someone, then they would.\n\nThat is 'would', there is not actual law stopping them from reporting anything you say, just doctrine.",
"You can technically confess to a crime and the priest cannot contact the police because you are confessing to \"God\" who has a higher power than a police officer. Also, the priest is only a method to \"God\" so they have a oath to keep your secrets safe because you are confessing not to them but to \"God\". That is what Catholics believe so other religions may be different. The legal backing behind that is you don't need to tell the police anything. You have a right to not saying anything to the police (at least in the US). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4p6x7r
|
why isn't studying in europe attractive for americans?
|
I just don't understand why young Americans wouldn't study in Europe for 1/10 of the American price with similar or sometimes even better education? Studying is really cheap or even free in a lot of countries.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p6x7r/eli5_why_isnt_studying_in_europe_attractive_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4ik6oy",
"d4io2uy"
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text": [
"Many Americans do choose to study in Europe, even more popular is a \"semester abroad\" type of program where you go to school in a different country for a short period of time.\n\nNow many don't study in Europe because though the schooling may be cheaper, there can be language barriers, high costs of living, being thousands of miles away from home, accreditation of the degree (will other programs or jobs accept your European degree), and many other reasons. But I'd imagine distance and difficulty of application are the biggest parts.",
"Expense primarily. \n\n* To go study in Europe Americans do not qualify for any of the programs that make it cheap or free in most countries. Those are programs reserved for citizens of that country or citizens of the EU. So you are looking at costs equal to what we pay in the US after we add scholarships and grants. \n\n* We do not qualify for loans domestically or abroad to study in Europe. That means that everything has to be paid fully out of pocket. Even if you do get some or even all of the discounts not having access to loans means it is more expensive at that moment. \n\n* We do not qualify to get jobs on student visas to most European countries. That means we have to be wealthy to begin with and take all of our funds with us for our time studying. \n\n* We lose access to our support networks. All of our family and friends are in a different country and their ability to help us is greatly limited if not fully eliminated. \n\n* Only 35% of Americans have passports. This one is fairly easily fixed but it shows that we do not even have the infrastructure set up to travel let alone study abroad. \n\n* Language. Most Americans only speak English. If the country does not teach in English we cannot study there generally. \n\nEdit: Also, America has several of the top universities in the world often getting half of a top ten list so European education system is not generally better at the University level. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3azydo
|
can someone do an eli5 on buddhism?
|
Feel free to make it more of an ELI12, also, what are some books that I could read that would tell me more about Buddhism? I mainly mean accepted Holy texts. So if this question were about Christianity I would mean the Bible rather than some book by a priest about the Bible and Christianity. Thank you!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azydo/eli5can_someone_do_an_eli5_on_buddhism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cshjb29",
"cshkdbk",
"cshlrxj"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"First, you can head over to /r/Buddhism, where they have a sticky post called [Buddhism in simple English](_URL_0_ ). I'm sure they can ELI12 your next layer of questions.",
"True Buddhism is massively misunderstood, and what we know of buddhism is very westernised. However let me first point out that eastern 'religions' have many branches, rather like christianity I suppose. Though lets get started... From what I know, buddhism began as a response to hinduism, and a desire for something different, so it originated in northern india, and spread across Asia. though it is not a religion per se, but rather a way of viewing the world and approaching life. There are no guidelines, rules, laws, politics or structures like in western religions. You don't 'join' or 'become' a buddhist, you simply do buddhism...to as little or as much an extent as you desire...it is not a 'club', it's a pathway. \n\nThere are three main schools, Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana. All of which concentrate on the removal of the self from the world around. To understand that life is full of pain, suffering, temptations, love, lust, loss etc. And the buddha teaches that to achieve nirvana, you should remove yourself from these interferences and desires. And thus removed yourself from the cycle of birth and death. It gives recommendations on how to do this...However it must be stated that these are recommendations, not rules, unlike western religions.\n\nTheravada is pretty much (from my knowledge) basic buddhism. Quite standard, and a lot like the western view of buddhism. \n\nHowever Mahayana buddhism says that the buddha isn't simply a historic figure, but a transcendental figure that we can all aspire to be. And on the route to enlightenment, many aspire to become bodhisattvas...compassionate beings who's goal is to help other beings on to the road to nirvana. \n\nVajrayana buddhism is a little unorthodox, and uses a more unusual approach. It It has more scriptures and is based more on historic teachings, it is seen as an easy route to enlightenment by using rituals which are traced back to hindu scriptures. These are seen as somewhat taboo by other branches.\n\nLong story short, buddhism concentrates on the realisation that you are not who you think you are. You don't know the real you. You think you are Joe Bloggs that goes to work at 9 and leaves at 4. But you are fooling yourself. You trick yourself into thinking you are who you think you are (similar to the hindi idea of a drama), and thus get caught up in pain, suffering, desire, greed etc. You grew into this world with complete enlightenment, but have gradually succumbed to the unnatural world imposed upon you. (However buddhism somewhat paradoxically believes you are as one with the natural world). Buddhism is therefore used as a medium to remove yourself from this cycle of clinging, and free your mind and body.\n\nThis is a little abstract, and a little Zen, but the point still stands. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer, but i'm no expert, just an enthusiast.\n\nTL;DR There are 3 main sects of buddhism, and each has different approaches to achieving nirvana. However, they all have a unified goal of removing the idea of a 'you', and allowing you to freely live your life without worry, pain suffering, desire etc.\n\nEdit: Also, many buddhist teachings are and were not transcribed, but spoken aloud. There is not a 'holy' book, however there are scriptures and english transcriptions. Though I'd recommend listening to/reading an Alan Watts book or lecture. He is excellent at describing the true nature of buddhism, in a very understandable and relatable fashion.",
"Interestingly enough, I just did some light reading on the subject and wrote to a friend about it. There is a link to read more. Here it is:\n\n\nIf you find Buddha on the road, kill him.\n\n\nI came across that line during some reading, and apparently it's a famous mistranslation or misquote of Buddha's talk with the Kalamas ( The Kalama Suttas _URL_0_ ) I thought that it was an interesting way of expressing to avoid following any leader claiming insight. Or, in other words, it is the journey and not the destination you seek.\n\n\nEither way, the passage its referring to is Buddha advising some guys (the Kalamas) to trust nothing until you have experienced it and know it is good and to surround yourself with good people you trust. My favorite part was when he said if heavens exists, then great! If not, oh well at least you had a great life and nothing was lost, at least you didn't suffer.\n\n\nA similar story I came across tonight was about a student monk in training, residing in another country. His teacher spoke little about Buddhism, and mostly taught the farmers and admonished people to avoid smoking, drinking, and other vices.\n\n\nOne day the student was searching in the forest when he found his teacher smoking. Irritated at his hypocrisy, he confronts his unapologetic teacher and demands an explanation. The teacher blew out some smoke and said, If you are looking for Buddha, don't look to me.\n\n\nSearch for what is right that you know to be true, and seek out others of know the same. Have no evil intent and your soul is fine. Dont follow any leader that claims to know the truth figure it out yourself. And finally, don't go all crazy about any of this, even moderation needs moderation. You're not the Buddha, so don't try to presume to be. The Buddha wasn't the Buddha on the journey; it's supposed to be beyond our comprehension.\n\n\nIf you find Buddha on the road, kill him."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/14a8nc/the_premise_of_buddhism_in_simple_english/c7m3nq5"
],
[],
[
"http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html"
]
] |
|
97ekez
|
a lightbulb flickers 50/60 times per second, but we see it as being constantly on. how is it then possible for the human eye to see differences between 60 and 144hz monitors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/97ekez/eli5_a_lightbulb_flickers_5060_times_per_second/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e47n8w5",
"e47ncrc",
"e47pdd2",
"e47r2nb",
"e47trb5"
],
"score": [
2,
16,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"There is a difference between a flicker at the same brightness and a screen where a given location changes in color and intensity. If the light bulb flickered a different color for one blink at 60 Hz then you could certainly see the difference.",
"The power may be at 50/60 hz but the filament stays hot enough to put out light the whole time. Turn a light off in a dark room and you can still see it glow for a caouple seconds. ",
"A light bulb's filament stays hot enough to make it seem to be constant. But there is a bit of a wave. That's why light bulbs glow for about 3 seconds after turning off. \n\nEDIT (in case you are curious): LED bulbs contain a circuit to convert AC to DC (known as a rectifier) by using diodes so that electricity can only come out in one polarity. They also have a capacitor so that the electricity is smoother. But some cheaper LED bulbs have smaller capacitor, so the flickering is visible (LEDs themselves go out really fast after disconnecting from power, which also make them flicker when they are powered by electricity with a wave pattern). \n\nIn a monitor, the hz actually means the refresh rate. It is almost the same with the FPS on a video camera. A 60hz monitor refreshes the image 60 times a second. ",
" > A lightbulb flickers 50/60 times per second\n\nMake that 100/120 times per second. There might be 60 cycles per second but each cycle involves a period of positive voltage and a period of negative voltage as well as two zero crossings. This means a bulb is being energised 120 times per second.\n\nOf course, the other comments here pointing out that incandescent filaments cool only slowly are correct but some lighting technologies do produce fairly strong 100/120 & #8239;Hz flicker.",
"Human visual persistence is ~20 Hz, which is why you perceive continuous motion above this point - your brain can fill in between frames rather than perceiving them discretely.\n\nHowever, human detection of motion ranges down to ~5 ms. So if your frame rate is less than ~200 Hz, then simulated motion looks 'jumpy'.\n\nIf your light source remains stationary within your visual field, this means you need a relatively low frequency for it to appear to be continuous light.\n\nNote that this is true even without the thermal inertia of incandescent bulbs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3avx0p
|
why are macaws rainbow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3avx0p/eli5_why_are_macaws_rainbow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csggsbv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is an interesting question because both sexes are colorful. In most birds the male is colorful, but the female is not and this the result of sexual selection wherein the female is choosy and the males must compete. So the female gets to be camouflaged, but the male does not, because he wouldn't be able to attract a mate if he were not brightly colored. In humans, sexual selection is also very important, but it's a little different because we have mutual mate choice. Which means both sexes have to be attractive. That's what's going on in the parrots as well. The most brightly colored males have the best sperm count and the most brightly colored females lay the largest clutches. Any disease or parasites will reduce the brightness, so they aren't high quality mates. So it's mutual sexual selection. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2mo1nv
|
why is there a stigma on smaller penises
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mo1nv/eli5_why_is_there_a_stigma_on_smaller_penises/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm5yxh7",
"cm5yymp"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I think it's because larger ones seen as a sign of masculinity and virility. \n\nIt wasn't always like that. In old Roman plays, actors used to wear huge fake penises to look foolish. They associated large dongs with being more like an animal (a donkey, if you will), hence why statues aren't sporting massive wangs.",
"The penis is a very obvious sign of manhood. From a physical standpoint, it is what defines us as male. A bigger penis is perceived as more masculine than a small one. It is a (wrong) way to quickly judge ones abilities as a male."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1iivn9
|
how is battery voltage rated?
|
I remember the equation from school physics "V = I * R"
For example, my phone battery is rated at 4.2 volts when full and 3.4 volts when "empty".
Battery generates current, and voltage is measured - so when I get a battery which says "1.5 Volts", which resistor is used to measure this voltage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iivn9/eli5_how_is_battery_voltage_rated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb4vmej",
"cb4xd2w",
"cb4z3g0",
"cb53cbo"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A battery generates voltage, and current is measured. Not the other way around. \n \nAdditionally, the battery is rated for how long it can supply current, in mA-hours. ",
"a battery is a **voltage** source, not a current source. while this may not seem to be important in more complex electronics it becomes a very important concept indeed. No resistor is needed to measure the voltage across it as batteries create voltage differentials, which induce current.\n\nThe amount of voltage a cell(which are then arranged into batteries) creates is dependent on it's chemistry, which is why batteries sometimes seem to come in strange voltages. ",
"What you described is indeed the Ohm's Law but there are many subtleties regarding the definition of voltage, current and resistance. To get a good understand of how electricity works, it is necessary to understand what these three terms. \n\nVoltage is actually the measurement of the electromotive force and volt is its unit. A good analogy is that temperature is the measurement of the amount of heat, though such analogies have to be taken with a grain of salt. Essentially, electromotive force is the force that pushed electrons across the a conductor, like how an engine pushed a car. \n\nHowever, the force that push electrons is unlike the force that our every day lives experience. To move a mass, like a car, you need kinetic energy. To move an electron, you need to create a potential difference of electric fields. An electron has charge and mass, though its mass is very low. Because electron has charge, it can emitted electric fields. Electric fields goes both way, the field emitter can be affected by other fields. In an ensemble of electrons, you get this whole mixture of electric fields all simultaneously affecting each other. All electron have same type of charge, negative which in nature do not like each other and they repel. This means that electrons side by side will tend to push each other away.\n\nThis is where the potential difference comes in. Let say that you are an electron surrounded by other electrons. If the other electrons' fields you are feeling is equal in all directions, well, you not going anyway. You are stuck, just as all electrons around you are stuck in the same position. But that is an ideal situation. In real life, the slightest movement, which can be cause by a simple difference in distance between electrons can cause everything to shift. IRL, electrons are more like shifting around like sloshing water in a teacup.\n\nHowever, if you find a way to say, take some electrons out from one side of the cup, suddenly, there is a lack of electric fields emitting from that side and the force causing you to stay in one place will be gone and you start shifting to fill in that gap. Now imagine in a copper wire, if you find a way to constantly take electron out from one end, all the electrons will start shifting towards that empty end. That is potential difference; a difference in the electric field from one end compared to another end. The bigger the potential difference, the more electromotive force there is, and more electrons can move per second. \n\nThe rate at which the movement of electrons is the current, I. Obviously, the higher the voltage, the more likely more electron move per second. Hence V=I somewhat. However, the picture is not complete because nature has a very annoying tendency (which we should also be thankful) to abhor perpetual motion and introduce a third term, resistance. As its name suggest, resistance is the tendency to stop electron flow. If there is no resistance to stop an electron, the electron will just need a initial \"push\" or potential difference and it will just keep flowing forever. In a way, resistance is friction. \n\nIf the electron is moving through vacuum, there is no resistance but all materials like copper wire has resistance (except superconductivity). Without a constant \"push,\" electrons will eventually stop moving and you have zero current. Hence V = I x R. V is basically the voltage need to keep electron moving at a certain rate I by overcoming the resistance R, much like how engine in a car have to continuously applying force to keep the car moving to overcome friction and drag.\n\nElectronics is basically the machine that uses electrons as an energy carrier to do all kinds of functions (calculations, LCDs, etc.) in order to process information for you to use. All electronics have to work with a certain amount of electromotive force, any less and the circuitry won't work and they require a certain amount of electron flowing through them at all time (current). The work they do is essentially the resistance. \n\nIn a wall socket, we always have a certain amount of voltage and a certain maximum amount of current a machine can draw from (as long as your power station keep chugging along) but batteries is a different story. \n\nBatteries generate electricity by electrochemical reactions. Remember that to push electrons, you need to create a potential difference between 2 ends or poles. In a battery, there is indeed 2 ends (+ and -). At each end (an anode or cathode) a different type of electrochemical reaction will occur. An electrochemical reaction is a type of chemical reaction where a reactant directly gives or takes electrons from a conductor or electrode. Now not all electrochemical reactions are created equal, some reactions are more likely to \"give\" electrons, others are more likely to take. All you have to do is to choose a pair of reactions that has very different electrochemical potential (tendency to take or give electrons), put them at each electrode and electrons will start flowing. The difference in their reactivity (potential) give rise to the inherent voltage that can be generated.\n\nHowever, good times do not last forever and as the reactants get used up (either giving or taking electrons) there are less and less reactant left to create the potential difference, Hence a fully charged battery (all reactants and no products) will have an initial maximum voltage output and the voltage will slowly drop as reactant drop and product increases. Obviously, in a rechargeable battery, if you reversed the electron flow by overcoming battery potential difference with a higher potential, you reverse the reactions.\n\nTherefore, 4.2 volts is likely when the reactants is full and 3.4 volts is when there are some products and some reactants. The caveat is that 3.4 volts is not really empty; you can hook it up to a 3.4 V light bulb and you get light! A fully, really discharged battery is when there are no more reactants left, only products. However, remember that the electronics in your phone require a certain amount of voltage and current to function. It is likely that the electronics simply cannot function below 3.4 V. To the phone electronics the battery migth as well be \"empty.\" \n\nLastly, it doesn't really matter that much what resistor is used to measure a voltage. In fact, voltage is not usually measured by using a resistor. Voltage is measured as a direct quantity, current too. In old analog voltmeter, the voltage is measured by seeing how much deflection a potential difference can cause to a needle equilibrated by magnetic fields. Resistance is the value that is only measurable by using Ohm's law and measuring voltage and current across a resistor.\n\nEdit: THanks for the gold!",
"A battery is something that tries to keep the rated voltage between two terminals. A wire is something that has very low resistance. Now what happens if you just stick a wire between the two ends of the battery? If V is supposed to be 4.2 volts, and R is nearly zero, the only way to make V = I \\* R work is for I to get really big. That's exactly what happens: the battery tries to shove a lot of current through the wire. It's called a short circuit. Usually the wire wins, and the battery dies.\n\nNow if instead of just a piece of wire you use a 100 ohm resistor, it's not so bad. 4.2 volts divided by 100 ohms is 0.042 amps, or 42 milliamps. The battery can keep that going for a while. In fact, you might find somewhere on the battery a rating that says for how many hours it can deliver a current. If it's rated 840 milliamp-Hours, it can deliver our 42 milliamp current for 20 hours. If we had instead used a 200 ohm resistor, the battery would only need to deliver 21 milliamps to keep it at 4.2 volts, so it could last 40 hours instead of just 20.\n\nIn reality, the battery doesn't just hold the 4.2 volts by pushing out 42 milliamps for 20 hours then suddenly going to zero volts because it's empty. What really happens is the voltage starts at 4.2 volts and slowly drops. That's OK because the device it built to expect that. It can actually work with anything from 4.2 volts on down to 3.4 volts. Below that point, the device needs to shut itself off because it won't work anymore, and that stops the battery going down any further.\n\nSo getting back to your original question: think of the voltage label as a kind of promise. The battery tries to deliver enough current to keep whatever voltage it says no matter what resistor is used. If the resistance is high, it doesn't have to deliver much current. If the resistance is too low, then the battery could ruin itself trying."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21mwrw
|
how do we know that prehistoric earth only had one super-continent?
|
In all of the "Early Earth" programs they show a single landmass taking form into Pangea, then splitting apart into today's continents.
How do we know that entire continents/plates have not been subducted?
[edit] perhaps the question was not clear. I am fully aware of the general concept and details of plate tectonics, that there is massive evidence that TODAY'S continents were part of Pangea, and are still migrating. However the question is about whether or not there would be detectable evidence of previous continents/plates that have been entirely subducted and therefore lost to our modern plate configuration. Is there any way for us to know if/where this has happened?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21mwrw/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_prehistoric_earth_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgekt1e",
"cgela13"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"There are certain elements of rock strata that can be traced to a single development. For example the famous tip of the Matterhorn consists of metamorphosed granites and gneisses which is identical to the composition of parts of the Apulian plate which is part of Africa. It is incredibly unlikely that such identical composition developed independently on the Apulian plate in Africa and then exclusively in the tip of the matterhorn. This indicates that the tip of the Matterhorn broke off of the same formation as the Apulian plate and then drifted to it's current location.\n\nThere are thousands of rock formations that have relationships similar to the one between the Matterhorn and the Apulian formation. If we work backward connecting these formations eventually we develop Pangea. \n",
"There most likely have been whole plates subducted. Also, Pangea wasn't the only supercontinent in geologic time, just the most well known. \n\nRocks can be classified based on age, composition, and where they were deposited when they were still sediment. When we see the same rocks with the same properties that are the same age on different continents that is pretty damning evidence that those rocks were one continuous mass at one time. This is the data that we can see from stratigraphy and this shows that the continents were one mass.\n\nWe know where the continents were located on the earth based on things like the direction of magnetic north being preserved in many minerals. This lets us piece the continents together so that all of our data points North and all of our basins that hold the same rocks are together. Thus, Pangea. \n\nAs for how do we know that entire plates have not been subducted, well, that is most likely what actually has happened. However, Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely the most correct answer. So, assuming that there were additional continents besides the ones we have today adds more doubt to our explanation. Further, where would you put those continents? Placing extra continents somewhere else would add additional doubt to our explanation.\n\nTL;DR Rocks "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2bv5k1
|
why isn't malaria found in florida?
|
There's plenty of malaria in Central America. And there's a canal in Florida that runs from Fort Myers, through the Everglades, across Lake Okeechobee, and on to the Atlantic. It sure seems to me that some mosquito larvae must hitch a ride from time to time. What's keeping malaria out? Bonus points for Louisiana and east Texas, too.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bv5k1/eli5_why_isnt_malaria_found_in_florida/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj97mte",
"cj97xni"
],
"score": [
14,
12
],
"text": [
"The government (the CDC specifically) actively worked to eradicate it from the US through massive application of DDT. Malaria actually did exist in the southern US until the 1940s. And if it were to get reintroduced now, it would probably be extremely hard to get rid of again, seeing as we have much stronger environmental sensibilities now than we once did. ",
"Malaria reproduces inside an infected person. When that infected person is bitten by a mosquito, the mosquito sucks up infected blood. It then flies off, bites somebody else, infecting them. This means that the mosquito is a **vector**- it is just carrying the malaria from one human host to another. \n\nMosquitoes aren't born with malaria in them, so all the mosquito larvae floating down the canal are clear of the disease. It's after they turn into a mosquito, bite an infected person, that the mosquito becomes a disease carrier. \n\nSo the key factor in deciding whether malaria is present in a region isn't where the mosquitoes are, it's where the infected people are. If a whole bunch of infected people arrived in Florida, the mosquitoes already in Florida would spread the disease to others. \n\nTo prevent this, all you have to do is make sure that the area either\n\n* a) doesn't have too many infected people for the mosquitoes to bite\n\n* b) doesn't have too many mosquitoes to do the biting\n\n* c) has a low enough density of humans that it's unlikely the mosquito will bite more than one human\n\nThe US and Europe used to have malaria, but they wiped out malaria by using option B, spraying loads of DDT pesticide in the 40s and 50s. Mosquito populations have since recovered, but now that it's gone, option A stops malaria coming back. Effective western healthcare ensures the occasional person coming home from holiday with malaria gets treated quickly, before a moquito bites them and becomes a carrier."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7uk9kh
|
why is a computer with 2 or 4 fast processors better than one with 100 or 1000 slow ones?
|
EDIT: Thanks for the answers. I learned that GPUs *are* many, many specialized processors.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7uk9kh/eli5_why_is_a_computer_with_2_or_4_fast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtkwgjl",
"dtkwkl5",
"dtkwqnr",
"dtkx9z9",
"dtkxgwd",
"dtkxnxw",
"dtkxymh",
"dtkzsda",
"dtl523e",
"dtl8miu",
"dtlga7v",
"dtlqoa2"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
4,
2,
9,
2,
2,
2,
18,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on your needs.\n\nIf your task can be split up into many smaller parts and processed without care of other pieces, then you can use 10000 cheaper smaller CPUs. This is the basis of distributed computing. \n\n",
"Couple of reasons. One: it's hard for humans to write software that can really take advantage of lots of CPUs. Two: there's a thing in computer science called \"context switching\". Basically, if you've got one CPU working on a problem, but then want a second one to work on the same problem, you've got to move all the data over to it. This takes time, so it ends up slowing things down.",
"Many (slow) cores are only useful if the workload can be easily divided across these cores. Consumer pc's need to be responsive to user input, which is not really parallellizable across multiple cores. So having a few super fast cores gives a much better user experience.\n\nIn servers you can already see that different users get their own thread, and server cpus often have 20+ cores and threads. If you go to pure calculation work, that's very easy to divide over multiple cores, and that's what GPUs do. ",
"Who runs a 10 mile relay faster, 2 people who hold world records/gold medals, or 100 regular guys?\n\nWhich group is less likely to drop the baton? Less likely to have a bad core (runner) who is clogged up and out of shape?",
"Programs are mostly written in procedural languages: do A, then do B, then do C, ... . Programs written in this form are most efficiently executed in one super-fast processor.\n\nHowever, we haven't been able to make processors faster for about a decade. Instead we try to make them more efficient by branch prediction, speculative execution, and other \"tricks\". There is a point of diminishing returns for these tricks, and that's why computers don't seem to be getting faster in obvious steps any more. Instead operating systems are doing more parallel things, like listening to your voice commands, to make new computers seem cooler even if they aren't faster. Th bottom line, fast processors are very fast, for most things.\n\nMany processors requires a different type of program. That's why some games work a lot faster when you get a new video card, even though you have the same old processor. Video cards have parallel hardware, though it's more 100 simple processors than 100 slow ones. Video code is programmed in very different ways to take advantage of this parallel execution. As a result new video cards do seem a lot faster than the ones from last year. They are less general, but they can be made faster by adding more processors.",
"That is not always true, but the program must be designed for using multiple processors well. The issue is that most programs either aren’t designed properly to use multiple processors or can’t be.\n\nSay for example we make a program that makes Fibonacci numbers. We start with 1 and 1, add them to get 2. 1 + 2 is 3, 2 + 3 is 5, 3 + 5 is 8, and so on. \n\nHow do you make multiple processors do this? The problem is that the next number in the sequence depends on the last two numbers, therefore they must be calculated first. \n\nTherefore there is no good way to split this across multiple processors since you can’t calculate things at the same time here.\n\nThat said, many tasks can be done by multiple processors. One example is graphics rendering,say for example you are playing a game, you need calculations for each pixel every frame. Since the calculations for these pixels are generally separate, it can be done with multiple processors, and this is why graphics cards generally consist of many small weak processors. ",
"The GPU on the graphics card is in principle a lot of specialized simpler processors. \n\nThe latest ATI Radeon Vega graphic card have 4096 Unified Shaders that you can use to create computer graphics ore use for something else like mining bitcoin, Neural network, Physical simulations etc. The are limited to some application because of how they are designed but on those application the are a lot faster the the computer processor.\n\nThe simplification is necessary to be able to put that large amount on a singe chip.\n\n\nBitcoin mining is the reson that there almost impossible to the Vega in stores. miners purchases all of the directly and sometimes a bit upstream in the supply chain.\n\n\nSo for some application are many simpler better but for most desktop program on/ a few faster are better. It is hard so split most program on multiple processors. It works best when you are doing the same calculation on a large data set. Some more sequential like rending a web page is harder.",
"Because the bus('s) on the mainframe board which allow the CPU, operating at the best speeds we can attain in the CPU chip, are so much slower that transferring the data and executable program to another chip to accomplish even minor amounts of process execution requires the original program to run, and wait... a very long as CPUs count time. Even the most powerful multiprocessor systems are limited by bus capacity. \n\nIn the PC world almost 2 decades ago the systems gained a huge boost (we leapt forwards technology wise) when the concept of a \"North Bridge and South Bridge\" was added to the motherboard, allowing the CPU to expand the amount of data it could push out to various other components. Remember the CPU is processing hundreds, thousands of commands in the time it takes to write one command onto a bus depending on the power or speed of the CPU. \n\nIn the current mainframe world what we used to think of as the CPU chip is now a multi-board stack (with its own several bus' architecture) between interlinked chips, usually 2-128 processors, each of which has anywhere from 2-1000 cores, and all have 32 or more threads of various kinds. The \"chip\" has become vastly more complex so that every mini-board has its own cache for each processor.. \n\nTrying to sync the processing and data movement across the bus is the major bottleneck in all current computing models. Maybe we'll see the US National Institutes of Technology (NIST) putting out requests for proposals for this in the near term.",
"Same reason nine women can't make a baby in one month.\n\nSome tasks are highly serial in nature, and can't be divided up well. And even when they can, it often requires a very different approach and is not something you can switch to on the fly.\n\nIf you wanted to get 100 things done as fast as possible, 100 slow processors would be the way to go. But if you needed 2 things done quickly, 2 good processes is often going to be the best way to go.\n\nYou also see diminishing returns. 2 processors are *at best* twice as fast as one but usually are not. You lose time coordinating the processors, and often one has to wait on the other. The more processors you have to juggle, the worse it gets. In some cases, more processors can actually be slower.",
"The main difference is whether or not a work load can be handled in a massively parallel nature. If it can't be then less cores will be faster since some work can only be done in a serial / linear nature where one step has to come before the next. If you have a thousand cores but only say two are doing work while the rest sit around doing nothing than you don't see a speed boost. \n\nIn reality you'll actually see a pretty sizable speed decrease because the only type of processor in the real world that has that many cores is a GPU ( graphics processing unit) and the only way you get that many cores onto a single chip is to have them well in layman's terms be really simple cores capable of simple tasks where as with a normal CPU there may be fewer cores but they are really robust in functionality and able to run at much greater speeds than cores in a gpu can. You'd never be able to fit 1000 full cpu cores onto a chip at least not fit them and have them actually be useful as it'd run into physical limitations.\n\nThis is why we have cpu's and gpus as different things in the first place. There are super computers though that link together multiple cpus / gpus but still if the workload can't be split up into even chunks you don't see the full benefit of having that many cores.",
"It really depends on the task. Sometimes have more, slower processors work better.\n\nTake bitcoin mining for example. A 'standard' processor is really good at doing lots of different things. This is great for a laptop or whatever where it's used for lots of different applications requiring different calculations...but the trade off is that because it's good at doing lots of different things, it's not particularly great at doing one specific thing.\n\nAn ASIC bitcoin mining machine (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) basically use multiple processors that are way less powerful than, say, a standard Intel processor...but because they're designed to perform just one very specific task, they can do so far more efficiently.\n\nThink of it this way. If you're trying to solve complex physics problems, it makes sense to give that job to a couple of people with degrees in physics and advanced mathematics. If all you're doing is adding a fuck ton of numbers together, it makes more sense to have lots of people who just know how to add up.",
"Computer engineer here,\n\nThe answer to this question is called [Amdahl's Law](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law"
]
] |
|
a0r137
|
how can to much anesthesia can kill you instead of just prolong the state of uncousioness? and when people die from anesthesia, do doctors know right away "oh, oh, too much, this one is gone" or happens in the middle of the surgery?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0r137/eli5_how_can_to_much_anesthesia_can_kill_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef2z5i5",
"eajtm6t",
"eajwn0b",
"eajx3kd",
"eajzqvr",
"eak0096",
"eak2gmf",
"eak5w7k",
"eakaqhr",
"eakcsy5",
"eakter2",
"eal707h"
],
"score": [
2,
99,
10,
17,
3,
2,
2,
11,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"About three months ago, one of our 12-year-old dogs had to be put under for an operation to remove what turned out to be a proportionately large but non-cancerous mass from her stomach. She came out of the operation and was kept under observation at the vets. She seemed fine for about the next 36 hours, was walking around, wagging her tail, ate a little. All in all, appearing that she was recovering. Then, suddenly her kidneys stood working and although a critical care vet went work to save her, about 45 minutes later she died of kidney failure that the vet said can sometimes be caused by an older dog's reaction to anesthesia. Our other dog, also 12, was due two weeks ago for his annual teeth cleaning, by a different veterinary practice, that he had been cleared for by his veterinary cardiologist who was treating him for a heart murmur but had assured us that he had a strong heart. During the cleaning though, his heat stopped, due also to anesthesia, and although the vet did all she could to start his heart again, she was unable too. My wife and I are both brokenhearted but I am also wondering now if there is an issue with the quality of anesthesia sold to veterinarians. ",
"So anesthesia drugs, like any drug, is a bit of a balance between how fast the drug is coming into the body, and how quickly the body is getting rid of it (either by breaking it down, breathing it out, or passing it like in urine). Think of it like a giant bathtub. If the faucet is wide open and putting water into the tub faster than its draining from it, eventually it will overflow.\n\nFor the most part, drugs work depending on how much drug is in the body. (How full the bathtub is with water.) Example: some anesthetics might slow the heart rate. If the body gets too full of that anesthetic, (the water in the bathtub overflows) it can slow the heart rate to the point where it just stops all together. In more scientific terms, most drugs have a somewhat \"dose dependent\" effect. And sedation basically requires blocking of things like heart rate, blood pressure, nerve function. Too much drug = too much sedation = too much blocking those critical things that keep people alive -- > they die.\n\nRegarding her quickly they realize it, it all depends on the scenario. Typically, it wouldn't be something that is totally predictable, because they can usually plan accordingly for anesthesia I believe. But if something unexlected happens mid surgery that requires a sudden response, sometimes the drugs available just aren't fast enough, or more likely, they're having to balance competing forces. Some individuals have a genetic predisposition to clear anesthetics slowly, meaning that it builds up quickly, and sometimes it isn't noticed until they don't recover from the anesthesia in time, etc.",
"First of all, excuse my english and second, i'm a vet student so i'm gonna talk about experience with animals:\n\nAnesthesic drugs like any other drug go by the rule of \"the dose makes the poison\". Doctors expect a certain reaction to certain doses of anesthesic. They expect the body to clear it at a certain speed. But not all patients are like that. This is why your anesthesic protocol vary with certain conditions, like age or disease (like liver or renal disease) so you don't accidentally cause an overdose. \n\nAll the machines they connect to you are for realizing you're doing ok with the anesthesia or if you're not. If you are not they will inject certain drugs depending on what is making you not ok. Anesthesia problems usually occur after surgeries (the highest rate of death in surgeries for animals is after the procedure.) \n\nThe way anesthesia kills you depends on the drug, but is usually from apnea or cardiorespiratory arrest. So doctors will realize if the machines or the assistant tell them something is wrong. ",
"Too much anesthesia doesn't just shut down your brain so to speak. It shuts down your cardiorespiratory system. While a ventilator can take care of the latter, it can't make your heart beat for you. It's a balancing act of giving enough anesthesia to keep your asleep but no so much that your blood pressure drops to dangerous levels. Lesser amounts of anesthesia means lesser affects on your circulatory system but also on your state of consciousness. Greater amounts mean greater effects.",
"I just find it amazing that given the spate of lethal injections given to death row prisoners in USA in recent times that have had shocking and in humane results, why nobody has thought to just OD them on anaesthetic?",
"Anesthesia turns different parts of your brain at different dose. \n\nLow dose makes you fall asleep. Larger dose makes your muscles relaxed, and you not responsive to surgical pain (this is what we want). Even larger dose makes you stop breathing. Yet-even-larger dose turns the brain off completely, so your heart and blood vessel stop working properly.\n\nThe doctors can tell when a patient is getting too much anesthesia when they stop breathing, or when their blood pressure drops to an unsafe level. \n\nWhen this happens, there is generally a whole bunch of alarms on the heart and lung monitors. The doctor needs to quickly fix the problem. If patient is not breathing, they get a breathing tube and a machine will breathe for them. If the blood pressure is too low, we give medications to make the blood pressure higher.\n\nIf the doctor were not able to fix the problem, the brain and body will not get enough oxygen. Organs will start failing, and the patient will die. ",
"To add to the other comments it is very very very rare to die from anaesthesia alone unless you have a severe reaction to the anaesthetic (malignant hyperthermia or anaphylaxis) and even then thats rare. Anaesthetists (Anaesthesiologists) have medications to correct any adverse effects - most commonly low blood pressure or a slow heart rate. Also if someone is too 'deep' (too much asleep) we can reduce the drug - either slow the drip or reduce the amount of gas being given.\n\nWhen people die during surgery they are usually dying from the surgery itself or the reason they needed the surgery eg bleeding after being shot/stabbed or a nasty infection overwhelming their body or they have a 'critical event' e.g. a heart attack or stroke whilst asleep.",
"OR nurse here. The anesthesiologist, or CRNA is constantly monitoring your heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate and how much actual air is passing through your lungs, and your oxygen saturation. They are constantly making little adjustments with either giving you more meds or less or different ones. That is their only job. They are the ones who will notice problems first. The surgeon stays in his/her lane until the anesthesiologist says otherwise. Sometimes you get parazlyed sometimes not. Your body can react to pain even if you are unconscious so the surgeon may ask them to paralyse you so you don't wiggle a lot. Then the machine will breathe for you. Or the anethesiologist can manually do it. It's all very well controlled. Also there is a close bond between staff so if something doesn't feel right, a lot of people come in to help fix things. ",
"It is unlikely to die from too much anaesthetic in a operating/hospital setting. In theatre and in critical care settings the patient is monitored. Anaesthetic in certain doses can:\n- kill the person's respiratory drive so they stop breathing: fixed with placing a tube in the person to breathe for them or using a mask and manually delivering breathes\n- slow their heart rate down/drop their blood pressure. Both these things can be fixed with medication that are easily accessible \nOn the ward sometimes they receive ongoing low dose anaesthetic for pain but safeguards are in place to prevent overdose and they can be reversed with medication\nA patient however can have anaphylaxis to anaesthetic and if not monitored (in the ward) or too widespread then they can potentially die. \nOverall patients should not die from too much anaesthetic ",
"One additional point:\n\nAs mentioned, the anesthesiologist has to carefully balance how much of the drug is going in with how quickly it is leaving your system. \n\nBut the drugs don't just leave. In order to get into the brain, they need to be soluble in lipid. This means they also dissolve into body fat deposits. So at the same time that some of the drug is leaving the body, the rest of it is building up in fat deposits. Until they become saturated. Then it comes out, all at once. So there's a rapid increase in the concentration of drug that can't be controlled. \n\nThe more body fat someone has and the longer the surgery make this catastrophic event more likely and more difficult to deal with. This is why most surgeons want patients to lose weight before elective procedures.",
"Every answer here is good. Just adding one but if information.\n\nMost drugs that depress your body functions turn off your ability to breathe or slow it down. If you don’t have a breathing tube in you too much anesthesia will just cause you to stop breathing and you’ll die. You can get a similar effect with morphine and too much oxygen (different mechanisms but similar effect)",
"Piggy backing off this post. If one has successfully gone under a few times in their life does that mean they are less likely to have complications from anesthesia in the future?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20nx7i
|
double clutch transmissions with a torque converter
|
I always thought it was either or when it came to transmissions. You either had a manual with a clutch or an automatic (w/ torque converter). This is the first I've read (or noticed) that auto manufacturers are offering a combination/hybrid of the two.
The Acura TLX with have a "new eight-speed dual-clutch transmission. This transmission, which features a torque converter..."
_URL_0_
I'm not quite sure what gains/loses there are by offering this type of transmission.
*I tried searching
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20nx7i/eli5double_clutch_transmissions_with_a_torque/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg5fbhx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The issue with most dual clutch transmissions is that the engagement of first gear when coming away from a stop can feel abrupt when you're just trying to slowly accelerate away from the light. Similarly, in gentle cruising situations, dual clutch units can have slightly jerky gearchanges.\n\nBy adding a torque converter, which allows the transmission to be engaged in a gear while the car sits still, before the dual clutch transmission this jerky low-speed behavior can be eliminated. Since torque converters can be completely locked for efficiency once the car is moving, there's no loss from the torque converter slipping and with the right programming the system has the option of operating just like a normal dual clutch unit in a sport mode or something similar.\n\nAs for what a torque converter does, it's a form of fluid coupling. There are two turbines, one attached to the engine and one to the transmission, along with a set of fixed blades in between. The entire space is full of fluid. The turbine attached to the engine's crankshaft spins with the engine which causes the fluid to put pressure against the other turbine (the fixed blades optimize the pressure and help with efficiency) which makes that turbine want to spin. When the input turbine on the engine side is spinning faster than the output turbine on the transmission side, the torque converter can multiply torque (**not** power), but this comes at the cost of efficiency since the slip causes some extra friction. It's the ability to slip at low speeds that allows the engine to keep running when a gear is engaged. To counter the efficiency loss from slippage, modern torque converters can lock the input and output turbines together physically, which eliminates the slip and makes it essentially as efficient as a \"normal\" clutch.\n\ntl;dr: The torque converter helps make the shifts smoother, which is a universal issue for current dual clutch transmissions."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1089226_2015-acura-tlx-prototype-to-debut-at-2014-detroit-auto-show"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1akwyc
|
how video games work from a code perspective.
|
Is it all one big while(1) loop?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1akwyc/eli5_how_video_games_work_from_a_code_perspective/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ych8g",
"c8ycrqo",
"c8ycutc",
"c8ydxii",
"c8yfudp",
"c8yjsum",
"c8yldc7",
"c8ymuzd"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
4,
26,
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Isn't nearly every program a big while(1) loop?\n\nA word processor, for example:\n\n While(1)\n If key pressed then process key\n End while\n\nA game is no different in that respect. It's what's inside that loop which makes it the game it is.\n\n(Although in both cases, the while loop is more likely to be part of the operating system. Inside the while loop, the operating system will detect key presses, or run a timer, or whatever needs doing, and it will call the program when the program needs to do something.)\n\nEdit 1: added note in parentheses\n\nEdit 2: formatting",
"... And what language are video game written in?",
"*Do some things*\n\nbut\n\n*if the user gives some input, do some other things*\n\n*also if certain things happen, objects touching, numbers representing things like health reach 0, etc. Do some other things*\n\n*once win condition is met, do end of game things*\n",
"Game developer here.\n\nBasically, it's a huge loop - or multiple loops. When you launch the game, it loads stuff like textures, models, sounds and so on, and then it begins the \"main loop\", where it processes the input, updates all objects that need to be updated, and finally draws everything on the screen.\n\nIn practice, it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, physics might have an own loop that runs 30 times per second, other \"non-visual\" code runs 60 times per second, and graphics may run as fast as possible to ensure seamless representation on the screen.\n\nAlso, there's the problem of resource handling: if the game is huge (10 GB for example), it can't all be loaded at the beginning. Usually games load the needed resources just when they are needed (between levels, for example), and the unneeded resources are unloaded. This all may happen in the \"main loop\", or the main loop may be shut down, before the resources are loaded and re-started after the loading is complete. Some games require seamless progression through the world (WoW and other MMOs), where the game may load and unload the resources all the time in the main loop (or another loop running at the same time).",
"The typical game loop looks something like this at most basic:\n\n while true\n update\n draw\n\nObviously there is tons of subtlety to what goes on in each of those, as far as processing input, updating the game state and physics, etc.",
"In the case of most Windows games, yes. Obviously most games are covered by copyright/NDAs/etc. but Quake III is open source. So, load up [win_main.c](_URL_0_) and we find:\n\n // main game loop\n\twhile( 1 ) {\n\t\t// if not running as a game client, sleep a bit\n\t\tif ( g_wv.isMinimized || ( com_dedicated & & com_dedicated- > integer ) ) {\n\t\t\tSleep( 5 );\n\t\t}\n\n\t\t// set low precision every frame, because some system calls\n\t\t// reset it arbitrarily\n//\t\t_controlfp( _PC_24, _MCW_PC );\n// _controlfp( -1, _MCW_EM ); // no exceptions, even if some crappy\n // syscall turns them back on!\n\n\t\tstartTime = Sys_Milliseconds();\n\n\t\t// make sure mouse and joystick are only called once a frame\n\t\tIN_Frame();\n\n\t\t// run the game\n\t\tCom_Frame();\n\n\t\tendTime = Sys_Milliseconds();\n\t\ttotalMsec += endTime - startTime;\n\t\tcountMsec++;\n\t}",
"It can definitely be done that way, and usually is, but there are exceptions.\n\nTake the original Nintendo, for example. The hardware itself draws the screen 60 times per second. The program itself (the code on the cartridge) has to update everything it can (backgrounds, character position and animation, etc.) *between* those interrupts. So it has 1/60th of a second to get the next frame ready for the system to draw.\n\nIt acts like a sort of loop, but it isn't written in code, but rather part of the electrical system.",
"Games use a programming methodology known as \"Event-driven programming\". That is, everything happens inside one or more \"event loops\" - big, continuous loops that continuously check for certain conditions. For instance, \"Is the W key being pressed? If so, move forward.\" Gross oversimplification, but not hard to grasp.\n\nComputers are really, really fast, and really, really dumb. They will do exactly what you tell them to do, so you need to break up every task into the smallest possible communicable segmented tasks, and then instruct the computer how to do each task - Here is how to draw this bullet, here is how to draw this tree. I am rambling and toying with the idea of explaining the difference between imperative and declarative programming..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/code/win32/win_main.c"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2juftu
|
why do drugs make our eyes look different?
|
why do we experience dilated pupils, red eyes, glossy eyes, low eyes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2juftu/eli5_why_do_drugs_make_our_eyes_look_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clf65ab",
"clf6lzu",
"clfcbaf"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
28
],
"text": [
"i wanna know this. also u got some of that hum... \"karma\"? *cough cough*",
"I think this is actually a pretty good question. People under the influence of drugs usually have strange facial expressions in general as well. Is keeping a straight face part of some intricate system that gets compromised somewhere along the way maybe?",
"It depends on what the drug is. Cannabis, for example, causes blood vessels in your eyes to expand slightly, which makes them more visible. Some people also get it from mild allergies to something in the plant.\n\nDrugs that cause increases of seratonin levels (cocaine, LSD, MDMA) cause dilation. Seratonin stimulates the 5-HT2A receptor. It has an inhibitory effect on areas in your visual cortex. I suspect its inhibiting the ability of the sphincter muscles that constrict your iris to work. More simply, drugs like LSD cause a bunch of a chemical to pool in your brain that shuts of the iris constriction muscles.\n\nSome drugs increase norepinephrine levels, including cocaine and meth. This stimulates the sympathetic nervous system, causing the \"fight or flight\" response. One of these responses is the dilation of the pupils. This uses the iris dilator muscle, which does the opposite of the sphincter muscle and pushes the iris open.\n\nOpiates cause pupil constriction. I can't find the exact mechanism, but I believe it stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system, which is sorta like the opposite of the \"fight or flight\" response. I also just found that dextromethorphan (DXM) acts on the parasympathetic nervous system, so I would also expect it to cause constriction, though I don't know for sure.\n\nGlassy eyes are caused by drugs that depress the central nervous system. One reason this happens is that you blink less if your nervous system gets turned down. This appearance is exacerbated by pupil dilation.\n\nELI5 summary: Red eyes are caused by blood vessel expansion. Dilation is caused either by the brain shutting down the constriction muscles or by turning on the dilation muscles, depending. Constriction is caused by the brain activating the constriction muscles. Glassy eyes are caused by eyes drying out and pupil dilation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
42iu6g
|
how can every auto-maker say they are "the number one car/truck/suv" in their commercials?
|
There can only be one number one, right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42iu6g/eli5how_can_every_automaker_say_they_are_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czaod4a",
"czaofol",
"czaonpr",
"czaoqac",
"czapcs1",
"czaqgbo",
"czarge0"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Number one\" is vague. Of course they're using some specific category. The F150, for example, is the number one selling truck in the US. Others may use towing capacity or safety ratings or something else.",
"A lot of what they're number one in are qualified statements, suck as \"number one in JD Power and Associates' 2015 'Best Looking White Paint' category.\"\n\nJust because something is number one doesn't mean it's necessarily number one in something that matters. It sounds better to call yourself \"number one\" than saying something like \"Third overall in-class safety rating\" or \"About the same towing capacity as last year's model.\"",
"There's always a class or category. They say \"number 1 in this class for this year\". Which leaves a lot of room for multiple \"number ones\". For example: Sedans | Coupes | SUVs | Hatchbacks | Convertibles | Hybrid/Electric | Minivan/Van | Wagons | Trucks | Diesels - just to name the different makes and models. There are also different safety and performance ratings. And technically not every auto-maker can say they're number one. Just one for each category, each year. Which still leaves room for a lot of commercials claiming some award or another. So it's understandable that it seems like every company claims to be number one. ",
"It's usually listed as \"best in its class\". Take trucks for example. You can have no cab, crew cab, extended cab, long bed, short bed, rear wheel drive, 4x4, all wheel drive, off road, diesel, Gas, eco, flex fule, hybrid, add in engine class, tow class, horse power, torque, base trim, mid trim, luxury trim and on and on. Any combination of all of these makes a new class where the competition is smaller for the #1 spot. ",
"Joke from the cold war: US and USSR have car race, just the two of them. The US wins. Next day, headline in Pravda says: \"Heroic Soviet racers take second place in great race. Americans come in second to last.\" \n \nAdvertising is like that. If you can pick categories and limits, you can always look the best. \"Best in its class\" is phrase often heard in car ads. How do they classify, by fuel economy, radio antenna, or size of ashtray? They decide, so of course they measure so they are best.",
"If you've got a magnifying glass and a 4K TV, you can usually see what they meant by \"number one\" as they put their qualifiers somewhere on the screen, like a footnote reference. \n\nSometimes the announcer changes his tone a little lower and says something quickly, as if verbally denoting parentheses to qualify the statement.\n\nOne or both of those clues will tell you how they came to be \"number-one\" or \"best-selling\" or \"top-rated\" or \"best-in-its-class\" at something.",
"It's called \"puffery\": _URL_0_\n\nBasically, you can say anything about your product if \"no reasonable person\" would take it literally."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery"
]
] |
|
dwb22k
|
why do marathon runners who suffer cardiac arrest, often get them after they've stopped running?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dwb22k/eli5why_do_marathon_runners_who_suffer_cardiac/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7iqhue"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is hard to run when your heart is stopped so it is basically *always* going to be after running. This is one of those things that has a lot of caveats - if you are an intense runner and you go running and then come home and have take out and suffer a heart attack, that was both after running and after consuming a high salt food. Which did it? Neither, you were likely going to have the heart attack regardless of what you were up to that day. If you run every day then there is a high likelihood that you will go into arrest 'after' running, but like half of your life is after running so all sorts of things are also true for things that would generally happen 'after' running. This is why they haven't definitively linked cannabis use to an increased rate of heart attack, the study concluded that you were most likely to suffer one within two hours of smoking, if you were to watch the subjects all day you would find that beyond during sleep it is pretty hard to find a time outside of a two hour window of smoking cannabis. In other words, a lot of people are basically *always* within two hours of smoking cannabis during the waking hours of their life. \n\nThis is all to say, this should not dissuade anyone from running. While sudden cardiac arrest has been noted for runners, the reality is that as a cohort runners have significantly reduced risk of stroke and heart attack. Even if you have existing heart disease running reduces the risk of having your first or second heart attack. Even if you *do* have a heart attack as a runner you are also far less likely to die of that heart attack. I worked with a guy that had a heart attack due to clot, 85% occlusion, atherosclerosis, and he was basically still alive after his heart attack because his heart had so many ancillary blood vessels that formed over this years of running that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been considering the clot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4juona
|
what is the weird tingling feeling people often get when they watch asmr (or other things)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4juona/eli5what_is_the_weird_tingling_feeling_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d39sdwq",
"d39u6rl",
"d39u6zh",
"d39uu4u",
"d39v34a",
"d39w5u3",
"d39w6px",
"d39wl98",
"d39xcl8",
"d39xmzy",
"d39yjbo",
"d39za2c",
"d39zb2a",
"d3a4428",
"d3a9820",
"d3aiy1g"
],
"score": [
12,
113,
8,
2,
10,
3,
9,
7,
5,
47,
2,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't really know why it happens or what it is. To an outside observer, it isn't a reaction you can see or feel, and it doesn't happen to everyone, which makes it really hard to research.",
"Come one man, you gotta at least tell people what ASMR is.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I get the tingling feeling, but for me it presents itself in ONLY my right kidney. It's really weird.",
"You just zone out and the anxiety leaves. When watching others get a massage or haircut, etc, people feel like there the ones receiving the service, hence the tingling ",
"When I was young I always got it playing duck duck goose or when a teacher went around passing out bingo chips in elementary school. Strange I know.",
"We don't even know why we need sleep; a breakdown of anecdotal observations is hard to study, especially when funding for such studies might come from big companies that already see huge competition.",
"Don't we not know? That's why it's not widely accepted in the science field; there hasn't been hard data produced that proves the existence of ASMR.\n\nAlso, as a tangent, why is this labelled chemistry? It's probably closer to biology, or other.",
"Pleasant tingling in the top inner scalp and at the top of the spine.\n\nDef not sexual but alot of youtube channel's have taken it that way, its hard to explain why you watch people talk on your computer but its way easier than saying to a person \"no keep talking, i like the way you sound\"",
"I think I get it? But when people are doing something for me, and I'm learning from what they're doing. ",
"ASMR is a form of **synesthesia**, which is [defined as](_URL_1_):\n\n > A conscious experience of systematically induced sensory attributes that are not experienced by most people under comparable conditions.\n\nA synesthetic event is defined in terms of an \"inducer\" event and a \"concurrent\" event. In the case of ASMR the synesthetic loop consists of an audio-visual inducer that stimulates a tactile/euphoric concurrent. These events are perceptually real meaning [activation of neural networks associated with the concurrent are observable in tandem with induction.](_URL_2_)\n\nOk, so thats what it is. Why does it work? This isn't completely defined but we have an idea. \n\nWhen considering the brain one can usefully divide it into sections. Of these subsections, the **cortex**, is like the central processing unit of the brain. Specific sections of the cortex integrate the various external sensory signals received from peripheral nerves. In these \"high order\" systems neural circuits that process divergent external stimuli can run in parallel and share neurons.\n\nSynesthesia occurs when nerve circuits derived from one sensory experience \"cross\" with nerve circuits responsible for a second sensory experience, possibly due to [hyper-connectivity](_URL_0_) in the affected brain, or possibly due to [failed inhibition of the cross-over signal](_URL_1_). \nFor whatever reason, **feed-forward activation** of the concurrent nerve loop is activated *in the brain*, producing activation of a distal sensory center and thus the unexpected sensation. Notably this sensation occurs only in the brain and is not associated with activation of peripheral nerves that would normally generate the concurrent signal.\n\nIn short, **ASMR is a benign short-circuit of the brain in high-order processing centers** that people have learned to leverage for pleasure. Synesthesias, in general, arise developmentally from structural differences in the affected brain, though they can occur as a result of brain damage or be induced through hallucinogens.",
"This thread just made me realize that everyone's physical ASMR experience is slightly different. I get tingling in the top of the head and a little in the nose. Weird.",
"Wow Id never heard of this before but experienced it a number of times in the past. I was even trying to explain it to my so the other day and we came to the conclusion I'm just weird.\nSo glad I found it.\n\nFeels like static in my head and I kind of stop doing everything and feel slightly numbed? Definitely not sexual. Had it when people have offered to do things for me or just done things for me without expecting it. \n\nEdit: watched those videos on YouTube and it didn't occur, for me I think it only happens when people do things for me\n",
"I just youtubed the top video for whatever this is and I wasted 15 minutes of my life watching some blonde lady move her hands and whisper at me. She then massaged a wooden hair brush and then fake brushed my hair. I thought the Internet was weird 10 years ago but I think we are hitting critical mass soon",
"I know this is super weird, but i get this when ever someone does something for me out of pure will, Like they don't have to do it, but they want to. Like when I was really young I remember my mother opening the taps on the bath for me, While i watch her throw in bubble bath, I would just sit there and get the sensation.",
"I experience ASMR, have since I was a child but then I just thought it was a cold chill or something everyone experienced. About 3 years ago I learned about ASMR and stumbled upon the many youtube channels that were created to help induce this for folks. I believe there are a large group of people out there that are mixing up a relaxation sensation with what ASMR really is. \n\n1. **ASMR is a physical sensation**. How you feel after, in my opinion, is a *result* of ASMR, not ASMR itself. \n2. For me, it always begins on the top of my scalp in a circular/ring shape. The sensation is a mix of tingling, as if a thousand needles are just barely touching your skin. It is pleasurable in a relaxing way, not a sexual way. This 'circle' expands out like a ripple, down to my ears, neck, shoulders and sometimes down the sides of my torso and arms - weakening as it travels. The stronger the wave, the further it goes. The entire sensation lasts 2-3 seconds. \n3. **Tolerance develops quickly**. If I were to watch a 60 minute video dedicated to ASMR, I would experience these sensations approximately once every 30-60 seconds for 10/15 minutes. After that, they are essentially in a refractory period where I just can't experience them again for a few hours. In long term, if I were to watch ASMR videos for a few days straight I may not be able to experience them until I stopped for a week or so. \n4. It seems to relax your body after, you feel lighter in the mind and body, which is why it is associated with relaxation and often used as an anti-anxiety practice. \n\nThat is what I can share for my perspective. ASMR is not just 'I feel really relaxed when I listen to this type of music or watch this thing happen', it is a physical sensation that you cannot control. ",
"These things do nothing to me. Am I a cold, heartless monster? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n6/abs/nn1906.html",
"http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1364661300015710/1-s2.0-S1364661300015710-main.pdf?_tid=8e969f6e-1cbe-11e6-8749-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1463551724_5f1c00788eab3472c28405ea54ffef3e",
"http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n4/full/nn818.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
efqmga
|
how does solid diffusion work?
|
Liquids have osmosis and create an even distribution in a space and so goes gas, what about solids? How does mixing groups of solids with the same weight and size create an even distribution, and does it actually?
For example, lets say I took 90 green M & M's and put them in a bag, then put 10 red M & M's in with it and shake it and stir it for an hour. Is it possible to get a distibution of 1 red m & m per handful or atleast get an even enough distribution of them to get close to that probability?
What about stuff like chex mix? Why dont all slightly heavier pieces just migrate to the bottom of the bag over time as it's shifted in shipping? It's evenly mixed, or atleast mixed enough for us to say that it seems even.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/efqmga/eli5_how_does_solid_diffusion_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fc1z6d6",
"fc28hi2"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"You cannot make m & ms or Chex Mix into a homogeneous mixture, so it is not possible to have it mix completely evenly, it will always be heterogeneous and will have a chance of different amounts of each solid in each handful. And with heterogeneous mixtures they do settle over time, this is why you have to shake things like orange juice with pulp.",
"If your objects are identical, then stirring/shaking them will usually arrange them in a mostly homogeneous way. This is for the same reason as diffusion in liquids - the motion is effectively random and so will produce the most likely outcomes, most of which involve a relatively even distribution (although there's always a non-0 chance you shake your bag of M & Ms and find all the red ones on one side and all the green ones on the other side). Your chex mix isn't separated because it hasn't been agitated enough, and probably because the pieces are all of a pretty similar density. If you vibrated a bag of chex mix for a long time you could probably get the denser bits to drop to the bottom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
t7a90
|
the difference between stimulus money and bailouts, and where the money comes from and eventually ends up.
|
When I read about $1 trillion or €1 trillion bailouts / stimulus packages in the US/EU, I always wonder... Are those loans, cash, futures,... ? And what is actually meant by "money pumped into the economy"? I don't suppose all business owners get 1/1000000th or so cash in the mail? Other ELI5's I found ask about what's bad about them, and don't really answer anything about what they are.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/t7a90/eli5_the_difference_between_stimulus_money_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4k5c72"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"ELU5: Stimulus money is like your parents hiring your poor friend to paint the fence because he needs the money and the fence needs painting. Bailout money is somewhere between your parents dropping food off at his house and buying his parents' living room (and selling it back to them when they have more money) so that they can afford to eat.\n\nELUnot5: The easiest way of understanding stimulus spending is the example of infrastructure spending. When the economy's down, the availability of workers goes way up (people are generally either unemployed or not working as many hours), and the demand for materials goes down (i.e.: less people buying steel). So it's a great time to do construction work that needed to be done while the price is low and people are available, and it creates tons of jobs. If you order a bridge to be fixed, you're not just hiring the construction company - you're hiring the construction guys, contractors, design firms, environmental surveys, etc. directly, and all those people suddenly having money and jobs leads to other spending (i.e.: hundreds of construction workers are now buying lunch every day from a local sandwich shop, buying cars to get to work, etc.). So in a way, the government is betting that borrowing the money it needs to get this stuff done will pay off by getting enough people back to work to get the economy going, but at the same time there's a very real opportunity to do stuff that needed to be done anyway (i.e.: repairing a bridge). Infrastructure is one of the most productive things a government can spend money on during a recession because it provides a real value (i.e.: the bridge doesn't collapse) while getting so many people back to work.\n\nBailout money is very different. Basically in the example of banks, there were too many people owing each other money (i.e.: bank A owes bank B, bank B owes bank C, etc., and bank Z owes bank A). It was like a circle of friends owing each other money, where if even one person can't pay it back everybody loses. When the economic crisis struck, it was like pulling the rug out from a few of these banks, and suddenly there were people depending on getting paid money back to pay other people back who probably weren't going to get their money. The government decided it was worse to let this happen than it was to step in and give banks enough money to pay each other back, and to give some companies enough money to keep producing/selling in the hope they would survive the crisis and recover. In some cases (like GM I believe? Maybe it was Ford) the government basically bought a huge chunk of the company to stop it from going under, and the company used the money wisely and paid them back (i.e.: bought itself back, so the government no longer owns much of it), and is now profitable again. In other cases (some banks) used the money irresponsibly, and instead of using it to keep business going as intended, used it for selfish purposes. Many argue (I would tend to agree, though I can't cite specifics) that there were not enough rules attached to the money, and this allowed some companies to use it to give big bonuses to executives who had almost bankrupted them or other wastes of money. It's like your parents giving your friend's family money for food and not being allowed to ask if they bought food or a widescreen TV."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3jdehp
|
what's the significance of iowa and the presidential race?
|
I'm not super into politics. I watch house of cards and know who has my vote this year, but It seems so important for candidates to win Iowa to have an advantage in the race for presidency. Why does one state mean so much out of 50?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jdehp/eli5_whats_the_significance_of_iowa_and_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuo9k8z",
"cuoahq0",
"cuob08o",
"cuobqob",
"cuohqmb"
],
"score": [
168,
12,
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Presidential elections usually involve an election between two political parties (organized groups of people who believe similar things). In the U.S. the two main parties are the Democrats and Republicans. Each party has a separate election - called a \"primary\" - to determine who they will nominate to be President. So before you can be elected President you have to win the \"primary\" election among people in your party.\n\nUnlike the Presidential election, which is set on a particular day by the Constitution, the primary elections happen in waves. Some states vote early and others vote late. [Here](_URL_2_) is a schedule of the primary votes in each of the 50 states. You'll notice that Iowa is the first state to nominate a candidate. \n\nIf a candidate wins in Iowa, their credibility as a candidate in the *other 49 elections* increases. By the time many other states vote, one candidate has often acquired a sizable majority or a decisive victory. For example, the fact that Obama won in Iowa in 2008 was a huge boost to his credibility. [Source](_URL_0_). Arguably, it was one of the reasons many undecided voters in other states eventually voted for Obama. Winning in Iowa proved that he could win the nomination, so people who might have preferred Obama over Hilary were now willing to vote for him because they thought he could actually win. \n\nBernie Sanders faces a similar uphill climb. Many people like him, but some don't want to \"waste\" their vote on Sanders because they think he can't win. A victory in Iowa could disrupt this narrative. \n\nEDIT: removed reference to \"primary in Iowa\" based on comment by /u/MisterPT \n\nEDIT #2: If you want to avoid most of what I wrote, you can watch [this video](_URL_1_), thanks /u/papermarioguy02",
"Lots of good answers here about why Iowa is important. /u/tigereyes69 got that right. \n\nThere are other reasons that Iowa has maintained its \"first-in-the-nation\" status:\n* Iowa's kind of an average state. It can swing from liberal to conservative -- for a while it had one of the most liberal senators (Tom Harkin) and one of the most conservative representatives (Steve King). It's also 30th in population, and 26th in area. While agriculture (conservative) and unions (liberal) control more of the politics than the national average, it's no longer true that one industry dominates the state economically. \n\n* The media markets are relatively small, so running ads is relatively cheap. \n\n* There are a lot of small towns, and Iowans are generally not too impressed by big money and media campaigns. because of the geography of Iowa, it's not hard to actually meet every candidate running if you put some effort into it. Missouri is called the \"Show-Me\" state, but when it comes to presidential politics, Iowa really delivers.\n\n* Iowa has a caucus system. That means you publicly stand up and support a candidate, and if you favor a fringe candidate that's not \"viable,\" you have to make a second choice. Your neighbors can talk to you about your choice. While secret ballots are best for a final election, a caucus requires more responsibility and thoughtful choices. \n\n\nThere have been repeated challenges to change Iowa's first-in-the-nation status, and New Hampshire's first-primary-in-the-nation status, but I actually think it's a pretty good system, for the reasons above.",
"They weren't always the first, but they have been for a long time. There's a whole history to this, because lots of states would like to be first, but to make a long story short, Iowa and New Hampshire split the \"first\" thing between them (one is a caucus, where the winner is chosen by party members and their friends, the other is an election anybody can vote in) and both have shown an almost psychotic determination to move their election date as far forward as they have to to be first. So the parties gave up and let them have it.\n\nBut other than the fact that they're willing to go to any lengths to keep that first-caucus-in-the-nation status, there aren't a lot of good reasons to let them have it, just a half-hearted justification. There's something to be said about the first contest being in a midwestern state, because the midwest states tend to go along with the ultimate winner. (Except that Iowa has done a terrible job lately; there's so much money in politics now that it doesn't matter who the volunteers want to run, the actual nominee is always someone who way outspent them.) By the same theory, the next two states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, are meant to show \"who the North wants\" and \"who the South wants,\" because up until about 50 years ago, that was the important distinction in American politics. And all three are fairly small states because they're meant to reflect who the voters in that region would pick if they got to know them really well, so putting the races in small states makes it easy and affordable to introduce yourself to a big percentage of the likely voters.\n\nWhichever states are the first three really matter to the *candidates* because they serve as a reality check. There are usually a lot of people who would like to be this election's candidate for each party. The first three elections serve to narrow the field; if you can't do well in either the midwest, or the north, or the south, then you obviously don't have enough followers or enough donors to win, so you can be comfortably ignored.",
"Other people have given good answers to this question. But if you want a more detailed ELI5 style look at the whole primary elections process, I'd suggest watching [this video](_URL_0_). ",
"Iowa is important because it is first. It weeds out the candidates that don't have a shot nation wide.\n\nIowa is a small enough state that it's relatively cheap to campaign in and you can actually see many of the candidates if you really want to or know someone that did. Running lots of ads isn't going to always be enough to win in Iowa.\n\nYou'll also see interesting things about the candidates.\n\nHillary likes privacy for herself at least.\n\nSanders gets the biggest crowds. \n\nPaul had a hybrid book/campaign event where he spent most of his time pushing his book.\n\nJindal primarily attends events run by one of his PACs. He also does stick around and talk to everyone frequently.\n\nRubio comes off as a person talking very well from an excellent script. It's still obviously a script tho and he never seemed to really move off of it.\n\nIowa also has a decent mix of conservatives and liberals so it can appeal to both parties as an early state.\n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs&ab_channel=CGPGrey",
"http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs"
],
[]
] |
|
3c95up
|
can someone help me understand how all the different television channels are transmitted to a television?
|
Are all the hundreds of channels being transmitted all at once single optic cables and we just select a frequency to tune into? That just seems ridiculous with the amount of information that needs to be transmitted.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c95up/eli5_can_someone_help_me_understand_how_all_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cstefrm",
"cstemwo"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Fiber (or fibre) optic television service works very differently to traditional cable television services, so it's important to clarify which one you're talking about.\n\nWith traditional cable television systems, the copper cable that comes into your home is shared with your neighbors. The cable company allocates different frequencies to different television channels and carries the data streams for all television channels on the same cable simultaneously to everyone in the neighborhood. \n\nWhen you want to watch a particular channel, you use a tuning device (aka a 'tuner') to select specific frequencies and demodulate the signal to recover the original data stream for that particular television channel broadcast. Other frequency bands are reserved for other types of data communications (e.g. internet connections and phone services).\n\nFiber optic television services work very differently. Typically speaking, they operate on Internet Protocol (IP), hence why these services are often called IPTV services. This basically means every device (including your television / set-top box) is assigned a unique IP address as part of a data/computer network and when you want to watch a particular channel, your television / set-top box sends a request to the IPTV server for the data stream of that channel. \n\nAfter authenticating, a copy of the data stream for that television channel is sent back from the server through the fiber optic cable into the home where it is routed (as data packets) to the television set-top box that requested the stream whereby the video stream gets decoded and is displayed for viewing.\n\nIPTV services are more complicated though because they typically (although not always) use multi-casting protocols to improve distribution efficiency. This means that instead of, for example, sending individual copies of a television channel stream from the server to you and your neighbor (who is also watching the same channel), the service provider instead sends one stream to your local neighborhood node and then that neigborhood node then sends individual copies of the stream to your house and your neighbor's house. This reduces the amount of bandwidth required to deliver the stream between the service provider's main routing facilities and smaller regional areas like neighborhoods.\n\nAlso, yes, you're right that in a traditional cable provider setup, the TV streams do take up tons of bandwidth. Each channel can take anywhere from 5-20 Mbps of bandwidth on average and since all channel streams are carried simultaneously, that means that there may be well over a gigabit worth of bandwidth on the cable dedicated just to TV alone. If cable companies re-built there infrastructure to work on an on-demand system like IPTV, then lots of bandwidth could be repurposed for other uses (e.g. faster internet speeds).",
"The One cable coming into your house contains a lot of signals that overlap like [waves](_URL_0_) As long as the wavelengths are all different they don't interfere with each other and no information is lost,\n\n & nbsp;\n\nYour cable box preforms a [Fourier Analysis](_URL_2_) to recover each individual 'wave of data' [gif](_URL_1_) which then translate into the cable channels that you see"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/76/f4/72/76f472a26fca941a355306e01465b91f.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Fourier_transform_time_and_frequency_domains.gif",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis"
]
] |
|
a3xn5p
|
why does rubbing my finger against a metal computer/phone while it’s charging feel funny?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3xn5p/eli5_why_does_rubbing_my_finger_against_a_metal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eba0btv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It’s called electro-vibration. \nI think its caused by a small ac voltage ripple from the charger that is not grounded, interacting with you as an electrical earth.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
58zupu
|
what's special about ceramic cookware and should i use it over teflon?
|
I've tried doing google searches, but I can't find any solid info, and what info I can find seems to be coming from extreme health nut websites (which tells me it might be a fad).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58zupu/eli5_whats_special_about_ceramic_cookware_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d94p4ei",
"d94t6u6"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Teflon is best in class at what it does (prevent things from sticking to it) and completely safe as long as you don’t overheat it.\n\nCeramic cookware is kind of sort of okay at preventing food from sticking to it, and it doesn’t have the overheating hazard.",
"Teflon, in my humble chefy opinion, should only be used by novice and beginner cooks. It's a fool proof pan for people who don't know all the ins and outs of cookery science. That being said, like others have, it has some caveats and risks when using metal utensils and heating. It also limits what you can do (say sear off a steak and slap it into the oven in the same pan). For me too, it sucks at heat management.\n\nCeramic is roughly in the same category for me, with the added benefit of it being substantially harder than teflon coats, and has the ability to withstand much higher temperatures. It still has problems when attempting certain cooking techniques, but it'll do for most folks.\n\nFor the ultimate non-stick however, nothing beats a well seasoned and maintained cast iron skillet or flat pan. They can be a pain in the butt to maintain if you're new to it, and you can't clean them like everything else, but man are they great.\n\nI tend to always recommend stainless clad aluminum pans, copper clad, and cast iron for someone's kitchen collection. Again though, for the novice every-day home cook, ceramic will do ya just fine and allow you to use some fancy cooking techniques.\n\nWhen in doubt, ask what people in restaurants use, then find a similar product that works for the domestic life. Not everything used in commercial kitchens translates nicely to the home in practicality.\n\nEdit: So many down votes, so many feelings hurt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
jy5kn
|
the concept of synchronicity according to jung.
|
There are examples [on Wikipedia](_URL_0_) and a quote from *Through the Looking Glass*, but I still don't think I fully grasp the concept of cause vs. meaning and how that relates to ideas and the mind. Help!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jy5kn/eli5_the_concept_of_synchronicity_according_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2g2fai",
"c2g4ee4",
"c2g2fai",
"c2g4ee4"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Are you asking *why* it happens or how it works? No one knows, it is unexplained. Jung used some very sophisticated words to avoid simply saying \"Magic\", or \"the Gods\". \n\nIn Jung's psychology, psyche doesn't exist purely inside the brain. Remember that Jung did most of his research on alchemy, and he posits a strong connection between what happens in the mind and in the retort; [mind and matter are not seperate.](_URL_0_) \n\nSorry, forgot what subreddit we're in. Gandalf stuff.",
"Synchronicity is a coincidence that feels meaningful or suggests a deep, meaningful connection. I think the best way to understand this today is like this:\n\n* The coincidences are things that really happened; they are not dreamed or imagined.\n* They are not caused by your mind or magic. They happened on their own. But your mind finds it so meaningful it might almost feel as if you caused it to happen.\n\nOne form of coincidence is when your unconscious (which Jung believes is \"networked\" with other people's unconsciousness through stories and myths) predicts unlikely things that turn out to happen. It's like the idea of \"intuition\", but intuition can be used to describe even pretty ordinary things, like I might have an intuition that the Dodgers will win today; that doesn't count. But if your intuition correctly predicts or imagines something truly strange, and if that thing comes true and then feels symbolic or emotional, that's synchronicity.\n\nThe Alice quote relates to this idea of unconsciously predicting the future. It's funny because normally \"memory\" just means remembering the past, and the Queen doesn't understand that. But if you imagine this idea of \"remembering the future\" that's actually pretty similar to something the unconscious really does--it's constantly making guesses about what might happen in the future. When it guesses right, that can be a case of synchronicity.\n\nSynchronicity is connected in a few indirect ways to the Ouroboros. One idea is that the ouroboros is a general symbol for certain strange processes that happen in a very deep part of the unconscious; that is a likely source for the kind of images that turn out to be synchronicities.\n\nWarning: this is a very [materialistic](_URL_0_) interpretation of Jung; I believe that this approach is not only consistent with nearly everything he said, but actually helps make sense of things that might otherwise be overly confusing. This needs a warning because Jung himself seemed skeptical of materialism, especially compared to other scientists/researchers; definitely many people today think of him as a very strong anti-materialist.",
"Are you asking *why* it happens or how it works? No one knows, it is unexplained. Jung used some very sophisticated words to avoid simply saying \"Magic\", or \"the Gods\". \n\nIn Jung's psychology, psyche doesn't exist purely inside the brain. Remember that Jung did most of his research on alchemy, and he posits a strong connection between what happens in the mind and in the retort; [mind and matter are not seperate.](_URL_0_) \n\nSorry, forgot what subreddit we're in. Gandalf stuff.",
"Synchronicity is a coincidence that feels meaningful or suggests a deep, meaningful connection. I think the best way to understand this today is like this:\n\n* The coincidences are things that really happened; they are not dreamed or imagined.\n* They are not caused by your mind or magic. They happened on their own. But your mind finds it so meaningful it might almost feel as if you caused it to happen.\n\nOne form of coincidence is when your unconscious (which Jung believes is \"networked\" with other people's unconsciousness through stories and myths) predicts unlikely things that turn out to happen. It's like the idea of \"intuition\", but intuition can be used to describe even pretty ordinary things, like I might have an intuition that the Dodgers will win today; that doesn't count. But if your intuition correctly predicts or imagines something truly strange, and if that thing comes true and then feels symbolic or emotional, that's synchronicity.\n\nThe Alice quote relates to this idea of unconsciously predicting the future. It's funny because normally \"memory\" just means remembering the past, and the Queen doesn't understand that. But if you imagine this idea of \"remembering the future\" that's actually pretty similar to something the unconscious really does--it's constantly making guesses about what might happen in the future. When it guesses right, that can be a case of synchronicity.\n\nSynchronicity is connected in a few indirect ways to the Ouroboros. One idea is that the ouroboros is a general symbol for certain strange processes that happen in a very deep part of the unconscious; that is a likely source for the kind of images that turn out to be synchronicities.\n\nWarning: this is a very [materialistic](_URL_0_) interpretation of Jung; I believe that this approach is not only consistent with nearly everything he said, but actually helps make sense of things that might otherwise be overly confusing. This needs a warning because Jung himself seemed skeptical of materialism, especially compared to other scientists/researchers; definitely many people today think of him as a very strong anti-materialist."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity"
] |
[
[
"http://jungcurrents.com/synchronicity-unus-mundus/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism"
],
[
"http://jungcurrents.com/synchronicity-unus-mundus/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism"
]
] |
|
dnc41a
|
isn’t all the raw material that we use to make “things” already on earth and it can’t make the earth heavier when we create new things?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dnc41a/eli5_isnt_all_the_raw_material_that_we_use_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f59efn2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly yes. The Earth loses a bit of mass from air escaping into space, and gains a bit of mass from small meteorites. So overall it doesn't change much.\n\nWe build things from material already on Earth so that doesn't change the overall mass. That goes for life too. The material that makes trees, animals and humans is all on Earth (or in the atmosphere). For example plants are mainly made up of carbon which they get from the carbon dioxide in the air, and then animals get their mass from eating plants or other animals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2qg0aj
|
where does free speech end and "terroristic threats" begin?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qg0aj/eli5_where_does_free_speech_end_and_terroristic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn5qj40"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sorry but ELI5 is not a debate or soapbox sub, it's for concepts that need breaking down and explained, so I would instead suggest posting in /r/askreddit or /r/answers instead. I've removed this thread"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ycior
|
why is arresting people for pirating so difficult when isp's can see exactly what is going through from your connection?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ycior/eli5_why_is_arresting_people_for_pirating_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp88e2b",
"cp88hvb",
"cp88y9n",
"cp89k5i",
"cp8czq3",
"cp8djnz",
"cp8e4iq",
"cp8up3h"
],
"score": [
7,
62,
23,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there's a lot of pirates ",
"There's no incentive for them to do so. If the government asks for the data for a specific person, the ISP will give it to them (if the proper court orders are obtained and presented). But the ISP, on its own, has no reason to preemptively stop people from doing whatever they like on their internet connections; an ISP that did this would get a really bad reputation (the ultimate nosey busybody) and would probably lose business.",
"With a few exceptions, piracy is a civil crime. You don't get arrested for those, you just get sued. ",
"Most piracy is conducted by torrent. To someone who isn't on one end of the connection or another, torrent traffic looks like random noise. Even if you intercepted every bit of traffic from one person, it would still be a non-trivial task to determine precisely what they downloaded.\n\nAt best you could intercept torrent trackers. However, downloading a torrent tracker is not a violation of IP rights, all it really allows you to do is determine they're probably pirating.\n\nIP holders do set up 'fake torrents' that contain enough IP to prosecute, but these are normally identified quickly and blacklisted by a variety of agencies.",
"The ISPs probably do not snoop, or need to snoop. They might have a few gatekeeper words that look for specific things. I know that a few of my friends have gotten Cease and Desist notices for downloading movies before. Usually it's just a warning. \n\nThe funny part is one of my friends got a C & D for downloading fucking *Mystery Men*. LOL",
"IP addresses go to a house, which multiple people can be living in. There is no way of telling who inside is actually pirating something. You can't punish everyone for one person's deed.",
"It's not the ISP's jobs to babysit their users Internet activity. There's no incentive for them to piss their customers off for something that doesn't affect their bottom line. If/when the RIAA or MPAA pay off enough politicians to pass laws holding ISP's responsible for their customers use, it will be a completely different story. ",
"ISP rules are carried over from telecom rules as a common carrier. That means that they can not refuse calls or data over the network but are not responsible for the content. Since they have no liability they do not care, and more importantly do not want to waste the resources, to inspect what you are doing. Except when they can charge you (or someone else) more for it of course, hence the whole net neutrality thing.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier"
]
] |
||
57z76v
|
today's announcement about nuclear fusion
|
Here is a link to the article about it: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57z76v/eli5_todays_announcement_about_nuclear_fusion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8w4l6f"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"A little background: nuclear fusion power is considered a holy grail of clean energy. Unlike nuclear *fission*, it has no radioactive byproducts. And you can run it using hydrogen, which is available everywhere.\n\nThe problem with fusion power is that to make the hydrogen atoms fuse together, you need to make it super hot and super high pressure. We can do that, but the only ways we know of to do it require more energy put in than you get out from the fusion. \n\nSo the search for fusion power has amounted to trying to create hotter, higher pressure plasmas by expending the least possible energy. The announcement today is that they were able to increase pressure by 16%."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/17/mit-nuclear-fusion-record-marks-latest-step-towards-unlimited-clean-energy#comments"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2j0u92
|
if a dead body was placed in an airtight room that had no windows in room temperature, with no scavenging organisms (flies, maggots) in the room, would the body still decompose?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j0u92/eli5_if_a_dead_body_was_placed_in_an_airtight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl7a0qj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The body carries bacteria. Unless they were removed then the body would still decompose from that.\n\nInsects help but aren't necessary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
e8bao2
|
why is the barrel size important for the muzzle velocity and the range?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e8bao2/eli5_why_is_the_barrel_size_important_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"faa9egm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"By size do you mean caliber (diameter) or the length of the barrel.\n\nFor the caliber it doesn't directly matter. A bigger caliber mean a large round, but you can have a large caliber with a small case like a pistol 9mm. The small case pack a small quantity of propellant so the bullet won't travel fast or far. On top of that the 9mm bulllet is large in caliber, but small in lenght so it's not particularly heavy compare to smaller caliber bullet that are longer and have more mass.\n\nBut you probably mean the lenght of the barrel when you talk about size. The reason a longer barrel increase velocity and range is because the gas from the explosion have more time to push the bullet through the barrel, once the bullet leave the barrel the pressure equilibrate with the atmosphere and no longer transfer it's energy to the bullet. It work up to a certain point at which the gas no longer have enough pressure to compensate for the friction in the barrel, so if you barrel is too long it might start to decrease the velocity and range of your bullet, but you need a really long barrel for that to happen.\n\nA very common misconception is that a longer barrel also increase accuracy or precision and that is just not the case, it simply increase the velocity and range."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ssxzt
|
why is it that when i'm holding somebody and they "play dead" they become heavier??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ssxzt/why_is_it_that_when_im_holding_somebody_and_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0wguo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When they go limp their weight shifts and it puts you off balance which requires more effort on your part... This is why putting someone over your shoulder is easier than trying to hold them out in front of you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
48bylh
|
how come some a list actors who usually appear in blockbusters suddenly appear in a complete flop?
|
Why do they (the actors) choose that poor script? Can't the actors tell by the looks of it that the script isn't at the same level as the blockbusters they previously were part of? Doesn't the actors' agent or manager take a look at the script and advice them not to take it? Are the acotrs simply desperate? Or are the actors signed to a movie company and therefore forced to appear in every movie the company want them to be in, both the good and bad ones? How does it work?
I believe Will Smith and Johnny Depp would be two good examples here.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48bylh/eli5_how_come_some_a_list_actors_who_usually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0iel99",
"d0if3le",
"d0ifp9x",
"d0imrvk"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Not every actor is perfect at picking a script. Sometimes, they mess up.\n\nAlso, sometimes the money they are offered is hard to turn down. Imagine some A-list actor getting offered their regular leading-role pay to do a short cameo in some movie! Why not do it?",
"A lot of artistic works, including movies, rely somewhat on luck. Sometimes a movie that all the previous evidence suggests will sell well just doesn't; and sometimes it's not clear why even after the fact.",
"Take someone like Will Smith. He truly honestly thought After Earth was going to be a blockbuster and launch his son to stardom. He thought it would be so big it would be made into a trilogy. He was just wrong. ",
"Because you can't always tell how good a film will be from the script. Even with good performances, the directing and editing will affect the film. Add to that actors improvising, the chemistry between actors, intervention from the studio's, and marketing campaigns (I'm looking at you, John Carter), and you get a different reaction than you expected.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1gej78
|
malaria and why is it so difficult to fight
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gej78/eli5_malaria_and_why_is_it_so_difficult_to_fight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cajguj2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Malaria has no vaccine.\n\nMalaria is spread by mosquitoes. \n\nMosquitoes breed like crazy.\n\nMosquitoes live all over the world.\n\nPoor areas have bad health care.\n\nFighting malaria usually involves spreading poison.\n\nPoison is bad for you.\n\nPoison doesn't work that well against mosquitoes.\n\nThere are a lot of mosquitoes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4rsdm0
|
why has mass murder been a part of many different communist regimes?
|
What does the state accomplish or hope to accomplish? Who were they murdering and what were the victims doing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rsdm0/eli5_why_has_mass_murder_been_a_part_of_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d53qqt6",
"d54hodf"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Communist regimes are typically revolutionary: they overthrow society and rebuild it according to their principles. Think of how the Russian revolution abolished essentially every institution of Russian life- the national government, the Church, the Army, the Cossack hordes, the farming village councils- and either kept them abolished or replaced them with new Soviet versions.\n\nWell, when the previous system has been around for a few centuries, there are going to be a lot of people who are heavily invested in the old institutions: army officers, priests, village elders, atamans, captains of industry, you name it. How do they fit into your new system? How do they contribute to building a reformed society?\n\nThey don't. If you cut them out completely, you just alienate them (alienate them more, I mean- you already ruined their lives pretty badly when you closed their church/disbanded their division/redistributed their farmland), and they're liable to work as partisans or spies if a counter-revolutionary movement breaks out. If you try to engage them in the new project, you (a) can't trust them, because they probably hate you after the life-ruining stuff you did and (b) you don't want to take their advice, because even if they're giving the best advice they can, it's going to be about how to do things the old way, and the revolution is about getting rid of the old way.\n\nAnd a person you can't leave alone and whom you don't want to have working for you is nothing but a drain on your resources. There's a very simple, brutal logic that follows.",
"Why?\n\nIt's a difficult question to answer, and one that could equally be applied to capitalist regimes (though they tend to murder people from somewhere else, as opposed to murdering their own people) or indeed any regime, including those that existed before such divisions were even conceptualised. Mass murder is just a part of the human condition I suppose, we aren't as moralistic or ethical as we like to think.\n\nWhat?\n\nWell, in the case of the Khmer Rouge for instance, it was (nominally) hoped that it would bring on an agrarian revolution. Many might speculate that the real reason why they murdered the intellectuals was that having a stupid, docile population is a much more favourable environment for an evil dictator, but that was not the stated aim. What did they hope to accomplish? Power. Control. Absence of opposition and dissent. Y'know, all the usual things autocratic despots tend to take a fancy to.\n\nWho?\n\nWell, generally anyone in their way. Don't forget that sometimes it wasn't murder per se, but just an almighty fuck up - such as the tens of millions that starved under Mao. It's unlikely he actually planned that in some premeditated way, it just happened to be"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ndsyr
|
how did clothing evolve to the point where it is illegal to expose your natural body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ndsyr/eli5_how_did_clothing_evolve_to_the_point_where/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvn5tb1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is more of a question of how culture grew to not accepting the naked body. If you ever watch videos of tribes in the amazon or something, they often wear some sort of clothing, with females no usually wearing tops, but they do wear a diaper. So it seems reasonable to suggest that people have been wearing something for a long time. It probably first started as a comfort or protection thing, and eventually it became normal, such that people who weren't clothed would be shamed.\n\nSo it was just changing ideas in culture. Much like how being obese in the middle ages was considered attractive, or how trends change, like hippies etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
rc1b0
|
why can fighter pilots pass out from doing intense turns with high amounts of g-forces?
|
Why does having the oxygen masks as a apparatus stop this from happening as well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rc1b0/why_can_fighter_pilots_pass_out_from_doing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c44l1n7",
"c44l2d6",
"c44q659"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"* Your brain needs the right amount of oxygen in order to work properly.\n* Oxygen travels to the brain in your blood.\n* When under high g-forces, blood is either forced down to your legs, away from your head (causing a \"black out\"), or up into your head from the rest of your body (causing a \"red out\").\n* An oxygen mask may help a bit by increasing the amount of oxygen in your blood, but I don't think it would help very much.\n* Learning how to tense all the muscles in your body can also help because it can force the blood to stay in the upper part of your body, instead of pooling in your legs.\n",
"The g-forces push the blood down the body, away from their brain so they pass out. The masks help them breathe at high altitudes but don't actually stop them passing out from g-forces. For that they wear special suits that squeeze the blood back up their legs.",
"As others have explained, at high G forces, the blood is forced either to your brain (red-out) or away from your brain (black-out).\n\nIt is near impossible to do anything about red-outs, but black-outs can be reduced by wearing a pressure suit, which literally encases your extremities and keeps enough pressure on them to prevent the blood from flowing there, making it possible to sustain higher G-levels."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1perf3
|
what's happening when i feel my heartbeat throbbing in the whole of my head?
|
I don't mean a headache, just when for a few minutes your whole head (or sometimes other parts of the body) feels likes it's almost expanding and contracting with your pulse, sometimes so much that you can even hear it!
I am not after medical advice, I am curious to know what's actually happening in the body that produces this effect.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1perf3/eli5_whats_happening_when_i_feel_my_heartbeat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd1kaoi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Those are your veins/arteries pumping blood throughout your body "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5zjmki
|
why does everything look brighter in the corner of your eye
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zjmki/eli5_why_does_everything_look_brighter_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deykxo3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This has to do with what kinds of photoreceptors you have in your eye (specifically on your retina) and where they are (mostly) located. You have two kinds:\n\n* cones - responsible for color vision, but not so great at light/dark.\n* rods - responsible for black/white / light/dark, but don't differentiate color.\n\nCones are placed more toward the \"middle\" of your retina, giving you better color differentiation at the thing you're directly looking at. Rods are concentrated more toward the periphery, letting you see a little better in the dark at the corner of your eye.\n\nEdit: spelling"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1s02h9
|
why does it take so long to test and release drugs?
|
Why does it take so many years to confirm drugs are "safe for the public"? Why can't they shorten it down to just a single year? Is it hoops the company has to go through that make the process so long?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s02h9/eli5_why_does_it_take_so_long_to_test_and_release/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdsl0oe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because the human body is a complex thing, and each body is a little different from the other bodies. You have to make sure it doesn't have some bizarre side effect on a small but significant number of people, and that takes time. Also, many diseases being treated by new drugs aren't going to show improvement or ill side effects right away, it takes time. And once you have a set of results you think are thorough, you have to repeat those results a few times with different bodies to make sure the results are the same. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
adcnv8
|
how does anyone in venezuela survive during hyperinflation??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/adcnv8/eli5_how_does_anyone_in_venezuela_survive_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edfsktm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They just don't use money. Barter goods and services directly, or rely on free stuff from the government or outside charities. Wages would need to rise dramatically to keep people employed so that probably only applies to a relatively few government employees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a1m3el
|
can water get hotter than it’s critical temperature?
|
I read that water can be heated up to 374 °C (705 °F), which is it’s critical temperature - is it possible to heat water beyond this temperature? If not, why? (I suppose this post also begs the question as to what is critical temperature?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1m3el/eli5_can_water_get_hotter_than_its_critical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eaqwqaf",
"eaqxa1x",
"eaqxi81"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. \n\nWater near thermal vents at the ocean floor is much hotter than this. water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging from 60 °C (140 °F) up to as high as 464 °C (867 °F).\n\n changing the salinity changes what happens to the water at different given temperatures.\n\nE:fixed per below",
"At atmospheric pressure (the pressure of air at sea level) water boils at 100C. If you are on a mountain where atmospheric pressure is lower, water boils at a lower temperature. The higher up you go the lower the boiling point of water. \n\nIf you increase pressure (like in a pressure cooker) water boils at a higher temperature. I think it boils at about 120C in a pressure cooker. Water exists in both liquid and gas states.\n\nThe more pressure you apply the higher the boiling point of water. \n\nThe critical temperature is the temperature at which a substance cannot be liquefied no matter how much pressure you apply. Water will only exist in it's gas state (steam). There will be no water boiling. \n\nAt 374C water exists only in it's gas state. The critical pressure is the pressure you need to apply to do this. So for water the critical pressure is 218atm.\n\nSo at 218 atm water will only exist as steam but if you decrease the pressure, the boiling point will drop and the steam will start to condense back into water.\n\n ",
"The way I remember from chemistry class many years ago is critical temperature is the point at which a gas becomes too hot under pressure to revert back to a liquid. So with water, once you heat it to boiling point (100c), it changes to a gas. But if you put that under pressure and heat it, you can heat it up to its critical temperature (374c) before it can no longer go back to a liquid state. At that point there is no longer a difference between the gas and liquid state. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
efag88
|
why does most seafood have the same distinctive taste?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/efag88/eli5_why_does_most_seafood_have_the_same/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbzbh7h",
"fbzzb3v",
"fc0bhvd",
"fc0g63o"
],
"score": [
4334,
189,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Couple of reasons.\n\nFirstly, salt. Most seafood lives in salt water, which means they're naturally saltier than other meats you eat.\n\nSecondly, Trimethylamine. This is the chemical responsible for that pungent, unmistakeable \"fishy smell\". All fish, crustaceans and I believe molluscs that live in sea water contain a chemical called Trimethylamine Oxide, which exists to balance out something called osmotic pressure. Basically, when you have two bodies of water separated by a permeable membrane (such as the membrane of a cell), water will move across that membrane so that there's the same \"concentration\" of water on each side. Salty water has a lower concentration of water than normal, which means that if something were to live in salty water, some of the water inside its cells would leak out into the sea. This causes cells to shrivel up and die, and kills the animal. To prevent this occurring, cells produce Trimethylamine Oxide, which is basically just there to make the concentration of water the same on the inside of the cell as it is in the seawater, to prevent the animal shrivelling up. Trimethylamine Oxide is harmless and has no effect on the taste of the meat. However, when the animal dies, bacteria starts to convert TMAO into TMA, which means that the way a fish smells is a strong marker of how fresh it is. Fresh fish actually tastes a lot less fishy than old fish, because it has much less TMA in it. If you were to compare fresh fish, you'd notice that they actually have a lot of subtle differences that are usually overpowered by the TMA. I strongly recommend finding some fresh fish text time you're in a harbour town. Tastes fucking great.",
"Just a correction, animals that live in salt water are NOT saltier than those living in fresh water. They excrete the excess salt in their urine. Otherwise the chemical balance in their cells would be lost and they would die.",
"I see that a lot of people here say that they don’t taste the same at all. Personally I don’t like eating any fish, shellfish or other living thing from the water. For me they all definitely have the same kind of taste in them. When I talk with others about it they don’t know what I’m talking about.\n\n\nCould it be some biological thing? Like how some people enjoy the taste of coriander while others say that it tastes like soap.",
"For all the cooks and fisherman raging at me in the comments saying that (insert fish name here) DOES NOT taste exactly the same as (insert fish name here), I'm not saying it does. There are obviously differences. I've never lived in a coastal city so I'm sure my fish isn't super fresh. But, there is a common \"seafood taste\" that most seafood I've experienced have, which has been explained pretty well by people that have taken the time to explain it.\n\nAgain, not saying all seafood is the exact same, saying that most have a similarity and was asking about that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10kjzi
|
how do geiger counters work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10kjzi/eli5_how_do_geiger_counters_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6e9isj"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"When radioactive stuff breaks down, it gives off energy and particles, like gamma rays and alpha / beta particles. These rays and particles can pass through a lot of materials, kinda like light through a piece of paper. Some makes it through, some keeps going. \n\nIn the Geiger counter there is a tube of gas, like neon or argon. When one of these particles or rays hits the gas, the gas becomes slightly conductive. You can put this tube of gas as part of a circuit, and when the circuit completes, you can have it make a sound or have a blip on a screen. More blips or more sounds means the circuit is being completed more often, and it means more radiation. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bu6jw6
|
why your eyes/head feels weird when you wear glasses without needing them or with the wrong prescription
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bu6jw6/eli5_why_your_eyeshead_feels_weird_when_you_wear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ep7jvx1",
"ep7nr08"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You're feeling the muscles that control your eyes struggling to adjust them, to bring the image into focus, which isn't working.",
"The lens in your eye is supposed to be shaped like a cool spherical ball. Some people have very slightly oval shaped lenses, so the glasses are made to distort the image in the correct way. So if you have a skinny and tall lens in your eye, the glasses try to distort it in a fat and wide way, and vice versa. But if you have a different shape than the glasses are meant for, it's not gonna work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.