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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1vnwfx
|
when is 1, 2 ,3 gears in an automatic car used?
|
I always use D when I use an automatic.
Every time I ask someone about the 1,2,3 gear I get a different answer.
Anyone can explain with justifications and sources pleasE?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vnwfx/eli5_when_is_1_2_3_gears_in_an_automatic_car_used/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceu4gy8",
"ceu4me4",
"ceu58c4",
"ceu84yt"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
18,
3
],
"text": [
"when going down steep hills; if you put it in D the car will want to select the highest possible gear which means you will be riding the brakes the entire time; putting it in a low gear will make the engine assist you in slowing down",
"When you want the car to **slow down**. Going downhill it helps to downshift (change gear to 3,2,or1) if you want your car to have less momentum. It also helps to gain traction to the ground as **less power is being sent to the actual tires.** So if you are driving in snow/ice you will not slide around the road as easily if you were to drive with the car in **D**. \n\n[Article] (_URL_0_)",
"Transmission mechanic here. When you shift your vehicle into 1, 2, or 3 you are manually shifting the transmission into said gear. 1 will put it in first gear and 2 or 3 will put it in the optimal gear based off vehicle speed, engine load, etc up to that gear you selected. This will allow you to have more torque to your wheels as you are in a lower gear. This helps you if you are trying to move a heavy load or if you are going down a long downgrade. Selecting one of these gears will help you slow down as you are causing engine braking. Do not use these selections if you are going above 30 as it will burn out your transmissions Hope this helps. ",
"The exact use varies from car to car, since they were made differently. On my car, I have P,R,N,D,3,2,L. but on my car, the manual states that it is used when you need more torque, or need to engine brake you would use 2 or L. The example they give is if you were towing a small trailer. \n\nI assume 3 limits you to gears 1-3. I know that 2 starts you out in second gear, and produces heavier engine braking which is what I use when it's icy out to slow my car down.\n\nI've used it in the past when there was a lot of snow and ice on the ground, because the higher torque and gear ratio of lower gears makes engine braking actually function on an automatic. Under most normal conditions, you can use the standard D setting. On some cars it's D with a circle, which stands for overdrive enabled. Overdrive is a different gear ratio that makes highway driving use less fuel than the standard drive gear ratio. it usually takes effect at around 45-65mph (~72-105kph).\n\nGenerally, unless you need to, there is no reason to use those extra gears though. In fact if you try to use them without knowing what they do it's possible to burn out your transmission quicker."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://travel.thefuntimesguide.com/2005/07/downhilldriving.php"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4kgca4
|
why is tooth pain so unbearable compared to other areas?
|
I've had some fairly long term pain due to injuries. But as a recovered addict, I have really bad teeth I'm slowly getting worked on. Why is tooth pain so debilitating when compared to, lets say, broken bones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kgca4/eli5_why_is_tooth_pain_so_unbearable_compared_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3eprn1",
"d3eq4d9",
"d3eq793",
"d3ffbwr",
"d3fp09l"
],
"score": [
74,
7,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"How it was explained to me is pain is usually amplified in important areas to make you not want to hurt those areas. Also, most of these areas have increased nerves to them, since they are very important. Necks have a lot of nerves, since there are main veins right there. Same for wrists. Fingertips do not have as many nerve endings, which is why paper cuts hurt--but are usually not life threatening. Your feet don't have a lot of blood vessels on them, so chances are you won't bleed out from a cut on the foot--but it will stop you from moving around. And, our body has no idea that we are not in a constant need to outrun predators, so stubbing your toe is also similarly painful.\n\nThis is also why a kick to the nuts is particularly painful. Too many of those, and you don't get to continue your genetic line. Chances are, long ago, the guys who didn't feel pain as well in the nuts died off because they didn't make as many babby as the other sensitive sack guys.\n\nIf you stop eating, you die. Therefore, mouth pain (teeth, cuts on tongue, burns, etc.) is extremely painful to make you not want to get hurt, since that would make you stop eating. At least, that is how it was explained to me.",
"Sensitivity is why. \n\nLet somebody touch your finger. No problem. Now let them touch your toes, whoa, very sensitive and ticklesh right? Our hands are exposed. We bump them into things all the time and our minds are used to sensations from those nerves. \n\nBut our feet are inside shoes and socks most of the time, and especially the tops of our toes and between them, we aren't used to them touching anything but each other so we don't have quite the same mental filters on sensations from our feet, which is why stubbing your toe hurts so much compared to stubbing a finger. \n\nThe nerves in your teeth are in something better than a shoe, they are in a hard protected environment at a nearly constant temperature so most of the time the nerve sends no information we are aware of. So our brains aren't used to sensations from them and any sensation, no matter how slight, is readily felt. Hence ice cream making your tooth hurt when you eat it, or hot coffee doing the same sometimes. \n\nSo when you have a cavity or abscess or your tooth cracks, or your filling isn't perfectly stable, the nerve is hyper sensitive to the pressure, heat, and cold this causes. ",
"As your tooth decays from bacteria, the nerves inside the teeth [(picture)](_URL_0_) become directly exposed to the heat, cold, and pressure that those nerves (normally protected by enamel, dentin, and pulp) are designed to detect. As a result, you're feeling 1000-fold what's normally dulled by the rest of your tooth.",
"Not completely satisfied with all of the answers here. \n\nThe intense pain in your teeth doesn't present itself so that you change your diet, or because you use them to eat.\nYes, the intensity is affected when the nerve is exposed, but this is not the purpose of the intensity.\n\nThe reason tooth pain is so intense is because it is usually caused by damage to your teeth, which because of the environment of the mouth are prime areas for *bacterial infection.*\nBecause of the proximity to the brain, an infected tooth can be potentially mortal.\n\nThus, the high pain associated with tooth damage is to do dissuade actions that could further damage the tooth or introduce infection. \n\n",
"/YourUncleGrandpa answer is close but not the whole story. \n\nMost tooth associated pain is with the tiny tiny socket that teeth sit in. \nWhen this socket gets inflamed the teeth are raised slightly by the growing infection below. \n\nAs you bite on teeth, they push down on to the inflamed socket and cause pain. When the infection grows into an abscess (sac of infected dead germs), the pus/infection in the sac has nowhere to go.\n\nThe tooth pushes on to the infection like a piston in an engine, as long as the infection can't drain out, the pain amplifies like a stiletto through ice. \n\nAs the infection has nowhere to drain, dentists open the tooth with a drill and let the infection drain out. \n\nUntil that is done the infection HURTS like crazy. In other parts of the body, the infection can spread easier, be limited easier or accessed by the immune system more readily. Teeth harbour the infection in them and act as reservoirs of nasty germs once decayed.\n\nThis leads to chronic infection and thus long term unbearable toothpain aka chronic apical periodontitis, or aka why cant i sleep this pain is killing me \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Blausen_0863_ToothAnatomy_02.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
akhutx
|
if the entire global electrical grid was fried (by a coronal mass ejection or something similar) would the internet be salvageable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/akhutx/eli5_if_the_entire_global_electrical_grid_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef4wt6q",
"ef4yl6x",
"ef4ys8a",
"ef4yzrh"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's up to each website to have backups of the data, so, yes, possibly the internet would be back up as soon as power is restored. Though a CME may fry electronics too (the servers), so perhaps some of the websites may be down until they restore.",
"It depends on the time-frame you have set for it and what you mean with fried.\n\nIf it is fried in such a way that the generators, transformers and distribution centra are dead beyond repair, then it's game over for civilization as we know it now.\n\nIf it is fried but fixable within a reasonable time, then the distribution of electricity will be back soon.\n\nNext is the fixing of the network infrastructure, that did fry too. So all routers and switches need to be replaced. Luckily there are some spares, so some things will be fixed. However, it's waaaaaaay not enough to replace everything.\n\nThen the replacement of the servers. With today's JIT logistics, nobody will have servers in the pipeline and they can't be replaced except for a very few ones.\n\nWe can produce them again, sure. As long as pipeline of chips from the fabrication plants towards the production centra doesn't dry up.\n\nHowever, these chips plants machines are fried too, so they need to get replaced.\\\n\nLet's go to ASML in the Netherlands: They sold less than 150 machines in 2016. That is one per 2.3 days. And their machines to manufacture them are broken too.\n\nSo... We have the knowledge, so we can rebuild. The only problem is, it's somewhere backed up on a tape.\n\nEnjoy the rest of your life, statistically it will be a couple of weeks.",
"In your scenario, internet recovery is well down the priority stack. In fact, loss of the \"entire global electrical grid\" may put civilization at risk...hunting and gathering don't require internet. ",
"Yes. The internet was originally designed to survive a **thermonuclear war**. It's completely decentralized, so whichever side of the planet wasn't hit would still be okay. With modern content distribution networks and anycast technologies, they'd still be able to access sites and services nominally run from the affected side. \n\nAnd even the affected side would still be partially running thanks to backup generators. Total loss of external power is something network providers, datacenters, and even most large commercial buildings plan for and regularly test. \n\nThe only real loss would be all the users who've lost power at home. Even if the people with a backup generator probably wouldn't waste the power on computers (at least not desktops). most home-scale generators don't have enough output for even normal non-peak usage. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ooypo
|
why is diversity important to teams and groups?
|
I agree that it is important, I just don't understand why. I've read answers to this questions but they all seem to be beating around the bush regarding the answer. It's like many of the answers I see are things reinforcing the idea without giving actual examples. Thanks for your help reddit!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ooypo/eli5_why_is_diversity_important_to_teams_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmp6c08",
"cmp6dx9",
"cmp73bi"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"People of varying genders, ethnic backgrounds, even socioeconomic status will have had different experiences growing up and as a result will have different viewpoints. The more varied the viewpoints looking at a problem, the more likely it is that someone will make an observation that could be useful to what they are trying to achieve.\n\n\n\nIt's basically just having as many eyes looking at something from as many angles as possible.",
"Mainly to provide different perspectives on things. You want lots of views from different angles to consider to identify any issues that might pop up. The more varied the experience and backgrounds in your team, the more likely you'll be able to cover almost every eventuality.",
"Just look at all the silly start-ups coming out of the Bay Area, focusing on trivial things rather than solving big problems. Rich, white, urban, male techies with limited time want/need services to save them time/hassle, so we get tinder, and Uber, and Washio, and some company that wanted to scan paper mail and email it to you (failed), and one that wanted to ship you laundry quarters for a 50% mark-up (also failed), and an app that lets you say YO. \n\nAre some of these useful? Sure. Are some of these shaking up entrenched business practices in ways that benefit consumers? Maybe Uber is. Are these good/services that make things better for the vast majority of the population. Not really. Are these companies using their access to some of the smartest people in the world to solve the big, important problems? NOPE!\n\nBut maybe if you had more women, more minorities, more parents, more people who were/are poor, more non-native speakers, etc. you would have a broader sense of problems in need of being solved matched up with the skills to solve them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b1x0x4
|
what’s the physiological process of certain people feeling totally drained after going out and socializing with other people while others are the exact opposite?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1x0x4/eli5_whats_the_physiological_process_of_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiotj5c",
"eiq6rb1"
],
"score": [
402,
7
],
"text": [
"Eysncks biological model of introversion vs extrovertion states the difference is corticol arousal.\n\nInrtroverts have a lower arousal threshold so need less stimulation to be entertained and process information quicker. This leads to them becoming overwhelmed in busy environments faster than extroverts.\n\nExtroverts take longer to reach the same state of arousal. This also means they become bored easier when alone, so crave the stimulation that comes from socialising.",
"I think anxiety can have an effect too - if somebody is socialising, but constantly worrying about how they are presenting themselves, they’re going to use more physical and mental energy than somebody who’s relaxed in social situations. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3ai0sk
|
why does it seem like a vast majority of popular and critically acclaimed electronic music is from the uk? how come american electronic music isn't produced as much or as popular, and the few american artists who have "made it" (skrillex, aoki) seem loathed by fans and critics alike?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ai0sk/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_a_vast_majority_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csct4es"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The UK has had an electronic music culture for a long time. Dubstep was invented in the UK and I am pretty sure that the other types of electronic music were also invented in the UK. \n\nBut I think the biggest reason might be the local fame. If you look at the US. More people live there and as a result artists have a bigger audience. But it is hard to please everyone. If 100.000 people listen to your music and 5.000 like it it is a lower percentage than when 10.000 listen to it and 5.000 like it. As a result songs climb the charts faster and people will rather listen to a song that is in the top 10 of another country than something in the top 100 of their own. \n\nBut that is just my theory."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3yjiwq
|
how do mac addresses work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yjiwq/eli5_how_do_mac_addresses_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cydxwbb",
"cydy71e",
"cye92ty",
"cyeb7lj"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"How do you mean? Manufacturers give MAC addresses out to hardware they make, and unless told otherwise somehow the hardware identifies itself as such for the purposes of moving data over physical wires or through wireless signals between two devices. It's how you know a machine is one machine and not another.\n\nDo you have more context for the question?",
"think about a MAC address like a social security number for a internet ready device (e.g. phone, router, laptop, etc...). Basically if you can see a mac address you can go back and see what the device is (e.g. make model, color, type, etc...) another analogy is a VIN number. \n",
"Just more FYI ... MAC addresses are 6 bytes long and include vendor identifiers. Each vendor is assigned a prefix and then are required to assign unique addresses to all of their devices.",
"MAC addresses have to be unique to a network, does each company that manufactures an networked device (internet of all things) get a range that they can use?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8i1l5x
|
how do products like icy hot and similar products help with sore muscles? why does it feel hot yet cold at the same time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8i1l5x/eli5_how_do_products_like_icy_hot_and_similar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyo929g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Icy Hot typically contains menthol and camphor. \n\n[Menthol](_URL_1_) is an oil extracted from mint plants that triggers the sensors in your skin that detect \"cold\", so it creates the sensation of cold without the temperature actually being cold. \n\n[Camphor](_URL_0_) is also an extract from a plant, or can also be produced chemically. It's absorbed by the skin and produces a warm and cold sensation, as well as a little bit of numbing of pain.\n\nThe basic idea is that the hold and cold sensations keep your brain distracted from noticing the soreness of the muscles, and the camphor also numbs the soreness / pain a little bit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camphor",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menthol"
]
] |
||
1ti8jg
|
why does my heater defog my windshield but my hot breath makes it fog up?
|
They're both hot, obviously different temperatures, but if it's 10 degrees why does my hot breath just make it worse but hot hair from my heater makes it go away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ti8jg/eli5_why_does_my_heater_defog_my_windshield_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce88kth",
"ce88njt",
"ce88oxp"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Your mouth has lots of saliva so your breath is very moist\n\nAnd I figure your heater probably just evaporates the water on your windshield",
"The short answer is that your breath, coming from your lungs, is very humid and the hot air, coming from outside where it is much dryer, is not humid at all. So when you breath on the glass you are adding to the moisture on it. \n\nThat's why your breath causes it to fog, the reason the heater reduces the fog is a bit more complicated. The warmer air is, the more moisture it can hold. When it is very cold, the air in your car can't hold enough moisture so it deposits on the windows as fog. When you heat up the air in the car, it can hold more moisture so the fog goes away. When you breathe on it you are technically increasing the temperature but you are also adding lots of moisture so it doesn't really matter.",
"I belive it's because the air that comes out of the defroster vent first runs through an \"evaporator core\" removing a lot of the humidity. Our breath is much more humid. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
58hiar
|
whats the difference between a shopping addiction and just buying things that make you happy?
|
I was wondering about this because when i dont feel so great i might go to the store and treat myself once in a while. Not somthing huge but somthing like a videogame for 4 or 5 bucks or mabye some ice cream. Does the fact that i feel good afterwords make it a shopping addiction?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58hiar/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_shopping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d90f6og"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Doing something because it makes you feel better doesn't mean you have an addiction. It only becomes an addiction if you begin doing it compulsively and it interferes with your life. For example, having a beer or a glass of wine after work every other day is usually fine for most adults. However, spending all your money on booze and constantly showing up to work hungover indicates that there's a problem.\n\nSimilarly, shopping every now and then to treat yourself is usually fine. But if you go out shopping frequently to drown your issues in material things and end up racking up a bunch of debt or ignoring other aspects of your life then that's an indication that you may have an addiction."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4ur9eu
|
why did old cartoons like the flintstones have laugh tracks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ur9eu/eli5_why_did_old_cartoons_like_the_flintstones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5s72ls"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Most sitcoms from that era had laugh tracks. it was very common.\n\nWe know the Flintstones as a kid's show, but you should remember that when it was made, it was a prime time network television show, not a Saturday morning cartoon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
15eqsm
|
why does mcdonald's only sell the mcrib for part of the year?
|
I don't understand why the McRib is such a seasonal and random sale from McDonalds. It doesn't seem to fit the seasonal-type restrictions provided with things such as the Shamrock shake or peppermint hot chocolate. And if it is such a profit-producer, why not just sell it all year-round?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15eqsm/eli5_why_does_mcdonalds_only_sell_the_mcrib_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7lsuv5",
"c7lswvl",
"c7lswwl",
"c7lsyc6",
"c7luwgl",
"c7lvvms",
"c7lwk4t"
],
"score": [
16,
5,
20,
43,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's based on fluctuations of the price of pork.",
"It has something to do with the cost of pork and how their supply chain isn't set up to get it regularly. Its worth it as an occasional promotional item when they want to boost sales. ",
"McRibs are (supposed to be) made from pig meat. When this pig meat (pork) costs too much, Ronald McDonald can't afford to buy it. The changes in the price of pork determines if Ronald can sell you your yummy rib sandwich.",
"To give a bit of evidence for what everybody else is already saying: \n\n > Aside from weak sales, other theories for the limited availability of the McRib include the higher prices and unreliable supply of pork, the limited-time allure making it a better loss leader for McDonald's, and the scarcity adding to the hype of the sandwich.[19] An informal 2011 study into the \"Existence of the McRib\" draws a correlation between the price of pork and the timing of McDonalds offering the sandwich, as all five of the US McRib offerings beteween 2005 and 2011 have occurred during low points in the price for pork.[20]\n\n_URL_0_",
"While it is partly due to cost issues of pork, it's also a marketing tactic. Trust me, the McRib wouldn't be as \"famous\" or \"iconic\" if it were simply a mainstay on the menu. The limited period and exclusivity helps to make it more wanted.",
"Strangely enough, in Germany the McRib is available all year round.",
"Well because the elusive Mcrib pig is a rare animal and the game warden only allows so many per year to be used and processed when making the Mcrib. Until science provides a way to breed more Mcrib pigs we are going to have to be conservative with our consumption of this rare and beautiful creature."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McRib#Limited_availability"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5ghyrn
|
how does basketball physics work
|
I've played basketball for my whole life and am fairly good at it, but whenever I think of the science as to how it's possible for someone to look at a basket and be able to judge the angle and power necessary to swish it just baffles me. Can someone explain how this is possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ghyrn/eli5_how_does_basketball_physics_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dase88e"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Every time you shoot a basketball, your mind keeps track of how hard you threw it, at what angle, and from what distance. Now, if you only throw a basketball at a hoop only tens of times, you wouldn't really have a great accuracy with making it. However, if you practice consistently, your body begins to make slight changes every time you shoot - \"oh, you're shooting from a foot further out this time, let's give more force on the ball\". With enough repetitions, your body and its muscles have what is called \"muscle memory\", where your brain and muscles are on the same page. Thus, you can be given a basketball from say 10 meters out, and you will have a higher than average chance to make it. However - change one small thing, like moving the hoop from 10 feet down to 8 feet, and it will take some time adjusting to the new set up. [Destin from SmarterEveryDay](_URL_0_) has a great video showing how your mind compensates and is very neuroplastic in how it adapts to new situations even if they are completely opposite from normal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0"
]
] |
|
j3snf
|
how do electronics components work?
|
Oh my god, I've been waiting for this reddit to exist for most of my adult life. I've always fantasized about learning electronics, but I don't know where to start. (I want to be able to hook things up to an arduino that aren't necessarily digital components.)
Can someone explain, as if I were a 5 year old,
1. What are current, resistance, and voltage, using an analogy that is compatible with intuition?
2. How do capacitors work? I understand they're similar to batteries that are able to dump all their charge at once, but - what makes one charge in the first place? What makes them discharge? I see them scattered all over my motherboard - what function do they serve in that context?
3. What does a transistor do, and why are they so fundamental to modern electronics? I've read that they can amplify a signal? But surely they don't just increase power- otherwise you could have a ton of transistors in series and power your car with a AA battery?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3snf/how_do_electronics_components_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28wf4p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"**An explanation as if you were 5:**\n\nEverything is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and electrons have a special property called 'charge'. Protons are positive (+) and electrons are negative (-) in terms of charge. When protons and electrons come together, their charges cancel out and they like that. So, opposite charges attract and like charges repel.\n\nWhen we put a lot of protons and electrons together, they mix. If we force them to separate, they want to get back together, almost like if we lift you off the ground, gravity will want to bring you back. The amount that they want to get back together is called potential, or voltage (just like how far apart we take you from the ground affects the potential amount of energy you'd hit the ground with if we dropped you!). How fast the electrons move (kind of like how fast you'd fall if we dropped you) is current. The friction you feel from the air can be thought of as resistance to your fall, just like resistance resists the movement of electrons.\n\nCapacitors use this attraction in a very funny way. When electrons hit a capacitor (when the electricity \"gets there\"), there is no where for them to go because a capacitor is really 2 plates separated by something electrons can't really get through. So, they build up on the one plate they're stuck to. Since opposites attract, positive charges build up on the other plate, pushing electrons away from that plate (and to the rest of the circuit)!\n\nTransistors use current to change in a way that says \"hey, I'm on\" or \"hey, I'm off\", kind of like a switch. They're really important because they're the piece responsible for digital things since their on-off states can translate to the 0's and 1's that make data. To answer your question directly, transistors can amplify a voltage/current signal to a value when they're on (1), and \"de-amplify\" a signal when they're off (0). When this signal is read, it looks like something that says \"on, off, off, on, on, off\" or 1 0 0 1 1 0. Neat!\n\nYou can't just increase power by putting **amplifiers** in series, because amplifiers need power to amplify a signal. If you were to hook your car up to a car battery with amplifiers, you'd need so many batteries to power the amplifiers, you'd be better off sticking with your car battery in the first place!\n\nHope this helps!\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
awecu5
|
how does it take energy just for us to stand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/awecu5/eli5_how_does_it_take_energy_just_for_us_to_stand/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehlyl4l",
"ehm2gx3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Brain thinking and telling muscles to twitch/contract to keep you ballanced enough to not fall over. Thinking and muscles use takes energy",
"Muscle contractions require energy. When you're standing, not all your muscles are completely relaxed. Your back muscles are tensed as well as your legs and butt. It's basically an isometric exercise that we're pretty good at.\n\nAs opposed to lying in a bed where basically every muscle is in a relaxed state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
30f0xn
|
if we are currently in an ice age (defined as a period of ice sheets in the northern & southern hemisphere) that has come and gone before, why are we worried about the ice caps melting?
|
Defined as a "period of time in which ice sheets are found in the northern and southern hemispheres" *
sorry for the horrible grammar in the title
I did like a minute of reading about ice ages and this just stood out to me.
I read that there have been a few similar "ice ages" in the past followed by times of Earth being ice-free. If that's true and this is a common cycle that has happened before, then why couldn't all this ice just be melting because we're nearing the end of the current ice age? Why are the melting polar ice caps so bad now as opposed to thousands and thousands of years ago when the last ice age ended?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30f0xn/eli5_if_we_are_currently_in_an_ice_age_defined_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cprt5tv",
"cprunar"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The problem is that these cycles of melting and freezing take thousands and thousands of years.. We have hit the super fast forward button on it",
"@OP this is an excellent question because it is pretty nuanced and easy to get mixed up!\n\nFirst, let's clarify some terms. \"Ice Age\" can be tricky because it gets used in different contexts for different meanings.\n\nThe planet fluctuates between two states: greenhouse (no ice caps/glaciers, super warm) and icehouse (polar ice sheets, glaciers, cooler). We are in the latter and have been for millions of years. You can also call the icehouse state an \"ice age\" or better yet a period of glaciation. I will use the latter.\n\nDuring a period of glaciation, the planet will fluctuate between two more states: *glacial* and *interglacial*. During a glacial period, the climate cools, glacial ice expands out, sea levels drop etc. During an interglacial period, things warm up and the ice shrinks. Think of it like the planet breathing. Inhale and exhale. Back and forth. The ice doesn't go away, it just grows and shrinks.\n\nThe last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago. It lasted about 90,000 years as I recall. This is *also* what some people call the last ice age. See how it gets confusing? We are now some 12,000 years into an interglacial.\n\n**The danger here is that breathing cycle.** Human greenhouse gas emissions are messing up the breathing speed and may shift the climate past the hysteresis point and cause a runaway greenhouse effect, eventually in many many many years resulting in a greenhouse earth again.\n\nIn the short term it means climate change, freshwater problems and modest rises in sea level. Long term it means the coasts of the world get covered in hundreds of feet of water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
125uey
|
what makes one photo better than another?
|
**Edit**: Now that I know what it's called thanks to [C's comment](_URL_1_), I guess I was asking "what are the principles of art?" ELI5.
----
If I were to try to take a picture of, say, the Statue of Liberty, with my point-and-shoot digital camera, I could, with almost absolute certainly, find a picture from a very similar angle that is just a much better photo of the same thing.
The better photo would have possibly better lighting, and it would probably be sharper and have more bright colors. Is that it?
[Take this photo](_URL_0_). In one sense it's kind of a good photo -- it's a person with an amusing pose on his face. If everything else was the same in this photo but the man had a blank expression on his face, this would be a kind of bad photo because it's really blurry, but even if the photo quality was improved it seems like it couldn't be a good photo.
Maybe the question I'm asking is, what are the basics of photography appreciation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/125uey/what_makes_one_photo_better_than_another/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6sescs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think this is a very subjective question. What one person may think is an incredible photo others may deem mediocre. It is all in the eye of the beholder."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/AplRy",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/125uey/what_makes_one_photo_better_than_another/c6sexxd"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
3cqkmt
|
how does permanent press (dryer) remove wrinkles but regular setting does not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cqkmt/eli5_how_does_permanent_press_dryer_remove/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csy13px"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's just a gentler cycle, with a \"cooldown\" period where it tumbles the clothing at a cool temperature just before shutdown. Permanent press clothing is treated to not wrinkle, and the cooldown simply assists the clothing in not retaining wrinkles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
m7keo
|
ios vs. android
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m7keo/eli5_ios_vs_android/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2yrnl4",
"c2yrqki",
"c2ytcrb",
"c2z0q9j",
"c2yrnl4",
"c2yrqki",
"c2ytcrb",
"c2z0q9j"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3,
2,
7,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Brace yourselves: we're in for a rough ride.",
"This is a tough ELI5... ",
"My explanation is only as far as the user experience is concerned, not technical details:\n\nAndroid: flash, extremely customizable, no quality control or approval process for applications (apps can be about anything, without being approved but that also opens up the users to download spyware and other malware, or unstable apps. However, unlike Apple, even controversial apps can be downloaded without breaking terms of service.) \n\niOS: quality controlled testing on apps, but many, many apps get rejected based on a number of reasons so selections are more limited, but safer and more stable. minimal control over custom settings. no flash. \n",
"\"The iPhone is a beautiful toy sailboat, and an Android phone is a box of Lego bricks.\"\n\nI thought that was a pretty succinct summation of the difference.\n_URL_0_",
"Brace yourselves: we're in for a rough ride.",
"This is a tough ELI5... ",
"My explanation is only as far as the user experience is concerned, not technical details:\n\nAndroid: flash, extremely customizable, no quality control or approval process for applications (apps can be about anything, without being approved but that also opens up the users to download spyware and other malware, or unstable apps. However, unlike Apple, even controversial apps can be downloaded without breaking terms of service.) \n\niOS: quality controlled testing on apps, but many, many apps get rejected based on a number of reasons so selections are more limited, but safer and more stable. minimal control over custom settings. no flash. \n",
"\"The iPhone is a beautiful toy sailboat, and an Android phone is a box of Lego bricks.\"\n\nI thought that was a pretty succinct summation of the difference.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.macworld.com.au/blogs/what-android-fans-think-of-iphone-users-39792/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.macworld.com.au/blogs/what-android-fans-think-of-iphone-users-39792/"
]
] |
||
1lrsfr
|
— what happens if someone “speaks now” during a wedding?
|
Have you ever witnessed someone speaking up? What happened next?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lrsfr/eli5_what_happens_if_someone_speaks_now_during_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc23nn6",
"cc23uj3",
"cc24d5c",
"cc27lfk"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I've never been to a wedding where that line was actually included in the ceremony. ",
"In chapter 26 of Jane Eyre, the protagonist's fiance was tricked into marrying a mad woman years before, he locked her up in his attic. He then wanted to marry another woman (the protagonist). His first wife's brother and a lawyer interrupted the wedding and the wedding was called off immediately. ",
"No, I haven't witnessed it.\n\nHistorically, it's not meant to be used for desperate confessions of true love from the hitherto overlooked hero of a romantic comedy. It's an opportunity to point out that someone was already married or engaged with someone else, or had children, or other things that today would be checked through easily available records prior to a marriage.\n\nWhat would happen today?\n\nIf someone did speak up and claimed that it would be illegal for the couple to get married, chances are the claims would have to be looked into. (And then, I guess it'd be rare that someone would come up with something that wouldn't have been checked prior during the process of granting the licence in the first place.)\n\nIf it is something else (\"I love her more\", \"she doesn't love him, she loves his money!\", \"For crying out loud, he bought a Nickleback CD the other day!\"), it would not be a reason for the official to stop the proceedings - but each of the spouses-to-be might decide to reconsider how they will answer what the official is about to ask them.\n\nLPT: If you feel like saying \"No\", say \"No\". You can easily change your mind and make another attempt next week. Going back after you've said \"Yes\" doesn't make saying \"No\" any easier, and it will make it really complicated to stop being married.",
"When I attended a rehearsal for an Episcopal wedding, the vicar warned us that if anyone said anything, even as a joke, then she would be obligated to investigate it before continuing with the ceremony.\n\nI assume that this varies widely depending on the particular religious tradition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2qyxrb
|
why does my dog, when given table food, swallow meat whole but takes the time to chew bread or other similar foods?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qyxrb/eli5_why_does_my_dog_when_given_table_food/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnau1mh",
"cnave29"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Disclaimer: I have no clue about dogs\n\nThat said, I would assume that its about moistening the food. Meat usually is pretty moist and you can swallow it as soon as its small enough to go down. Bread on the other hand soaks up a lot of moisture which makes it first of all hard to swallow, and also it can stick to your gullet which is a really ugly feel (though you can literally flush it down with some liquid). I would assume your dog does not like bread sticking in his throat as much as I don't like it ;)",
"The meat will get stolen sooner than any veggies. Besides it's species' pride to \"wolf it down\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1y6s2q
|
given that eps and lps are vinyl based terms, why do bands keep coming out with eps and lps?
|
Why has the music industry stuck to this nomenclature? Since EP's now are just as long as LPs in many cases, isn't this just telling the world that the music on EPs isn't as good as what is on LPs? EPs used to be used for promotional purposes, but with the internet and social media, making something for this kind of distribution is no longer applicable.
edit:phrasing
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y6s2q/given_that_eps_and_lps_are_vinyl_based_terms_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhvlmt",
"cfhwqil",
"cfhwzbs",
"cfhzfn9"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the name stuck. Its the same reason why a lot of people call Album's albums, even though they are cd's or even just digital. Its an easy way to label how bands release their music. ",
"If we didn't have a standardized way of describing the amount of songs on a record, it would shift with every new format that comes out, which is quite often.\n\nGood question!",
"Lots of descriptively obsolete terms stick. I.e rolling up a window even though we often push buttons. Or upper case and lower case, which referred to height of storage for the big and small cases of letters for a printing press. Or \"rewind\" even though we usually don't wind tape anymore. There are many more examples.",
"Everyone knows what it means already. We still \"hang up\" the phone when we terminate a call, even though now we're merely pressing a button. We still \"rewind\" videos although it's no longer tape on a spool. And so we still release EPs and LPs, even though they're no longer vinyl records, because we don't have better words for musical releases containing about 20 and 45 minutes' worth of music, respectively. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4xjmz5
|
how does the u.s. department of treasury introduce new money into the economy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xjmz5/eli5_how_does_the_us_department_of_treasury/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6fzz8g"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Easiest to just post this answer from Investopedia (and note it is the Federal Reserve and not the Treasury that does this):\n\n > 1) The Fed can influence the money supply by modifying reserve requirements, which is the amount of funds banks must hold against deposits in bank accounts. By lowering the reserve requirements, banks are able loan more money, which increases the overall supply of money in the economy. Conversely, by raising the banks' reserve requirements, the Fed is able to decrease the size of the money supply.\n\n > 2) The Fed can also alter the money supply by changing short-term interest rates. By lowering (or raising) the discount rate that banks pay on short-term loans from the Federal Reserve Bank, the Fed is able to effectively increase (or decrease) the liquidity of money. Lower rates increase the money supply and boost economic activity; however, decreases in interest rates fuel inflation, so the Fed must be careful not to lower interest rates too much for too long.\n\n > 3) Finally, the Fed can affect the money supply by conducting open market operations, which affects the federal funds rate. In open operations, the Fed buys and sells government securities in the open market. If the Fed wants to increase the money supply, it buys government bonds. This supplies the securities dealers who sell the bonds with cash, increasing the overall money supply. Conversely, if the Fed wants to decrease the money supply, it sells bonds from its account, thus taking in cash and removing money from the economic system. [SOURCE](_URL_0_)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/central-banks.asp"
]
] |
||
1u32fj
|
help me understand goth and emo culture
|
Background: I grew up in the hood so I don't understand these cultures at all, but now I'm curious enough to want to.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u32fj/eli5_help_me_understand_goth_and_emo_culture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cee0oev",
"cee1g12",
"cee56aj"
],
"score": [
4,
27,
2
],
"text": [
"Goth and emo are both subcultures/trends that revolve around feelings of hopelessness, but are directed at different things. From what I've seen, goth is more about nihilism, or hopelessness about life and people in general. Emo is more about hopelessness in oneself, and the emotions that sensation causes. \nThis is also seen in the music and clothing connected to both subcultures. ",
"Goth and Emo are both offshoots of the punk rock movement. However goth goes back to the 70s, and the british scene. Long story short, while many punks voiced their disapproval of society with anger, goths leaned more towards nihilism. The movement was a way of pointing out the pointlessness of the current system, by living in a visage of death and despair. It became really popular in the 80's and into the 90s. bands like the cure, bauhaus, dead can dance, joy division, and more in that vein are examples of goth. \n\nEmo is a much later genre, developing from the late 80s punk scene out in California, and really kicked off in the late 90s. Now while most folks associate emo with cutting and sadface, it's really about inner reflection and the feelings of pointlessness of youth, and also about reflecting about your deep inner feelings and emotions. Bands like AFI, Jimmy eat world, sunny day real estate, and even weezer. It's really about emotional truth on a sometimes painful level, though some folks take it beyond that. \n\nThe eyeliner is connected to the punk, gender stuff, which is linked to stuff like david bowie and glam. The goth has offshoots into heavy victorian era styles and even vampire culture. Emo's tight clothes are seen all over punk style, and also helped push the nerdy hipster look. Hope this helps some, but like any subculture and style it's all linked to much bigger stuff, all over the place so if you have any more questions i'll try and do my best to answer.",
"Goths like their cynicism. Emos love a good cry. Hipsters are pretentious douche bags still trying to find a place in the world that has no use for them. But maybe that's a little cynical."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3uzmop
|
what has martin shkreli done with kalobios?
|
I don't quite get it : _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uzmop/eli5what_has_martin_shkreli_done_with_kalobios/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxj6zkr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Don't assume Shkreli has done anything with KaloBios. Shkreli bought 70% of the outstanding shares of KBIO and is not allowing his shares to be lent out to cover short selling. It's that simple. We don't know what's going to happen with KBIO because we've only had this issue arise for 15 days, which is not enough time to really see what the results of Shkreli's acquisition will be. \n\nThe detailed answer, however, is as follows. \n\nAt the beginning of November, KBIO was ready to close up shop and go under. Their funding dried up, they had no money and were ready to basically declare bankruptcy. Investors saw this as an opportunity to short the stock for a small profit. Basically, they bet the stock was going to drop from, say $5 a share, to $0 a share. Investors borrowed shares from people who owned them, and then sold the borrowed shares in an attempt to make money. In order to take a profit (or loss), these traders will then buy the shares back to close the trade. \n\nShkreli sees this company is in dire straits and thought there was value in the company, so once the company dropped to roughly $1/Share, over the course of two days Shkreli bought ~70% of the company's outstanding shares. That is roughly 2.87 Million Shares bought against the KBIO's roughly 4.1 Million Shares outstanding. \n\nThe sudden surge in buying led to the stock price increasing dramatically, to the point where the company is worth now ~35+/Share. These short sellers are either scrambling to cover their shorts (basically, they took a huge loss and want out), or are opening new shorts (basically betting that the stock will drop in price at look to make even more money at this top). \n\nThe thing is Shkreli didn't do anything wrong. He saw an opportunity to make some money and acquire a drug company. If the story is true, he bought everything within 2 days, well within the initial Schedule 13D notice period for filing, so it's not like he broke a law concerning his ownership stake. Shkreli informed KBIO that he owned 70% of the company and began to discuss how to proceed in keeping the company up and running. \n\nThis news comes out and the stock increase in value. A few days later, as short interest increases in the company, Shkreli decides to no longer lend the shares. Remember how I said shares needed to be borrowed from someone. That someone is a lender who has a large quantity of shares that they don't plan to necessarily immediately move. I don't know if Shkreli intentionally had his shares up for lending, if it was done unintentionally by his prime broker because the shares were marked as marginable, or through any other plausible method, but Shkreli stopped allowing his shared to be lended out. This reduced the available shares outstanding from 4.1 Million Shares that could be borrowed against to 1.13 Million Shares that could be borrowed against. Now, people are trying to figure out what's going on with the value of the company since such a small amount of shares can be viably traded. All the while, there is no indication of what is going on inside KBIO yet, but that is due to the fact that at 15 days old, there is still a great deal of potential work that is being done to get a deal worked out for short term funding, etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://gawker.com/pharmaceuticals-rapscallion-martin-shkreli-now-playing-1745408324"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
6q18ba
|
if a world war broke out today would/could modern jets have dogfights like during ww2
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6q18ba/eli5_if_a_world_war_broke_out_today_wouldcould/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dktsolf",
"dktsu07",
"dktvir0"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably not. Modern jets are designed to shoot each other down with missiles long before they even see each other.",
"nope. modern air warfare is either stealth or long (beyond visual) range missiles. one area of possibility of short range engagement would be mountainous or canyonous areas. ",
"Would they? No, modern jets (Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22, PAK-FA, J-20) are fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Like others have said, BVR missile shootdowns are their goal and their specialty.\n\n Could they? Sort of. No doubt they have the maneuverability, but a dogfight at 1,220 mph is very different than one at 437. Also, modern jets carry far less gun ammunition (F-22 has 480 rounds, a P-51 carried 1840)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ovgpe
|
what is the significance of classifying numbers as even, odd, prime, non-prime etc.?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ovgpe/eli5_what_is_the_significance_of_classifying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkkjo78"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"These numbers have certain properties which force them into these categories. Even numbers can be divided in half to get another whole number; odd numbers cannot. Primes are divisible only by themselves and one; non-primes are divisible by further numbers. The categorisation of these numbers is shorthand for stating these properties."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
w4l9h
|
what happened at barclays and why it's important
|
What did the executives at Barclays do and why is everyone so mad at them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/w4l9h/eli5_what_happened_at_barclays_and_why_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5a6l8x"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There's a group of 16 banks that get together to set LIBOR. LIBOR is the London Interbank Offered Rate. This is the rate used to determine interest of a lot of loans - from car loans, home loans, credit card loans, etc.\n\nIf you knew what the rate was ahead of time, that would give you a big advantage in betting on loans, making loans, etc. For this reason, the people setting the rate and the people making those bets are supposed to be separate from each other to avoid a conflict of interest.\n\nWhat happened is that someone leaked emails from Barclay's showing they were trying to change the rate so they could make money. They got other banks to help them (a big no-no) and had the people setting the rate and the people making the bets tell each other what's up (another no-no) and probably ended up costing other people lots of money by essentially cheating with the loan rate.\n\nThey are already being sued by several large retirement funds that think they have been cheated out of millions of dollars. Since that rate affect $300 trillion (with a T) dollars in financial products, this could have a huge effect on the global economy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dfb0r0
|
why doesn’t grass grow to be as tall as something like a tree?
|
I know that when a lawn is left uncut the grass can grow plenty taller than what it’s typically kept at, and there’s plenty of “tall grass” in the wild, but why does it stop growing before getting to much bigger heights; like that of trees?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dfb0r0/eli5_why_doesnt_grass_grow_to_be_as_tall_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f32135o",
"f322h1f",
"f323nzw",
"f3246m6",
"f3246th",
"f3255gv",
"f327ayf",
"f32b0uc",
"f32b24w",
"f32go14",
"f32gw61",
"f32kzd0",
"f32lpai"
],
"score": [
90,
199,
2,
4,
5,
5,
5,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Grass usually doesn't have a support structure (branches, trunks) strong enough to make them grow large. If it grew that big it would just collapse on itself.",
"The grass most English speakers think of are growing horizontally, along the ground. The upwards parts are just leaves. They’re pretty long, but not the same biomass as a tree. And, as others have mentioned, bamboo.",
"That depends on the grass. I have a grass in my back yard in Missouri that grows 20 ft. tall.",
"with access to unlimited rain and sunshine, grass can grow really big\n\ni wrote that with attenbourgs voice lol\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_) has some pics of elephant grass",
"The cell wall causes grasses to have a predetermined size. Plants have both longitudinal and horizontal growth, so this is needed. The procambium makes the xylem, and if the plant grows too fast or much, water can’t reach everywhere. Lol I just took a test over this.",
"All plants and animals grow to the size prescribed by their DNA. Grass does not grow as tall as trees because it has not evolved that way. It's the same reason we don't have elephant sized mice or mile long cobras.",
"Why don't you grow as tall as a tree? Most living things have a rough max size they will grow to because they've evolved to grow to that size, either due to resource restriction or just how it's physically built. Grass mostly isn't sturdy enough for it's leaves to grow super tall and support their own weight.",
"Certain types of grass actually do. Look at palm trees for example. They are a form of grass.",
"I'd also like to think this height limit on grass is the same sort of height limit on trees (I can't remember if there's a term for this). \n\nTrees, depending on type, also stop at around the same height. The farther from the ground and higher the plant grows, the more work and less energy the plant gets. Water and nutrients get pulled up by capillaries while gravity tries to work against them. By the time the plant gets too high, the harder it is for the water and nutrients to continue feeding the higher branches (a tree that never stopped growing may have unhealthy tops as they receive little water and nutrients as they are being used by lower branches) so the plant conserves what would be more beneficial by having a growth limit.",
"Palm trees and bamboo are both types of grass that grow very tall, but I guess you're talking about common grass you see every day.\n\n It ultimately depends on the structure the organism has developed over time. A hard outer structure is needed to support itself, and the grass in your garden doesn't have that. It wouldn't be worth attempting to grow too tall, because it would collapse under its own weight and die. Lawn grass is everywhere, and easy to grow, because it's smaller and doesn't waste valuable nutrition of developing a hard outer layer",
"This NatGeo article does a great job illustrating how much of the grass is underground[NatGeo - Intricate World of Roots](_URL_0_)",
"Grass use a different evolutionary strategy than most other plants, it burns!\n\nGrass primarily grows underground, leaving only a portion of the plant over the ground for photosynthesis. When a dry season comes along and a spark ignites some vegetation, the now dry carpet of grass spreads the fire, leaving huge areas completely barren from life. Grass can then quickly regrow into the barren area without competition\\*.\n\nI have an idea that the extreme changes in ecosystems we've seen in Africa (going from dense vegetation and systems of rivers to the modern day desert) goes hand in hand with humans use of persistence hunting\\*\\* and slash-and-burn agriculture\\*\\*\\*. humans and grass have literally domesticated each other. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n \n\\* Try to name a plant that requires more cutting than grass. It has evolved to have temporary and fast-growing leaves. \n\n\\*\\* Persistence hunting is when humans hunt the same tired animal day after day until its too exhausted to continue. It requires the ability to spot prey over long distances and the ability to run without too many obstacles. i.e. grasslands. \n\n\\*\\*\\* Humans started spreading the most edible grass species, using its own evolutionary strategy to cultivate it (burning) as well as slashing. This is a quote from wiki: \"The Poaceae are the most important source the world's dietary energy supply. They provide, through direct human consumption, just over one-half (51%) of all dietary energy; rice provides 20%, wheat supplies 20%, maize (corn) 5.5%, and others grains 6%. \"",
"It can, Bamboo can grow to the size of a tree. Elephant Grass can grow to be the size of a small tree, in fact they can even hide elephants they get so tall."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://energyquest4nanticoke.ca/elephnt.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2015/10/15/digging-deep-reveals-the-intricate-world-of-roots/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rfmg1
|
how does gravity both cause things to fall towards an object, but can also cause things to orbit around an object?
|
I understand that gravity can cause both forces, but at what point and how does it change from causing an object to fall towards it to causing an object to orbit it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rfmg1/eli5_how_does_gravity_both_cause_things_to_fall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnffa02",
"cnfga1g",
"cnfj41w"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So say you throw a ball, gravity makes it form an arc. Imagine if you could throw a ball so fast that it's speed countered the gravity so it never hit the ground. That is essentially what an orbit is. And since there is no air in space, the ball never loses speed from air friction.\n\nFurthermore, the term escape velocity, that you might have heard, is the speed at which the orbiting object goes fast enough that it is able to overcome the gravity of the body it is orbiting and go off into space.",
"The force of gravity pulls objects together, directly to the centre of each object. For example, gravity is constantly pulling the International Space Station towards the centre of the Earth. Objects orbit other objects when the force of gravity acting on them is perpendicular (at a right angle) to the direction they're moving in. Since the force of gravity is constantly perpendicular to the velocity of the ISS, [no work is done](_URL_0_) to it!",
"Gravity only causes an attractive force, but orbits are formed due to a velocity of the object. If an object is passing by the earth (for example) with a high enough speed, then the object will still be \"falling\" towards the earth, but will keep \"missing\" it because in the time it takes to fall that distance, it's velocity means it has already gone around part of the way around the earth.\n\nOne way of thinking about it is using [Newton's Cannonball](_URL_0_)\n\nAnother, less gravity based analogy would be to consider having a mass on a piece of string, and spinning it by the string so it moves in a circle. Think about the forces there - the string is only pulling the mass towards your hand (or, if you like, preventing it from flying away), and its the fact you've given it a velocity that makes it move in a circle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work2.html#nwk"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball"
]
] |
|
5b3cg3
|
how can we be absolutely certain that the amount of universal energy remains constant (how can we prove the law of conservation of energy is valid in terms of the universe)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b3cg3/eli5_how_can_we_be_absolutely_certain_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9lf3db",
"d9lfbah",
"d9lflon",
"d9lhtvq"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"The law of conservation of energy only applies to closed systems, which can be observed fairly easily on Earth. Conservation of energy is not known or even thought to apply to the universe as a whole because it isn't considered to be a closed system.",
"Conservation of energy only holds in systems that are time invariant, which the universe, at large scales, is not. It is expanding. Therefore, it does not need to follow conservation of energy, and energy may decrease or increase.",
"In science you cannot *prove* anything, you just have *evidence* supporting your hypothesis or not. By definition, science is an ever-improving endeavor in which our models of how things work improve over time, creeping closer to the \"thruth\" but never actually achieving it.\n\nDo we know *for sure* how viruses work, how molecules bind to one another or if/how energy is conserved? No, and we never will. But the big thing is, if you can explain phenomena and create new stuff by *assuming* your model is correct, for all practical purposes we can take it as being the truth.\n\nWas Newton right in his models? No, Einstein later did a better job at describing movement, especially at high speeds. Does it mean he was plain out wrong? Again no, it just means Newton's original model had to be revised for some special applications, while still being applicable to many other daily situations, hence why we still learn about it.\n\nAll that being said, the current model of conservation of energy can, as of today, be taken as being \"true\" because 1) we can explain why things work the way they work once we do that, and 2) many technological advances come from that assumption. Even so, future models may come to refute this eventually for some special cases.",
"It doesn't remain constant, especially in a universe that is huge and constantly expanding, the law of conservation of energy does not apply. Like everyone else said, it only ever really applies to closed systems and if we were to use the law of conservation of energy on a much grander scale like the universe we would first have to prove that the universe is a closed system, which we still believe is not, so that's why we can't prove with absolute certainty that the amount of universal energy remains constant. It's constantly fluctuating. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c2lpxy
|
how can some companies offer unlimited cloud storage for an affordable monthly subscription while others charge an arm and a leg?
|
For example, Drop Box allegedly has an unlimited storage plan for just $20 a month, but Google drive offers like 20TB max for $200. Why is there such a difference in pricing? Is it even possible for companies to offer “unlimited storage”? Does the computing power for unlimited actually exist or are they saying “unlimited” while believing they’ll never need to worry about it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c2lpxy/eli5_how_can_some_companies_offer_unlimited_cloud/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erkyxej"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"First off, that 'unlimited' remark us correct, they're just saying that assuming you'll never actually be a problem. All data stored on the cloud is actually kept on hard drives in servers somewhere. Some companies have their own, but a lot just rent server space from other companies that make giant server farms for this purpose. Amazon runs one of the largest server farms companies out there, called AWS. They can say unlimited because while your computer might have 1tb of storage and your phone might have several hundred gb, their servers will have billions.\n\nIt'd be like if I had a warehouse the size of ten football fields and rented 'unlimited' storage space to you. Realistically no one person is going to have enough stuff to fill the warehouse, even if you had several houses worth of furniture you needed to store, so it might as well be unlimited. Kind of like how buffets serve 'unlimited' food. It's not really infinite food, just more than one person could possibly eat. You might say that while one person could never fill that warehouse, a single company could, or that enough people could eat all the food at a buffet, which is true. If you look at those cloud providers, they probably offer personal use options and enterprise options, because they know businesses or large organizations will have a lot more storage needs. If they ever start to run out of space, they can always rent or buy more servers.\n\nThere's also differences in services offered. A cheap cloud solution might have a single site with comparatively low speeds, while a more expensive one might have your data backed up to several sites all around the country so even if an entire facility burns down your data is good. They might also have better upload/download speeds and security features, Alon with other stuff to justify the price.\n\nA storage place that's just got a roll up door with a pad lock is going to be cheaper than one that's got cameras, climate control, guards at a gate, a forklift on site that can load and unload stuff for you, and other benefits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2bw4ek
|
why a subset of people in very traditional cultures (muslim, hindu, etc) want to honor kill the *victim* of a rape, even when the victim is underage and obviously innocent of anything?
|
Example here:
_URL_0_
Is it that they believe that women (even 10 year old women or younger) are just dirty temptresses? Or is there some other logic here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bw4ek/eli5_why_a_subset_of_people_in_very_traditional/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj9h6c3",
"cj9hczw",
"cj9izgq"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Its more like they think she's despoiled; so worse than worthless. ",
"\"Obviously innocent\" and \"honor forever ruined\" come from two completely different value systems. Her innocence doesn't change the fact that, for them, she is forever... spoiled.",
"In addition to other comments its worthy to consider that with a \"spoiled\" daughter, parents have no child bride they can force to marry whom they choose, usually someone who can support them as well as the child bride.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2bvp1r/struggling_to_keep_afghan_girl_safe_after_a/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ib6dr
|
they have "flat wings", so how does a butterfly fly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ib6dr/eli5_they_have_flat_wings_so_how_does_a_butterfly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl0j4ke",
"cl0ozer",
"cl0t8wd",
"cl15yfk"
],
"score": [
69,
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they're 'flat wings', not flat wings. If you have a look at them they flex as they pass through the air. \n \nBut hey, no explanation I can give is going to be as effective or beautiful as some [high speed camera footage of butterflies actually flying.](_URL_0_) \nEnjoy.",
"[here] (_URL_0_) is a flow visualization of an insect wing - butterflies are similar to this. Aeronautical engineering researchers are actually quite interested in this flow because the air is essentially \"thicker\" (not the same as more viscous) to the insect than to a large-scale object (like a plane) so we can learn a fair bit about aerodynamics. Thanks to my aerodynamics professor for that link from our lecture this week...",
"The wings are segmented. When they flap down they push together and create lift very much like if you were to swing a piece of cardboard downwards and feel the drag off of it. When they pull their wings up, the air can pass through the center of the wings and doesn't create as much pressure as when they push. So overall they have a net gain of lift so they rise up. \n\nPlanes and birds need their special wing shape because they mostly do high speed gliding. The bird pushes air behind it and lets the shape of it's wing lift it. Planes do the same thing but with engines. Birds only actually lift themselves the way an insect does when they are taking off. Planes never do, they just simply go fast enough that enough air passes past the wing that it lifts the plane. Butterflies can glide but not nearly as well as a bird or a plane, it's more of a paper airplane situation, the drag keeps them from falling like a stone, but the arc is still pretty short.",
"Butterflies don't have to be able to fly. They're so charming that gravity doesn't have the heart to pull them down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://vimeo.com/42574948"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fh47uGq13U&feature=youtu.be"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
5dx57v
|
couldn't planes make more legroom and increase seat prices to compensate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dx57v/eli5_couldnt_planes_make_more_legroom_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da7zcno",
"da7zhh8"
],
"score": [
4,
13
],
"text": [
"If those two seats are removed the airline looses a lot more than $10 per seat. Even if the revenue per seat is $10 a large portion of the ticket price goes toward operating costs which would still be there. More importantly if an airline raises the ticket prices in exchange for offering more legroom people will buy cheaper tickets from other airlines. Competition has determined that people care a lot more about low prices than they do about leg room. People who want more legroom can always reserve exit-row seats for a fee or pay for business class.",
"Airlines do make more legroom seats and charge more for them!\n\nIt's called business class, first class, economy plus, and various other names and types of seats. They offer more leg room, and cost more!\n\nNow if you're think your regular 'ol economy class tickets well... The absolute, unconditional, most important part of that ticket and seat-- the price. Nothing else. After years and years and years of hundreds of thousands of people doing research, marketing and everything about how people decide on airline tickets, its just really simple. Low cost. People want cheap. If you don't want cheap, you'll be in those \"nice\" seats above, like first class. But for the masses, its cheap that matters, not comfort. \n\nPeople complain about their seats, their legroom, the service, but in reality, none of it actually matters, people just like to complain. Price is pretty much the *only* factor that the general economy class customer bases their ticket purchasing on, raise the price... and you may have problems.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1menkv
|
why is sushi so expensive, even in areas where fresh fish is easy to get?
|
I recently moved to a landlocked state, and the price of sushi is roughly the same as when I was living by the sea. What gives? Why can I buy a 6 piece roll for the same price as a full plate of pad tai when there are much fewer ingredients in the former?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1menkv/eli5_why_is_sushi_so_expensive_even_in_areas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc8hii1",
"cc8i03s",
"cc8ixe5",
"cc8j9s4",
"cc8k2ka"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
6,
3,
9
],
"text": [
"I believe it is to do with the skill the being a sushi chef requires and they are paid accordingly. The raw materials (cracking pun) make up a very small percentage of the cost. ",
"Sushi has to be made from very fresh fish. Normal cooking can use slightly stale fish, but nothing but the freshest fish works for sushi. Delivering fish of this freshness is difficult and expensive.",
"If you're interested in sushi check out the documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Doesn't necessarily answer your question, but is still an awesome and informative documentary!",
"I think it may have to do with the fact that sushi doesn't stay fresh for long (only a few hours) and they have to raise the price to compensate for the sushi they don't sell.",
"1. Sushi requires extremely fresh, high quality ingredients because of the simplicity of the dish - the saying \"an ounce of sauce covers a multitude of sins\" doesn't apply to sushi because it's a single piece of raw fish on rice. The diner immediately experiences the fish's taste, texture and freshness, with nothing hiding it.\n\n2. Good sushi rice is also very expensive - for example, a 15 lb. bag of *koshihikari* rice can cost upwards of $40.\n\n3. High demands are placed on the skill of the chef. Sushi chefs are hard to find and demand more money than a regular chef.\n\n4. Sushi is often seen as an exotic/luxurious food, which can lead to sushi restaurants inflating the price.\n\nYour comparison to a full plate of pad thai isn't the best way of looking at it. Pad thai, like fried rice, is one of those dishes that's intended to take advantage of whatever you've got in the fridge. It's fairly simple, and requires relatively cheap ingredients (even the meat can consist of trimmings, off-cuts, etc.) - which are all disguised in a pile of noodles covered in a thick sauce."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cjwddx
|
can the prosecution say that the defendant is not guilty? and if yes, what happens?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cjwddx/eli5_can_the_prosecution_say_that_the_defendant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evgow5d",
"evgp13u",
"evgp85m",
"evgpdn1"
],
"score": [
6,
17,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"In the US, wouldn't that just be the state choosing not to press charges or choosing to drop charges?\n\nThe prosecution is only there to present the state's case to the court. They are not the jury as well because letting them choose the outcome of their own case would be a massive conflict of interest.",
"The prosecution can decide to drop the charges, immediately ending the trial. The defendant goes free.",
"This would just be \"dropping the charges\" against the defendant. The prosecution represents the state, and part of their job is to decide if they have enough evidence to prosecute someone or not. If they decide that a person isn't guilty of the charge they placed on it, then they can drop that charge. No charge, nothing to defend against, no court proceedings.",
"The prosecutors can drop the case. They will talk to the judge to say they are not proceeding with prosecution. The judge will then dismiss the case and the defendant leaves."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
up7yn
|
what lossless music is and why i should care (as opposed to a regular mp3).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/up7yn/eli5_what_lossless_music_is_and_why_i_should_care/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4xbrnh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"**Technical explanation:** The more you compact and condense audio information into a smaller filesize, the more audio detail you lose, particularly in the high end and low end. Think of it like a jpeg becoming gradually more grainy and blurry as you decrease the quality of the compression and lower the filesize.\n\n**Practical explanation:** Assuming you don't have crappy headphones or a crap sound card, do an experiment some time.\n\nDownload an album of classical music or something without much noisy instrumental to it (so no heavy metal or dubstep) in the lossless FLAC format.\n\nThen listen to the same songs but encoded at a standard 128kbps mp3 format. The FLAC will not only have more clarity, but more atmosphere to it (depending on how it was recorded).\n\nIt doesn't make a difference for all types of music, but if I am listening to something like the OST for Skyrim, you bet I am going to prefer it on a lossless codec such as FLAC or at least 320kpbs CBR mp3. Anything less and you start to lose details in the music. If the instrumental is grungy and noisy to begin with however, it becomes more difficult for each instrument and aspect of the song to be lost with the audio data being taken out.\n\nIt also makes little difference when recording singular things such as the human voice.\n\nThe downside to lossless is that the filesize is much bigger, which is why the current standard is a relatively low quality one. The smaller songs are on average, the more songs a company can claim will fit on their mp3 players."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2n063z
|
why do reddit apps use so much data?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n063z/eli5_why_do_reddit_apps_use_so_much_data/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm94nay"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you browse reddit alot.\n\nI'm not kidding. When using reddit in moble mode, most apps will pull reddit's json entries. To make browsing easier and lighter really cuts down on network traffic massive.\n\nThe amount of data it uses, is really just a reflection of how much you browse reddit. \n\nFor example with just my comment this webpage is ~56KB of data without javascript. As JSON its 3KB. Reddit is fairly light weight in terms of data. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ftprny
|
how do video games get created and still have secrets years after their creation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ftprny/eli5_how_do_video_games_get_created_and_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fm8bty6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Game files can be hacked but what matters is if is found can be deciphered.\n\nAt the end of the day, it's all lines of code and if that code isn't clearly labelled or its function isn't easy to understand, then it might be hard to determine what it is.\n\nIf hackers find a line of code labeled \"Easter_eggs_secrets\" then they will find out what it is pretty quickly.\n\nIf it's labeled \"function_x1_object\", what is that? What does it do? Is it worth finding out?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7b5ldr
|
do babies from surrogate mothers end up with that surrogate's dna/genetics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7b5ldr/eli5_do_babies_from_surrogate_mothers_end_up_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpfgq7s",
"dpfkywo",
"dpfp2w5",
"dpfsr8e",
"dpfvacz",
"dpfwpgy",
"dpfxtwu",
"dpg0ye2"
],
"score": [
1460,
75,
13,
60,
2,
45,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Actually yes! It has been speculated that mitochondrial dna may pass from mother to fetus in utero, even if they were not a genetic contributor to the embryo (these cells aren't thought to have much of an effect on the future of the baby however). Likewise, some of the foetal cells may remain with the mother past birth, called fetomaternal chimerism. Most important however, are the nutrients and diseases the surrogate is exposed to during her pregnancy, as they affect the genetic development of the embryo enormously i.e. she can affect how their DNA is used in their future life. \n\nSource - science degree\n\nMore sources:\n_URL_2_\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_\n\nScience lite sources:\n_URL_3_",
"Does the surrogate mother's immune system alter gene expression, or epigenetics in any way?",
"Can someone clarify this question, I must oty be understanding what a surrogate mother is. The pregnant woman would obviously give that baby her genetics despite who raises it, but based on the answers here I must not be getting it.",
"[I found this:](_URL_0_)\n\nA woman who carries someone else's baby contributes very little, if any, DNA to the child. This is because the child already has its DNA from its mom and dad. Also, the baby's own blood passes through its body – not the blood of its surrogate mom.\n\nHowever, there is a possibility that some DNA could be transferred from the woman to the fetus that she is carrying. And vice versa, from the child to the mother.\n\nThis exchanged DNA will have almost no effect. At most, it will be a few cells (with DNA) hiding out amongst the trillions of original cells of the child. Too few cells of the surrogate mother are passed to the child for them to actually pass on any of her characteristics or affect the child in any significant way.\n\nRemember – a child's DNA comes from two places. Half comes from its mother and half from its father.\n\nBut in this article, we're talking about changes in DNA that happen during pregnancy – while the child is developing. So, all of what I talk about is true for both mothers carrying their own child, as well as for surrogate mothers carrying the child of another woman.",
"My college biology (bio 1, nothing too crazy) professor briefly went into this while lecturing. He asked us if it was possible for an offspring to contain 3 different sets of DNA.",
"This is really interesting! I am a parent via surrogacy -- my own uterus is on strike and I failed to be able to carry a baby to term. We turned to surrogacy, and it was a wonderful experience. We used our embryos, so my son is genetically mine and my husband's. Some of my son's DNA definitely crossed the placental barrier and went into my surrogate -- that is how the new NIPT (non-invasive prenatal testing) is done. It's a blood test at 10-12 weeks that can detect anuploidy (abnormal number of chromosomes) in the fetus. The blood is drawn from the pregnant woman (my surrogate; in most other instances this person would also be the genetic mother) and sent to a lab. As long as the free fetal fraction of DNA is above 6%, they can build a karyotype of the fetus. This is how people are finding out gender at 10 weeks.\n\n",
"Holy cow, didn't expect this question to be so successful. I'm glad a lot of people found the answers interesting and helpful. Definitely interesting and helpful to me. Thanks errbody. ",
"I'm a mom to a donor egg daughter. I lost my ovarian function in my late 20s from having to do chemotherapy for breast cancer. In my late 30s, my husband and I went to a fertility clinic in NC where we participate in an anonymous donor egg program. After I started taking certain hormones to sustain a pregnancy, my anonymous donor was hyper stimulated with other hormones so that she would produce multiple eggs. They were then harvested and fertilized with my husband's sperm. After a few days, three viable embryos were implanted in my uterus and I continued with my hormones. One baby survived and she's now in college and the light of our lives. Science is freaking awesome and so is that wonderful woman who donated her eggs! It's is NOT easy and quite painful as I understand. They definitely deserve the financial compensation (I highly doubt it's 1K per egg as another person posted but maybe times have changed). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2014.892179?journalCode=uajb20",
"http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/26514387",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/chim.14692",
"http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask420"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask420"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6mibkf
|
when transferring money between banks, where is it when it is not in either account?
|
When I transfer money from one bank to another (whether by check or electronic transfer), there is always some period of time when the money is in neither account. Where is it? Who has it? Can they do anything with it (e.g. loan it out for an hour)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mibkf/eli5_when_transferring_money_between_banks_where/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk1s6kf",
"dk21dhz",
"dk2fyc7"
],
"score": [
37,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's still in the first account, but it's flagged by most computer systems as \"not usable\" to prevent overdrafting. If there were some error and the transaction didn't go through, it would remain in the original account.\n\nThe \"in between\" state is there because most banks immediately tag the money as \"gone\" so that users can get a clearer picture of their finances. And the \"receiving\" bank doesn't list the money in their system until it arrives, just in case there's a problem and the transaction doesn't go through. This way, nobody accidentally spends money that they don't have.",
"Two files are received (sometimes multiple times) from a central clearing house - or correspondent bank - which have all the ACH transactions for the banks routing # for the day (or a set timeframe if multiple files are received daily)\n\nThe files run automatically via the banks financial systems, debiting (i.e. purchases) or crediting (i.e. payroll) all the individuals accounts that have transactions. The debits are swept into a bank general ledger account. The next time a file is received, that amount is debited out from the GL by the correspondent bank and forwarded on to the appropriate financial institutions for processing.\n\nThere is no opportunity to do anything with the funds - it is a constant cycle of debits and credits. And a pain to balance the corporate accounts!\n\nHope this helps.\n\nSource: Me, ACH / Draft processing for years.",
"The real question is... in an age of computers and the near instantaneous transfer of information. Why do banks (specifically online banking) still have \"business days\" does their internet get shut off on weekends? What's the deal. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fztegs
|
in large battles where armies needed moving hundreds of miles (romans eg) where do they get food/drinks?
|
Surely you can’t carry all that water and food for thousands and thousands of men abouts to into battle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fztegs/eli5_in_large_battles_where_armies_needed_moving/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn600d3",
"fn6044j",
"fn61c0p",
"fn6xr86"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They either foraged off the land, camped near cities/villages and requisitioned the supplies, or had long baggage trains (mostly non-combatants hauling wagons) with enough supplies to last them the campaign season.",
"They carried some supplies, they would take them from villages around the way they were going, hunt and scavenge what they could.\n\nIt wasn't always a willing thing so many times pillagings would occur, many people would end up starving in villages for it.",
"For battle they would drop off their equipment and pack animals at the camp. They would carry some food and water into battle but not more then for a few hours. The best organized armies (like the Romans) would have skirmishers that were lightly armored who would return to camp for supplies and bring it to the front lines. So soldiers would be getting fresh water, weapons and food brought to them during battle.\n\nFor marches they would preferably live off the land. In front of the army were a number of scouts who in addition to looking for enemies would also look for places to camp and forage as well as locate villages and farms with food stores. Taxes were usually collected as rations for the army anyway so collecting the taxes directly was not an issue. Water would be taken from nearby rivers. Issues with dried up or polluted rivers is a rather new problem. In addition the army would maintain a supply line from the capitol with the help of messengers. So that tax that were collected from areas of the country the army had not been to yet could be brought to the army. Without this supply line the army would have to move slower as they would have to stop to forage or pillage in order to get enough supplies.",
"Historically the size, mobility, and effectiveness of armies was dictated by how good they were at arranging the logistical stuff like that. \n\nIt isn't just food or drink either. A single tank drinks barrels of fuel in a day and can fire hundreds of pounds of munitions in the space of a few minutes. Then there is medical equipment, spare parts, radio and communications gear, etc. etc. etc. Putting a single bullet into the body of an enemy takes thousands of pounds of supplies moving in a highly ordered manner."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7nsime
|
how does wasting electricity actually have a negative impact on the environment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7nsime/eli5_how_does_wasting_electricity_actually_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ds471vb",
"ds472af",
"ds478n2",
"ds49eiz",
"ds4bfi8",
"ds4cgob"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > It's not like the energy you don't waste is stored, from what I know that's impossible.\n\nElectricity doesn't come from nowhere, it needs to be generated which in most cases means burning fossil fuels. If you consume electricity it means the generators must work harder and burn more fuel in order to maintain the standard level of the electricity grid.\n\nIt sounds like you are imagining that the power plants are just pumping out electricity and it is a \"use it or lose it\" type situation. That is not the case. Power plants are generating electricity in order to meet a demand and if you consume less they generate less, using less fuel.",
"When people use less electricity, they reduce the generating activity at the power plant, burning less fuel.",
"Most electricity is generated through the burning of fossil fuels (coal, gas). The more electricity that is needed, the more fuel that is required, which results in more pollution (carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide etc.). By reducing the amount of electricity you are using, there will be a lower demand and less fuel will need to be burned, ultimately resulting in less pollution (and other environmental impacts such as the mining of fuels).\n\n",
" > It's not like the energy you don't waste is stored, from what I know that's impossible. \n\nYou're right that the electricity you don't waste is stored: in fact, it's never generated in the first place! Every light you turn on makes the turbine at the power plant work a little harder, and the power plant burns a little more fuel to keep it running.",
"Controllers keep the generation of electric power equal to the demand. Since wind turbines can be adjusted quickly they are being used to fine tune the supply of electricity. With decreased demand the blades are adjusted to let more wind slip through. With high winds they are turned parallel with the wind to reduce the force on the windmill.\n\nCoal fired power plants producing steam for electric generation take much longer to power up. They are used to supply the base load which always exists. All wasting of energy in a system can be ascribed to the base load and coal is burned to supply it.",
"Power companies feed as much electricity into the grid as is necessary to maintain it at 120V/6-Hz. This requires physical effort.\n\nYou can feel this yourself if you crank over one of those hand operated generators at a science museum. It's easy to rotate until someone switches on a light connected to the circuit. Then the generator becomes significantly harder to turn.\n\nThe same happens with the electrical grid. Every time someone switches on a light, or a TV, or a heater, whatever runs the generators has to work harder to supply the electromagnetic power to keep the grid at 120V.\n\nThis extra work must come from somewhere: wind, solar, nuclear, or fossil fuels."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b5kt88
|
with the apple security campaign going on, how specifically is ios more secure than android?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b5kt88/eli5_with_the_apple_security_campaign_going_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eje8dhp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When it really comes down to it, everything you do on an android device is an interaction that can and will (as we’ve seen in the past) be used by Google to sell you targeted advertising. Like it or not, Apple has designed a model built around personal privacy to the point of not allowing even the US Government a backdoor into an iPhone used by a terrorist. Your interactions with Apple apps are not sold to advertisers. Keep in mind, this assumes you aren’t using third-party apps that may have varying privacy and anonymity standards.\n\nIndeed they make an accurate claim. “What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone”. Think of it this way: Google (who owns Android) provides tons of free services that would normally be very costly and they manage to turn a massive profit. In fact, the operating system and the GApps package that goes with it (Google play, music, etc.) are available to anyone who wants them for absolutely free. The problem is, if it’s free then you are the product. You are a product that Google will milk for ad revenue (through affiliate marketing) that keeps them very profitable.\n\nLastly, the quality control of the AppStore apps is far superior. Permissions are much more restricted for what and how information is collected by developers and you can be sure you’re getting a good product when your purchase your iDevice. Apple policies require app developers to be transparent with what data they want access to and how they want to access it.\n\nI used to be a major proponent of the Android OS and open source software devs, but people will be people and nowadays ad revenue is what makes the world go around. So the next time you see one of those ads, keep in mind that your privacy is one of the most important things you should maintain when you shop for your next smart device.\n\nEDIT: Clarification"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1kzq47
|
how do scientists know what kinds of molecules are in celestial bodies like stars and nebulas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kzq47/eli5_how_do_scientists_know_what_kinds_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbuapti"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They study the light emitted from these bodies. Each element has a distinct emission spectrum and with that data we can assemble a good idea of what a given object it's made of."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bhdjrs
|
why is it easy to read things we're holding up in front of ourselves but not easy to read things other people are holding up in front of us? (like an article on a phone or something)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhdjrs/eli5_why_is_it_easy_to_read_things_were_holding/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elryqyl",
"elryvpr"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We know our best focus point, others don’t; our brain is used to ours hands tremor but not used to the others hands tremor.",
"Because the other person is moving it. It doesn't take much movement. Since it's another person moving it becomes unpredictable and your eyes send to be \"chasing\" and don't properly focus.\n\nIf it's father away (and large enough to read in the first place) it is much easier since movement far away is easier to follow die to math and angles at distance"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3aa3bc
|
if race is a social construct, then why can't people identify as other races?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aa3bc/eli5_if_race_is_a_social_construct_then_why_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csampxo",
"csamrnd",
"csan4di",
"csanmtn",
"csanu75",
"csao6nb",
"csap9vm",
"csapefj",
"csaph8d",
"csapu1o",
"csaq04d",
"csaqbhd",
"csaqbto",
"csaqk88",
"csaqklv",
"csaqp10",
"csaqvg1",
"csaqvl9",
"csar3gw",
"csar6gk",
"csar8ib",
"csarbf8",
"csarjmd",
"csarkhw",
"csarx4a",
"csas30a",
"csasek6",
"csasfbu",
"csasnav",
"csastlv",
"csasuxy",
"csaszwl",
"csat28r",
"csatenx",
"csatkoi",
"csatnr3",
"csatya8",
"csatztm",
"csau569",
"csau5kw"
],
"score": [
661,
56,
139,
23,
42,
32,
6,
185,
11,
13,
19,
4,
10,
25,
7,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
5,
2,
3,
6,
2,
4,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"People absolutely can identify as other races. But since, as you've pointed out, race is a social construct, someone identifying as another race has to navigate the social ramifications of such an identification.",
" > we do it for transgender people.\n\nDo we? Really? I see that some of us claim to want to, but I also think it is pretty difficult for us. I am extremely skeptical of the idea that a transgendered person is genuinely 'thought of' as their selected gender, no strings attached. \n\nI don't see that being a social construct in any way suggests that we are therefore capable of changing that construct at will. ",
"Because with transgendered people, you have their DNA which says A but somewhere in that knot of neurons and chemicals we call a brain, it's functioning to say 'B' instead. And because genders are something of a social construct, we accept when a person says 'biologically I'm A, but my brains was born saying B so I'm going to be a B'.\n\nAs far as science can tell, there's nothing in the brain that goes 'I'm black' that we're born with, only what we learned from our environment and society.\n\nStudies on transgenderism documents that it occurs all over the world, regardless of the local culture. So far, this recent event is the first time we've seen anybody actively identifying as a different race. There's no precedent for this; little to suggest that this isn't just a statistical outlier or, worse, an opportunistic individual.\n\nAnd the cynic in me is willing to bet that if this hadn't involved a young white American girl, this conversation wouldn't be happening. If this was some black immigrant from south africa claiming to identify as a caucasian, nobody would've given it the time of day. \n\nEdit: Also this subject has been asked like a hundred times already. Use the bloody search feature, people!",
"First of all, Rachel Dolezal is *clearly* delusional and narcissistic. \n\nSecondly, sure, you can appreciate and accept a certain race, even more closely empathize with a race, but calling yourself a different race and believing it is an entirely different matter. \n\nEvery ethnicity has a racial identity, or a shared pain. Again using Rachel Dolezal as an example, her parents didn't go through the same shit mine did. Her grandparents didn't, and her great grandparents didn't either. I don't remember a massive group of white slaves being subjugated for centuries, followed by more oppression for another century, followed by continued blatant racism. She inevitably had a totally different life than what I did. \n\nEdit: I would like to add that gender is an individual identity, race is a group identity. That's where *I* make the distinction. I couldn't give less of a fuck what you call or do to yourself, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and you aren't being an asshole. But I *do* draw the line at you saying you're the same as me. You aren't. \n\nYou can't choose to be black, just like you can't choose to be gay. ",
"They can. It's called \"passing\" and has been common ever since race became a thing in the 1600s. However, it requires that others sharing that racial identity accept you as part of it (essentially, a racial Turing test), which usually means having or being able to fake physical characteristics that are endemic to the identity. Rachel Dolezal was able to pass as black for many years before her family outed her. [As many as 1 in 4](_URL_0_) people who would fit the legal definition of \"black\" from old racist legislation have ancestors that were able to pass as white and reap the benefits of the socially advantaged identity group. Some of these people became \"black\" again after the Civil Rights movement. Movement between racial identities is a fairly common occurrence, usually to seek the advantages of an identity that's seen as prestigious. In Dolezal's case, it appears that her passion is in studying black culture and that field is dominated by black scholars. Having that racial identity allows one's work to carry more weight. Thus, it is to her advantage to adopt the identity.\n\nThe idea of being \"transracial\" is a bit of a new development that is pretty specific to Dolezal's case. It involves accepting a person as part of their desired identity even though they failed to \"pass\". This has become a partially accepted practice with gender identity, where if a trans-man fails to pass as a man, he is still accepted by a portion of the community as holding the desired identity (yes, there's more well documented physical processes involved in transexuality, but the social consequences are what matters). ",
"Race isnt a social construct. Being Black means you have a certain genetic make-up filling out a form and playing make believe doesnt change that.",
"Race is a social construct, but it's generally seen as an externally-imposed construct; regardless of whether or not you can \"choose\" their race, the impact of race is about how society treats you.\n\nYou can call yourself any race you like, but society will treat you as whatever race you are seen as, not what you tell them. So, in terms of identity, sure, you can call yourself whatever you like, but you won't have really had that race's experience. ",
"i don't identify as a particular race. people identify me as a particular race. that's why it's a SOCIAL construct.",
"Race is not a social construct, as much as sex is not. All the trans-anything movement is getting out of hand and everybody wants to identify as whatever they want. \n\nI'm a combat chopper, and you should accept me for what I am. ",
"The big problem with someone claiming to be transracial is that race is aligned with ancestral biology including bone structure and skin tone. If someone is white but identifies as black, he or she needs to prove in some way a somewhat recent relative that has the genetic predisposition of black. If someone claimed to live within the African American experience that's completely different. That has to do with ethnicity which is more fluid since it pertains to the nature of shared cultural heritage. \r\rBasically, if a white, Irish child is raised by a black, African American family the child will be more likely to ethnically identify as African American. He's still white and lacks the genetic traits of the black community yet he has lived within the cultural framework of the African American experience.",
"Let’s say there’s an individual that has an ancestor on both sides of the family (paternal and maternal) that is what society would consider as “white”. Now the remainder of this individual’s ancestors are “black”. Although odds were incredibly small, this individual inherited the phenotypical characteristics of those white ancestors. \n\nIs this individual white or black? Is he both or something else entirely?\n",
"Money is a social construct, too. But calling yourself rich doesn't make you rich. Being rich is about how others (such as banks, credit agencies, etc.) treat you because of how they think of you (notably, how much money they think you have), not about how you picture yourself.\n\nSimilarly, college degrees are a social construct, but saying that you identify as a PhD, and putting that on your resume, doesn't make you not a fraud if you don't actually have the degree.\n",
"If someone could explain what a \"social construct\" is without using the terms \"race\" or \"gender\" and explain why anyone should care, I'd be so happy. ",
"It's is *because* race is almost exclusively a social construct that being \"transracial\" doesn't hold the same water as transsexual.\n\nMen's and women's brains are different in modest but clearly distinguishable ways. The brains of transwomen have been found to resemble cis-women's brains on both the structural and functional levels. This gives credence to the notion (and the experience of many individuals) of being \"born in the wrong body.\"\n\nBut race is almost purely a social construct. Besides the amount of melanin in your skin, and some other phenotypical manifestations like nose size, eye shape, mouth shape, etc., race is very insignificant biologically.\n\nThe brains of people of African descent are pretty much indistinguishable from the brains of people of European descent, and this holds true for all races.\n\nThus, while it may be meaningful to say that a person was born with a woman's brain and self-identity but a man's body, it is probably not meaningful to say that a person was born with a black woman's brain but a white woman's body.",
"In my opinion, language. Let me reiterate:\nThe post-modern era has been characterised by the idea that anything is what it declares itself to be. An insignificant creation is art if its creator calls it \"art\", men are \"she\" if they identify as female, women are \"he\" if they identify as male, and you can be an entrepreneur or social media expert if you're basically unemployed and spend way too much time on Facebook. Now, we're examining the same thing for race. Can you be black, for example, if you identify yourself as black? \nDon't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issue with any of these. I can still say \"For an art piece, this looks like crap\" or \"For a woman, she looks too much like a dude\". Now we will be able to say \"For a black person, she and her family are too white\". In the same sense that we have to renegotiate what \"he\" or \"she\" linguistically means, we have to renegotiate what black/white means. That's confusing and people don't like confusion, so they attach any kind of non-linguistic reasoning (e.g. religious/racial/ethnic identity) to a mostly linguistic problem, in order to resist redefining their vocabulary.\nSince this is a new issue, expect a few years until a new definition of \"race\" begins to be discussed, if it ever does.",
"Because your gender is not a social construct; People identify different from the genetic code when they feel like it doesn't reflect them - which is totally cool. But A \"race\" in a social sense if just a useful label that carries no assumptions and has no bearing on your physical being.\n\nI guess if you wanna say you're Asian but you;re not from Asia, it isn't at all damaging to society, but it's kinda stupid.",
"Race isn't entirely a social construct - no idea where idea comes from?\n\nRace includes factors like skin color, body/face shape, hair type/color and other genetic traits you cannot choose or inherit simply from socialising with other people - they will always make someone 'different' however much equality we achieve.\n\nMind you - a great deal of the difference between 'men' and 'women' has no bearing on genetics either. The first thing a man does if he decides to swap gender is put on a make-up and a dress - they're not genetic traits, they're a way of saying \"I am not a man now\" and it's no different to getting a tan and a wig really.\n\nEverything about this is far, far more complicated than it seems - there's so much pre-existing belief and weight-of-history to unpick but I think it's a great topic because it forces people to think outside their usual narrow idea of 'sex' and 'race' and challenge the idea of changing those being different (it's really not - you're making a choice to be something you don't APPEAR to be because you think it will be better for you)\n\nWe can no-more make a woman- > man (or vice versa) than a white person 'black' - any change is simply putting on a disguise to force other people to change their view of you.",
"Social constructs are things people as a whole make up. It isn't really about a singular person - its what that singular person is able to convince other people he/she is. Race, though a \"social construct\", has clear identifiers just because skin color makes it really easy to differentiate between people once you see them. If you can convince me that you're white when you look black to me, good for you. If you can't, then I'll just label you even if you don't label yourself.",
"Race as a social construct came about as a result of the increasing prevalence of interracial individuals. Races are not distinct. A person could be 50% black and 50% white, yet identify as black or white. Likewise, a person may be 25% Hispanic, and legally check the \"Hispanic/Latino\" box on a college application, yet not really see themselves as Hispanic at all. People can't choose their genes, but within certain peoples genetic makeup, race is not clearly defined. It is subjective, hence it is referred to as a social construct.",
"Race is only partly a social construct. Genetics is inherited, as are various racial characteristics. There is some leeway of course, but I think in general you must identify (at least partly) with your genetics.\n\nSex isn't a social construct, but gender is. It's a different scenario than race.",
"Ey yo wassup nigga I'm black now and if you critizice your a mo fucking racist and I will whoop your ass",
"Race refers to physical features while ethnicity is the cultural aspect.\n\nThey are two different things.\n\nThe way you word this is sort of saying I could maybe put on some of those kangaroo stilt shoes that make you jump super high and identify with Jabron Lames.",
"What you're looking for is the difference between race and ethnicity. Ethnicity refers to the cultural upbringing of a person. Race refers generally to the physical characteristics of a person. A person can identify with whatever ethnicity they deem fit, but race is generally determined by how other people see you.\n\nIn a similar way, sex is an anatomical concept, while gender is an identity concept. However, there is one important difference between transgenderism and transethnicity: there is biological evidence for one and not for the other. \n\nIf a white American, say, reads up on Japanese culture and finds it so much more interesting than the culture they were raised with that he decides to cut his hair in a Japanese style, wear traditional Japanese clothing, eat exclusively Japanese food, and consume exclusively Japanese entertainment, that person cannot claim to be Japanese. He simply likes Japanese culture. This is quite different from a person born to white American parents who is adopted by a Japanese couple and lives in Japan all of his life.",
"Race - A socially constructed categorization process that describes phenotype, not genotype. Race changes based on political, economic cultural, and historical events.
No taxonomic significance – We rely on “Folk” Taxonomy \nRacism isn't about individual acts of meanness, it is about structural advantages and disadvantages placed on people based on perceptions of their race; we're all part of the racist system and how do we change it together. Race is not real but the consequences of race are real\nSammy Sosa Black in U.S., Mixed race (Mulatto) in Dominican Republic, White in Haiti, Taino (indigenous) in Puerto Rico, bleached his face white\n\"color blind\" people won't be able to see the effects of discrimination\nPrivilege creates inequality - Black without criminal record not called for job interview vs white with criminal record\nTim Wise Whiteness, Overprivilege, Race not just a people of color \"issue\", Class Conflict and Race, \"White People\" didn't exist until after the 1600s; poor European immigrants became White.\n privilege makes us blind to reality\nRace changes over time - irish were seen as outsiders to whites but now they are assimilated,people's looks don't change but how we look at people changes",
"Race is a real thing. Even long after you're gone, an anthropologist looking at your bones would know what race you were. Your genes are slightly different from race to race as well. \n\nHowever, there is a social component to it as well. \n\nMany people of mixed race will self identify as African American, even if they are as white any European descended person. But African American genes tend to be dominant such that even if a person is 75% European lineage, and 25% African, they will have African features that tend to dominate the European ones. And so it is easier for them to identify as African ancestory. However the woman that all of this hubub is about, is not even distantly related to Africans. She's as European as they come. But she wishes she was African, and cosmetically tries to make herself look African, all the while trying to head an organization that has mostly African American people comprising it, for the advancement of African Americans. That is what people have a problem with. \n\nOf course I think we should have a problem with any organization that tries to advance the agenda of race and excludes others. For instance, a National Association for the Advancement of white people, would be labeled racist. And if a charity was created to predominantly help people of European descent, and almost all of the members were of European descent, to the exclusion of other races, it would also be labeled as racist. \n\nI'm an American with a world view and the thing that Americans don't realize about race, is that the rest of the world has gotten over it. Europeans don't get race relations in the US. By trying so hard to be fair to all races and to not inadvertently offend anybody, we have ironically made America one of the most racially charged countries on the planet. \n\nIf South Africa can get over it and end apartheid and forgive each other, why can't we? ",
"I'm gonna take my personal case to illustrate what this whole social construct thing means when it comes to race:\n\nI'm French but my family originally comes from North Africa so people would call me \"Arab\". It's a broad category that most French people understand. What does that really mean tho?\n\n1) \"Arab\" is a social construct that refers to a specific group of migrant, generally from North Africa with some shared traits. Those shares traits being\n- The religion, it is assumed that they are Muslim\n- The language, it is assumed that they speak Arabic of a dialect of Arabic\nThe concept of \"Arab\" is used to talk about this population because of its idiosyncrasies and alos because it poses unique socio-economic challenges.\n\n\nI was born and raised in France, I speak 7 languages but none of them is Arabic; I'm not a Muslim and I have not been really exposed to the wider culture and belief of Arabs. I'm also very educated and do not belong to a lower social class.\n\n2) So what do people mean in France when they say \"Arab\". Surely, they are referring to something more \"ethnical\".\nProbably, but as far as I know, I am of Berber descent, probably some Roman, Phoenician, Ottoman added into the mix but unlikely to have any significant amount of proper \"Arab\" (from the Arabian peninsula) blood. Actually, the closest people to Berbers as far as I know are the Samis who live in Northern Scandinavia. My genetic ancestry is far more European than what the concept of \"Arab\" would let you guess.\n You see, North Africans, especially those of Muslim descent like to identify as Arabs because culturally it makes sense and because it makes them believe that they may be related to their prophet in some way. \n\nSo the real question is : why is it so important for people to identify with a race in the first place?\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n",
"I saw someone here say that because trans people are caused by a chemical imbalance. Can they not just get treated for a chemical imbalance?",
"In New Zealand we don't use the word *race*; we use the term *ethnic group* instead. The word *race* itself sounds a little racist—or at least politically incorrect—to New Zealand ears.\n\nPeople can definitely identify with whatever ethnic group they choose. Even early in our history, some of the Pākehā (British) settlers lived among the indigenous Māori population, adopted Māori customs and became known as Pākehā-Māori.\n\nWe have seven electoral districts dedicated specifically for Māori, and Māori voters can choose whether to vote in those districts or in the general electoral districts. There is no requirement to have a certain percentage of Māori ancestry, you merely have to state that you are Māori on your registration form.\n",
"they can. They just can't be white and do it. Because that's not a social construct unless they say it is.",
"Because people who like to throw big words around don't want to admit they're confusing race with culture?\n\nRace is made of superficial characteristics, mostly skin tone and facial features. Culture includes the behaviors and sensitivities that matter to a given set of people.\n\nI'm white. My best friend was black, and I spent enough time with his family that I consider them my own surrogate family- that didn't *make* me black, though I grew up with a lot of black *culture*.",
"Popular opinion about race is retarded and it's playing into a lot of feel-good bullshit to make retards happy. Don't listen to the media about race relations, just have your own experiences and don't be a racist, obviously. And no, you can't decide to be a different race. Don't be retarded.",
"You're misunderstanding what a social construct is. Just because something is a social construct, that does not mean it isn't \"real\" or lack any true power. In fact, it's a very powerful force that comes with (mis)understandings, expectations, and roles to fulfill. Something being a social construct does not mean that it is any less *real* to the people who are experiencing its implications. That said, it's not something you have any personal power to change or alter. It is a *social* construct, so only *society* can change it. You are powerless to subvert this fundamental attribute which society has implanted in each of us. That doesn't mean you have to subscribe to the bias and ignorance that comes with racial identities, in fact, you can withdraw from society altogether if you prefer. But the main point is that something being a social construct doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't real, it is very real and concrete and because of this you can't arbitrarily change it because you feel like it.",
"It's not. Are dog breeds a social construct? Did people's perception of me cause me to grow a penis? It's complete lunacy, and I for one am glad these idiots are eating themselves alive over this. It was inevitable.",
"So at what point are people with specific religious beliefs permitted to define themselves as being of a specific race?",
"You can identify as a dragon or as pluto (there are tumblr blogs where people have done this). You can identify as w/e you want. \n\nDoesn't mean society has to see you that way. Doesn't matter if it offends you. You don't have the right to not be offended, contrary to what some people think.",
"Race, as near as I can tell is a matter of skin pigmentation for the most part. It pretty much begins and ends there. There are cultural differences, but a white kid from Harlem is still white, and a black guy from suburban Connecticut is still black. \nIMHO (and I can't stress that enough, it's just my opinion) A white person cannot identify as black because there is no \"correct\" way to *be* black (or vica versa). Take Neil Degrasse Tyson Vs. Mike Tyson, for example; these are two very very different people, both of them are African American. \nIMHO (again) You'd have to seriously buy into a lot of racial stereotypes to \"Identify\" as another race. \nIf you identify with another culture, great! Just remember: appreciate, don't appropriate. ",
"You can identify as the Queen of Sweden if you like, but most reasonable people will just think you're an attention-seeking dumbass.",
"Is a concerted effort being made to divorce our intellects from the verifiable truth? Can you really just claim to 'identify' as anything you want, even when all evidence points to you not being what you claim to be, and anyone who questions you is a callous prick? The implications of this trans-this and trans-that movement are kinda frightening.",
"How is race a social construct? It's a natural construct",
"Not a single argument in this thread has convinced me that transracial is any different than transgender in terms of how people can identify themselves. \n\nI don't think being transgender is fine because of some complicated social vs biological construct argument. I think it's fine, because I don't care what other people do. Whatever makes you happy, go for it. \n\nMaybe I'm just being a naive straight white male...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.voxeu.org/article/race-choice"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199377/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
15fxq0
|
what is html?
|
thank you everyone
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15fxq0/eli5_what_is_html/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7m3ltp",
"c7m4et1"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"HTML is hyper-text markup language. Every webpage you see is a hypertext document. A normal text document is just text- but a hypertext document can include images and formatting. HTML is what's behind the scenes of a hypertext document(on chrome or firefox you can right click and select 'view source' which will show you the raw HTML).\n\n HTML uses 'tags' to markup(format) the text. A tag looks like this : < example tag > and will apply the effect of the tag to all the text after until a 'close tag' is applied: < /example tag > .\n\n| Tag | Result |\n| ------ | -----: |\n| < b > Hello < /b > | **Hello** |\n| < i > Hello < /i > | *Hello* |\n| < a href= \"_URL_0_\" > Hello < /a > | [Hello](http://_URL_0_)|\n\nTLDR HTML is what goes on behind the scenes\nEdit: fuck tables.",
"HTML is a language designed to describe what a web page looks like.\n\nIt looks as follows:\n\n & lt;b > this text becomes bold & lt;/b > \n\n & lt;a href='_URL_0_ text links to google & lt;/a > \n\nIf you use chrome, you can see a page's HTML code by right-clicking and 'inspect element'"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"reddit.com",
"http://reddit.com"
],
[
"http://www.google.com'>this"
]
] |
|
6y031m
|
what actually causes genetic issues if breeding pair are for example siblings?
|
i guess we've all seen the whole 'little hickville town with mutated villagers' horror scenes in series and movies. would human beings (or other mammals) actually mutate into barely recognizable as humans like that if for example siblings had babies together for several generations?
from the very little i've read, i just came to the conclusion that inherited health issues would be more likely to manifest themselves but beyond that and the whole social stigma thing the offspring would be relatively normal. if i'm wrong, what causes it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y031m/eli5_what_actually_causes_genetic_issues_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmjoij4",
"dmjoknz",
"dmjop9r",
"dmjoqjz",
"dmjq7sv",
"dmjrbnu",
"dmjx4dm",
"dmkbzoc"
],
"score": [
68,
24,
3,
6,
7,
77,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's due to a lack of genetic diversity, which results in recessive or unusual traits being expressed more strongly over time. \n\nLet's say the two siblings both carry a gene that, if fully expressed, causes an extra toe to form on the foot during embryo development. Neither sibling has the gene expressed, but if they breed, their offspring has a decent chance of inheriting that gene from *both* its parents, and it may be expressed.\n\nIf you then follow that further down the genetic line, and the sons and daughters of the original breeding pair also breed with each other and their parents, the gene expression becomes stronger and stronger, until you end up with many of the resultant offpsring expressing the gene.",
"One of the key factors is recessive genetics.\n\nLet's say your grandfather carried a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia. He, just by sheer luck, passed it onto his children, one male and one female (I don't know if Sickle-Cell is on the sex chromosome or not, but assume it doesn't for the example.)\n\nThose children get together with each other and have children. Because they are both carriers, there is a 25% chance that a child born of their union has Sickle-Cell, and a 50% chance that they will be a carrier.\n\nThe more children that are made and the more they breed incestuously, the more the negative genes can propagate.\n\nAdd in the factor that healthy members of such a family might leave the family, while unhealthy members might be \"stuck\" with each other, and after a few generations, [negative traits can be magnified...](_URL_0_)",
"We both carry two sets of genes -- one from mom and one from dad. It's common for either set to carry a defective gene but as long as the other set had a normal functioning gene, the disease doesn't manifest. This is known as a recessive disease. An example is cystic fibrosis. We all carry defective genes but most of the time the genes cover for each other. I.e. mom's defective gene is matched with dad's functioning gene and vice versa. Consanguineous children (children with parents that are blood related) are more likely to have recessive illness because both parents are likely to have similar genes and can't cover for each other.",
"To answer your question though, no, it is unlikley you'd get some super weird mutations. Just more likely that bad genes that have been passed down actually manifest",
"From what I have learned in biology mutations, good or bad, mostly start as recessive alleles so a smaller gene pool is more likely to show mutations faster. This could also be a good thing if a species is dying and a mutation gives it a valuable adaption to the surroundings. In a healthy population this process would take way longer. On the other hand this mutations can be and most often are negative or useless or at least considered unattractive to the species (four legs can be a great thing but a mate would be hard to find) alongside other negative effects already listed here. ",
"Our DNA has redundancy built in: it comes in two halves.\n\nEach half can potentially bear faulty copies of a bunch of genes - but so long as there's a working copy in the other half, you're fine. \n\nThink of two pieces of paper, each with a random set of holes in it. Put them together, and so long as none of the holes line up, you effectively have a complete sheet. \n\nWhen two organisms breed, they take half the DNA from each parent - one sheet of paper each in this analogy.\n\nIf the two parents are only very distantly related, it's a pretty good bet that they'll have few or no faulty genes in common - any holes they have will likely be in completely different places, and so won't line up. \n\nIf the two parents are very closely related, however, those two pieces of paper will have a very similar pattern of holes, so at least some of them will very likely line up, and the offspring will get two broken copies of the gene. If they're lucky, this doesn't make a whole lot of difference.... but if they're not, really important stuff can get fucked up.",
"I haven't seen any mention of x-linked traits specifically, which is important. You see a lot of issues inherited nearly solely by men for this reason; that is, women have two x (xx) and men have one x (xy). Let's say you inherited a faulty gene on your x chromosome that results in colorblindness. If you are male, this is your only copy of the x chromosome, and you're screwed, and are surely colorblind. But if you're female, you have two x chromosomes, and chances are that the 2nd x doesn't also carry that faulty gene; therefore, your healthy x chromosome has the chance to \"win\" out in your phenotype, and you can see colors just fine. You'd have to have two of the same faulty gene on both of your x chromosomes to have the colorblindness. Hence, colorblindness is an almost-exclusively male problem, as are other x-linked traits. \n\nBack to your query -- the chance of inheriting a bad x (or two!) increases if you're dipping from the same overused gene pool that already contains them.",
"From the sociological standpoint, part of the reason the taboo cropped up in the first place is because incest can be a recurring problem.\n\nGenetic deformities and conditions are more likely to crop up over time if siblings keep procreating with siblings, and that's more likely to happen in small breeding pools - such very small and geographically isolated communities. (The other historical example is certain classes of nobility, which 'in-bred' more over time, making them another example of a small and stagnant breeding pool.)\n\nThe taboo against incest is a social mechanism to defend against the 'physical' circumstances that so easily and frequently predispose a community towards incest.\n\nThe 'easily and frequently' part is also important when it comes to taboo. There are other things which can increase the likelihood of a child being born with birth defects, such as having a child when you are significantly older. But, historically, this was something that rarely happened, and even when it did, it rarely happened multiple times in a row. Things that led to a pair of siblings having kids with each other have historically also predisposed *their* children to fuck each other and have incestuous children together. But it was unlikely for the children of a significantly older couple to also hold off procreation until they're older, and for *their* children to do so again.\n\nOthers have explained the genetic process by which incest increases the likelihood of birth defect and how recurring incest can compound that defect over time. A taboo is a social mechanism to prevent (or try to prevent) these defects from happening in the first place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://imgur.com/A24P5lu"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6swusl
|
what was considered "junk food" in ancient times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6swusl/eli5_what_was_considered_junk_food_in_ancient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlg5pnt",
"dlg9byj",
"dlga20h",
"dlghczm"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
14,
9
],
"text": [
"For most of human history up until about 200 years ago food was hard to obtain and famine was common. Even in the \"developed\" world. As such there was no such thing as \"junk food\", all food was precious and needed. ",
"If you examine the difference between junk/fast food menu items and a balance diet, a significant lack of dietary fiber appears.\n\nFood prep in ancient times started with open fire, then boiling or stewing. Anything that was peeled or removed of its skin/husk, or a diet high in mostly meat where not much plant matter grows like colder climates would resemble modern day fast food somewhat.\n\nFast food is designed to be fast, anything slowing down prep and cook is not part of the plan. It also makes it slightly heavier increasing transport costs, I wouldn't be surprised to see most of the processing done as close as possible to the fields it comes from.",
"Garum was added to dishes in Roman food to make it a bit more tasty, it's essentially fish guts and salt mixed in a brine. It still had some good nutritional value, but mainly was added for the flavour, similarly to how we'd use condiments today. \n\nBut there's not much we'd consider junk food today, but there were delicacies that had a similar effect of excitement, a rare treat on special occasions. Fresh fruit was expensive in many areas in antiquity, as it didn't store well so it was hard to transfer and Farmers preferred foods with long term and multiple usages (grains, olives, with grapes being the exception, but those were primarily used for wine and a necessity often due to the state of the drinking water.) \n\nMeat from larger animals was expensive and a really extensive process was required before you were allowed to eat it (giving it up the gods, enduring the animal was pure, etc.) Sea food really depended on where and what with no directly reasonable pattern for differences in what the poor ate and what the wealthy did. \n\nAs empires were built, rare meats and such from other territories could be brought in for the wealthy. \n\n",
"Junk food is really the result of our modern ability to process food down to very calorie dense ingredients (like white flour, refined sugar, oils, etc) then very cheaply recombine them into highly calorie dense products without any fiber, little water, and few nutrients allowing anyone to inexpensively eat *lots* of calories before they feel full. \n\nThat's hard to find in ancient times because they didn't have oil/natural gas to supply massive amounts of energy to everyone. So the few products that are similar to junk food today required lots of labor (and was delicacy enjoyed only by the very important) or occasional products where we use something else's labor (think honey, cream, or some alcoholic beverages--though many of these were watered down). These still tended to be quite expensive. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
59vdn3
|
for over the counter medication, why do they sometimes put blank spots on those sheets of tearable plastic tablet containers?
|
This is what I'm talking about in reference to tearable plastic containers in case you're confused:
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59vdn3/eli5_for_over_the_counter_medication_why_do_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9bm10h",
"d9bnmam"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"the machinery to put the tablets into those blister packs is desined to work with a specific size of package. to switch the sitze you could buy an other machine or spend some time changeing several parts on the machine each time you switch. Or you could simply let some of those bubles be empty or not be there in the first place.",
"Sometimes they're trying to get a specific count. For example, Omeprazole is often recommended for a two week regimen. So it's packaged in a 5x3 grid with one spot open. \n\nOn the other hand, drugs taken for chronic conditions such as allergy medicines might be packaged to fill out the entire grid. Unless they're restricted by law, such as pseudoephedrine. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Risperdal_tablets.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6i5x4o
|
why are we able to distinguish wether or not someone is attractive, but we can't with ourselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6i5x4o/eli5_why_are_we_able_to_distinguish_wether_or_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj3ow77",
"dj3pda8"
],
"score": [
7,
18
],
"text": [
"We can. If you're hot you more than likely can see it and if you're ugly you're in denial. ",
"The answer to this is very similar to the reason people who grow up surrounded by one race of people will commonly think other races \"all look alike\" or why a chess grandmaster will beat me 100% of the time. When we are more familiar with something, we are able to notice small details about it. A small freckle on the side of the nose, maybe some extremely mild asymmetry. Whatever it is, in this day and age with mirrors and photos and selfies everywhere we are very familiar with our own faces, since we have been looking at them for so long, so we are aware of any tiny little flaw we may have.\n\nAnother reason is that we generally don't like to hurt others feelings, so if we see a tiny flaw on somebody else we'll ignore it and not say anything, after all they are still good looking and such a small flaw doesn't really mean anything. With ourselves though we can't \"not say anything\" to ourselves when we think things, and thinking those negative thinks about self-perceived flaws will take it's toll eventually on our own self-image."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
28ec9i
|
how do electric toothbrushes charge with plastic on plastic pieces?
|
And they're water proof! Mind blowing!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28ec9i/eli5_how_do_electric_toothbrushes_charge_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cia3gzk",
"cia3i3c"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Inductive charging](_URL_0_). Much like in a transformer, the charging station creates an electromagnetic field. The toothbrush then converts that back to electrical current.",
"_URL_0_\n\nBasically electromagnetic fields transferring energy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging"
]
] |
|
f8jf93
|
why is it that when a video is sent from android to iphone and vice versa, the quality is extremely reduced?
|
It's always seemed weird to me that photos seem to be the same quality as the original (or very close) when sending to and from the same devices. Thank you in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f8jf93/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_a_video_is_sent_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"filrk67",
"filt49i",
"filwz9e",
"fimd55s",
"fimpwjy",
"fiopocs"
],
"score": [
12,
15,
115,
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's probably more about protocol than device. For instance, when texting between iOS and Android, you have to go through SMS or MMS, and those systems probably compress images significantly.",
"Is there any way to combat this? I've had this problem ever since I got the galaxy 10",
"When you send a picture or video cross-platform it has to send through MMS which typically has a limit of 1MB. Generally a photo is going to be around 3MB so it'll have to compress to a third of is size to reach that limit, a ten second 1080p video can fall around 30MB so it'll have to compress to being a thirtieth of it's size to hit that same limit.\n\n(These file sizes I'm using aren't going to be exactly the same for every phone but are what I got from my phone and settings.)",
"What are you using to send those videos?",
"The way around this (if sending from an Android phone) is to open Google Photos, find the file you want to share, click the share icon, and choose \"copy link\". Send that link via a text message. \n\nWhen the recipient receives the message they will get a link to a full resolution picture or video.",
"That's so crazy I was just wondering this yesterday and then this popped up as a notification today"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
670eam
|
how do we sweat, and what keeps us from leaking blood?
|
I mean if our skin is watertight then how do we sweat, and if it's not watertight, then what keeps us from leaking blood through pores?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/670eam/eli5_how_do_we_sweat_and_what_keeps_us_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgmpav0",
"dgnb2kn"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Skin isn't watertight. You can absorb lotion through your skin, right?\n\nSweat leaks out through pores, not just anywhere in the skin. These glands take water out of the bloodstream (and other fluids) and excrete them onto the skin.\n\nBlood is not a single substance. It's a mixture of water, some vitamins, platelets, and cells. Your blood vessels can leak water if the body needs it to, but the cells and platelets shouldn't be leaking out. This is like how coffee filter paper can leak water and coffee, but not grounds.",
"In addition to what others have said, blood is kept in vessels by a balance between Starling forces; hydrostatic and oncotic pressures.\n\nCapillary Hydrostatic pressure is the pressure pushing blood to exit your vessels - it's essentially your blood pressure.\n\nCapillary Oncotic pressure is a force exerted by the proteins in your blood which draws the fluid into the vessels. \n\nIf the oncotic pressure is higher than the hydrostatic pressure, then fluid will tend towards staying in your vessels rather than leaking out, and vice versa. So ultimately you don't have mass amounts of fluid leaking out of vessels because this balance keeps that from happening. When the balance is thrown off, you get what's called oedema, which is when your body tissue swells due to the fluid sitting in it which would normally be in the blood vessels."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4d7px4
|
why is rail travel in the u.s. so terrible? amtrak costs more, takes longer, and is less safe than air travel. why?
|
For distance trips i.e. New Orleans to Chicago, Amtrack costs hundreds of dollars more than a plane ticket. Even though the train trip is like 14 hours longer.
At the same time, their safety record is terrible.
ELI5 why do we such SO BAD at rail travel? Why is travel by rail expensive, inneficient, and dangerous?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d7px4/eli5_why_is_rail_travel_in_the_us_so_terrible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1og6gn",
"d1ogjor",
"d1ojwg6",
"d1ojyaw",
"d1ombx3",
"d1on7u8",
"d1oo8hf",
"d1ooum7",
"d1op0ru",
"d1oqsmi",
"d1ornuo",
"d1otx9e",
"d1ozx2i",
"d1p6mqo",
"d1pp23w"
],
"score": [
490,
65,
35,
66,
268,
5,
4,
4,
7,
7,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"My time to shiiiine!\n\nLogistics major here:\n\nThe reason rail is horrible is because they've been regulated into an oligopoly . So there's a few Class 1 Rail systems in existence that control the market and can effectively hold the prices hostage at a point. \n\nTheir bigger draw in funds is shipping, but they're getting beat by the motor carrier industry right now. They also get government subsidies, so technically, what you're paying isn't even the whole bill.\n\nThey have a large fixed cost in fuel and labor as well, so they'll tell you that all prices are fair for their market - but their market is so skewed because of the lopsidedness of it. \n\nThere's been a push to get it re-regulated, but it's fought over because the last time it was regulated it was regulated almost to the point that there was hardly any competition left. \n\nI hope this answers your question.",
"It's mostly a function of population density. The US is very large, and has it's population spread out far more than Europe does. There are only 8 states with more population density than the European Union (and only five small states with the population density of the UK or Germany). That means it's very hard for private passenger rail to make enough money to survive. \n\nSo US rail must operate with substantial government support, and with congressional support comes congressional requirements. Since the majority of congress comes from low population density states, Amtrak is required to run lots of very expensive service to low population density states as a condition to getting their government support, the cost of providing this service raises the price across all of Amtrak's service dramatically. It also means they need to reduce costs elsewhere as much as possible which means safety is one of the easier places to covertly cut costs. ",
"Because we aren't willing to put the money into building a real high-speed infrastructure.\n\nThe main argument against rail in the US is that because the country is so big and empty, rail travel in most of the country is not economical. But even in the places where this isn't true - e.g., Boston-NYC, NYC-Philly, Philly-DC, we don't invest the money to create a true high-speed system.\n\nAmtrak's high speed trains - the Acela - are slow as shit by world standards. It tops out at about 150, and in the Philly-Boston run (which I take frequently) it spends *very* little time at its max speed, averaging about 75 mph. This is less than half the average speed of the TGV, Eurostar, ICE, Thalys, etc. The end result is that Acela takes 6 hours to get from Philly to Boston, which is only one hour less than the regular train!\n\nThis is all because we don't invest the money to build a dedicated, Amtrak-only high speed rail system. It would take billions in purchasing properties for the right of way, eliminating level-crossings through over/under-passes (think about how densely populated the NYC metro area is), and the US isn't willing to commit that. As a result, Amtrak, even its \"high-speed\" line, is using rails frequently owned by the freight companies. I can't count how many times my train has been delayed by 15 minutes, and that delay causes us to lose our slot on the rail, and we end up going 20 miles an hour (for many hours) stuck behind a CSX train.\n\nAccording to [this](_URL_0_) blog, citing Congressional numbers, we subsidize Amtrak about $1 billion annually. For comparison, we subsidize the cost of driving (through the federal highway bill) to the tune of ~$12 billion annually.\n\nUltimately, we have the money in the US to build a world-class high-speed rail system. We're just spending that money on roads right now.",
"Rail used to be very good, and the railroads had a monopoly on transport. After WW2, President Eisenhower started building the interstate highway system. He wanted to be able to move troops and equipment around the country if there were a war (supposedly after being frustrated by how hard it was to move an army around Europe.) \nThis was a time of growing prosperity for Americans, so they could afford to buy cars in large numbers. People could easily travel across these fabulous, brand-new highways in individual cars and no longer wanted passenger rail. Also, the new highways allowed the rise of the trucking industry for moving good around. \nThe government was fine with trucking taking away a lot of rail business because they felt the rail industry had been too powerful. They felt no need to seriously subsidize the rail industry to keep it viable. Yes, there are some subsidies, but they are modest. \nBy contrast, European governments heavily subsidize rail and even air travel. This has ensured that rail travel, at least, is far superior in Europe to how it is in the U.S. Sadly, if you ask me, since I love to travel by train. ",
"One reason is because we prioritize freight rail. The US ships more by rail than anywhere else on earth and is fairly good at it. This means most rail runs of the schedule of freight not passenger, which can severely hinder passenger travel. ",
"See also [these previous posts on the same topic.](_URL_0_)",
"In 1950, in anticipation of a crippling strike by railroad workers, President Harry S. Truman issues an executive order putting America’s railroads under the control of the U.S. Army, as of August 27, at 4:00 pm\n\nHe had just ordered American troops into a war against North Korean communist forces in June. Since much of America’s economic and defense infrastructure was dependent upon the smooth functioning of the railroads, the 1950 strike proposed by two enormous labor organizations, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Order of Railway Conductors, posed a significant threat. In July, Truman ordered the formation of an emergency board to negotiate a settlement between the railroad unions and owners. The unions ultimately rejected the board’s recommendations and, by August 25, seemed determined to carry out the strike.\n\nIn a public statement that day, Truman insisted that “governmental seizure [of the railroads] is imperative” for the protection of American citizens as well as “essential to the national defense and security of the Nation.” He used the same justification for seizing control of steel plants when the United Steel Workers union struck later in the year.\n\nWith this and other observations and rationale, Eisenhower pushed the Federal Highway Bill to help decrease America's rail dependency. \n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n",
"The problems with Amtrak are mostly due to choices that were made by Congress to deal with successive crises involving rail transportation. It's a pretty complex issue and it reveals a lot about people's politics and ideas about government services and involvement in the private market. As those ideas have calcified in the last few decades, Amtrak's situation has kind of stalled in a no-man's land and hasn't been resolved, so it muddles on as best it can.\nRailroads have always depended on heavy government subsidy and regulation. In the early days of rail private companies were granted huge areas of land to build, or to sell and reinvest in building rail lines across the US. As rail developed it became clear that maintaining different redundant track systems was inefficient so rail devolved into an oligopoly, essentially where it is now, where 4 or 5 providers have different markets and geographical regions. Government regulations eventually developed and protected customers from being price gouged, and also protected passenger lines from being disrupted by freight shipments, as they were usually less profitable.\nIn the 60's and 70's rail faced a crisis and wanted to consolidate and rid themselves of having to maintain unprofitable passenger service, that they were required by law to maintain from previous mergers. Eventually a compromise was reached to establish Amtrak, a national rail system, to replace the vestiges of the old services, and simultaneously restructure freight rail. There were a couple of really unsteady pillars of the compromise. First was that Amtrak was expected as a public interest to provide national service in a way that would require annual subsidy, but was also expected to be profitable within a vague time period. The second was that Amtrak would use freight lines and would be granted accommodation, but that they would not own exclusive lines (with the exception of the Northeast Corridor), and would not be capitalized to make upgrades to lines they did not own. So in other words, they were expected to operate like a private company, but had neither the investment power, nor management decision capability to actually operate as one.\nEventually Congress lifted the profitability expectation. And prudent investment over the years has made the Northeast Corridor services pretty efficient and competitive but Amtrak nationally has suffered under the mixed expectations from Congress and is pretty powerless to either force better service and investment by the rail companies whose lines they use. They are now using rail stock that is 20 years past its expected use, on tracks that are so poorly maintained that it limits speed to a paltry 45 mph at best. They have enough passengers to justify their existence by and large but can't improve service to make it more competitive.\nSo solutions are to either lift the national service requirement and start at square one with a private entity putting up billions of dollars to build a purpose built national rail system. For sake of perspective this has never been done in the worldwide history of transportation, there has always a government stake. Or the government could step up its commitment to Amtrak and to national rail and to incrementally step up its network. This would cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. \n\nTLDR: For the past 40 years there have been major structurally unanswered questions about investment in Amtrak and these have led to deteriorating networks in all but a small area of the country. ",
"Amtrak Is a lot more fun and a lot more interesting that air travel. Don't care if it costs more or takes longer. And the 'danger' is still low compared to driving.\n\nI guess Amtrak could simulate air travel if they got honest to god real cattle cars and put the passengers in with the cows.",
"All the US passenger rail lines were built mainly in the late 1800s and first part of the 1900s - so they are all engineered to handle slower speeds (High-speed rail goes faster, which means less sharp curves). In the 1950s, the US invested heavily in highways; combined with the rise of airplanes, travel by rail suffered and the private rail companies started to go bankrupt.\n\nThe US put the remaining rail companies in one private company, Amtrak. But while in the rest of the world, the governments were investing in faster, better rail and high speed rail (which first ran in the 1960s), the US just spent enough to keep some of its existing lines going. Worse, the US required Amtrak to run very unprofitable routes (so local Congressmen could still say the train ran through their district). So anywhere Amtrak made money, it had to subsidize these bad routes. \n\nNow, Amtrak has to share track with (profitable, private) rail freight companies and has no HSR investment because Congress would have to approve it, and Republicans don't like spending on rail. To be fair, people from both parties failed to spend on rail for a long time. But today, supporting rail and transit is seen as 'liberal' so Republicans oppose it, and killed a few HSR lines that Obama tried to jumpstart. China built a giant HSR network in a decade because it committed to it. The US could do that too - but Congress chooses not to. \n\nTL,DR: The US never invested in the high speed inter-city lines that other countries decided to build. All about choice. ",
"No one here is talking about the Car and Oil companies. As a way to make consumers feel the need to buy cars and use them; major car manufacturers and oil companies bought up many railroads across the country and destroyed them. While this happened mostly in cities with trollies; this was also big in major consumer railroad tracks from cities to cities across the country.",
"Ok. Here's the real deal. The US has the exact opposite of the rail systems in Europe. Euroland has fantastic passenger service (thanks to huge subsides), and terrible freight service. That said, the US has amazing freight service, but terrible passenger service. Why is this so? Euroland is more compact than the continental US. Basically, they have an (extended) inter-city system. And it works. The US is bit more spread out. With the exception of the north-east Corridor (read: DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston), where it is economical and convenient. Amtrak is a complete joke. Oops, let me correct myself. I once took an Amtrak train from Sacramento to San Francisco, THAT seemed pretty popular. I also understand that the line all the way down to Los Angeles is pretty popular. But here, reality steps in. The US is kinda big. And the rail lines are owned by railroads that are interested in FREIGHT! That's where the money is. Passenger trains take a back seat to freight trains on the lines. Passenger trains WAIT. Sometimes for a long time. Freight trains take priority. Passenger trains wait. A lot. Furthermore, Amtrak is a quasi-governmental agency. Their trains run through 8 billion congressional districts. Ask your local congressman why service is going to be stopped in your little town, that handles about two passengers a day, and he will freak. I am doing this from memory, but I believe there is a train that runs from Florida to the west coast. It takes about a week. If you are lucky. The trains HAVE to stop at every little town on the way. And again, they have to wait on the big freight trains for right of way. Please don't misunderstand me, I love traveling by train. Trains are fantastic. Trains are civilized. Trains are efficient. Unfortunately, in the US, most passenger trains are run by the government. And THAT is never good. BTW... it costs a bunch more to buy a train ticket then a plane ticket. And furthermore, the taxpayers are being sucked dry to keep this racket going. ",
"Trains are stupid for long distances like New Orleans to Chicago.\nThe only place they make sense in the US is in the northeast. Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington DC, all within ~600 km.",
"The European and Asian railroads are are government owned and subsidized. All the passenger rail services in Europe lose hordes of money and have massive government subsides to keep running at the level they are at.",
"In regards to the current rail industry in this country, a lot of it stems from the old-school priority on freight. You have to remember that AMTRAK owns very little of the right-of-way they use - most of it is leased from freight companies. Therefore, they are at the mercy of maintenance outages, lease prices, and freight schedules. With how little demand there is and how empty their trains are, they demand extremely high ticket prices to recoup these costs. If you look at AMTRAK's most popular routes (Northeast Corridor, AutoTrain, etc) the prices are much, much lower on a dollar-per-mile basis. Also, the long-distance trips are niche markets since our local infrastructure was built around automobiles and our country is large enough that we've developed a really good airline system. We have, arguably, one of the most advanced highway systems in the world and some of the densest airspace on the planet. Cities are built with priority given to cars and mass transit is a distant second. That yields a few problems when it comes to rail travel:\n\n1) Right-of-Way: High-speed trains CANNOT run on current railroad infrastructure due to curvature, grade, and construction limitations (since most of it is freight-ready). Additionally, any railroads in and around metropolitan areas are/were be built around existing roads and buildings. This prevents \"shortest-route\" branches and the geometric layout can often result in lower maximum speeds.\n\n2) Safety: True high-speed rail ( > 150MPH) cannot have grade crossings for safety reasons. With how densely the land is used near cities, this would necessitate a huge investment in bridges and tunnels, which is not worth it with how little use of rail there is.\n\n3) Power: The existing rail infrastructure we do have is almost all diesel-powered. The investment and time needed to convert this all to electric power is prohibitive.\n\nLet's take these issues and consider a theoretical new rail line between two large cities with established infrastructure, but you've taken care of powering the tracks and removing ALL grade crossings along the route. Ill using speeds typical of the NYC area. Since the trains will have to run on existing right-of-way within each city limits, you have the option of either running slowly for the beginning and end of each trip to the city center, or building a remote station outside city limits. Let's assume you opt for the former to avoid requiring passengers to take another train or get a car to the city. Let's also assume that your line is 300 miles and you have a train capable of 200MPH, with no intermediate stops. The train leaves City A at 2PM and must run the first 10 miles at 30MPH to get out of the congested city center. It can then run the next 20 miles at 60MPH until it's outside the range of commuter rail. It then has a 240-mile stretch of high speed, which takes 1hr12min. It has to slow to 60MPH for 20 miles near City B and then 30MPH for the last ten miles before arriving. Total trip time would be 2hr32min instead of a 1hr30min estimation you could make via \"a 200MPH train goes 300 miles in 90 minutes.\"\n\nNow, if you opted for remote stations outside city limits, the trip time could be closer to the 90 minute theoretical. However, you'd need additional train lines or vehicular access to get into and out of each city, which can easily add the extra hour we saw from running directly between city centers.\n\nThis is the inherent problem of integrating new high-speed rail in existing infrastructure. Europe was built around trains so it has been much more practical for them to expand their systems. They have less dense populations and infrastructure. For short trips (think work commuters) our rail prices are actually quite low compared to Europe and Asia. For distance travel, the prices are comparable - it's the performance that lags behind.\n\nSOURCE: I am a transit systems engineer in the USA."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/09/21/reminder-amtrak-subsidies-pale-in-comparison-to-highway-subsidies/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?sort=relevance&t=all&q=subreddit:explainlikeimfive%20why%20amtrak"
],
[
"http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-orders-army-to-seize-control-of-railroads"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3zoyww
|
the rules about usage of people's faces on tv in news and documentaries.
|
So I am watching a BBC documentary and and dawns on me a lot of the people in this TV program really have no idea that they are being filmed. The presenter is simply walking through London talking about this and that and people are oblivious that there is a camera right there and now they are TV to be seen by millions.
Later the presenter walked by a lady and her face was blurred out. Did she ask for that? What about all those other unaware people? How is fare to them to show their face without them knowing. There is noway they got consent forms for the thousands of rando's that show up in this documentary.
How does this differ in the US and UK? What about programs like Jack Ass or Cops where half the peoples faces are blurred out.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zoyww/eli5_the_rules_about_usage_of_peoples_faces_on_tv/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cynuznc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There is no legal expectation of privacy in a public place, so the TV can film whoever they want as long as its on the street, or in a public park.\n\nOn private land it's a different matter, so if you are filming in a mall or bar or office you will need to get consent forms for everyone in shot who could by identified.\n\nOne exception to the public rule would be if appearing in shot could implicate or taint that individuals reputation, which could lead the film crew open to accusations of slander or libel - so blurring would also be used there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2jn9vo
|
why is my flight from buffalo, ny to vancouver, bc, which stops in chicago then toronto, $200 cheaper than just the toronto to vancouver flight?
|
I have booked a ski trip this February and I was looking for the cheapest flights with easiest travel times for my buddy and I.
Booked: Buffalo thru Chicago and Toronto to Vancouver. Leaves at 6am EST and arrives in Vancouver at 3pm PST (12 hrs of travel and 2 connections). $600 each, round trip.
Not Booked: Toronto to Vancouver (same flight as listed above), leaves at 12:30pm EST and arrives in Vancouver at 3pm PST (5.5 hrs of travel). $800 each.
WHY!?!
Note: A road trip from Buffalo to Toronto is about 2 hrs.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jn9vo/eli5_why_is_my_flight_from_buffalo_ny_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cld9fru"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Airline pricing schemes are incredibly complicated, and frankly, a hundred things could be different which is affecting the price of these tickets, competition, fare class, fuel, airport costs, winds, predicted load(s), times, occupancy rates, follow on connections, business passenger rate to economy rate, etc.\n\nIt's too difficult to give a reasons unless we have access to internal pricing schemes. There is a reason, it may not benefit you or make sense for you to have to make a connection to get a cheaper flight, but it makes sense to those who price and plane the routes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bbbuw1
|
what qualifies a prison as maximum security and how does that differ from a "regular" prison?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbbuw1/eli5_what_qualifies_a_prison_as_maximum_security/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekhqy3a",
"ekhqzq6"
],
"score": [
2,
11
],
"text": [
"In maximum security prisons, the prisoners spend most of their time separated into very small numbers, like in cells of 2 to 4 people. And the anti-escape features are stronger, with high walls, potentially lethal electric fences, and guards ordered to shoot to kill.",
"True Maximum Security means lots of compartmentalization of prisoners, and a very high guard-to-prison ratio. These facilities are for housing dangerous and long-term inmates, or those that are deemed a flight/escape risk. \n\nThe compartmentalization is for riot control. Should the guards lose control of a wing, they can lockdown a chunk of the prison until help can be brought in. Everything is made of extra-hard reinforced concrete with sensors and cameras everywhere to prevent digging and escape routes. Guards inspect the shit out of everything coming in and out. \n\nThat's really expensive. You'll end up needing nearly 1:1 of staff vs prisoners for that facility. Especially when you consider that most most prisoners are just serving 4-5 year sentences and just want to do their time without causing trouble. \n\nFor about half the price-per-prisoner you can throw up some chain link fences and cameras around some pre-engineered buildings in an open field and not lose a single prisoner. They are definitely criminals, but you can trust them to only have fights vs riots and rely on guard patrols to catch the rare escapee that wants to risk 25 years instead of just waiting the 2 they have left on their sentence. \n\nThat's \"regular\" prison. Get caught fucking around in there too much, and you'll be sent off to Maximum."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1lr5y2
|
why do we think we need to go to war with syria when no one else has our back?
|
Edit: thanks for the responses! I hope more chime in on the matter with their takes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lr5y2/eli5_why_do_we_think_we_need_to_go_to_war_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc1xpnk",
"cc1xys5",
"cc1y2nu",
"cc1yejp",
"cc201oh"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are countries that have our back (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE). But the main reason is that it's too sticky of a situation, Obama claims that Assad was the one using the chemical weapons but there's not strong enough proof that it was actually him using it to kill civilians. So many of the western countries (the ones I'm guessing you're referring to when you say that no one else has our back) are not willing to risk intervening until we have conclusive evidence that it was Assad.\n\nThey don't want a repeat of Iraq.",
"It's complicated. If Assad actually was/is using chemical weapons, we have an obligation to intervene as a message to other countries that the use of chemical weapons is not something to gloss over.\n\nHowever, America has a very shaky track record with these things (especially in recent history), so everyone's understandably hesitant. \n\nIf there actually is undeniable proof that Assad used chemical weapons, we should make sure that we make a strong statement against that. The problem is that the government is unwilling to provide concrete evidence of Assad using chemical weapons, so everyone is understandably a little concerned. \n\nThere are a number of reasons the government might be hesitant to provide evidence, namely that a lot of the evidence is probably human intelligence. Telling a press conference \"A lot of our CIA operatives swear that he's using chemical weapons\" isn't exactly compelling, but if 10/10 operatives in Syria swear by it then you might be convinced that it's really happening.\n\nReally, it comes down to whether the government has strong evidence or not, along with a serious case of weariness from the quaqmire we found ourselves in in Iraq.",
"The reason some people think military intervention is necessary is because Assad's government are accused of using chemical weapons against their own citizens. This is illegal according to international law, and as a member of the UN, Syria must abide by international law.\n\nIt seems an arbitrary distinction when civilians are already suffering in plenty of other ways as a result of the war in Syria, but as a member of the UN, they are protected from military intervention without proof of illegal warfare (ie, you can't just jump in like with British involvement in Libya).\n\nThe reasons people are reluctant to engage are various:\n1) They don't believe that America (or other western countries) should be the world's police force; America's foreign policy has varied on this point though the 20th century.\n2) The big reason is that they don't want a repeat of Iraq, which ended up being something of a repeat of Vietnam.\n3) There isn't conclusively established proof of the guilt of Assad's regime in this particular matter.",
"The United States has long said it would retaliate if anybody uses WMD's. America will likely bomb a few specific targets because it has to back up it's threats. \n\nThe theory is that that by retaliating, other countries or groups would be less likely to use WMD's. That's arguable if it really is effective but shooting a few smart bombs on key targets really doesn't cost that much relatively.\n\nIt also would hopefully make Assad less likely to keep using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians. This is arguable too because if he gets overthrown, he loses everything and his entire family will be killed brutally. He kind of has nothing to lose and if using chemical weapons is his last hope, I think he would likely keep using them.\n\nThe Obama administration repeatedly said they don't want regime change so a war like Iraq is unlikely unless Assad gets overthrown. Nobody wants war and all America's allies seem to want to sit this out.\n\nIf Assad's regime gets overthrown though, we don't know what will happen. We do know there are a lot of chemical weapons there and don't know who would have control of them. We know al-quaeda has forces fighting there. They're funneling people from countries all over the middle east to Syria. \n\nThe worse case scenario would be the rebel factions overthrow Assad, then fight amongst themselves for control and the chemical weapons go into al-qaeda hands. They could use that against other rebel forces to consolidate control of Syria, bomb Israel next door or try to use that on an American target somewhere. At least with Assad, he's likely to only use Chemical weapons on Syrian people.\n\nIf the Assad regime does fall, the risk of chemical weapons that we know for sure are there falling into the wrong hands is so high that it all but guarantees another war like Iraq. \n\n**TLDR:** We only need to go to war with Syria if the Assad regime falls, otherwise we just want to shoot some missiles at them cause America has always said they'll retaliate for using WMD's.",
"Well, there are the \"official\" reasons which probably don't need summarizing because they are all over the news. The \"real\" reasons can't be known for sure because we don't have access to internal government records, but there are several high profile foreign policy think tanks which look at this stuff in depth from the US governments perspective. \n\nOne of the perspectives that has emerged is that it is actually in the US and Israeli interest (for a number of reasons that need much more backstory) if the civil war continues at a low boil over a number of years. Since the Assad regime has gained a clear upper hand over the last few months, a US led action of some sort might be able to erase the Assad advantage and allow the war to fall back into a stalemate.\n\nAnother perspective is more in line with \"mainstream\" justifications. In particular, Obama took a risk by so boldly putting forward the idea of the \"red line\" as a way to bound or control the parameters of the conflict without direct involvement. If clear evidence exists that his \"red line\" has been crossed, then the administration feels it must take some action to \"maintain credibility\".\n\nMy opinion is that it is some combination of both of the above perspectives. It certainly isn't because the US feels a need to act forcefully against the use of chemical weapons. Even a quick look at the US's history in the region over the last couple of decades has shown a recurring willingness to look the other way when allies make use of chemical weapons.\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3hcbs5
|
why was the world able to come together and ban leaded gasoline and cfcs, but refuses to do much of anything about greenhouse emmisons?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hcbs5/eli5why_was_the_world_able_to_come_together_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu647p9",
"cu64g85"
],
"score": [
25,
3
],
"text": [
"Two main reasons: First, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions occurs on a longer timescale and with much less clarity on exactly what and where will be effected. Second, the things that produce greenhouse gasses are much more central to the global economy than leaded gasoline or CFCs. \n",
"The answer is probably that we are on the same path to such regulatory action, but that it takes more than half a century to develop the impetus to do so, regardless of how urgent the problem is.\n\nIt took sixty years for the extremely deadly lead additives in gasoline to be banned; they were known to cause appalling deaths as early as the 1920s, but weren't generally banned until the 1980s.\n\nThe dangers of CFCs happened to come to public attention in the 1970s, when the destruction of the ozone layer was first revealed, and at the time pro-environmental sentiment was high. The most general ban was in place by 1978. But CFCs had been in use since the 1920s."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3gznod
|
why would hbo take on a show like sesame street?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gznod/eli5_why_would_hbo_take_on_a_show_like_sesame/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu2w9h7",
"cu2xtgr",
"cu35ywz",
"cu3dbl8"
],
"score": [
25,
5,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because sesame street is one of the longest lasting, most successful shows in the history of television - and they will make a buttload of money on it.",
"Well here's my thought on the matter. HBO recently released HBO now their standalone service. My thought on the recent acquisition of Sesame Street was they plan having a separate portal on the service for family entertainment. With the large sweeping decision to move everything to streaming, their thought is that people will be getting more bang for their buck with the service if they are offering stuff for children and for the adults paying for it. ",
"One thing to consider it that HBO has a long history of providing family programming. As someone who grew-up with HBO in the 80's and 90's, they had show like Fragile Rock, Adventures of Tintin, Babar, and many others. Sesame Street is a good fit and locks it out from Netflix and Amazon adding value to HBO Now.",
"When I grew up, HBO had Fraggle Rock. I am not sure if they still have the rights to show it now. With this deal, this gives them enough content to provide another demographic to target."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
dgip5r
|
is there an engineering reason why some bridges have an arch in the center and some don't?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dgip5r/eli5_is_there_an_engineering_reason_why_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3bur2u",
"f3bv60o",
"f3bv8mi"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"the arch is for support. if you look at the 2nd bridge, there are pylons supporting the structure throughout it's length at equal intervals. in the first pic, there's no support for the middle section of the road, so the arch is what supports it.",
"The steel arch provides suspension for the bridge in the center and allows for no underwater posts in that area. The second bridge pictured has posts along the entire length for support.",
"An arch is a structurally strong shape. If you look, the bridge with the arch has no support beams under it where the arch is. Instead that section is supported by steel cables attached to the arch. The other bridge though has regularly spaced support beams. My guess is that the one with the arch in the middle is made that way to let ships pass under it. It has support beams on either end and only has the arch in the center over the deepest water.\n\nOf course it's possible that they just liked how the arch looked and went with it for the second bridge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9p1u8t
|
a much seen scene in movies and series is a stand of where two or more people point guns at eachother, what would happen if one of them would pull the trigger? would the other have time to react?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9p1u8t/eli5_a_much_seen_scene_in_movies_and_series_is_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7ycy5j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Debatable. In many authentic duels participants would take turns, or start at some agreed upon signal, rather than something crazy like \"Wait for the other guy to try to kill me first\" since this is an excellent way to get killed first. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4lvy1z
|
why do vans have rear-view mirrors even though that view is blocked?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lvy1z/eli5_why_do_vans_have_rearview_mirrors_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3r40k4",
"d3qj2ty",
"d3qj9fh",
"d3qmsrj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of times, a company will buy a fleet of cabs on a frame with no bed or box or anything on the back. This is because that company may want to attach their own custom equipment on that frame. Since the manufacturer doesn't know (or need to know) what their customer is doing with it, every cab just gets a rear-view mirror. Cheaper to just include it than have to make it an option. Options require additional steps in the factory, possibly additional tooling, possibly additional personnel, etc. And, good point by [astrangeparrot](_URL_0_) that sometimes the mirrors do more than one thing. Compass, interior lights, backup camera, etc. ",
"Not ALL vans do, but to my knowledge, most vans are just a pickup truck's cab/frame/drivetrain/suspension, but with a van body. Cheaper to just buy all the windshields which already have the rear-view installed. Also, a lot of the time some of the interior lights are attached to the mirror.",
"I think /u/astrangeparrot has the right answer, but it's also the case that vans have been known to drive with drywall sheets or wooden joists or other supplies hanging out the back with the dos propped open. The rearview on a van could be useful sometimes even though it's not most of the time,",
"Sometimes they don't... I remember when I rented a U-Haul and went to adjust the mirror, realized there wasn't one and freaked out for a second until I realized there was no rear window through which to see with it anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/user/astrangeparrot"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
zu2yg
|
what's the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers?
|
I tried searching it up on Wikipedia and... I don't understand most of what they're saying. I searched up both the terms but couldn't find anyone asking this.
(Also, if there's anything other than Cardinal and Ordinal numbers?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zu2yg/whats_the_difference_between_cardinal_and_ordinal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c67pp7c",
"c67qkvo",
"c67r01t"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Cardinal means how many, ordinal means what rank or order. So if there are seven runners in a race, seven is a cardinal number (or \"counting number\"). It doesn't matter in what order you count them, there are still seven. But if one of those racers comes in 7th place, 7th is an ordinal number. It does matter in what order you count them, because you are trying to rank them and there is only one 7th place.",
"one two three four five - cardinal. First second third fourth fifth - ordinal.",
"Do you mean in terms of the English meaning, or the mathematical definitions?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
28euw2
|
how do sponsoring companies earn profits by sponsoring sports teams and venues (sponsors on billboards along the edge of the ground)?
|
I understand the publicity aspect of it all, but how does that translate into actual profits in figures for all of the sponsors?
Yes, sports brands sponsoring my favorite team will make me go into their stores to buy the team jerseys if I'm a huge fan.
But what about sponsoring companies like Visa, Etihad or Hyundai?
I'm not really going to get a Visa credit card or a new Hyundai just because I saw their billboards on the playground. Some might consider it or go ahead and do it, but I'm sure the majority won't.
How does that work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28euw2/eli5_how_do_sponsoring_companies_earn_profits_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cia8u3w",
"cia8wyl",
"cia8x6v"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's all about building familiarity with the brand. Geico doesn't expect that you'll run out and buy insurance from them the moment you see one of their commercials, but that when you need to get insurance, Geico will be the first name that pops into your head.",
"You answered your own question. It doesn't matter that you won't go out and buy a Hyundai, but people will see the billboard/shirt sponsor, not everyone has to buy something because of a billboard but some will \n",
"There is likely more on offer than just the billboard. As part of the package they may also get promotional showings of some of the players for autographs, discounts on box seats they use to entertain large customers etc.\n\nFor some advertisement it would go the other way. The team wants a discount on some service and offers the advertising as a way to pay them back."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bjday1
|
why are judaism, christianity and islam consider different religions, but e.g. catholic and protestism are both considered part of the same religion, i.e. they're both christian?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjday1/eli5_why_are_judaism_christianity_and_islam/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em7a0dk",
"em7b4bx",
"em7c36f",
"em7cibn"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Catholicism and Protestantism are based on the same primary belief. That God (Jehovah) is the Almighty and Jesus is his Son.\n\nJudaism believes that God (JHVH) is the Almighty, but doesn't believe that Jesus was his Son, just that he was a teacher.\n\nIslam believes that God (Allah) is the Almighty, believes Jesus was a prophet, and that Mohammad is his Messenger.\n\nThey share many of the Old Testament beliefs, making them all Abrahamic religions, but they differ enough that they are not the same religion.",
"Judaism is much older than the other two, and Jesus simply is not a part of the doctrine. Christianity started as an offshoot of the Jewish faith, and built its \"New Testament\" on the foundation of the Torah, which is basically the what you're reading in the first part of your Christian bible. Though they share the same core values in the ten commandments, they are, in practice quite different.\n\nIslam came later, but the characters familiar to readers of the Bible and the Torah can be found throughout the Koran. Islam also has the Torah as its foundation, and extends its story into and through the times of Jesus, and also shares those same core values, but again, in practice, is very different than either of the other two. \n\nSo the difference is that both Catholics and Protestants and all of those denominations view Jesus as the Christ - the Messiah and the Son of God - while Jews and Muslims do not.\n\nWhy Jews and Muslims are different is another, really long story.",
"tl;dr version: \n\n* Islam - the Quran, as told to the prophet Mohammed \n* Judaism - the Torah, Moses' Wild Ride\n* Christianity - the Bible, Jesus Christ on the Cross\n * Protestants and Catholics - different interpretations of the Bible, but both believe in Christ as the son of God.",
"To add to these other good responses, both Judaism and Islam also have denominations or sects within them like Catholic and Protestant in Christianity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47tkh6
|
what gives gems their color?
|
Why do some stones have color,but others like diamonds don't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47tkh6/eli5what_gives_gems_their_color/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0fjqnm",
"d0fjtnu"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Only pure carbon diamonds with no impurities are colorless, but diamonds can come in any other color any other stones come in with the right impurities. \n\nRubies are just the red form of corundum. Emeralds the green form of Beryl. A bunch of other gemstones are various colors of those two gems, all causes by different materials being mingled in while the crystals were forming.",
"Diamonds do have color, either naturally, or added artificially (usually after exposure to radiation or dyes) Most famously, the Hope Diamond is a dark-blue diamond. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nLately lab created diamonds like \"chocolate diamonds\" are commonly marketed. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_color#Possible_colors"
]
] |
|
j9l3s
|
game of thrones (eli5)
|
What the hell just happened?
Edit: Spoilers are ok
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j9l3s/game_of_thrones_eli5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2a9rh1",
"c2a9rh1"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Spoiler: A Game of Thrones is not appropriate for five-year-old children. Anyway, here:\n\nThere's this planet. On this planet a season can last for many, many years. In the winter, it gets really cold and these evil creatures that look like people appear and try to kill everyone. When they kill someone, that person comes back as a zombie.\n\nOn this planet there's this kingdom (a long time ago it was seven different kingdoms, but then a guy conquered them all with his three pet dragons). Until very shortly before the story starts, it was ruled by a crazy king, but then two buddies and their friends killed him and took over; his only family that survived was one of his sons and one of his daughters, who ran a long way away. One of the two buddies became king and married a woman with a very rich father. The woman is actually in love with her brother, and doesn't like the king very much. She has a few kids; the king thinks he's their father, but really her brother is their father. The law in this kingdom is that the queen can't have children with anyone but the king.\n\nSo the king needed some help running the kingdom and he asked his buddy to help. The buddy said sure, but when he went to the city with the castle where the king lived, he found out that the king wasn't really the father of the queen's children. Before he could tell the king, the king was killed in a hunting accident; really it wasn't an accident though, because the queen knew that the buddy had found out and didn't want him to tell the king. When the king died, since everyone thought the children were his, the oldest of them became king. He is a very mean person. The old king's buddy decided to tell people that this child shouldn't be king because he wasn't really the old king's son, so the child had the buddy's head cut off.\n\nWhile all of this was going on, the son and daughter of the crazy old king (the one the old king and his buddy and their friends killed) were living far away. They met a bunch of warriors who ride on horses. The leader of the horse riders married the daughter and made her queen of the horse riders; one of the wedding gifts she got was a set of dragon eggs that everyone thought could never hatch. Her brother wanted the horse riders to take the kingdom back, and was very rude about it, so the leader of the horse riders killed him by pouring hot gold over his head. Then he promised the girl that he would get the kingdom back so their child could be its king. Unfortunately, before he could do that, he got sick and died, and the baby the girl was going to have died as well. Most of the horse riders decided that the girl shouldn't be their queen any more and left. Then the girl discovered a kind of magic and used it to hatch her eggs. Now she has three baby dragons.\n\nFinally, while all of *that* is going on, winter is coming. Remember that I said when that happens the evil creatures come out and start making zombies? That's started happening. Some people who live in the cold parts of the world spend their time trying to figure out how to deal with it, but no one that lives in the warm parts believes them about the zombie-making monster-people.",
"Spoiler: A Game of Thrones is not appropriate for five-year-old children. Anyway, here:\n\nThere's this planet. On this planet a season can last for many, many years. In the winter, it gets really cold and these evil creatures that look like people appear and try to kill everyone. When they kill someone, that person comes back as a zombie.\n\nOn this planet there's this kingdom (a long time ago it was seven different kingdoms, but then a guy conquered them all with his three pet dragons). Until very shortly before the story starts, it was ruled by a crazy king, but then two buddies and their friends killed him and took over; his only family that survived was one of his sons and one of his daughters, who ran a long way away. One of the two buddies became king and married a woman with a very rich father. The woman is actually in love with her brother, and doesn't like the king very much. She has a few kids; the king thinks he's their father, but really her brother is their father. The law in this kingdom is that the queen can't have children with anyone but the king.\n\nSo the king needed some help running the kingdom and he asked his buddy to help. The buddy said sure, but when he went to the city with the castle where the king lived, he found out that the king wasn't really the father of the queen's children. Before he could tell the king, the king was killed in a hunting accident; really it wasn't an accident though, because the queen knew that the buddy had found out and didn't want him to tell the king. When the king died, since everyone thought the children were his, the oldest of them became king. He is a very mean person. The old king's buddy decided to tell people that this child shouldn't be king because he wasn't really the old king's son, so the child had the buddy's head cut off.\n\nWhile all of this was going on, the son and daughter of the crazy old king (the one the old king and his buddy and their friends killed) were living far away. They met a bunch of warriors who ride on horses. The leader of the horse riders married the daughter and made her queen of the horse riders; one of the wedding gifts she got was a set of dragon eggs that everyone thought could never hatch. Her brother wanted the horse riders to take the kingdom back, and was very rude about it, so the leader of the horse riders killed him by pouring hot gold over his head. Then he promised the girl that he would get the kingdom back so their child could be its king. Unfortunately, before he could do that, he got sick and died, and the baby the girl was going to have died as well. Most of the horse riders decided that the girl shouldn't be their queen any more and left. Then the girl discovered a kind of magic and used it to hatch her eggs. Now she has three baby dragons.\n\nFinally, while all of *that* is going on, winter is coming. Remember that I said when that happens the evil creatures come out and start making zombies? That's started happening. Some people who live in the cold parts of the world spend their time trying to figure out how to deal with it, but no one that lives in the warm parts believes them about the zombie-making monster-people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
307jvs
|
how come some sodas have to have a serving size as 12oz while some can have 8oz?
|
I'm assuming they would rather have 8oz as that will show less calories.
Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/307jvs/eli5_how_come_some_sodas_have_to_have_a_serving/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cppu3jd",
"cppu7km"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They get to choose. Some companies are just being more deceptive than others.",
"Serving size is something which is decided by the manufacturers, and is basically arbitrary at best, or outright deceptive at worst. For example, there's nothing stopping a company from selling a can of soda and claiming that it only has 5 calories per serving, and then defining a serving to be 1/10th of a can. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7sdibu
|
does diet coke still have the ability to make you put on weight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sdibu/eli5_does_diet_coke_still_have_the_ability_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dt3w85d",
"dt3wa3c",
"dt3xu41",
"dt3z0m5"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
29,
2
],
"text": [
"Not directly, as it contains no calories -- in that sense it's like drinking water.\n\nMaybe indirectly, as it can increase your habit of liking sweets -- some of which *do* have calories.",
"I'm just an average person, but what I've heard is that the sugar substitutes in diet coke trick your brain into thinking it's received sugar but when it doesn't get the sugar it thinks it should have, it starts craving it, leading to more hunger and eating more, which can make you gain weight. ",
"The comments here belie a general misunderstanding (very common on reddit) of why people put on weight. \n\n**Background:**\n\nHumans are naturally predisposed to obesity because, as a species, we evolved to put on weight in times of plenty. Well, there's plenty around us all the time now, in terms of cheap and freely available delicious calories that require no physical effort to attain. \n\nHow do we put on weight? Appetite and satiety (how hungry you are and to what degree a meal suppresses that hunger) are the primary drivers of excess weight gain. This is why, for instance, all of the genetic associations we've documented with obesity are linked to genes related to appetite and/or satiety signalling. \n\nDo genetic factors alter calories in/calories out from a thermodynamic perspective? No. Do they alter calories in/calories out from a behavioural perspective - that is, increasing the number of calories going in by making you desire more food at every meal? Yes. People like to think they exercise absolute free will in terms of food choices. The reality is that every decision we make is the product of a [huge number of interacting internal (ie, biological) and external (ie, environmental) factors](_URL_0_), of which the degree of appetite and satiety are primary components. Think how hard it would be to maintain weight if the 1000kcal meal you ate every night only provided an equivalent of 500kcal of satiation. \n\nThese 'indirect effects' that promote weight gain can't be discarded because they are indirect; they are extremely powerful. For instance, people on reddit often like to excuse obese people who have 'medical causes' of obesity. How does a medical cause of obesity, like Prader-Willi syndrome, result in obesity? Because it makes the patient extremely hungry, not because it somehow disrupts human thermodynamics.\n\n**To answer your question**:\n\nThere is [evidence](_URL_1_) that artificial sweeteners reduce satiety and thus promote higher calorie intake through a number of mechanisms, including direct modulation of hypothalamic signalling and indirect effects on the gut microbiota and the brain-gut axis. Do they themselves contain calories? No. Do they promote intake of more calories (relative to water)? Probably. Are they worse than sugar-sweetened drinks? Not sure; probably equally as bad. Drink anything sweetened (sugar or not) in moderation.\n\nSource: PhD in molecular mechanisms underpinning obesity risk and related metabolic comorbidities.\n\nEdit: structure, spelling and bits",
"Really useful information all, thank you.\nAs part of the healthier me I've been trying to crack down on any soft drinks that contain sugar, and I hate the taste of water.\n\nDiet Coke I now enjoy more than regular Coca Cola (I know, weird right) so this is relieving news. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29159583"
],
[]
] |
||
1uypvn
|
why is google so keen on pushing its google+ service on users, despite the backlash?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uypvn/eli5_why_is_google_so_keen_on_pushing_its_google/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cemyz66"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Google's entire money making strategy is to target advertising towards users. The better they know their users, the better they are able to target relevant ads to them. I'm not bashing them for this, as it's beneficial to consumers as well (If I *have* to see ads, I'd rather see the ones for something I might be interested in purchasing rather than something that has absolutely nothing to do with me). \n\nAnyway, they have a lot of different ways of collecting data about you, from what you search for, to what kind of emails are hitting your inbox. However, if they could get you to use Google+ even a fraction as much as you use Facebook, imagine how much more data they would have about you. They would know that you just came back from a ski trip in the Rockies and might be in the market for a new Go Pro camera. They may see that you're just getting ready for college and target Barnes & Nobles ads to you. \n\nTLDR: More data for Google = better ad targeting = increased revenues."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4hf115
|
what actually happens when your bare skin is exposed in space? is the effect instant and/or lethal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hf115/eli5_what_actually_happens_when_your_bare_skin_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2pdx4a",
"d2pe52u"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"No. Because you're in a vacuum, there is no medium to carry heat away from your body, so you don't instantly freeze or anything. It takes a little while. If you held your breath when being ejected out of an airlock suddenly your lungs might rupture. That happens to scuba divers who hold their breath during ascent as well. Also as with scuba divers ascending quickly, if the decompression is rapid, the nitrogen in your blood can turn to gas, causing the bends, which is very painful and can also be fatal. Of all these things though, I think you would die of simple suffocation before anything else. ",
"The lack of pressure would make any moisture boil away, on your eyes and tongue for example. You'd have some definite swelling and be very uncomfortable, but you'd almost certainly pass out before... Suffocating to death uneventfully. Actually if you ended up back in your spaceship within a minute or so, you'd probably fully recover pretty quickly!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
20lbuc
|
why are key-sizes are limited to a certain amount of bits for encryption algorithms?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20lbuc/eli5_why_are_keysizes_are_limited_to_a_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg4d3f9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I suspect you're specifically talking about symmetric ciphers, so my answer will completely ignore everything having to do with public-key cryptography.\n\nThe answer is twofold:\n\n1. You need a minimum key size in order to prevent a brute force attack (i.e.: randomly guessing keys until you find the right one)\n2. For block ciphers (most popular ciphers like AES, TwoFish and Serpent are usually implemented in block-cipher mode), your key must be evenly divisible by the block size.\n\nConcerning point `2`, a block size is basically a unit of work for a cipher. To simplify, the message is first divided into blocks of n-bits. The key is then aligned with each block and a given bit from the key is used to transform the corresponding bit from the block (again, really simplifying here). Because there's roughly a one-to-one mapping, the key must be evenly divisible by the block size."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
40pspt
|
why/how does carbon monoxide suffocate us?
|
I've always wondered why things are poisonous or toxic to the body. What exactly is carbon monoxide doing to a person blood/lungs who is suffocating from it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40pspt/eli5whyhow_does_carbon_monoxide_suffocate_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyw4kgu",
"cyw5dgo",
"cyw7jlk"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Carbon Monoxide reacts with the part of your blood that carries oxygen; replaces it with a new, useless part. Too much exposure makes your blood incapable of delivering oxygen around the body. \n\nOther toxins have various reasons for causing issue. Some things are dangerous despite not really being toxic, also.",
"If the part of your blood that carries oxygen sees carbon monoxide AND oxygen, it would much rather carry the carbon monoxide. This has to do with the energetics of the chemical reaction. Carbon monoxide slides nicely into the space that was supposed to carry oxygen via you blood to the rest of your body. \n\nIn the end, your cells need oxygen to carry some electrons after a ton of chemical reactions in order to make energy. Carbon monoxide prevents that from happening, and you can no longer make energy aerobically. Your body might be able to create energy via alcoholic or lactic acid fermentation for a very, very short time, but you'll soon pass out and die (and likely experience severe cramping beforehand). \n\ntl;dr - you breathe it in (even mixed with oxygen), it out-competes oxygen for a spot on your blood cells. Your blood cells deliver CO instead of O to your tissues, which can't use the CO in the same way. Individual cells die all over your body until you lose consciousness, stop breathing, and the rest of your body wastes. ",
"The O in the CO bonds to the oxygen carrying sites on the red blood cell. Chemically, this bond is many times stronger than the plain oxygen bond so, unlike the oxygen, it doesn't let go when it gets to the end of the line. If most of your red blood cells are poisoned with CO, you will suffocate quickly.\n\nAn interesting bit of trivia is that the hemoglobin protein has actually evolved a shape that doesn't let the CO molecule fit properly so the bond is greatly weakened. If it wasn't like that, your body would have to constantly replace the cells that got bound with CO."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cbl9iu
|
when ice melts in a glass of water the overall level of water in the glass goes down because ice has a higher volume. would this be true for the oceans then if the ice caps melt and if not why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cbl9iu/eli5_when_ice_melts_in_a_glass_of_water_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etgb0uf",
"etgb9hk",
"etgbaoe",
"etgjmc8",
"eth0msm"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The water level in a glass of ice water doesn't change when the ice melts. Because of buoyancy the ice displaces the same amount of water as it contains. If the ice caps melt the sea level rises because some of the ice is on land and not floating on the ocean.",
"Yes, for floating ice like at the North Pole. Its melting would not raise sea levels at all.\n\nBut no, for land-borne ice like at the South Pole. That ice is not floating, so its melt water would contribute to increasing sea levels. Since most ice is land-borne, this could become a problem for coastal communities.",
"the water level does NOT go down.\n\nthe amount of ice that stays above the water level is the difference in density between ice and water.\n\nIce caps melting are a problem because of the ice that *isnt* floating. The ice that sits on land isnt in the water so its not contributing to the water level. If that ice melts all the water it adds will cause the ocean to rise.",
"There is a lot of ice above the water, and that is still extra, your scenario assumes all the ice is under the water surface",
"The north pole yeah, cause that is ice floating on the ocean, but the south pole is actually rock vovered in a thick sheet of snow and ice"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ta65x
|
what do the motions mean when a conductor is guiding the orchestra with his wand?
|
I was watching [this video](_URL_0_) the other day, and the conductor's movements piqued my interest. Areas where other instruments suddenly come in and crescendo into a grand sound, I don't understand what a conductor is doing exactly, or what the waving means.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ta65x/eli5_what_do_the_motions_mean_when_a_conductor_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddlai8x",
"ddlari4",
"ddlb2cl",
"ddlcjlw",
"ddlemag",
"ddll0rc",
"ddllbxv",
"ddloaqg"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
112,
3,
2,
2,
13,
4
],
"text": [
"Different motions mean different things. in ELI5: The conductor keeps everyone on the same beat, increases/decreases volume, tells certain instruments when to start/stop playing. ",
"Usually he's keeping time, but many of the motions are in areas that need to be emphasized, like a big entrance or a certain rhythm they were working hard on. He doesn't tell each individual section what to do unless it's very important for him to do so. Some motions can be whether to get louder or softer, he can dictate exact notes, and so on.",
"At its simplest, the conductor is counting the beat. If the song is 4/4 time, then everyone in the band needs to be mentally counting \"one, two, three, four\" to themselves to keep the rhythm. Each movement of the conductor's hand matches one of these beats. At the simplest, he's a human metronome.\n\nBut there's more to it than that. Unlike a metronome, he can manipulate the speed of the beat as needed. If he feels a song should slow down at parts, he can move slower, and the band knows to follow him.\n\nHe can control other aspects as well, such as volume. If his motions become really big and exaggerated, this tells the band to increase in volume or energy. If his movements become very small, he means the opposite. Jerky, quick movements means he wants jerky, \"staccato\" music, while smooth flowing movements signify flowing \"legato\" music. And so on.\n\nYou can think of it as the conductor interpreting how the song should sound, and he pantomimes this out for the band to perform.",
"FWIW, there is nothing particularly meaningful about the baton. People in previous eras used whatever cane, rod, or staff they had laying around. All it does is give the musicians a visual signal to start, stop, and keep time so that they all play in unison.",
"Band student here. AFAIK, the conductor is (most of the time) counting beats. They also emphasize parts of the song where the volume is high or low. He can also slow down or speed up, depending on the song and how it's written.",
"As others have said - he's basically counting the beat.\n\nIn a large orchestra, it is important to follow him (or her) rather than the sounds of the orchestra - if the drums are on one side of the stage and you are on the other, the sound of the drum will take a few milliseconds to get to you - so you need to play in time with the conductor, not the drum beat.",
"To expand a bit beyond the scope of the other answers, and specifically with regard to orchestral conducting (i.e., an ensemble with string instruments like in your example):\n\nThere's a general trend that the more professional/experienced the orchestra, the less the conductor will stick to the straightforward prescribed notions of simply indicating tempo and beat. At top levels, the conductor is taking advantage of the ensemble's ability to generally self-synchronize to give more artistic direction through natural gestures (and facial expression) to guide the nuances of style of playing. There can be a double purpose when a section is waiting for their entrance and the conductor \"cues\" them: both providing insurance they'll start playing at the right spot (counting lots of measures of rest, even pros might lose count occasionally), and nonverbally communicating the style and volume they should enter with.\n\nThe conductor and orchestra will usually have recently rehearsed the music, so the real purpose of a lot of these gestures is also to remind the musicians what was verbally explained during rehearsal. I.e., what you see on the podium during the performance is far from the full extent of the conductor's job, just the culmination of it. \n\nThere are some notable and fairly rare examples of conductors who, once the piece has started and tempo established, actually stop all movements and just let the musicians do their thing (typically in a slow and quiet piece with a steady tempo).\n\nIt can actually be problematic in amateur groups when the conductor is trying to be \"fancy\" like the pro orchestras can handle. We amateurs often would rather just see a clearly defined beat than all these gestural nuances. \n\nBtw you would get really good answers to this question (better than mine) if you posted it to /r/classicalmusic .",
"If there's a choir involved, conducting is even more necessary to show things like when to breathe and give phrasing directions. People respond both consciously and unconsciously to certain types of gestures, and conductors use this to change vowel color, timbre, etc. Also, because sound travels way slower than light and different performance spaces have different acoustic properties like reverb, it can be a lot harder for lots of performers to stay on tempo since sound waves of different frequencies and amplitudes behave differently in the same space. Since they all can see the conductor's motions at essentially the same time, it's a better indicator of tempo than listening to the sound around them."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1JgIg38QBU"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1118g2
|
terrorism
|
I'd like a devil's advocate view from their perspective as well and of those who defend it as a means of political change. One interesting argument I really wish to know about is how State and Intelligence agencies' actions can often be classified under terrorism as they match many traits.
Thank you.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1118g2/eli5_terrorism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6iqvmf",
"c6ldicb",
"c6ldznn",
"c6lfph2",
"c6ll9kt"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Terrorism is quite simply any violence (or threat of violence) against a civilian populace, carried out with the aim of bringing about political, economic or religious change in said populace.\n\nBasically, it's an attempt to put pressure on decision-makers to change their minds, by inducing **terror** in the people they serve. ie; by **terrorising** them.\n\nIt's up to you to carefully consider all the fact available to you, have a good think, and figure out what's terrorism, and what's not.\n\nSadly, in recent years, the meaning of this word along with many others, has been skewed and mutated to suit agendas. Listen to any news report, read any newspaper (even reputable ones) to see dozens of example, including lots of new insidious 'buzz-phrases', which exist to detract and distract from what is actually going on:\n\n* 'Collateral Damage' sounds a lot better than *'the innocent bystanders we decided it would be OK to murder'*.\n\n* 'Surgical Strike' implies a pin point, painless operation, to remove something undesirable (a tumour, say). There is nothing pin point or painless about a Tomahawk Cruise Missile, especially when the target is surrounded by homes, schools, hospitals, etc. I bet you'd feel a little terrorized if a government building next to your kids school was blown to smithereens. Note: Surgical Strikes often result in Collateral Damage. Funny that.\n\n* 'Ethnic Cleansing' is particularly insidious. 'Cleansing' implies Dirt. Dirt that you wipe away. Basically, the term was coined to avoid the use of the word *Genocide*. Because if the word genocide was used, the UN would be duty bound to act. Back in the day, when the UN was founded after WW2, they put a very decent definition in place for the recently-coined word:\n_URL_3_\nNote that under the convention, it list the crimes that are punishable under the act. These include attempts to plan and commit genocide. This is key: **The UN is duty-bound to act *BEFORE* the Genocidal acts are committed**, not just chase the perpetrators afterwards.\n\nWant to know more? Read Unspeak, by Steven Poole. It changed the way I interpret the news. His blog posts are worth a read too. Some examples:\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_\n______________________________\n\nTL;DR - Basic definition of Terrorism, followed by a crazy-eyed rant about the meanings of phrases, and stuff.\n\nEdit: formatting, formatting, formatting....",
"I think German comedian Volker Pispers does a very good job at explaining the history of US foreign interference and terrorism. You can find part 1 [here](_URL_0_). It's in German, but has English subtitles so you should be able to understand it. I've personally come across no better explanation why Iran is so anti-America.",
"Damn it I had a Politics test today and the topic was mostly about Terrorism. :(",
"I'm no expert, but if you haven't already, you might want to read up on the [Stuxnet virus](_URL_0_) since this involved the US, Israel and Iran. As a world, we are used to fighting terrorism with military action, economic sanctions etc but there's also a fairly new way to cripple a nation...through covert cyberspace activities. The threat of cyber-terrorism might be worth a mention somewhere in your discussions. ",
"All of these comments are missing the most important aspect of this debate: There is not one uniform definition of terrorism. Not even within the U.S. government. The FBI and CIA both have different definitions of terrorism, for example. The definition also varies widely among other nations and international organizations. Without going into too many specifics, here are the biggest points of contention:\n\n* Does terrorism have to \"induce terror\"? How does one measure or quantify the level of terror that a population feels?\n\n* Can terrorists and terrorist organizations only be non-state actors? What about state-sponsored terrorism? How does this differ from war crimes or crimes against humanity?\n\n* Everyone generally agrees that civilians are the primary victims of terrorism. But what about \"non-combatants\"? What about soldiers not in uniform or not in a warzone? What about civilian employees in the CIA or Department of Defense? \n\n* What about crimes against property? Can that be considered terrorism (the FBI thinks it does)? \n\n* Do terrorists have to have a specific religious or political motivation? \n\n* And how do all of these factors play a role in defining domestic vs. international terrorism? \n\nTL;DR: Everyone defines terrorism differently and it is very subjective. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://unspeak.net/pro-gaddafi-forces/",
"http://unspeak.net/no-fly-zone/",
"http://unspeak.net/rebels/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo"
],
[],
[
"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/"
],
[]
] |
|
elngvt
|
how do you tell the difference between a panic attack and a heart attack?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/elngvt/eli5_how_do_you_tell_the_difference_between_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdj314s",
"fdj3316",
"fdj46ti"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You ever think you feel your phone buzzing in your pocket and you check it and it wasn’t ringing or buzzing you have a text? And you do that like 7 - 10 times and then you finally get a real call and you immediately know it’s buzzing. It’s like that. \n\nPanic attacks are scary and can freak you out and make you think you’re having a heart attack. But when you actually have a heart attack you KNOW. \n\nSo if you think you’re having one, you aren’t. \n\nPanic attacks aren’t a big deal. They can’t kill you. Heart attacks are bad. They have a very specific crushing chest pain described as an elephant sitting on your chest. If you ever experience it I hear you’ll never forget it and nothing feels like it. But unfortunately the only way to experience it is to have a heart attack, so don’t do that. \n\nI’m sure you’re fine.",
"I would say the main difference is physical pain. With a panic attack it is hard to breathe but there isnt any real physical pain whereas a heart attack hurts like gasoline in your veins is on fire. Source: been through both.",
"A heart attack is a hardware problem. One of the vessels providing blood the the heart is not working, and some of the heart muscle is deprived of oxygen. There are blood markers and chemical side effects of the malfunction.\n\nA panic attack is a software problem. Not \"it's all in your head\", but the brain is misinterpreting the inputs it's receiving. This is not because the nerves coming into it have a problem, or anything that a simple \"plumbing\" repair can fix."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
267o0c
|
sleep vs unconscious vs coma vs vegetative state
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/267o0c/eli5_sleep_vs_unconscious_vs_coma_vs_vegetative/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chogvri",
"chogx1g",
"choh8i5",
"choi85s",
"choia4i",
"choibso",
"choiy2h"
],
"score": [
90,
4,
2,
10,
2,
15,
4
],
"text": [
"Unconsciousness is a very broad category. Consciousness means to be aware of and respond to outside stimulus (things in the world), so unconscious means to be unaware and unresponsive (mostly).\n\nNormal sleep is an altered state of consciousness. You are aware and responding to stimuli, such as rolling over when uncomfortable or pulling up covers when cold, but in a diminished way. Unless the sleeper is given enough stimulation, they continue to sleep through it.\n\nIn a coma, a person fails to respond to painful stimulus or attempts to wake them up. It also has to last for several hours. A person in a coma does not have a normal sleep wake cycle (so they aren't dreaming and showing rapid eye movements or brainwaves that indicate dreaming).\n\nSyncope, or fainting, is a very brief period of unconsciousness and there are lots of reasons for it. Low blood pressure, fright, and physical trauma can cause syncope. This is sometimes referred to as being \"knocked unconscious\".\n\nA vegetative state is a brain disorder associated with a trauma of some sort. The patient may show partial awareness, such as blinking or a sleep/wake cycle but they are not conscious of their surroundings. This becomes a persistent or permanent state depending how long the patient is vegetative. (My supposition is that the name is the result of plants reacting, sans apparent consciousness, to stimuli. For instance, a plant may bend to reach the light or emit a toxic chemical in response to insect predators.)\n",
"Ask in r/askscience. Or you'll get hazy information from everyone and their aunts.",
"No one's going to be able to give you an absolutely complete response, because we are still trying to flesh some of the fundamentals out, like what precisely consciousness *is*. However, I can give you a rough outline of these different states. There are two primary brain states that come into play here. \"Wakefulness\" is considered a basal state of consciousness, and it appears to be the activity of certain brainstem regions. Think of it as a green light for normal cortical activity. \"Awareness\", on the other hand, *is* the normal cortical activity - it's all the parts that allow us to speak and understand, to summon a memory to the forefront of our minds, to do math and write a poem. It's all the special stuff you build on top of normal, bland wakefulness, but at the same time, none of it is possible if you aren't awake.\n\nSo, sleep and coma would both be examples of the brainstem consciousness centers being inactive - in sleep, it's obviously physiological, and even in coma it may be the case that the brain is trying to divert all energy to recovery so it doesn't \"waste\" any on consciousness. Coma can also, however, be a result of damage to the brainstem. Unconsciousness can be thought of as a very, very transient coma (I think).\n\nVegetative states are unique, in that they are *wakefulness* without *awareness*. People in VSs are as awake as I am right now typing this - however, they have such diffuse damage in the cortex (the \"higher\" brain areas) and have thus lost so many different functions that they don't really have much left, aware or not. Some of these losses can potentially be recovered, but total recovery at this point is very unlikely at best.\n\nI'm a second-year medical student, so I feel relatively comfortable in my response, but I certainly defer to any neurologist or other specialist who chimes in. =P",
"TLDR: Consciousness is more of a spectrum. All those words exist on that spectrum. \n\nSlightly longer TLDR: unconscious is a vague term that generally implies an abnormal level of responsiveness and there's plenty of different levels of how unconscious someone is. Other terms often refer to specific types of situations. Sleep is normal and is a lower level of consciousness but not 'unconscious' in the way the term is often used. \n\n \nIn the medical world, a persons conscious state is measured using the Glasgow coma scale (GCS). \n\nIf you walk into a room and see me sitting on a chair and we start talking, and I know where I am and what's going on around me, I get the highest possible score of 15. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a person who has had a severe traumatic brain injury might be lying still, don't open their eyes or make any noise or movement even when you inflict pain on them. They get the lowest score of 3. You would also get a 3 if you're dead. \n\nIn between those two ends of the spectrum you'd find people who look alive and well but are very confused or disorientated. People who might look totally unresponsive lying on the ground but when you talk to them they open their eyes, start talking or move. Because there are multiple factors considered in working out consciousness, its more useful to use a measurement and describe the type of response a person has. \n\n\nThere are plenty of reasons that people can have a lower level of consciousness. A basic scale like GCS just measures, it doesn't tell you what the person is like compared to normal, or if it's actually perfectly reasonable for them to have a lower level of consciousness. \n\n\nWhen you sleep, your brain has a few different types of activity - it's working normally but not in the same way as when you are awake. You might be lying quite still with your eyes closed, deeply asleep, and might not even wake up if someone starts talking to you. Some people can even take a while to wake up when you shake them or poke them! When you are asleep, you are in a lower level of consciousness than when you are awake, but it's normal. \n\n\nA coma is a prolonged state of being at a low level of consciousness. Sometimes people have a brain injury and remain at that low level for a while. More commonly the coma is actually an 'induced coma' where someone with serious injuries or illness is given medications by a doctor or paramedic to keep them at a low level of consciousness in order to manage their injuries, or to give their body time to recover and prevent them getting sicker. \n\n\nA vegetative state is another way of saying that the person has very little brain activity. Some people can be in a coma, but others can be awake and breathing, so their physical body is still being controlled by their brain, but there's no thoughts/awareness of surroundings, no speech. \n\n\nSo to summarize... Although people often refer to people as conscious or unconscious, it's rarely that black and white. Level of consciousness is one factor in determining whether someone is alive, unwell or dead, but it varies so you need extra info to work out whether it is abnormal or not. \n",
"I used to work in a brain injury rehabilitation hospital, so I can at least tell you the difference between a coma and a vegetative state. a coma implies that there is at least some brain function remaining beyond the brain stem (e.g., not just breathing). In a vegetative state, there is no such brain activity; a person may breath on there own, they may open their eyes and move them, or twitch a finger or something, but its never volitional. Its often difficult to tell the difference between vegetative and coma states, my job at the time was assessing this. As others have stated, a vegetative state is the result of some sort of injury- usually anoxia from blood loss, a bad infection, or brain swelling from an acute trauma.",
"Sleep - Shake\n\nUnconscious - Splash\n\nComa - Wait and Hope\n\nVegetative State - Wait and Bury",
"Coma is what I do when I go to bed at night.\nVegetative State is what I do when I go to work.\n\nNot sure what the other two are, haven't experienced either in a long time..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3xt645
|
what are the differences between spacex and nasa?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xt645/eli5_what_are_the_differences_between_spacex_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy7ksvi",
"cy7kvjj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration, created by the US federal govt in the 1950's from NACA, the National....ummm..I forget, but NACA was solely about airplanes, NASA was about airplanes and spacecraft. NASA was created in direct response to the start of the \"space race\" with the Soviet Union as one of the most visible parts of the cold war. \nSpaceX is newcomer, among several private corporations trying to make money from space services. \nThe biggest functional difference is that, as a branch of the US govt, NASA doesn't have to make a profit. Eventually, the private companies must make money or go bust. This changes everything about the organizations and the designs of the spacecraft.",
"nasa is government funded, spaceX is commercial.\nnasa is paid with tax dollars and as such needs to have specific plans for those funds to be approved by the us government.\nSpaceX gets their money from commercial applications and rocket services (shooting things up for money). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1jbder
|
why do terrorists continuously bomb across the entire middle east? do they have demands when they suicide bomb iraq, saudi arabia, pakistan? or are they just trying to establish fundamental islamist societies in the most places possible?
|
I get that Pakistan is allegedly helping the US but they are still financing terrorists via their ISI and are already fairly intense about tending to extremists' interest (i.e blasphemy law).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jbder/eli5_why_do_terrorists_continuously_bomb_across/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbcyqmj",
"cbcz37y",
"cbde2le"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Wherever they can find people willing to do bombings, they will do it. Usually it's in these places in the Middle East by very low educated folks who are conned into it by religious leaders. There isn't much thought or elaborate planning behind the vast majority of bombings, they just bomb whatever they think they can because a religious leader says to do so",
"Well terrorists are using scare tactics. They know how easily we have to give in to demands when innocents lives are at risk, and to them, they've been brought up to see these soldiers come into their comes and kill people they may have known, and then leave. With this hatred, they are taught by extremists that their particular religion dictates they must kill these soldiers/any non believers who are impending on your right to believe this religion (Which no one is, but they are taught this). Thus, if they do so and die in the process, they will be rewarded in the afterlife. This is said so there is less fear of dying in the process which they most likely will. \n\nThe leaders who organize these bombings are again using fear tactics and uninformed people who are simply angry and want to take it out on a scape goat, to move forward their agenda of spreading their ideals and culture to as many people as possible. However, every group is different. While some extremists do bombings in the name of a God, for the sole purpose of instilling fear and to be rewarded in an afterlife, other groups will do it for demands. Killing innocents isn't bad if they're non believers, and if you are good at making these demands/planning out these acts of terrorism, you will get heavily rewarded either literally with your demands being met, or in the afterlife. \n\nSo really, it can be either or, depending on the group. When you mix extremists that have no fear of death with radical fear tactics, it's a scary mix. ",
"You can't lump all of those nations together when asking that question. Terrorists everywhere have different motives."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6qd369
|
why do models scowl while on the stage ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qd369/eli5_why_do_models_scowl_while_on_the_stage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkweilh",
"dkwfxoo",
"dkwnmld"
],
"score": [
29,
22,
6
],
"text": [
"I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that it's supposed to be neutral expression, so as to ensure the models don't accidentally make funny faces and take the attention away from the clothes they are modelling. \n\nI guess some of them looked like they're scowling because they're biting their cheeks to stop them from making any sort of expression? ",
"Because the director told them to. The expression is supposed to be somewhere between blank and fierce, at least in theory. Basically, they don't want you staring at the model's bright smile, so they have everyone stare into space with a boring, off-putting expression.\n\nThere's also a traditional runway walk, which would look equally weird if you saw it on the street. It's just a specific set of performance skills, like ballet or juggling.",
"Same reason why so many are built like cloths racks: the star is the garment.\n\nWith the wild fashions, they have to act serious. The goal isn't to show what the cloths of the future will look like."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
f399o3
|
why do people get turned on by seeing other people experiencing pleasure?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f399o3/eli5_why_do_people_get_turned_on_by_seeing_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhh8s99"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, that and hormones, if you're in the same room. Also, I recall learning that when looking at people's brains while imagining things, or thinking of things, that they express the same or similar brain activity patterns as people actually experiencing something. Which is to say that your experience is a construct from your sensory input--and that you can experience something similar from a memory or other form of derivation. This is probably due to our pattern reconition system trying to absorb circumstances that could indicate better or worse outcomes. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that watching others experiencing pleasure can relay to you some degree of pleasure. Conversely, some people have a negative reaction to seeing other people having a good time, but I would argue this is more due to other mental complexes, namely stuff like jealousy. Anyway, it's my conjecture that this is to some degree related to sympathy and empathy, the abilites to understand or feel (respectively) another's experience(pain, pleasure, or otherwise).\n\nTL;DR you are most likely a highly empathetic person, which is allowed by your innocent ability to appreciate and even embody the feelings of another with minimal judgement. I wonder, do you also feel very sad for people experiencing sadness, and pain for people experiencing pain, or is this solely a sensually/sexually invoked experience?\n\nAnother thought is that we, as sexual creatures tend to maximize the sexual experience, direct or indirect, and minimize the painful experiences, so it is also possible to have a spectrum of empathetic responses.\n\nAgain this is mostly conjecture, and I do have a sort of hobby in studying and observing human behavior, so I'm not terribly uninformed, but I could definitely be misinformed.\n\n\nEdit: Sorry, for ELI5 compatible response, see TLDR."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
64j7zl
|
what's the likelihood of a battery in an electric car, like tesla, to blow up, like the samsung phones?
|
Just saw this CNG explosion and thought to ask about the inherent dangers of electric vehicles: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64j7zl/eli5whats_the_likelihood_of_a_battery_in_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg2jakm"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"In the same way as the Samsung phones? Next to none. The trouble with phones is that phones are small, and the industry (and consumers) are obsessed with thinness. As a result, manufacturers keep trying to cram the maximum amount of battery capacity they can into the smallest amount of room. Lithium batteries have safety mechanisms, but those also take room, which is extremely scarce in a cell phone.\n\nBy comparison, a car has way more room in it. Protection circuitry is tiny when you compare it to the size of a car, but far more significant when you compare it to the size of a phone. So while in phones there is a lot of incentive to go to extreme lengths to squeeze the last 5% in, in a car that's much less of a problem. Tesla not only has room for better monitoring circuitry than a phone does, but also has good physical shielding for the battery.\n\nAnother difference is the use they make of the battery. Phones are effectively disposable -- the battery only needs to last a couple years. Car batteries however cost on the order of $10K and are supposed to last for more than a decade. So Tesla cars handle their battery way more carefully and don't actually use the entire capacity to maximize battery life. This also stresses the battery less than a phone would.\n\n\nNone of that means a Telsla battery can't be made to catch fire -- that can be done if you physically damage for instance. But people poking a hole in the battery wasn't what the problem with the phones was.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/O8LIofC.gifv"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2mt030
|
if depression is the result of chemical and hormonal imbalances, why isn't there a blood test that can detect the imbalance and make a diagnosis?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mt030/eli5_if_depression_is_the_result_of_chemical_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm7asxo",
"cm7b3a3",
"cm7cf4c",
"cm7d27p"
],
"score": [
65,
4,
7,
19
],
"text": [
"There is a [blood test actually](_URL_0_); it's just new and (last I heard) still in testing.\n\nWe're still shaky on exactly why and how depression occurs, which slows us down. Personally, I expect we'll one day find that (like was recently discovered in schizophrenia) major depression is several illnesses with similar symptoms.",
"Well for one, we're still learning about the multiple-and-not-yet-fully-defined mechanisms by which depression works. \n\nLet's look at just SSRIs for a specific example. In a case of depression that is helped by SSRIs, the underlying problem is that the presynaptic cell reuptakes seratonin before it can bind to the postsynaptic receptor. \n\nIn broader terms, it's like if you're trying to feed ducks at the pond but (But in this case the seagulls helped transport the crumbs and snatched it back before many ducks could be fed.) \n\nThe point is, you can't necessarily measure how fed the ducks are by the amount of bread crumbs in the air- the amount of serotonin floating around doesn't always tell you where it is or isn't being absorbed. ",
"Short answer: we don't know what causes depression. Depression, and most other mental illnesses are unique in that they're diagnosed based on symptoms only. We also don't know a lot of how anti-depressants work -- we just know they alleviate symptoms of depression. Crazy.",
"No expert here but a blood test measures what is actually floating around the body in the blood.\n\nDepression is thought to be associated with lower levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain. Neurotransmitters are chemicals that are released from the end of one nerve, they cross the junction between the nerves and are bind to receptors on the next nerve. They are then picked up by one of the nerves and to all intents, recycled. (SSRI's slow this to give a bigger effect from the serotonin)\n\nThe amount of neurotransmitter secreted is small. For a blood test to work, some of this would need to make its way from the nerve ending (not get picked up and recycled), cross the blood brain barrier and in to the body's blood supply. It would be severely diluted in the body's volume of blood. A blood test would then need to pick up this extremely low levels of neurotransmitter. Unfortunately not easy. \n\nSerotonin is not only used by the body in the brain. It is used by nerves in different areas. This is one reason why SSRI's have side effects. i.e. the drugs work as intended but not in areas intended.\n\nFrom wikipedia \"Approximately 90% of the human body's total serotonin is located in.. cells in the GI tract, where it is used to regulate intestinal movements\". \n\nSo if most of the body's serotonin is actually used outside of the brain, then a test would have to notice the tiny drop in levels of serotonin that have crossed the blood brain barrier. \n\nPicking this drop out from a slight drop in the larger levels being secreted by the GI would be hard. Knowing whether it was due to depression, constipation or some other gut issue, well, that would also be difficult.\n\nThe blood test linked by vaqari, is interesting as it mentions that it is looking at 9 different markers rather than one. Hopefully this can be developed further to give fewer false positives (8 out of 43).\n\nHope this helps and isn't too confusing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/depression-diagnosed-blood-tests-could-lead-new-diagnostics-and-treatments"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
68qew7
|
if a bee flies into a car that is going 35 mph due east and does not land, does the bee have to fly 35 mph due east to avoid being splattered in the car?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68qew7/eli5_if_a_bee_flies_into_a_car_that_is_going_35/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh0hl0k",
"dh0ivxw",
"dh0iwbo"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"A bee is quite light weight. When it gets close to the car it will experience the draft around the car. This wind will push the bee around quite violently. At the surface of the car and inside the car the air moves at exactly the same speed and direction as the car. So the bee will quite soon also move in the same direction.",
" > Does the bee have to fly 35mph due East\n\nNo it does not. The bee in flight is held in place by the air in the car. It might have to fly forward slightly when the car accelerates, but not much at all. ",
"Neglecting air resistance, yes. But given the bee's small size and mass, it will get caught in the wind created by the car and be dragged with it (IF the windows are open)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4mduy9
|
when flies die naturally, why do they have to roll over and point their feet upward?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mduy9/eli5_when_flies_die_naturally_why_do_they_have_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3uoh9g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The heaviest part of a fly is the body. This means unless it's balanced well, it has a tendency to tip over. Their balance is, of course, negatively impacted by death. So you tend to wind up with body down and legs up. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8bsqay
|
why exactly is it 2018?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bsqay/eli5_why_exactly_is_it_2018/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx9b39k",
"dx9bapi"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"A Christian committee decided to base a European calendar after an estimate of the year of Jesus's birth, which would be roughly year 1. This is now the calendar used in most of the world, but not all.",
"A Christian monk in the 6th century was the first person to start the practice (so people in 1 A.D. didn't use that term), and it eventually caught on in the rest of West and thus the whole world as they were the dominant culture for the last couple of centuries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3yjrb0
|
how is it legal to be fired for exercising freedom of speech outside of work?
|
You see it all the time, someone says something stupid and it gains traction in the media. No laws have been broken but somehow the person gets fired from their job.
Edit: How is this in their best interest?/Why would they want to?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yjrb0/eli5_how_is_it_legal_to_be_fired_for_exercising/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cydztv9",
"cydzydd",
"cye009a"
],
"score": [
13,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The 1st Amendment only protects you from persecution from the government for your speech. It does not apply to private matters.",
"In most states, employment is at-will and employers can fire you for anything except because of a [protective class](_URL_0_) (your race, gender, etc.)\n\nAnd also, in most cases when someone is fired, the employer comes up with a much more legitimate sounding reason. Doris was talking shit about the boss's wife? She's asked to take a drug test and will probably quit at the insult, or they think she'll fail the test. Just creates a much better story if she does sue or go to the press, plus if you're forcing someone to quit then you aren't actually firing them.",
"Freedom of speech protects you from the government. It means you cannot be imprisoned or fined for whatever it is you say. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the private consequences of your speech.\n\nIf your employer feels that your speech activities violate the conditions of your employment or reflect poorly on the company by association. They can terminate your employment.\n\nIt would by like your friends saying they don't want to be friends with you because you use your freedom of speech to say terrible things. You didn't commit a crime, but your friends can still choose to no longer be your friends as a result."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class"
],
[]
] |
|
aavlfn
|
how do fiber optic gyros work?
|
Solid State/Fiber optic gyros really boggle my mind. I got to open one at work, but noone could explain how it works. Enlighten me, please!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aavlfn/eli5_how_do_fiber_optic_gyros_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecven78"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is a coil of fiber optic cable. A laser light is split into both ends. When they get back out again they get merged into a single beam again. You would expect the light going through the coil from either ends having the same phase and therefore you get constructive interference. However if the coil is spinning the distance in one direction is longer then the other direction. The light will therefore not have traveled the same distance and not be in the same phase. This means there will be destructive interference so the light output will be lower then when the coil was not rotating."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
pdauy
|
how do cover songs work?
|
This might be dumb, but I've always wondered about the legality of bands putting cover songs on their CDs. Do they have to ask the original artists for permission? And does the original artist receive money back from their song?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pdauy/eli5_how_do_cover_songs_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3ofua5",
"c3ogap9",
"c3ohp8i",
"c3oiej5"
],
"score": [
14,
7,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Yes and yes, provided the song isn't in the public domain. More specifically you have to get permission and pay the person who owns the rights to the song, which isn't always the original artist.",
"I've only taken one course on copyrights but to my understanding if an artist wants to do a cover (not a creative interpretation, mind you) the owner of the original song is legally obligated to allow it. They charge money, yes, but it's a relatively small amount. ",
"What if you aren't selling the cover and are giving it out for free? Do you still have to pay then? I ask because a lot of artists use samples of copyrighted works (Pretty Lights, Girl Talk, etc.) and because they put their music out for free, they don't have to pay royalties. Is this the same for covers?",
"You need to get a [mechanical license](_URL_1_) from the author unless the song is in public domain. In the US, congress sets a statutory rate for mechanical licenses, which is 9.1 cents per song per copy (if your cover is under 5 minutes. over 5 it is prorated by minute, blah, blah, blah). One cannot really refuse to grant a license to anyone that does not change the 'underlying composition' in their cover so you don't really need to get 'permission'. Most mechanical licenses are handled through the [Harry Fox Agency](_URL_0_). If you don't go through HFA, you have to either have a signed agreement with the author outlining the details of your payment arrangement or you have to go through a strange process of sending notice letters to the author and providing frequent accountings of the sale of the song."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license"
]
] |
|
4z6ckf
|
why are instant noodles bad for my health ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z6ckf/eli5_why_are_instant_noodles_bad_for_my_health/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6ta3j3",
"d6tdhes",
"d6tf47b",
"d6tfqub",
"d6tgfmd",
"d6th1vb",
"d6thwrj",
"d6til66",
"d6tkexv",
"d6tlr0r",
"d6ttbxx",
"d6tyob6",
"d6tz84l"
],
"score": [
496,
13,
5,
31,
91,
2,
7,
4,
10,
5,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is nothing inherently bad about instant noodles, but if you're only having them then you're not getting a variety of nutrients needed for a healthy diet. Also the sort of people that eat instant noodles regularly either can't afford a well balanced diet or are otherewise more likely to not put enough effort into taking care of themselves properly in other areas too.",
"Instant noodles are necessarily bad for you. Food variety is usually considered the best diet, but when you eat a lot of one single thing like packaged foods you tend to have a lot of sodium, not to mention a lack of real food diversity. There are people who exist solely on things like rice and beans, or noodles fish and seaweed, or steak and potatoes, but none of those are normally healthy unless they add a little more variety. If you made the noodles with some greens and an egg, had some yogurt and fruit for brunch, made some more noodles, chicken, and wilted spinach for lunch, walked around 3-5 miles that day... changed it up the next day by having less noodles and more oatmeal... or anything resembling variety, you would have a much healthier existence than simply eating ramen 2 meals a day. It really doesn't take much effort to add some food variety and at not a huge cost. I will say that there's nothing quite as cost efficient as eating 6 packages of ramen a day while working construction, but it's also just killing one slowly. For $3-$6 a meal you can eat decently AND stay healthier. A good gut culture that isn't fed the exact same food and an adequate fiber intake is probably the best thing for your immune system, which saves you a crap ton of money in the long run and keeps you at maximum productivity.",
"They are generally pretty high in salt and contains a lot of calories period for what isn't really much in the way of hearty food. It's pretty much text book junk food.",
"Many people have mentioned the salt but not the fat. Ramen noodles are usually fried before packaging. Also note that a packet of ramen has two servings so double all those already bad numbers on the nutritional data.",
"One Yakisoba has more than 50% of your daily sodium (1320mg) with only 500 calories and half of your saturated fat with little of anything else. They probably aren't even the worst for you, they are just my favorite brand.",
"High in sodium and Processed Carbohydrates.\n\nLow in pretty much everything else that could be important to a balanced healthy diet.\n\nYou can get around this some by adding in things like eggs and vegetables to the base and tossing out the \"flavor packet\".",
"They're bad in the way that nitrogen will suffocate you. Nitrogen isn't toxic per se but breathing 100% N2 will kill you simply because it has no oxygen. Similarly, there's nothing (besides high salt) toxic/dangerous when instant noodles are eaten in moderation - but if you don't eat enough other things too you're going to be short on LOTS of nutrients you need.",
"If you notice a lot of videos from Japan, Korea and China, they put veg in with their noodles. Probably in other areas too. But generally when you make instant noodles you do put fresh veg like chinese cabbage, gai lan, pak choi, mushrooms etc to bulk out the noodles.\n\nAlso those dry noodles where you drain the water and throw in the sauces and flavour packets aren't good for you since you're eating a more concentrated version of the sauce. Always bulk it out with veg.",
"Sodium. \n\nAlso, say, hypothetically, that you wanted to see how long you'll live on ramen alone. You eat 3 packs of ramen a day. By the end of the first week, you'll develop a protein deficiency. You'll feel sluggish and miserable. A few weeks after that, you'll notice an increasingly bad pain in your muscles and joints and your wounds will not heal -- that's scurvy, caused by a Vit C deficiency. At that time you'll also get cramps, nausea, and changes in heart rhythm, all due to a lack of potassium. But don't worry, you'll be dead in a maximum of two months anyway because of that protein deficiency, lol!\n\nThe lesson here is: When you can barely afford food, eat either 1) rice and beans or 2) potatoes and butter (or any other fat).",
"It's not about them having anything **bad** for you per se, they just don't have anything **good** for you like micro-nutrients and fiber.\n\nAs such, if you eat them a lot, you're probably going to find yourself lacking micro-nutrients and fiber overall.",
"Sure, the salt is bad but the real killer is that instant noodles have actually been deep fried prior to packaging. That's what gives them the high fat/caloric content and also why you can eat them raw. \n\nSo they're like pre processed French fries. Why are French fries bad for you? Same deal. ",
"Many People mention Sodium as being \"bad\" for your health, where \"bad\" is referring to Hypertension.\n\n6 Months ago I would have probably agreed. However, as is the case with science, new research brings new facts.\n\nAn extract from The Lancet: \"...the most persuasive evidence is reported in this issue of The Lancet by Andrew Mente and colleagues. Sodium excretion in 133 118 individuals from more than 49 countries, of whom half were hypertensive and half normotensive, showed that cardiovascular disease and death were increased with low sodium intake irrespective of hypertension status, whereas there was an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death only in individuals with hypertension consuming more than 7 g of sodium per day. Based on these findings, it is concluded that any population strategy for lowering sodium would be best targeted at a minority (about 11%) of the population with hypertension who also consume high sodium, and that such a policy might be harmful for those with a low sodium intake and lower blood pressures.\"\n\nIf someone could provide a link for that study which isn't behind a paywall that would be great. Here is the pay walled link: _URL_0_\n\nTL;DR Individuals with hypertension have the lowest risk for death if they consume 5g sodium /day (That’s 13g salt/day). If you do not have Hypertension, eating less than 5g sodium /day increases your risk for death and major cardiovascular event whereas eating more than 5g sodium /day does nothing to this risk.\nSo, if you are healthy you can eat as much salt as you like. It might SLIGHTLY increase your blood pressure but it doesn’t seem to increase risk for death of major cardiovascular events.",
"So I'm not sure to the scientific validity of this (and it does come from local news), but it sure seems legit. Its a doctor explaining how instant noodles don't digest appropriately in the GI system, using video from one of those pill cameras that are swallowed by the patient.\n\n[Doctor shows video from inside GI system showing Ramen not digesting correctly](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30467-6/abstract"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/Z5c0TB1tDM0"
]
] |
||
5lp6yb
|
human fascination with stories and other fictional things
|
Why do we care about the outcome of stories, like feeling upset at a bad ending to a show? Or a story doesn't go the way we want? Why does it feel so unnatural to stop reading a book halfway through even if we don't like it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lp6yb/eli5_human_fascination_with_stories_and_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbxl99l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Everyone loves a good story. It's entertaining and lets us sort of escape for a little while from the real world. Even if the story is kinda crap we still usually want to know how it ends because we want closure. We want to know why the bad people did the bad things. We want to know how the good people saved the day. If the ending doesn't make sense or is shitty, we feel cheated.\n\nAs for stopping in the middle of a book...well, aside from what I stated above, I suppose it feels unnatural because we are all essentially in the middle of our own stories. This is a little cheesy, but sod it; we are all part of neverending story, one that began long before we were born and will go on long after we die. Every day is a new page in our own individual story/life and we can't just stop, can we? We have to keep going. We have no choice. So, perhaps that's why we have to keep reading. When we're reading we feel like we're right there with Harry Potter, Bastian Bux, Nancy Drew, Katniss Everdeen, Lionel McGee, Connor Adams, Arthur Dent, etc. So we gotta know what happens next."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
w2oj3
|
the word "pretentious". (i'm not a native speaker)
|
English is not my main language, but even opening a dictionary and translating the word to german I'm still not sure I really understand what it means.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/w2oj3/eli5_the_word_pretentious_im_not_a_native_speaker/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c59ozo9",
"c59p8lm",
"c59sqfy",
"c59wtdu",
"c5a2dh7"
],
"score": [
25,
9,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It means to pretend to be something more than you are, in a specific context.\n\nIt's being snobby and criticizing other people, often in a condescending manner.\n\nFor instance, if you saw a friend reading *Harry Potter*, and said \"I guess you enjoy that book, but I think it's shallow and childish. I'm reading *War and Peace*\", that's being pretentious. ",
"The word is usually used to refer to someone who thinks of themselves as above, or better than, those around them. For example, this could be because they claim to eat food that is healthier or of better quality, or because the television programs they watch are more sophisticated, etc.\n\nAlternate words you could use in place of \"pretentious\" are \"snob,\" and \"disdainful\" or \"contemptuous.\" \n\nAmerican's typically use the word \"Pretentious\" to refer to wealthier individuals, or people who perceive themselves as wealthier, or more sophisticated, than their peers. ",
"Have you met anyone from Ohio?",
"it comes from the word \"pretense\"\n\n* An attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.\n* A false display of feelings, attitudes, or intentions.\n\na pretentious person is disingenuine and (perhaps) condescending. like someone who pretends to understand modern art, but when you speak to them, they have no idea what they are talking about (or believe that only someone like them can understand it)",
"These other comments are good, but I'd add a bit more info: Usually \"pretentious\" isn't just about pretending to be something more than you are, or having talent greater than what would be expected. There's also an element of \"high-culture\" or \"high-status\" attached to being pretentious.\n\nListening to obscure alternative rock in weird time signatures? Serving caviar and expensive wine at your stupid party. Announcing your love for your manual camera (and insisting that manual is better than digital).\n\nMy point is when people say things are \"pretentious\" it's often meant that the person *being* pretentious is doing something uncomfortably high-status, or placing value on things that aren't accessible to the common person. And they're smug about it.\n\nA last example: Many people say that writers on the music website _URL_0_ are \"pretentious\" because they seem to dislike more accessible, popular music/genres, while saving their high scores for obscure music that most people don't care about."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Pitchfork.com"
]
] |
|
3rt9kn
|
how come when speaking of years during the 1900's we cut the number in half and say i.e., "nineteen-ninety eight"? and not "one thousand and nine hundred ninety eight." but after the year 2000 we say the number out. like, "two thousand and one" shouldn't it be, "twenty zero one"?
|
Just thought someone could help me understand why we sometimes cut the number out and sometimes we pronounce it numerically.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rt9kn/eli5_how_come_when_speaking_of_years_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwr44jh",
"cwr8r9h"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Purely for convenience.\n\nIt's easier to day nineteen thirty two. And it's easier to say two thousand fifteen. Although some people do say twenty fifteen. \n\nIt's better than saying one thousand nine hundred thirty two.",
"2001 can likely be attributed to Stanley Kubrick. He wanted it pronounced that way for his movie 2001 in order to affect how the year would be pronounced. _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century"
]
] |
|
2swlso
|
what are the properties of light rays that make distant objects appear further away than closer objects?
|
I was thinking about this the other day and I couldn't get my head around it. How does the distance from a light ray that bounces off an object affect the size of said object? How do our eyes interpret this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2swlso/eli5_what_are_the_properties_of_light_rays_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cntk2ar",
"cntka6n"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Im not really sure what you mean? Like bouncing off a mirror? If thats the case then its because the mirror is either convex or concave.",
"The light has nothing to do with it.\n\nEach eye has a field of view of about 160 degrees, horizontally. You can consider this to be a triangle, with one corner having 160 degree angle. What you are able to see at any distance is the length of the far side of the triangle. If the far side is only 1 foot away from this corner, each of your eyes can see an 18-feet wide \"board\" of vision. If the far side is 10 feet, away, then the board grows to 180-feet wide (I can explain the trigonometry involved, if you want).\n\nIf you placed a 1-foot wide box at 1 foot away, it would obscure 1/18 = 5.56% of your field of vision. If you placed the same box at 10 feet, it would obscure 1/180 = 0.556% of your field of vision. It looks smaller because, while it's the same size, you can see more at a longer distance, so it takes up a smaller fraction of what your eye can see."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5f3ktp
|
why does a house need a dish to communicate with satellites for tv but a phone doesn't for gps?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f3ktp/eli5_why_does_a_house_need_a_dish_to_communicate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dah7z15",
"dah82m5",
"dah89l4"
],
"score": [
8,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Mostly because TV signals contain a *lot* of data, so missing any of it makes for highly distorted picture video or sound.\n\nGPS satellites basically just say \"I am here!\" over and over which is easy to pick up without needing a dish, which is why a phone can read it easily enough.",
"It's a lot simpler of a signal. TV wants video and audio on a bunch of individual channels. All your phone has to do is \"hear\" a simple signal from a couple satellites and then do some complex math internally to figure out where you are. By simple I mean a lot simpler than what a video/audio signal is.",
"Actually, it's all about bandwidth. Television signals require much more bandwidth or information to be transferred between the satellites and the dish. \n\nWith GPS signals the only thing that has to reach the receiver is an atomic clock time code and the current position. In comparison it's a very small piece of data opposed to the television programming in HD or higher. \n\nAnother factor is frequency. GPS signals are much lower in the spectrum around 1000MHz versus satellite TV which is typically in the multiple GHz range. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.