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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
253yz5
|
what causes random hairs to grow so long and fast overnight and that are not normal hair color.
|
_URL_0_ I have had these happen before, no clue what causes them, but it appears a lot and at usually a long length.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/253yz5/eli5what_causes_random_hairs_to_grow_so_long_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chdi11v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I know that in women it's sometimes hormones. I am not hairy in any way shape or form but when I was pregnant I had a super fine blonde strand of hair on my cheek. It never came back but I was obsessed about it. Hopefully someone has a better answer because I want to know as well!"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/JRyLeMS.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
7i9esn
|
if pi never ends then how does it have a square root?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i9esn/eli5_if_pi_never_ends_then_how_does_it_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqx39y2",
"dqx5jw0"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Just because you can't write down a number in a convenient form doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't write pi down as a finite number in any number base (base ten, base two, etc.) besides base pi (or a multiple or fraction of base pi), but most people agree that pi exists, because it has a definition.\n\nIf pi exists, then we can just _define_ the square root of pi to be a number (well, really, two numbers, the positive and negative versions) that, when multiplied by themselves, make pi.\n\nIf you're wondering how we calculate it -- well, the same way we calculate a value of pi to some decimal place. We make an approximation, and cut off calculating at some point.\n",
"Do not mistake pi's decimal expansion never ending for pi not having a precise value. There are many ways we can express pi exactly, decimal representation just doesn't happen to be one of them.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
72434m
|
why do we make unintentional noises when lifting weights?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72434m/eli5_why_do_we_make_unintentional_noises_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnfqryl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Increased pressure in abdominal cavity due to abs flexing (your core acts as a stabiler for big lifts). Sometimes it pushes air out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cc3tyo
|
can someone explain mortgage points to me? it’s just not clicking for me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cc3tyo/eli5_can_someone_explain_mortgage_points_to_me/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etkawbr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They're a bit tough to wrap your head around. As best as I can explain it, \"points\" on your mortgage is an offer to allow you to pay some extra money to the bank in order to lower your interest rate by a specific amount. Usually it's 1% of the loan amount per point, and a point will lower the interest rate by 0.25%. The end result is that you pay a little less in each monthly payment. \n\nFor example, a $200,000 mortgage at 4.5% will run you \\~$1,013/month. But if you can afford an additional $2,000 up front, you can buy a point, and the interest rate will be 4.25% or \\~$984/month, a $29/month savings. As long as you're going to keep the mortgage for long enough for your total savings to exceed the amount you paid for the points, it becomes a worthwhile investment. In the example, thats ($2,000/$29 per month \\~69 months, or 5 years, 9 months). So the additional $2000 will save you more than it costs as long as you keep that mortgage for that long. \n\nThere are additional things to consider when trying to figure out if points make sense for you, from paying extra principal each month also/instead, to tax implications (though with the latest tax cuts, I'm not sure if those exist anymore), to the opportunity cost of spending that $2000 up front rather than investing it or keeping it as an emergency fund. I'd advise learning how to set up a spreadsheet with formulas for different options and running the numbers in each case to see what ends up saving the most money (especially in total interest paid) and/or keeping the most money available for use. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nFWIW, I have never bought points on any of the mortgages I've taken, preferring instead to pay a little extra principal each month and maintain a slightly larger emergency fund. Of course, most of that was back when the mortgage interest paid tax deduction was available to me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3s5tsk
|
why do we wake up sore sometimes if we didn't do anything the night prior or even few days prior?
|
I've heard somewhere that tense dreams can make your muscles tense as well... Just wanted a real explanation for this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s5tsk/eli5_why_do_we_wake_up_sore_sometimes_if_we_didnt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwubok9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There may be several reasons:\n\n* Poor sleep posture or poor quality of sleep makes you move around all night trying to be comfortable.\n\n* Your body fought off an illness that gives you muscle fatigue. It's possible that you did not notice the other symptoms or the other symptoms were minor.\n\n* Your muscles are getting broken down by your body because you haven't used them much. Muscles take a lot of energy to maintain so if you don't use them, you lose them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2i23zf
|
why are americans so worried about ebola? it's a non-issue in the uk and europe.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i23zf/why_are_americans_so_worried_about_ebola_its_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cky3z66"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most Americans are not concerned. Our media, however, has to spread the doomsday message and blows these things waaaayyy out of proportion. Making us all look like idiots."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5g4ko8
|
when politicians, news, citizens say "infrastructure" and how we need to fix it, what exactly does that mean?
|
Do they mean roads, sewers, schools, etc?
or does it mean government structure, bureaucracy, admin stuff?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5g4ko8/eli5_when_politicians_news_citizens_say/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dapg7zh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Roads, sewers, bridges, railroads, etc. The shit that was built decades ago that is used every day, but never maintained."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5fz5ev
|
why are ancient buildings still standing to this day but modern building fall apart after a couple decades?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fz5ev/eli5_why_are_ancient_buildings_still_standing_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dao5lm5",
"dao5s29",
"dao730d",
"dao78a5",
"dao7r9g",
"dao9kye",
"daoezd0",
"daok89j",
"dap022m"
],
"score": [
71,
9,
7,
43,
17,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are missing the millions of buildings which have fallen down since ancient times; you're only seeing the few that have lasted. Given another several millenia, I'm sure a handful of today's buildings will still be mostly standing while the rest have fallen.\n\nAlso, the ancient building still standing have been cared for; if you have a large building and take care of it for a thousand years it would be more likely to last, too. For example, the coliseum has been falling apart for the past few centuries (partly due to humans, partly neglect) and we've been putting it back together.",
"A lot of ancient buildings DID fall apart! You just weren't around to see them do so. There were lots of ancient buildings made from wood which have since fallen apart and rotted away.\n\nAncient structures that have survived are largely made of stone or concrete. Those were their only options for strong materials.\n\nIn modern construction, we tend to use a mix of lots of different things. Steel support beams are very good at staying put, Modern poured concrete holds up well, but we use things like drywall for internal walls which doesn't last long. ",
"a big reason for this, in addition to the \"survivor\" bias in the other answers, has to do with how we make concrete. \n\nConcrete by itself will last for thousands of years. It's an incredibly strong, incredibly durable material. \n\nBut, in modern construction we add rebar to concrete. These metal cylinders dramatically increase the weight that the concrete can hold and allow us to build much taller and more elaborate buildings. But, the rebar expands over the years and decades, eventually increasing its volume by enough to crack the surrounding material and make the building unsound. ",
"/u/AzraelBRown & /u/clint_sanders are right about about Survivorship Bias, but even if we only take a look at the ancient structures that are still with us, they definitely didn't survive in their entirety.\n\n[This](_URL_2_) is what the great pyramid probably looked like when it was built. Gold capstone & white limestone covering it. Through the years, people have removed the limestone (and especially the gold cap) to use for other things. It's a shell of what it should have looked like.\n\n[Ancient Greek and Roman statues were usually painted.](_URL_0_) But all of that has since worn away. We've been able to figure out what some of those paint jobs looked like through the use of UV light.\n\nHell, even the Statue of Liberty [wasn't green when she came over from France](_URL_1_). She's made out of copper, which turns green when it oxides in the same way that iron turns rusty red. And she's not even 200 years old yet.",
"In addition to the survivorship bias that others are mentioning, your gauge for \"still standing\" is probably drasitcally different for an ancient building vs a modern building.\n\nModern building with a leaky roof and cracked windows? \"falling apart\". \n\nAncient building with 20% of the original walls and a couple chunks of flooring? \"Still Standing\"",
"For an engineering reason, look at how, with less science, the only solution for significant buildings was to 'over-engineer' - the tolerances are insane because they couldn't get it down to an efficient minimum. So there are some reasons why many ancient buildings are more robust than modern ones, which are built to be efficient to build and easy to replace. ",
"Are modern buildings falling apart?",
"They get repaired. Most cathedrals (the building I'm most familiar with) are renovated, and at great cost, every fifty years or so. ",
"follow up question: Does anyone know roughly what survival rate modern buildings would have if they were abandoned?\n\nI'm sure some of our structures would last for millennia without human interference.."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--o47N9EqD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18ltxx61gvpeejpg.jpg",
"https://www.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Statue_of_Liberty_Then_and_Now_lg.jpg",
"http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/0/8/0/26080.jpg?v=1"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
40ge5f
|
what is the purpose of cigars?
|
Hey Guys! I've been thinking of this lately, talked to a few friends, and even my uncle who smokes cigars, but none of them, can give me an answers to, what the purpose of cigars really is?
If you don't inhale the smoke from them (which is what i've heard), then what is the purpose?
Extra question, why can't you inhale the cigar smoke? I've searched many places, but can't find a real answer.
Please ELI5!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40ge5f/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_cigars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cytxmji",
"cytxp2y"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"I think it's for flavor. Some like it some don't. For me it's like shisha. I smoke it for taste rather than inhaling it. I guess you could inhale cigar smoke, I don't see why not ",
"Nicotine is an awesome drug. You are not taking the smoke into your lungs but you are absorbing small amounts through your mouth over a long time. Mix that with the acquired taste of cigars and the ability to smoke one for well over a hour and they are fan freaking tastic especially when you are doing something relaxing like hanging with family, on a warm day, while having a few drinks, and waiting for fireworks to start."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
cxntuh
|
why do very fast rotating things seem like they rotate slow at a certain speed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxntuh/eli5_why_do_very_fast_rotating_things_seem_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eymb01s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Frames per second. You can only process vision so fast. So, when it looks like they are standing still, the speed that they are going matches the frames per second you can see. The area where the rim is in does not appear to move because it does on full revolution in the time your mind can process it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
169okl
|
the entire lord of the rings story.
|
I just saw The Fellowship of the Ring last night and it made almost no sense. I couldn't figure out why Frodo was chosen to wear the ring, why the ring is wanted, what does it do? More so, I want to know the rest of the story without having to sit through 8 endings, 2 other movies and a prequel. Though, I might still see the prequel because of the 30 fps.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/169okl/eli5_the_entire_lord_of_the_rings_story/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7u09ih",
"c7u129b",
"c7u8hp8",
"c7u97de"
],
"score": [
31,
5,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Okay so I'll try to explain the ring as best as I can quickly for you.\n\nBack in the good old days, the races of Middle-Earth made rings of power to secure their lands, keep their people happy etc. They were magical and powerful and such. Hence the poem, 3 for elves, 7 for the dwarves, 9 for the men. But then Sauron made a new ring in secret whose entire purpose was to overpower the other rings, letting him rule all of middle earth.\n\nThis was obviously not cool, hence the war at the beginning of the movie, etc. By Frodo's time, that ring was lost, but Sauron had used it to corrupt the nine kings of men, turning them into the Ringwraiths and he used them to hunt for his ring because most of his power is in it and he wanted it back.\n\nThe problem with the ring is it is powerful, but inherently evil. It can tell when people want to use it for their own gain and calls to them, tries to get them to use it because then it can consume them (like it did Gollum) and find a way back to its master. The ring wants someone greedy and powerful to take it so it can be found. That's why Boromir went nuts for it, he wanted to use it to save his city and the ring wanted him to do it. It's why Galadriel turned crazy and green, she was powerful enough bearing one of the 3 elf rings but the ring wanted HER to wield it because again, good for it.\n\nSo where does Frodo come in? Frodo isn't powerful, Frodo doesn't have grand ambitions, he just wants to be good and peaceful and wants the ring destroyed. So because of that he is the safest person to keep it.\n\nAs you can see at the end of the first movie the Fellowship is broken. The next two books basically deal with Aragon/Legolas/Gimli/Merry/Pippin and Frodo/Sam/Gollum. The former are dealing with holding off Sauron's forces on all fronts and restoring Aragon to the throne of Gondor so there will still be people left if Frodo makes it to Mt. Doom to destroy the ring. Then obviously Frodo and Sam (joined by Gollum in book 2) are making their way, dealing with lots of unpleasantness and the ring slowly corrupting even Pure Good Frodo to destroy the ring.\n\nSpoilers: General happy ending though not without consquences.\n\nThe Hobbit is much simpler because Tolkien wrote it for kids. The Ring isn't evil in that, it just makes you invisible and they head off to the Lonely Mountain to win the dwarves' kingdom back from the evil dragon while having run-ins with elves, goblins, trolls, giant spiders, etc. But the movie storyline is a bit more complicated because Peter Jackson has added in a lot of extra info that tie The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings together. Honestly you'd be best off reading the Hobbit but if you don't want to even bother with the movies that might not be good advice. :D\n\nHope this helped!",
"There's an evil ring that needs to be thrown into a volcano to save the world and it is.",
"IMO, here is a better way to understand LotR (although, not necessarily the specific plot points you're looking for - sorry):\n\nIn 1066, the Normans invaded England and burned all the libraries to the ground, obliterating nearly all English literature, mythology, and much of their culture. Tolkien, a language professor, sought to recreate English mythology as it would have been - with Anglo, Celtic, and Norse influences among others. So he created 14 languages and the cultures that would have been structured around them. He began to write these mythologies while still fighting in the trenches during World War I, an experience which heavily influenced his writings. The truly epic tales of the history of Middle Earth are compiled into a book known as the Silmarillion, although there are many more writings not included in it. He wrote the Hobbit for his children, and its tone reflects that, and chose to set its story within the world of Middle Earth that he'd created. After the Hobbit was published and successful, he was encouraged to write a follow-up novel by his publishers which became Lord of the Rings, and it was geared towards a slightly older audience. As mentioned previously, his experiences in WWI influenced his writings and thus the traits and interactions of the different races in the Hobbit loosely resemble the major armies of WWI as Tolkien saw them (Hobbits = English, Elves = French, Dwarves = Russians, Orcs and Wargs are the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, Eagles = Americans, etc). The LotR storyline then, is loosely based on WWII (Sauron = Hitler, Eagles fly in at the last second to save the day, yadda yadda). While both stories also carry some Christian themes, Tolkien explicitly denied any allegory (in fact detesting it). Many of the \"gods\" (Vala) in the Silmarillion are higher-order angels (like archangels), and they all serve the one true god (Iluvatar). Wizards are mid-level angels (Maia), Elves lower-order angels, and orcs are fallen angels, as they were originally corrupted Elves. Of course, all the names and words have meanings derived from actual languages. Also, the once most powerful Vala, Morgoth, turns from Iluvatar and becomes the Satan figure of Tolkien's world - far more powerful and evil than Sauron, who is a lesser Maia, on par with Gandalf. As others have mentioned, Sauron put much of his power into the ring to help him conquer the world, at a time when the mythical ages of Middle Earth were ending. The Vala had already departed long ago, creatures like trolls and dragons were nearly wiped out, and the remaining Maia, wizards, Elves, etc were planning on leaving (to heaven), as it was clear that mortals (Men) were rising and would soon conquer the world. This then, could flow smoothly into real-world history, making it that much more imaginative and exciting.\n\nAll in all, these are some of the many reasons why Tolkien's works of Middle Earth are far beyond traditional literature, particularly of the 20th century, and would be very difficult to surpass in terms of its complexity, depth, and how thoroughly it was conceived and pieced together. In many ways, especially with the popularity of the movies, he really did accomplish his goal of recreating English mythology, because that's exactly how people now treat it (in much the same way that things like Star Wars could practically be considered \"American mythology\" - at least that's how I see it).",
"Okay, here I pretty much state the entire plot of the Lord of the Rings. Definite spoilers!\n\n**BEFORE LOTR:**\n\nSo in Middle Earth the free peoples (Elves, Dwarves, and Men; Ents are one but they aren't mentioned till the second part) were living in peace. This guy who claimed to be a 'gift giver' told them how to make and use Rings of Power, and in secret, made his own, crafted of pure evil in the fires of Orodruin (Mount Doom): the One Ring. The Elves found out and told him to GTFO. The Men's nine rings of power, however, corrupted their owners, and they turned into the ring wraiths, devoted to serving their master.\n\nThe guy who has the One Ring, Sauron, built up this huge army in Mordor, and the Elves and Men made the Last Alliance to defeat this army, and this big war went on. Elendil, king of Men, was slain by Sauron, and Isildur, Elendil's son and heir, was cornered. In a desperate attempt, Isildur killed Sauron and got the ring, which ended up corrupting him, and got him killed. The ring was lost for thousands of years until Smeagol, this hobbit-like creature, found it and took it for his own, killing his friend for it. He was banished and he wandered into the Misty Mountains, where he became the creature Gollum.\n\nSo then in the Hobbit (the prequel to LOTR), the Council of Wizards found out that this Necromancer, who turned out to be Sauron rising again, took fortress within Mirkwood upon Dol Goldur (not important) and drove him away. Meanwhile, Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, finds the ring and takes it from Gollum.\n\n**FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING**\n\nGandalf, the wizard that accompanied Bilbo in the Hobbit, finds out about the ring, and tells Frodo, Bilbo's heir who now owns the ring, to leave the Shire, where Frodo is currently living, and set out to Rivendell, one of the homes of the Elves. With Frodo come Sam, Merry, and Pippin. Along the way, they are chased by the ring wraiths, or Nazgul.\n\nWhen they get to Bree, they meet Aragorn, the lost heir to Isildur, as when Isildur died, the long line of kings was lost. Aragorn comes with them, and they make it to Rivendell. There, they meet Gandalf, who tells them that he was held hostage by the wisest of the Wizards, Saruman, and Saruman has joined the evil side. The High Elf, Elrond, says that they should depart and destroy the ring at Mount Doom, the only way it can be destroyed. So the Company of the Ring, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas the Elf, Gimli the Dwarf, and Boromir, set out.\n\nThe reason Frodo of all people have to carry the ring is that a hobbit's heart is harder to corrupt than any other, be it man, elf, or wizard.\n\nSo they travel through many perilous areas. In the Mines of Moria, Gandalf falls down the chasm of Khazad-Dum and presumably dies. They make their way through Lothlorien and get to the Emyn Muil, and there, they have to make a choice.\n\nIt's Aragorn and Boromir's task to go to Minas Tirith, stronghold of the kings, and tell them the lost king has come, but they also have to go to Mordor and destroy the ring. Boromir gets corrupted and tries to take the ring from Frodo, and dies from a horde of orcs on their tail. Frodo runs away with Sam, and together they go without anyone else to Mordor.\n\n**THE TWO TOWERS**\n\nMerry and Pippin get captured by the orcs and get taken to Saruman, and Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli go after them. The Rohirrim, Riders of Rohan, also are after the orcs, and manage to kill them. Merry and Pippin escape into the dangerous and mysterious Fangorn Forest, where they meet Treebeard the Ent, and manage to convince the army of ents to overtake Isengard, Saruman's stronghold and base of operation.\n\nAragorn and co. find out about this, and meet Gandalf, who has somehow resurrected from the dead. I don't get it either.\n\nSince Merry and Pippin are fine, Gandalf and co. travel to Rohan to warn Theoden King, Lord of Rohan, a land of men, that orcs are coming and they should take cover in the fortress of Helm's Deep. There, a war happens, and the men are victorious.\n\nGandalf and co. go check on Merry and Pippin, and Merry and Pippin join them. They find the Palantir, the tool Saruman used to communicate with Sauron, and with it they find out Sauron's next attack is on Minas Tirith, so Gandalf and Pippin go there while the rest gather up an army at Rohan to help.\n\nMeanwhile, Frodo and Sam find out that Gollum has been following them. After they capture Gollum, Frodo takes pity on him and tells him to lead them to Mordor, as they themselves don't know the way. Sam finds out that Gollum is planning to betray them, an leads Frodo into a trap, but Sam saves him.\n\n**RETURN OF THE KING**\n\nDenethor, temporary steward of Gondor until the King returns, and father of the now dead Boromir, refuses to listen to Gandalf's advice and tellings of the coming army to Minas Tirith, but Gandalf calls for Rohan's army to come anyways. Even then, they have no chance of defeating the huge army, so Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli travel into mountain caves to call for the lost ghosts that only listen to the lost King, who agree to help in the war.\n\nThe Battle of Minas Tirith happens and, with the aid of te ghosts, come out victorious. Believing Frodo and Sam are out there, they plan to create a diversion at the gates of Mordor, so Frodo and Sam can pass by unnoticed. A huge battle happens at the gates of Mordor, which is pretty much everyone vs. everyone, and succeeded as a diversion.\n\nFrodo and Sam, now in Mordor, arrive at Mount Doom. Frodo ends up refusing to destroying the ring, claiming it as his own, proving that even the purest heart will not succeed in the impossible task, when out of nowere comes Gollum, who takes the ring. He trips and falls into the lava along with the ring, and the ring is destroyed. So realy, the ring being destroyed was an accident.\n\nFrodo and Sam could not escape the volcanic eruption suceeding the unmaking of the ring, but are rescued by the rest of the Company of the Ring.\n\nThe tower of Sauron, Barad-dur, collapses, and the armies of Mordor fail. Aragorn becomes king, and Sam gets married. Frodo, having pretty much a serious case of PTSD, decides to leave the shire, along with Bilbo.\n\n**STUFF**\n\nIf you have time, WATCH THE REST OF THE MOVIES. Now that you know what's going on, it might be a tad bit more interesting to you. Fuck, I *cried* during LOTR. it's just amazing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rv38v
|
why does water taste "dusty" after sitting for a while inside a container?
|
I always assumed that water sitting on the counter for several days collected dust thereby causing it to taste "dusty". Is this true? If so, then why does water INSIDE a container still taste dusty?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rv38v/eli5_why_does_water_taste_dusty_after_sitting_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnjkd5f",
"cnk466e"
],
"score": [
203,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't have to do with dust, actually.\nWhen you turn on the tap, there's a certain amount of oxygen in the water that comes out. When water has been sitting for a while, the oxygen will come out of solution. That's why little bubbles will appear in water that's been left overnight. If you drink that water, you taste the lack of oxygen, and it'll taste a little stale. \n\nIt's an evolutionary feature that dissuaded humans from drinking standing water that could potentially have bacteria growing, and encouraged the consumption of aerated running water that was less prone to cause problems. \n\n\nEdit: I actually included \"actually\" twice, actually. ",
"[ The thread about this a month ago] ( _URL_0_ ) is more comprehensive than this one. Although, no definitive answers as far as I could tell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odc3w/eli5_how_come_when_i_leave_a_cup_of_water_out/"
]
] |
|
1puxnh
|
how does one interpret the pronunciation markings used in dictionaries?
|
I read a lot (as in books, not the fictional creature) and so I often find myself reaching for the dictionary in order to look up an unfamiliar word. Despite years of reading experience and several Googlings, I still have no real idea how to interpret the accents, apostrophes, backslashes, tildes and other various squigglies that dictionaries use to indicate the proper pronunciation of a given word. So my fellow wise and worldly redditors, kindly picture me sitting on the ole metaphorical knee and 'splain that shit like I'm five.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1puxnh/eli5_how_does_one_interpret_the_pronunciation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd6b6iq",
"cd6c1nc",
"cd6fq1m"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"If you look in the front few pages of said dictionary it most probably has a guide.",
"Good dictionaries will follow the standards of the International Phonetic Alphabet or [IPA](_URL_0_). \n\nOf course, there's one big problem with it: It's designed for linguists, who will know what it means when a symbol is described as something like a \"velor ejective.\" \n\nAnd even if they do give a guide that says something like a backwards lower case \"a\" is pronounced as in \"far\", there are variations in how that \"a\" is pronounced depending on where you learned English. ",
"Yeah, you'll need to know the ipa. I took one linguistics course in college and wanted to die; not worth knowing how to pronounce words from the dictionary when I can look them up and hear them on _URL_0_.\n\nSocial linguistics is fun, but not the nitty-gritty stuff...not for me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA"
],
[
"mw.com"
]
] |
|
3he5m8
|
why do people's sphincters tighten up when someone swerves into their lane when driving or some other near hit situation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3he5m8/eli5_why_do_peoples_sphincters_tighten_up_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu6lm54"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Fight or flight reaction based off of evolution. Your in danger and the last thing you want to do in a tense situation is to have to poop. You also get that nice adrenaline rush so you can't fall asleep."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3kreu8
|
why are we not most attracted to the most different person (for genetic variation)
|
E.g why are we not much more attracted to those of a different skin colour compared to the same skin colour, for the purpose of genetic variation and strengthening thr human race.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kreu8/eli5why_are_we_not_most_attracted_to_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuzug5g",
"cuzuhfv",
"cuzuks1"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The people who have the most different immune system to you, smells the best to you. So there is some truth to that concept.",
"For the most part, we are attracted to people who appear healthy and likely to give birth to healthy babies. Traits like wide hips and larger breasts are seen as indications of that. We dont seek mates for their prospective genetic differences, but rather who is most likely to be able to pop out as many of your babies as possible. ",
"Before modern times, people of different skin colours were unlikely to ever meet. Indeed, such people were strangers, and the first natural human reaction to somebody obviously different is that they might be a threat. People who look very different suddenly arriving is a very bad sign: they might be invading. Or their food has run out, and now they want to either take ours or share it (which means less for us). Either way, that's a direct threat.\n\nWhen you think about racism in these terms, it makes a great deal more sense. Racist people are driven by the same prehistoric fears that our ancestors had - they haven't adapted to the modern world.\n\nBut human sexual attraction is a hugely complex thing. Scientists are still debating heavily on what actually makes it happen. Some people are indeed attracted to people of different races. Others are not.\n\nBut if we were coded to find the \"most different\" attractive, then we would be attracted to people with genetic defects the most. This would damage our ability to breed. Instead, we are probably attracted to the traits which give the highest chance of survival and breeding for the geographical location in which our ancestors evolved.\n\nFor example: a dark skinned person is better at surviving in a very sunny climate, whereas a pale-skinned person will get more vitamins from the sun in an Arctic climate.\n\nThat's just one simple factor, and there are many others. Compared to our near relatives, such as chimps and apes, there appears to be no need for us to have evolved rounded buttocks and breasts. Their shape is purely decorative. And some animals evolve traits which actually *harm* their chances of survival (for example a peacock's tail). The bigger the tail, the more danger the animal is in from predators: and thus, adults with the biggest tail must, by definition, be the best at escaping when at risk. Those males are the ones most likely to be selected for mating by females.\n\nThen there are social factors and psychological factors. Humans are way more complex than peacocks in our society and our choosing of a mate. There is no one simple rule which can be applied to all humans - or even most humans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
by6esm
|
why do some events that happened a year ago feel like they were yesterday while others feel like they were years ago?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/by6esm/eli5_why_do_some_events_that_happened_a_year_ago/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eqdujvz",
"eqftka6"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Emotion affects memory formation\n\nExample - dangerous situations or anytime your adrenaline spikes, your mind makes sure to remember those things with as much clarity as possible, because it's a survival instinct - adrenaline means you are in danger and thus remembering what is happening in that moment could save you the next time it happens.",
"The amount of impact it had on you. Friend of mine just took a 5300 mile trip on a Harley through 12 states. It was a week ago, and he still doesn't feel like he's home. He's trapped in the mood from the adventure and can't shake it. A year from now it will be at the forefront of his memory whereas that awesome pizza we had last night will be gone in a week."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
72bd1v
|
why do trucks have several speed limit signs on their backs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72bd1v/eli5_why_do_trucks_have_several_speed_limit_signs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnh7jul"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Those represent the speed limit applicable on different kind of roads. \n\n\n50 in towns, 60 on highways and 80 on motorways. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8qoo5m
|
why do other countries rank so low in education if their students learn more than in western countries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qoo5m/eli5_why_do_other_countries_rank_so_low_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0kud1y",
"e0kup2a",
"e0kwghk"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that its not about lower level, but collegic and grad school level. They learn a lot more information amd things like that, but allegedly American students develop more critical thinking and analysis as opposed to straight memorization of facts. Furthermore places in europe specialize more than the broader general liberal arts education given in America. So I've heard.",
"I mean, looking at the results of tests like PISA, it is clear that the Bulgarian education system produces worse outcomes on average than the American, British, or German systems.\n\nI would argue that the most likely thing you're observing is that the people who emigrate or travel abroad for education tend to disproportionately be more talented and ambitious. ",
" > I noticed the same thing for students from China and elsewhere, the education they get seems to be even tougher than what I’m getting at an Ivy.\n\nBeing \"tough\" doesn't mean it's better or that the students learn more. China is one of the more extreme examples - they must cram to memorize huge numbers of 'facts' which takes a lot of time, effort and stress from students, yet they are almost never taught what they mean or how to apply them.\n\nRichard Feynman's autobiography has a very good chapter on this phenomenon. You can read an excerpt [here](_URL_0_) and I suggest you do but the gist of it is that he went to Brazil and found the education system of that time was producing science and engineering students who could perfectly recite terms and formulas from the textbook but didn't understand and couldn't apply them in even the simplest situations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education"
]
] |
||
3iztrp
|
how are babies natural swimmers but some adults/teens cant swim?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iztrp/eli5_how_are_babies_natural_swimmers_but_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cul3iuw",
"cul4v2c"
],
"score": [
3,
12
],
"text": [
"Babies up to the age of 6 months old have a natural instinct to be able to swim. We lose this at 6 months, I'm not sure why though. Babies always keep their instinct to hold their breathe under water though, these instincts are to prevent drowning before we are old enough to swim. Although 6 months seems too early to lose that instinct.",
"Babies can't swim. They have a reflex where they hold their breath instead of breathing in water when you submerge them. It's a left over from the womb where they can't breathe either (they get oxygenated blood from the mother through the umbilical cord). The reflex is lost after a few months.\n\nA chubby little baby with two lungs full of air will sort of float in the water. They might even flail a bit. But they will drown if you expect them to be self sufficient.\n\nCan't hold your breath forever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6qryky
|
how can a region or a country go 100% renewable?
|
Do they have redundant systems in place when there are days when renewable aren't producing as much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qryky/eli5_how_can_a_region_or_a_country_go_100/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl06tzj",
"dkzj3id",
"dkzjmfm"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"South Australia was just signed a contact with Elon Musk to build the world's biggest battery to address exactly this issue. A well designed network based on renewable technologies will probably always need such storage to cope with peak demand but the problem has been over hyped by those with vested interests in fossil fuels. By having a diverse range of generation techniques e.g. solar, wind, tide, hydro, geothermal and by having distributed rather than centralised generation power is much more reliable than it's given credit for. Finally the really low hanging fruit in this context is efficiency. Properly insulating our houses. Making sure the devices we use are efficient (light globes). Many years ago I read in the Scientific American that the energy flux of the oil in the Alaska pipeline was about the same as the heat loss through the windows of American homes.",
"You use the excess power that you generate to pump water up hill. Then when you arent producing enough you let the water fall downhill through turbines to produce more power. Alternatively have stable forms of renewable energy like Geothermal or Hydro power. ",
"In the short term, they do it by providing more renewable power than they use (exporting some) on sunny/windy days producing around 125%, and then using some non-renewable to supplement on the weak days. So *on average* they are 100% renewable.\n\nIn the future, they can do it using energy storage systems -- using excess power on the strong days to heat up heat-storage pools, or spin up flywheels, or charge batteries, or pump water uphill for later hydropower generation, or electricially break water into hydrogen and oxygen, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3io7r9
|
how come humans have been able to domestic wolves and animals like that but haven't been able to do it with big cats
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3io7r9/eli5_how_come_humans_have_been_able_to_domestic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cui6bla",
"cui7lq0",
"cui7u6f"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Domestication of animals requires selective breeding so that genes associated with docile behaviour can be expressed. Not all animals have this gene, so not all animals can be domesticated. \n\nFor example, horses and donkeys have the gene. But their very close equine relative, the zebra does not have the gene. There have been many attempts to domesticate the zebra, with no success. \n\nCats are the same way. Small cats were successfully bred for docile behaviour, large cats were not. \n\nIt is possible, future domestication programs might work. In recent years a domestic breed of fox was developed. Of the big cats, the cheetah is the most docile and adaptable. Some wealthy people successfully keep cheetahs as exotic pets. ",
"The thing about domestication is that it has to be beneficial to the humans. Maybe to the animal too, but that's just a bonus.\n\nWolves were domesticated into dogs; the benefit was a security system. Cats were domesticated; the benefit was improved health because the cats ate the vermin.\n\nBut, what would be the benefit to us of domesticating a big cat? First you have the issue of the fact is that, unlike wolves/dogs, they aren't pack animals. Where the dog will become part of the human's pack and will be loyal to it, cats aren't the same way.\n\nSmall cats will stay with humans because it's beneficial. They get food, shelter, and some attention. All they have to do is eat vermin.\n\nBut what would a big cat do? It would need an *enormous* amount of food -- a tiger, for example, will eat upwards of 25 pounds of meat a day. So, for that *very* high cost, what would it do?\n\nIt would eat the dog. And it would have eaten little Timmy, except that he had fallen down a well, which the dog was coming back to report when eaten by Shere Khan.\n\nThat's the thing. There's really no plus side. There really hasn't been a major part of the human experience where people said \"This would be a whole lot better with a lion in the living room.\"",
"Wolves as you see them today are not the same animals that we bred dogs from. Dogs had 2 benefits that encouraged mankind to domesticate: first is a highly social nature that allows a means of communication and intent between us. Second is a slippery genome that allows us to selectively breed and mutate each litter to better suit the needs we have for the animal. Cats are typically solitary creatures that are harder to breed out undesirable traits, the domesticated house cat is a lot closer to its wild ancestors, this is to be expected as cats were generally used as mousers in towns and more importantly on ships, they proved more effective at this job wild than even dogs that were bred for the function, so we brought them with us. Large cats are designed to hunt larger prey and are optimized for that task, rarely needing water since their kidneys can process the moisture from the blood of their meals and get restless even when ample food is provided ( watch a cat go ape shit chasing a laser pointer) now imagine that same energy in a critter 50 to 200 times the size. Yeah that's why we don't fuck with big cats.\n\n\n\nTldr: dogs are easily manipulated cats are crazy scary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20cm69
|
this quote from an article regarding tesla's ban from selling directly to the customers.
|
> “The Tesla factory-owned store model destroys price competition and restricts consumer access to warranty and safety recall service.”
Link to full article: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20cm69/eli5_this_quote_from_an_article_regarding_teslas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg1x6xo"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > The Tesla factory-owned store model destroys price competition\n\nDealers do compete with each other to sell the same car (say a Ford Focus), Tesla's factory stores all sell at the same price. In theory, that means it can be possible to get a better price for a given car from the dealer model, but in practice it's quite hard for most people to negotiate such a deal. \n\n > restricts consumer access to warranty and safety recall service\n\nTesla is very unlikely to open as many factory stores as there are be independant dealerships of a given brand under the franchise model. As a simple example think of how many fewer Saturn dealerships there were when it was a brand vs Chevy (Saturn was a bit more like the Tesla model). This reduces the number of options where one can bring their car for warranty and recall work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79600876/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
xe3xx
|
what's the big deal with watching sports?
|
I'm a pretty fit, in-shape guy. I enjoy doing athletic things (skiing, racquetball, running). I enjoy playing fantasy football.
I just don't get the very EMOTIONAL stake many people seem to have in sporting events. People who jump up and scream at the TV when their team wins or loses. Yeah, it's nice when the home team wins, but I've just never felt anything that would make me have a visceral reaction. Why should I go nuts when someone ELSE accomplishes something?
Also mind-boggling are the people who are invested in sports beyond just the wins and losses. People who watch interviews, compile statistics, and flip back and forth between the enumerable EPSNs just to watch whatever sport happens to be on. I'm even more confused when the people doing this are, themselves, extremely sedentary.
So what am I missing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xe3xx/whats_the_big_deal_with_watching_sports/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5lkai2",
"c5lkcbe",
"c5lksb7",
"c5llgvh",
"c5ltlu2"
],
"score": [
17,
7,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My best guess is that we're all nerds about *something* and some people are nerds about sports. People who go to games dressed in their team colors are just like people going to superhero movies dressed like a character from the movie. Fantasy (sport) is just D & D and sports talk shows are just like shows like The Talking Dead or that one that Wil Wheaton hosts now. I forget what show that's for. ",
"Humans thrive on competition and there is a deep, evolutionary desire to be a part of this competition born into us. Sport has been around for millenia as a means to act out competition. When watching sports, a big part of the experience is us simply projecting this desire onto the teams we root for. We root for sport also because of learned cultural behaviors, passed down through our parents and grandparents and society in-general. Life is surrounded by competition, and we have essentially been indoctrinated to enjoy the experience, because we watch others enjoying the experience. The two factors - born-in and learned behavior - are the primary reasons for what you describe. ",
"It also depends on your region. I'm from Boston, and the Red Sox are a very big deal here. It brings people together. I know whole families that only get together for holidays and Sox games. It makes them have a very deep emotional connection with the team.\n\nAlso, if you would like to be more invested in sports games, lay a couple bar bets with your friends. You'll get into it.",
"With sports (in the parameters of the game), anything can happen. In a movie, it is too 'on the nose' if the hero wins the Super Bowl in his home town in the last year of a long hall of fame career. This after almost giving away the game and the team's shot by fumbling on the goalline (as a player that very rarely fumbles.)\n\nWhen this happens in sports (as it did with Jerome Bettis and the Steelers), it is better than a scripted narrative in that respect. If you understand the players and the Xs and Os, it is also an incredibly complex chess match.\n\n",
"What's the big deal about watching or doing anything? People are going to like different things than you. Time to grow up little five year old and realize that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d1eifw
|
how does aloe vera help with sunburns? and why does dry skin burn when you put lotion on it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1eifw/eli5_how_does_aloe_vera_help_with_sunburns_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezl4ob3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Let's start with the most basic of things: skin is made of cells; layers of dead cells on the top protecting layers of living cells beneath above a layer of reproducing cells that make more and shuffle things up towards the top as the upper layers are used up, so to speak. Mixed into these are other cellular structures, means of getting resources from place to place, and other such things, but right now the big thing to remember is that your skin is made of cells.\n\nLight carries energy; certain sorts of atoms or the molecules they join to form will absorb certain wavelengths of light and react in different ways. This can be a good thing, as for the plants that use red and blue wavelengths of light to drive their photosynthesis, or the way your cells can use UV light to make vitamin D. This can also be nasty; give enough UV energy to your DNA and it can cause certain bits of it to undergo chemical reactions and stick together in ways that make it hard to \"read\". Hit your DNA with enough X-rays and it can cause breaks.\n\nSunburns are a downstream effect of this. Your cells have ways to fix problems that happen in them, but too much damage will still be really bad for them and could be bad for the rest of your body. Because of that, your cells also have mechanisms that cause them to die in controlled ways when the damage they take gets too severe - that way they can get replaced by healthier cells. The reason a sunburn gets red or even blisters is due to that death causing an inflammatory response; the body pumps extra liquid in to get your white blood cells there to clean out the damaged cells and the packets they break into when undergoing controlled cell death. (There's more to it and a whole lot of signaling, but that's the basics.) The reason it becomes painful is because it can agitate the receptors you have, such as pain receptors; when the skin is puffy and red and damaged, a touch can set off those pain receptors much more easily.\n\nAnd _that_ brings us to the answer. Aloe Vera hasn't really been demonstrated to help treatment of wounds or burns, but it _does_ get those pain receptors to back off a bit, so to speak. It's hard to point to exactly what the interaction is (though testing continues) because there's something like seventy-five things in Aloe Vera (vitamins, enzymes, minerals, sugars, anthraquinones, fatty acids, hormones, and more) which might have an impact on your cells, and there's also the cooling effect of the gel drying on the surface of the skin. Some compounds in it are anti-inflamatory, others may be involved more directly in preventing signals from getting to those pain receptors, essentially. Longer story with citations [here](_URL_0_), if you'd like to do more reading.\n\nSimilarly, the reason skin lotion burns on dry skin is because it's seeping into cracks and agitating receptors that typically sense other forms of damage; it's not a bad thing, it's just those sensors in the body going \"oh gosh, cells got burned here!\" because they sense chemicals often exposed when cells get burned, or chemicals close enough to trigger them. It doesn't burn on not-so-dry skin, I believe, because the same substances can't get to the things that would go \"oh no a burn!\" when they 'saw' them as easily."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763764/"
]
] |
||
rjlwm
|
how can an imgur link load ~3 times faster than a random picture on my hard drive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rjlwm/eli5_how_can_an_imgur_link_load_3_times_faster/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c46en85"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I bet it's your image viewer. When you open an image in your harddrive, Windows must start a picture viewer (a program that lets you see pictures). This is what actually takes time. When you click on a link to imgur or elsewhere, a picture viewer is already loaded (it's your web browser) so it only needs to load the image."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3fmvvr
|
why would anyone sell at an auction?
|
Very limited amount of buyers (only the people that happened to show up)
The house takes an amount of your money.
Why would anyone sell anything in a such way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fmvvr/eli5_why_would_anyone_sell_at_an_auction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctq15he",
"ctq1htr"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Because you can sell things *very* quickly. There are many circumstances where it's better to sell $20,000 worth of things at a 15% commission in a single day than it would be to sell it for $25,000 with no commission over several months.",
"There are actually a few reasons. The first, you just described - a very limited number of buyers. For many, many of the things we use and interact with on a daily basis, having a large pool of buyers when we try to sell those things drives market demand by creating it. In the case of certain things - custom/rare vehicles, art, collectibles/memorabilia, coins and even commodities like corn, hog bellies etc the limited number of high-powered buyers drives demand because there are so few interested parties (relatively speaking). In these cases, having a small pool of people with a ton of money causes them to try to get the best price while still *actually getting the item.* That's not a small thing when you're talking about, say, a Gericault painting or a one-off Les Paul guitar or perhaps a Chip Foose designed Dodge Challenger. Auctions in those cases, theoretically favor the buyer because the price is set at reserve value which is the lowest you would go and then people know they're getting something good so they go after it. The other thing about auctions, actually kind of taking away from the first point, is that certain things have a very niche market. The average person would love to stick *The Raft of the Medusa* into the back of their Chip Foose car and drive it to their brand new Malibu estate they got on a foreclosure but they can't afford those things. Moreover, the buyer's AND sellers demand that the environment they get these things is at least somewhat discrete. Imagine putting down some coin on a priceless Cobain guitar only to have some average Joe Crook casing you out for theft. It's a win-win for both parties. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
m5288
|
why isn't more software made to run on macs?
|
I consider myself a pretty computer savvy 5-year old, but there are still a number of black boxes in my understanding. So:
What are the factors (hardware, software, business-related) that prevents companies from developing software for the Mac operating system?
Bonus points: Why is this particularly true for computer games? (Because I'm pissed I can't play Skyrim)
(And yes, I can dual-boot, but don't have space on my hard disk. It's full of my kindergarten homework and paintings.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m5288/eli5_why_isnt_more_software_made_to_run_on_macs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2y5ihw",
"c2y5l2s",
"c2y5l43",
"c2y67ee",
"c2y7846",
"c2y80cg",
"c2y5ihw",
"c2y5l2s",
"c2y5l43",
"c2y67ee",
"c2y7846",
"c2y80cg"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
22,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
22,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To make stuff run on Macs requires some additional programming and the market share is small enough that it doesn't warrant the additional expense. ",
" > The Gartner forecast calls for Mac OS to ship on 4.5 percent of new PCs worldwide in 2011 and 5.2 percent in 2015. [CITE](_URL_0_)\n\nThere just are not enough people who own Macs to make it economically worthwhile to program a game like Skyrim for the Mac (understand that most of that small amount would not buy Skyrim anyway making it even less profitable to bother with).\n",
"A handful of reasons:\n\n- Market share: There are far fewer machines running Mac OS than Windows, so why bother? Develop for the platform with the largest user base.\n\n- Difficulty: The development tools provided by Microsoft massively outstrip anything provided by Apple for Mac OS. I code for both platforms as my full-time job, and it takes considerably more work to code for Mac OS.\n\n- Cost: Since computers running MacOS are considerably more expensive than a Windows machine of the same performance - then it's going to be more expensive to buy the initial hardware to get started.",
"PhonicUK really has the easiest answer, but for bonus points: Most Macs cannot upgrade their hardware components. If you want a more powerful graphics card, you have to buy a new machine. With the graphics race of the early 2000's, video game companies were relying on newer and new graphics card techonology. Since the PC is upgradeable, companies would code for the PC. This is why games like World of Warcraft are available for the Mac: They specifically code the game so it is able to run on older machines. Since they don't rely on the newest, shiniest graphics cards, they are able to implement their code on the Mac side of the world\n\nAlso, there is a system called DirectX, which is a Windows application for communicating with a graphics card. Once you reach a certain point, it is SIGNIFICANTLY more easy to code 3D graphics using DirectX, which is not available for the Mac.",
"We still have Blizzard developing for Mac. That's what I cling to : /",
" > What are the factors (hardware, software, business-related) that prevents companies from developing software for the Mac operating system?\n\n\n > hardware\n\nNone. Apple switched to using Intel years back so the hardware isn't an issue. You could install Windows or Linux on a Mac and all the software would work fine.\n\n > software\n\nOSX has a different API to Windows, this means software has to be re-written from Win32 to Cocoa. This is quite simple and why many Desktop applications have Windows and OSX versions.\n\nFor games, Macs don't use DirectX because that is a Microsoft Technology. Like Linux, OSX makes use of OpenGL which in the late 90s was an industry standard along with DirectX. However in the last 10 years DirectX has developed a monopoly on game development. As games are much more complex than Desktop applications less get converted to use both DX/OpenGL.\n\n > business-related\n\nBecause Linux and Mac PCs only make up around 10% of the market share Software Devs don't waste the time writing for both DirectX and OpenGL.",
"To make stuff run on Macs requires some additional programming and the market share is small enough that it doesn't warrant the additional expense. ",
" > The Gartner forecast calls for Mac OS to ship on 4.5 percent of new PCs worldwide in 2011 and 5.2 percent in 2015. [CITE](_URL_0_)\n\nThere just are not enough people who own Macs to make it economically worthwhile to program a game like Skyrim for the Mac (understand that most of that small amount would not buy Skyrim anyway making it even less profitable to bother with).\n",
"A handful of reasons:\n\n- Market share: There are far fewer machines running Mac OS than Windows, so why bother? Develop for the platform with the largest user base.\n\n- Difficulty: The development tools provided by Microsoft massively outstrip anything provided by Apple for Mac OS. I code for both platforms as my full-time job, and it takes considerably more work to code for Mac OS.\n\n- Cost: Since computers running MacOS are considerably more expensive than a Windows machine of the same performance - then it's going to be more expensive to buy the initial hardware to get started.",
"PhonicUK really has the easiest answer, but for bonus points: Most Macs cannot upgrade their hardware components. If you want a more powerful graphics card, you have to buy a new machine. With the graphics race of the early 2000's, video game companies were relying on newer and new graphics card techonology. Since the PC is upgradeable, companies would code for the PC. This is why games like World of Warcraft are available for the Mac: They specifically code the game so it is able to run on older machines. Since they don't rely on the newest, shiniest graphics cards, they are able to implement their code on the Mac side of the world\n\nAlso, there is a system called DirectX, which is a Windows application for communicating with a graphics card. Once you reach a certain point, it is SIGNIFICANTLY more easy to code 3D graphics using DirectX, which is not available for the Mac.",
"We still have Blizzard developing for Mac. That's what I cling to : /",
" > What are the factors (hardware, software, business-related) that prevents companies from developing software for the Mac operating system?\n\n\n > hardware\n\nNone. Apple switched to using Intel years back so the hardware isn't an issue. You could install Windows or Linux on a Mac and all the software would work fine.\n\n > software\n\nOSX has a different API to Windows, this means software has to be re-written from Win32 to Cocoa. This is quite simple and why many Desktop applications have Windows and OSX versions.\n\nFor games, Macs don't use DirectX because that is a Microsoft Technology. Like Linux, OSX makes use of OpenGL which in the late 90s was an industry standard along with DirectX. However in the last 10 years DirectX has developed a monopoly on game development. As games are much more complex than Desktop applications less get converted to use both DX/OpenGL.\n\n > business-related\n\nBecause Linux and Mac PCs only make up around 10% of the market share Software Devs don't waste the time writing for both DirectX and OpenGL."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://gcn.com/Articles/2011/08/10/ECG-Windows-7-Top-Selling-OS-by-End-of-2011.aspx?Page=2"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://gcn.com/Articles/2011/08/10/ECG-Windows-7-Top-Selling-OS-by-End-of-2011.aspx?Page=2"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
88izkp
|
what do cold blooded animals do with the extra energy that they did not convert to heat?
|
I read somewhere that you need exactly 30.5kj/mol to make one single ATP. And that residual energy is converted to heat to warm up the body of mammals/birds. So what happens to this residual energy in reptiles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88izkp/eli5_what_do_cold_blooded_animals_do_with_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwl1904",
"dwl2v16",
"dwl4pb5"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your point of confusion seems to be a belief that cold-blooded animals don't generate body heat. They do, just way, way less than warm-blooded animals do, which means that their body temperature won't be much different from that of their environment (ergo \"cold\"-blooded) because they lose heat faster than they make it.",
"Kurtzgezagt has a great video on why smaller things need to eat more often; TL:DR heat production is super important for warm blooded animals. I think cold blooded animals eat far less, and less often as a result!",
"They eat very little, and they can get fat. I used to work with bearded dragons and a day's portion of food would be half a slice of cucumber, half a grape and maybe some rocket leaves, plus 4-5 crickets every other day. So if my calculations are correct each bearded dragon would only eat about 15kcal per day. Even with that they sometimes had to be put on diets for getting too fat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
172x7h
|
why does it take my wife 1-2 minutes to fall asleep and it takes me 30+ minutes?
|
Both my wife and I have the same sleep schedule. I find it difficult to fall asleep, and she usually falls asleep within a minute or so after lying down. From what I have gathered, it could be due to our genetic makeup. But what physiologically makes it possible for her to sleep so fast? Does her body release tons of sleeping hormones and mine doesn't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/172x7h/eli5_why_does_it_take_my_wife_12_minutes_to_fall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c81qir4",
"c81qxct"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know, I always assumed it took at least an hour to fall asleep at night.",
"Stress, anxiety, diet, hormone levels/cycles, exposure to light sources at night, and exercise are all common factors that can affect your sleep patterns. If it's really bothering you, you can always see a sleep specialist doctor.\n\nGoogle something like \"how to fall asleep faster\" and you'll find tons of tips, as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4yj9rs
|
why are carbon compounds so diverse?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yj9rs/eli5_why_are_carbon_compounds_so_diverse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6o3rqj",
"d6o6ejz"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because carbon is a dirty dirty whore. Or rather, because carbon has 4 electrons in it's outer most layer and wants 8.\n\nYou're familiar with the basic image of an atom correct? Protons and Neutrons in the center, electrons circling around it. Well electrons form \"layers\". The first layer takes 2, the next one takes 8, and so on.\n\nCarbon starts with 6 electrons, so a full first layer and a half full second layer. Atoms *hate that*. Their dream is to have a full outer layer. \n\nBecause of that, carbon will bond with basically anything in order to fill the gap of 4 electrons, which ends up giving it a lot of flexibility since it needs so many. Normally atoms will either try to \"lose\" electrons to get down to a lower layer, or \"steal\" electrons to get to the higher layer... carbon is right in the middle so it plays both sides. That's why carbon can bond with a bunch of stuff including itself, leading to very large and complex carbon based compounds.",
"All of the answers so far only talk about how many bonds carbon can make and that it can make them with multiple different elements. This is all true, but it is more or less equally true for silicon.\n\nWhat makes carbon special is that it wants to form 4 bonds, but it can form single, double, and triple bonds with other atoms. Not only does this explode the structural diversity possible with carbonaceous molecules, but greatly increases the number of potential types of reactivity. This is important because a C–O single bond (methanol) is different from a C=O double bond (formaldehyde) and is also different from a C O triple bond (carbon monoxide, sort of). These differences allow for the crazy amounts of diversity needed for life as we know it, and also calls into question any ideas that a silicon-based life form could exist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
edtir4
|
is their a difference in sentencing between a crime of passion and just normal crime?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/edtir4/eli5_is_their_a_difference_in_sentencing_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbkq72u",
"fbkq9ow",
"fbkqgbb"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In general, yes. Whether by statute or by judicial discretion, the law generally judges premeditated crimes more harshly. Crimes of passion and crimes of opportunity are considered momentary weaknesses while planning a crime with cold deliberation is greater moral failing.",
"Yes. In terms of killing someone,\n\nFirst degree murder: premeditated and malicious murder\n\nIs worse than\nVoluntary manslaughter: crime of passion\n\nIt's still a crime, it's just a lesser penalty because there was lesser intent.",
"Depending on what you mean by normal... pre-meditated crimes (ones planned out then executed later) are generally regarded as more heinous and therefore carry heavier punishments."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1haary
|
the drone program and the scandal surrounding it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1haary/eli5_the_drone_program_and_the_scandal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"casjbk3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Obama has been signing orders for drone strikes in middle eastern countries far more than Bush did and it has cone under question the limit of power on these weapons and how the controllers of the drones feel (such as like a video game or in real combat) \n\nIt lessens the amount of troops being killed in exchange for more innocents dead and less ability for an enemy to declare mercy\n\nThis all ties into the war on terrorism as it is called and how you cannot launch war on it since it is not a country but rather groups of hostiles in the middle east."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
44x4vm
|
why are there tax brackets and not straight percents?
|
I have a rough understanding but would love some clarification. Say taxes are 5%. The government collects $5,000 from an individual making $100,000, and $50,000 from someone earning $1,000,000. Each person gives up the same proportional percent of their wealth In a perfect world, I feel this makes sense. Why am I wrong?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44x4vm/eli5_why_are_there_tax_brackets_and_not_straight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czthz2d",
"cztiaa7",
"cztie0l",
"cztipjj",
"cztjt2z",
"cztlcpq"
],
"score": [
10,
9,
26,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It has to do with fairness and disposable versus non-disposable income.\n\nLet's be more reasonable with your numbers and compare a $30000 salary against a $100000 salary. For ease of calculation let's go with a tax rate of zero percent, so it's all take home pay.\n\nThe lower wage earner has to pay rent, say $500 a month because they live cheap, and possibly heat and electricity ($150/month) if they live somewhere that has a cold season. There's food and clothing too, at $100 a week if you don't have kids and eat anything beyond junk, and the bus to work is another $100 a month. Then there's medical coverage and insurance.\n\nThat's just the basic necessities - no phone, no entertainment, NO INTERNET (!), no vacation, no car, no books, only the appliances that came with the apartment, no TV... - and already you're down about $12000, or almost half of your salary. Yow.\n\nBut that's only 12% of the salary of the person earning $100000. So they have a LOT more money left to spend frivolously... or pay taxes with.\n\nMost governments go by the ethical position \"to each according to his ability to pay\". So charging the lower wage earners less of a tax rate still leaves the higher wage earners with tons more \"disposable income\" than the lower wage earner has. For that reason, it is considered more ethical than a flat tax rate.",
"Flat taxes, like you're alluding to, are regressive in nature. For someone making $20k a year, a set % of their income is more important to surviving than that same % for someone making $100k a year. To put it another way... flat taxes work perfectly fine in a world where milk costs five times more for the person making five times as much. Since that's not the case, they unduly burden the people who can't pay them.\n\nInstituting a 17% (what it typically seen as around what would be required to sustain federal budget needs) tax across the board would basically institute a 17% tax for the poorest among our country as they typically pay close to nothing in taxes currently. This would lead to widespread collapse of the lower class since they would lose any discretionary income and see the income they simply need to survive disappear. In this scenario, I invest in my Pitchfork and Torch company because business will be booming.\n\nAs an aside, since this is so often overlooked.... when you make enough money to \"reach\" a tax bracket, not all of your income is taxed at that bracket. We still tax the first X amount at a low % and then all income *between* X and Y is taxed at a slightly higher amount and the same between Y and Z. Someone making $100k a year lays the same taxes on the first 20k that someone making $20k does. We simply charge them more as they continue to rise in income. In this matter, taxes are--by definition--equal across all citizens.",
"You're not \"wrong\" in the sense that there's no right answer about what the most fair way to tax people is. However, in the US (and most of the Western world - not sure about elsewhere) we have decided that people who make more money should be taxed at higher rates. There are two main theoretical justifications and one practical one.\n\nThe two theoretical justifications are (1) a proportional amount of money generally has less utility the more you have and (2) wealthy people benefit from a stable public system more. By (1), I mean a comparable amount of money means less to a rich person than a poor person. If you only have $10,000 then $1,000 is very important, especially if that $1,000 is the difference between you being able to pay rent for a year vs. rent for 10 months. If you have $1,000,000, then $100,000 isn't as important as that $1,000 is to the other person. It’s the same percentage-wise, but you won’t miss it as much because you already have the ability to provide for yourself significant better with your remaining $900,000. For (2), everyone benefits from a general lack of violence, having roads to get around, etc., but wealthy people benefit more. First of all, they have more property and that property is protected by the state, which is funded by taxes. Second, their ability to generate income depends on having roads to move workers, regulated markets in which to invest, etc.\n\nThe practical justification is that nowadays most states and/or cities have a sales tax and sales taxes tend to cost poor people proportionally more because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income annually on goods in order to maintain their lifestyle. \n\nIt’s also worth noting that you never get taxed more for making money. Instead, you get taxed at a higher rate. For example, you may be taxed at 10% on the first $100,000 you make and then at 15% for anything you make between $100,001 - $500,000 (obviously not real tax percentages). So if you make $200,000, you pay $25,000 in taxes ($10,000 on your first $100,000 and $15,000 on the second $100,000). I don’t think that’s you were implying in your post, but it’s a common enough misconception to include.",
"The technical term is the marginal utility of money declines. \n\nWhat that means is, a fixed amount of money is less useful when you have more of it. Lets look at this in reverse, with a surprise $1,000 expense. \n\n* The expense of $1,000 to someone with nothing is ruinous. \n* The same $1,000 bill to someone earning $8/hr is a three weeks' pay and likely means they'll pay a ton of interest paying it off. \n* A $1,000 expense to someone making $75,000 year hopefully means they tap into savings or tighten their spending control for a few months.\n* The $1,000 bill to someone making mid six figures stings, but means they write a check without worry. \n* It's meaningless to a multi-billionaire. \n\nFor this reason, our tax system is structured to take more from the people who will miss the money less than others. ",
"Marginal utility of dollars... if you're making $30,000, then every dollar is much more important to meeting your basic needs of shelter, transportation, food, clothing, heat/electricity, etc. than if you're making $300,000. So it thus makes sense to take a lower percentage of income when you're just trying to make basic ends meet than when the income determines whether you buy the V-8 Mercedes or V-12 Mercedes sedan, fly business class or first class to Europe.\n\nIn terms of fairness, everybody pays the same rate on each bracket, so whether you make $30k or $300k, you pay the same amount on that first $30k of income.",
"Why is that more fair than a true flat tax, where everyone pays the same absolute amount? They gov't is providing the exact same services to everyone, why shouldn't everyone, rich or poor, have to write the same check?\n\nThe answer is there is no objectively fair way to do taxes that is better than all the rest. Taxes aren't just about fairness, the are about the practical concerns of generating the revenue needed to run a country.\n\nIn particular, many people find it more fair to shift the burden to those with more disposable income. If you make $30K a year, you are likely spending most of it on necessities, and even a small increase is going to be painful. If you are making $100K, maybe your next car is an Acura instead of a BMW. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3banml
|
what are the 360° videos on youtube?
|
I've recently found out that there's a category of videos on YouTube which are 360°. I'm not sure how am I supposed to watch those or how do these work.
Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3banml/eli5_what_are_the_360_videos_on_youtube/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cskencs",
"cskeuqy",
"cskhasl"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They show a full 360 degree field of vision. I'm thinking either a circular monitor/projector setup. Or virtual reality headset.",
"360° videos refer to videos that allow the watcher to \"pan\" the screen in any direction to see additional angles and content. [Here](_URL_3_) is an article that explains it a bit more in-depth.\n\nSome artists are even doing this for their music videos now, including [Aviici](_URL_2_), [Björk](_URL_0_), and [Fort Minor](_URL_1_)",
"It only works for chrome, i think that's what you were asking. You'll be able to rotate the screen with your mouse while watching."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gQEyezu7G20",
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=REAwGmv0Fuk",
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edcJ_JNeyhg",
"http://gizmodo.com/youtubes-ready-to-blow-your-mind-with-360-degree-videos-1690989402"
],
[]
] |
|
5ei2sc
|
what is actually happening to our body when we sleep? and if most of our organs in our body remain "in operation" while we sleep (brain, heart, etc.), how is sleep beneficial to them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ei2sc/eli5_what_is_actually_happening_to_our_body_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dackihz",
"dacnek4"
],
"score": [
3,
31
],
"text": [
"The organs at night are a lot like power plants or office buildings at night in a big city. They are still working, just at a fraction of capacity. The night shift is keeping things functional and repairing things in advance of the coming morning. Janitors are cleaning up.\n\nSleep's benefit to the brain less well understood. But we know that people need sleep to maintain focus and alertness for whatever reason.",
"Sleeping is an opportunity to repair and replace any part of the body that is broken or worn down.\n\nIt is intense work. \n\nYour immune system is active, cleaning up infections and clearing out any cancerous cells that have developed during the day.\n\nYour epithelial tissue (like your skin and the lining of your gastrointestinal tract) grows faster, in an attempt to replace cells lost during the ware and tear of the day.\n\nSome organs behave almost identically to how they behave during the day. Your liver and kidney, for example, are still filtering. Your heart is still pumping. However, while lying down, the stress placed on your heart is significantly reduced. \n\nYour brain is the most interesting. There is evidence that the brain spends the night cleaning up house. It removes debris created throughout the day by increasing the rate the fluid exchange into and out of the brain. In fact, this cleansing of the Cerebrospinal Fluid (the fluid that bathes your brain and spine), is so important, we can make predictions about how quickly individuals in nursing homes will develop Alzheimers based on how much they sleep.\n\nThose billions of connections that make up your brain? Those have to be repaired. A current theory is that the majority of that work may be done during sleep through brief activations of neural circuits.\n \nFinally, the brain uses the night to process memory, something that we know little about, but this *memory consolidation* theory of sleep is gaining traction. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
71i23y
|
the hindu concept brahman
|
The definition on Wikipedia is kind of wordy and I'm having a hard time following
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71i23y/eli5_the_hindu_concept_brahman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnaxgoi"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Its one of the aspects of 'god' in hindu thought.\n\nIn Catholicism we have the three aspects of god; impersonal, all-powerful, implaccible God the father, unifying, animiating, eminent Holy Spirit, and personal Jesus.\n\nHiduism has 2 aspects of 'god'; Atman, the personal aspect of god and Brahman which is the impersonal aspect of god.\n\nSo think of Brahman like the concept of a god that doesn't have a distinct personality but is in everyone and everything. A unifying soul of the universe.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8unoqn
|
how did couriers find their recipients in old times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8unoqn/eli5_how_did_couriers_find_their_recipients_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1gqjnn",
"e1grj91"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Typically couriers were given information such as the name of the recipient and the town in which they resided. If the courier arrived in the town and asked where the person lived the locals could provide that information. People who were important enough to have couriers delivering them documents would be known.",
"How old is old times? And where?\n\n50 years ago? There were addresses. \n\n150 years ago? There were addresses in the cities; rural deliveries were sent to the nearest post office or railroad station and picked up.\n\n500 years ago? Only the very richest/most important people got deliveries, and those people would have been easy enough to find by asking or looking for the biggest houses in town."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ffsogp
|
why do humans applaud?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ffsogp/eli5_why_do_humans_applaud/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fk0e4x2"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"So clapping goes back suuuuper far. \n\nEven babies, without being taught, can clap. This isn't to do with the celebration aspect as it's to do with making a noise, which can be tied with alerting preditors in the old days. \n\nSo how did it become tied with enthusiasm?\nThere's no guaranteed answer. \nHowever it most likely the answer was the Romans\nin the 3rd Century BC Roman playwright, Plautus, who often included a direction in his plays asking for one of the actors to step forward after the final speech to say “Valete et plaudite!”, Latin for “Goodbye and applause”- the word plaudite roughly meaning “to strike”, in reference to the act of striking one’s hands together\n\nThis means that it could have been snapping fingers, stomping your feet and yes, also clapping to make noise. Having this in a play would presumably be enjoyable and become a social thing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1s82t8
|
what is biologically happening to your voice when you whisper?
|
Also, do animals whisper?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s82t8/eli5_what_is_biologically_happening_to_your_voice/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cduug17"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The exact same process causes a whisper and normal speech. The difference is the intensity of the output, but the method is the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
26kop1
|
5 why does mobile internet drain lot of battery charge but not when connected to wifi
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26kop1/elif5_why_does_mobile_internet_drain_lot_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chry49i",
"chrya27"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"With Wifi you're usually talking to a access point 20-50 ft away. Cell towers may be spaced a mile or two apart. It takes more power to communicate with something that is further away.",
"The simplest answer is that the maximum transmit power is much greater for mobile data (at least, for LTE) than it is for WiFi. For 802.11b/g the maximum transmit power is 100 milliwatts and 802.11n is 200 milliwatts. But for mobile data the transmit power can be anywhere between 500 and 1,000 milliwatts depending on signal conditions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3uq99a
|
why are south americans solely referred to as latin americans or latinos and other romance language speaking peoples are not referred to as latin or latinos? e.g. italians, french and spainards.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uq99a/eli5_why_are_south_americans_solely_referred_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxgvbhl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, Latino is a term that was coined in the United States by Hispanic immigrants (mostly made up of American born descendants of Mexican immigrants). It is also a misconception that people from Latin America identify as Latino's. From Mexico to Argentina, people will identify primarily with their country of origin (Mexican, Argentine, Chilean, etc.) IF people in Latin America were to group themselves with other peoples in the continent, they would refer to themselves as Hispanic, being that they all are the product of Spanish history and culture and more importantly, language (the exception being Brazil as they are historically Portuguese). In the same way that Mexican Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo while people from Mexico do not (unless you're from Puebla) this is a somewhat ignorant term that became popular in the U.S. in the same way that Italians were historically not considered \"white.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
j2wfg
|
li5, what is a carbohydrate, how it relates to calories, and how food can have none
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2wfg/li5_what_is_a_carbohydrate_how_it_relates_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28ozs4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Our bodies need energy to work. Similar to how a car need gas. There are three basic nutrients that contain energy: Protein Fat and Carbohydrates. A carbohydrate is the easiest one of the three for our bodies to break down and get energy from because of its molecular makeup. Proteins and Fats have their own purposes as well. Carbs however are our bodies' most readily usable energy resource. \n\nThere are a lot of different types of carbs. Basically it can be broken down into sugars and starches. Sugars are NOT necessarily sweet. They are simple (I'll cover that more later). Sugars are used for short burst of energy and can be easily turned into energy for our bodies. Startches are long chains of sugars that can be broken down more slowly to provide a long lasting amount of energy.\n\nCarbs are made of hydrogen and carbon (Hence Carbo-Hydrate) and there are A LOT of different forms that they can be put together in. Depending on the complexity of the specific type of carb we get different kinds of energy. Sugars (like glucose or table sugar) are made up of a relatively small number of carbon and hydrogen atoms with some oxygen atoms mixed in. They are easy to break down and can be quickly turned into energy, but also are used up quickly causing the hyper sugar rush followed by the crash. Starches (like those in potatoes or an extremely important starch called glycogen that is stored in our muscles and liver for emergency energy) are LONG strings of sugars that are first broken down into sugars then broken down into energy. This is obviously harder then simple sugars and will provide long prolonged energy bursts followed by less of a crash.\n\nNow calories. a single gram of carbohydrates contain 4 calories [fat contains 9 and protein also contains 4]. This is true for all carbs across the board. That means that for each gram of carbs you eat you get 4 calories worth of energy (calories are a unit of heat, which according to physics is a form of energy. It's tough to understand how a unit of heat can relate to the energy we get from food but energy is energy).\n\nThe foods that have no calories, also have no carbs. That is hard to believe because they may be sweet and you need sugar to be sweet right? Wrong. A lot of things are sweet. We have gotten quite good, in fact, at tricking our tongue into thinking something is sugar. Things that have no calories are usually sweetened with artificial sweetener (Splenda or something else). The other option is that the food in question is not actually sweet (water, etc.)\n\nHope that helps"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8j1ky4
|
how can a hummingbird keep its head steady even though its body is shaking considerably.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8j1ky4/eli5_how_can_a_hummingbird_keep_its_head_steady/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dywouiw"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Hold your hand out at arms length and look at it. Now start moving your head around without taking your eyes off your hand. Your eyes do naturally what many birds do with their heads. \n\nHuman beings keep their eyes steady but many birds lack this ability and have little to no eye movement. They help make up for it by keeping their heads steady. It's a similar skill, but uses different muscle groups. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
96ftwi
|
what is the role of a differential on a car?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96ftwi/eli5_what_is_the_role_of_a_differential_on_a_car/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4042we",
"e404522",
"e40472g"
],
"score": [
24,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I'm not educated enough to speak about the different kinds, but the differential is there to provide balanced power to the wheels while allowing them to spin at different speeds.\n\nThe reason it's necessary is because in a turn, the inner wheel takes a shorter path than the outer wheel, and thus spins more slowly, so having a rigid axle would cause severe handling issues. \n\nThere's a video with 6 million views on Youtube that explains how and why it works. It's from 1937 so is extremely retro/Fallout style, but equally as educational and applicable today.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It splits the drive from the drive shaft to the axle allowing both wheels to be driven, a limited slip diff allows the drive to be split unevenly so that if one wheel has traction and the other does not, the wheel with traction gets more. At least that’s my understanding of them. ",
"it transfers power from the transmission out to the wheels. it also allows the wheels to turn at different speeds while cornering. a limited slip differential, or \"positraction\", keeps both wheels locked in unison while going in straight lines. positraction has a set of clutches installed in the spider gears which keep the axles locked together until g-forces from cornering pull them out and allow the wheels to slip independently of each other."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI&t=3s"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3sdtrt
|
what goes in to making an already established program or game for another os?
|
How much of it is just copy and paste?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sdtrt/eli5_what_goes_in_to_making_an_already/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwwclrv"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"depends a lot of the \"quality\" of the code being ported.\n\nA \"ELI5\" tiny introduction to code abstraction.\n\nThink of a restaurant where we have 8 miscellaneous workers in the kitchen, all immigrants (dont speak the local language), and a \nsingle waiter that is a local, but is fluent on both languages.\n\n* In this model the waiter is the only connection between the kitchen to the customers, he obtains the inputs (requests in the local language) and \"translates them\" to the desired format. He also is the one who delivers the outputs (the food) to his customers.\n\nthis restaurant may work fine really, EVERY order goes through the waiter, and IF you ever need to relocate to another new country, with another local new language to the kitchen staff, you only need to \"get another waiter who talk both languages\".\n\nIn this analogy, the waiter is the department of the code of handles all input (get keyboard, joystick state, etc) and delivers all outputs (manipulates the local graphics api to draw stuff on screen, same deal for audio and others) that are specific to the environment you are running in (windows/linux/ps4/xbone/wiiu/ios/android/...). The kitchen staff would be the \"game technology code\" that is mostly the same for all platforms. (game engine, game logic, menus, interface, network protocol, ...)\n\n\nSome facts to keep in mind:\n\n* training just a single new waiter is cheaper, faster (porting time, not game performance) and more hassle free (amount of work required to port) than retraining the entire staff of the relocated restaurant for the new language. \n\n* having to talk to the middleman (waiter) instead of the kitchen staff is more costlier on resources (mostly cpu and ram). May sound more organized, but think of a very optimized game as a hospital, where EVERY SECOND counts, and many times talking directly to your destination is not just desired, but its common sense.\n\n* About copy and paste: can exist (like the restaurant analogy) but its not always great... think about this: what if the kitchen can should optimally also adapt to the new local culture? they can still produce \"edible food\", but not a optimal result without internal adjustments... this is usually what separates a sloppy port (a game that treats the pc as a xbox, even saying \"dont shutdown your console while saving\", against a good port with a bunch of platform specific optimizations and graphics settings)\n\n* Mini rant: a awful example of sloppy \"copy and paste\" abstraction layer rewriting is to get a code that understands inputs like \"xbox controller buttons\" and just remap them to keyboard keys... or maybe even worse, remap analog sticks to the mouse movement. This fits a \"kitchen staff needing to learn the new culture problem\" because the waiter can say whatever was pressed on the keyboard/mouse, but the kitchen staff expect only descriptions of \"what does this mean in xbox controller buttons?\" \n\n* (A little beyond the scope of a 5 year old) This is not specifically \"low level or high level\" in programming, you can have low level code written to a cpu arquitecture in mind, but with highly abstracted inputs/outputs. (a lot of x86 pc games that had windows/linux ports are the example)\n\n\nwell, thats it! i hope it enlightened someone out there, sorry for the typos and stuff, English is not my primary language.\nedit 1: typos\nedit 2: rewrote some parts to make it less confusing (not lingo, actually paragraph structure)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1wtj5i
|
why can you put drugs or other substances into your anus and they get into your bloodstream but the toxic agents in fecal matter do not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wtj5i/eli5_why_can_you_put_drugs_or_other_substances/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf57vy7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The walls of the intestines are a barrier that absorbs stuff selectively. It has to 'fit' to get through. Natural waste products are put in there for removal and, fittingly, the barrier has evolved to not just take it back in. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3ellqq
|
why do womens' butts shake when they walk, but mens' butts don't?
|
I've noticed when my female friends walk, their butts move side to side per step, yet this doesn't happen with my male friends.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ellqq/eli5_why_do_womens_butts_shake_when_they_walk_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctg2flu",
"ctg2hf7",
"ctggl4e"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Biology - Women's bodies are structured differently from men's. Wider hips and a lower center of gravity are important for childbirth... but also mean that the act of moving requires shifting weight from right to left as the movement of the legs moves the hips.",
"It's called sexual dimorphism. That means that males and females of a same species have different physical features.\n\nFemales in humans have wider hips, for childbirth. Thus the way they walk is different, and it seems like their ass \"rolls\" around. It's basically to compensate their wider hips. ",
"Part of it is due to having wider hips.\n\nPart of it is cultural expectations on how woman should walk, and perhaps more importantly, how men should not walk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8a29r4
|
why are most interracial couples that i see wmaf ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8a29r4/eli5_why_are_most_interracial_couples_that_i_see/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwv9jtn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Its a combination of confirmation bias and some unfortunate stereotypes.\n\nAsian women are stereotyped as being more submissive and/or exotic, while white males are more likely to be viewed favorably either financially or in a masculine way. Asia is also a slightly more classist society and caucasians side step the social standing criteria for relationships in most cases.\n\nThere is a lot of historical and pop culture awfulness behind both stereotypes, but that is why they match up well.\n\n*I am a member of one myself and I fuckin hate when any of those stereotypes are assumed about my relationship, but if you are looking for loose overarching trends there it is. Also seriously a lot of confirmation bias, it isn't that one sided."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9ih5o4
|
how and why did shoes made for tennis become the mainstream shoe people wear for just about anything.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ih5o4/eli5_how_and_why_did_shoes_made_for_tennis_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6jssgf",
"e6jwo5t",
"e6k034o",
"e6k47bm"
],
"score": [
20,
6,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"They didn’t. Certain regional areas just use “tennis shoes” as a catchall name for any kind of athletic footwear. I’m from the Northeast US and we call them sneakers, not tennis shoes.",
"They're not shoes exclusively for tennis, as others have said - that's a matter of naming. To me they're \"trainers\". But whatever you call them... there's a long history of casual/\"sports\" wear becoming mainstream (even formal) garments. The modern business suit, for example, is not far divorced from the sort of thing that a gentleman would have worn for a day in shooting in the country. The bottom line is that, for obvious reasons, sports wear is almost always a more comfortable/forgiving - but still acceptable under current views of what's \"acceptable\" - version of whatever the current mainstream wear is. So people start wearing it as casual wear. Pretty soon everyone's wearing it, and it's no longer merely casual; it's the new mainstream. So there's a new threshold against which sportswear is judged. And round the circle goes. Footwear is no exception.",
"Because schools didn't want you to scuff up the gym floor.\n\nBack in the day, people wore hard sole shoes that would mark up smooth surfaces if you stopped or changed directions in them too quickly. For sports like tennis that were often played on such a surface, you switched to softer rubber-soled shoes.\n\nSchools used to require two pairs of shoes, a regular pair and a pair of tennis styles shoes you kept in your locker. Those kinds of shoes became increasingly popular and people started wearing them all the time.\n",
"Athletic footwear, whether you're talking about actual tennis shoes or just generic trainers/sneakers, has a lot of advantages for many situations. It's usually very comfortable to walk around in because it's designed for use in activities that involve lots of movement. Due to the material used, it also tends to be more breathable so it's more comfortable when it's warm out. It also can be much cheaper than other types of shoes. While a lot of athletic shoes have inflated prices due to branding, the materials used are usually much cheaper than other shoes. Actual dress shoes need comparably expensive leather unless you get ultra-cheap dress shoes with synthetic materials. They also require a much better tailored fit in order to be comfortable compared to a soft and pliable athletic shoe. Boots require a lot more material than most shoes and again, require a much more precise fit in order to be all day comfortable.\n\nSo athletic footwear is a natural winner for most scenarios that don't require a certain level of sophistication or extreme durability for things like bad weather or working conditions.\n\nAnd then you can get into the more subjective stuff like fashion. People start wearing a specific pair of sneakers for the status symbol cause it's the design worn by a great basketball player or other iconic person. Or people start pairing them with suit separates because it provides some playful irony in an otherwise business or nightlife oriented outfit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6or2gb
|
why do people leave the car window rolled down on a hot summer day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6or2gb/eli5why_do_people_leave_the_car_window_rolled/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkjipjz",
"dkjis56"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because heat rises. If the windows are cracked some of that heat escapes.\n\nWhen it's 90 outside on a hot summer day it's like 120 in a car with the windows up. ",
"Because my baby is in there. I'm not a monster. Eating a meal takes time and I'm not going to let him and his puppy suffer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5zy2uy
|
why aren't there more airlift rescues from higher altitudes on mt. everest?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zy2uy/eli5_why_arent_there_more_airlift_rescues_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df1xi90",
"df1xwr0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly because of altitude. Helicopters can only fly so high before the air gets too thin to generate lift. ",
"What u/Ender505 said. Its way too high for helicopters to operate. They also have a lower hover ceiling than a cruise ceiling. Helicopters create lift not simply by spinning but also by moving through the air. A helicopter rescue mission generally necessitates hovering. The highest helicopter rescue recorded was at 23000 feet, in Nepal on Annapurna. Its still pretty dangerous to try a rescue mission at that altitude, which is why it's only been done once. 23000 feet is only halfway up the ascent to Everest."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8lw8r7
|
do nfl players saleries draw from tax subsidies or are they paid from team revenue?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8lw8r7/eli5_do_nfl_players_saleries_draw_from_tax/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzivzer",
"dzixil3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They are from the team revenue. Taxes will sometimes be used by a city to build a stadium, but other than that taxes are not involved with funding the NFL. ",
"under the current CBA NFL players receive 47% of league revenues as salary and benefits.\n\nin general the idea that the NFL is heavily tax subsidized is overblown; the league office was once incorporated as a nonprofit trade association but generates no revenue and has only a handful of employees. All meaningful revenue is generated by the individual franchises, which pay taxes on it as normal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
awwx87
|
why does exercise cause us to not be so depressed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/awwx87/eli5_why_does_exercise_cause_us_to_not_be_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehprvgx",
"ehq27tt",
"ehqct7k",
"ehqeemk",
"ehqn21b"
],
"score": [
150,
56,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It releases dopamine which is the pleasure chemical in our brain. That makes us happy and feel good about the activity we just did, IE working out. ",
"You can’t think about financial problems or your sad social life while constantly thinking, “running sucks... and I suck at running.”",
"Some forms of exercise are inherently enjoyable for the right person. Many people see exercise as this necessary pain when it doesn't have to be. Find something you enjoy. There are people who love running, playing soccer, snowboarding, swimming, canoeing, and hiking. There are also people who hate one or more of those things because (for one reason or another) it's not their thing.\n\nExercise is also positive stress, which means that it improves bodily functions, depending on the type of exercise. Most types of exercise improve the way the body regulates energy (blood sugar, mitochondria, hormones, and neurochemicals). In the same way that exercising our brain by learning new things helps us get smarter, exercise makes the body learn to make the energy that helps us feel joy and happiness.\n\nTL;DR: if depression is a werewolf then exercise is (for many people) a silver bullet.",
"I don't wanna sound ignorant but isn't one of the hallmarks of depression that your brain is unable to or has trouble absorbing dopamine and/or serotonin? Wouldn't exercise just lead to frustration in that case?",
"Your body has something called cyktokynes they're a bloodmarker/measure of inflammation in your blood, when you exercise your muscles use up these cytokynes in your muscles in order to repair micro trauma from exercise, this lowers the available cytokynes in your stomach that cause excessive anxiety, leading to overall decreased inflammation and anxiety, there is also an entire gut microbiome and vagus nerve that obviously has a lot to do with depression/mental states. \n\n\nthere is also arising evidence that exercise increases natural levels of your endocannibinoid systems and gives you a natural high. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n(here is a great video explaining some of the underlying mechanisms of depression) [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqyjVoZ4XYg"
]
] |
||
2ub9ta
|
what are the actual ingredients in a vaccine, and what are their purposes?
|
I've read everything from mercury to aborted fetal tissue, what's the real story?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ub9ta/eli5_what_are_the_actual_ingredients_in_a_vaccine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co6thue",
"co6toi0",
"co6tr08"
],
"score": [
25,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The essential ingredient is a small amount of the thing you're trying to vaccinate against. Usually, it's either a mild or a disabled form of the pathogen (\"thing that makes you sick\") that won't put up a good fight to the immune system. The immune system, in turn, learns what that pathogen looks like and can fight it better later - sort of the same principle as training a dog to recognize a smell.\n\nAll the other stuff is there to help that successfully get into your body. The \"mercury\" that anti-vaxxers panic about is a preservative called thiomersal, which is there to prevent bacteria from growing inside the vaccine dose. Since it's to be shot directly into your bloodstream, it would be bad to have a large enough dose there to make you sick. Thiomersal is, as far as we know, safe in the tiny amounts used in vaccines, but it's no longer used in most of them anyway.\n\nThe fetal tissue I would assume is used as a growth medium, but that strikes me as a \"YOU'RE INJECTING DEAD BABIES!!!11!!ONE!!111\" panic thing.",
"You pharmacy or doctor's office (or wherever you are getting the vaccine) should have a list of the ingredients used in each vaccine. ",
"Vaccines contain an agent that is similar to the microorganism causing a specific disease. These are often attenuated (dead or weakened) microbes or parts of the microbe itself like surface proteins. This allows the bodie's immune system to recognise the agent and kill it, whilst making a record of it, allowing it to kill the actual microorganism should it invade the body in the future. They also have a range of other things in them as well such as preservatives etc. and thiomersal is a mercury based compound that used as a preservative, although it isn't harmful to humans in the quantities found in vaccines and there is no scientific evidence to the [contrary](_URL_0_). Anti-vaccination groups often simply say mercury to scare people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158"
]
] |
|
6ol4pv
|
how exactly has the urban transit infrastructure of so many american cities grown so poor?
|
Isolating the broader question of why so much infrastructure across the United States in general is in such rough shape: How, specifically—through what actions, inactions, decisions, or policies/lack of policies—has it come to pass that the public transit in cities like New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington DC—cities with so much wealth and resources—is in such disrepair and decline?
Put another way: what is the specific disconnect at play between government/those in power and public transit, that has allowed transit infrastructure to decline so much?
Not looking for arguments over policy or any sort of class/political warfare, but objective clarity into specific factors and mechanisms at play. As a resident of one of these cities, I struggle with what exactly has transpired to allow infrastructure to be so neglected, and what might be areas where people could advocate for more action or discussion.
Pointers to good reading on this topic/question appreciated.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ol4pv/eli5_how_exactly_has_the_urban_transit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dki7xxy",
"dki8xne",
"dki9zxu"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I would argue the public transportation systems in these places was never that great, although the NYC Subway system is pretty good by US Standards. US infrastructure is built around the idea of private vehicle ownership, and cheap gasoline.",
"Maybe someone else has it saved but a year or so ago there was a post about the modern rail system that LA had back in the early 1900's. It was bought out by shell companies which were owned by large car manufacturers who promptly started to dismantle the system in order to push personnel automobile sales. \n\nAlso, us society in many areas is quite spread out (suburbanism) which is again tied very closely to being independent through vehicle ownership. ",
"Public transit systems often bring in just enough revenue to cover operating expenses, but not enough revenue to save up for longer term investments/repairs/maintenance/growth. \n\nThe least expensive model for maintaining and growing public transit infrastructure is to regularly invest in maintenance *before* problems become acute. However, this can be very tricky to do. It means increasing fairs or passing a bond issue, both of which are very unpopular with the public, during a time when there isn't an immediate pressing need to do so. Thus, many systems can only gain public support once the issues are acute, at which point the cost of repairs is far higher. \n\nIn short, it is difficult to motivate the public to agree to investing funds when the need is not acute; once it is acute, the cost may have risen astronomically to a point where reasonable funding options are no longer available and systems must resort to extreme responses (e.g., DC's SafeTrack) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1y8jh1
|
why do humans dislike the smell of feces yet animals, like dogs and rats, aren't fazed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y8jh1/eli5_why_do_humans_dislike_the_smell_of_feces_yet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfia3jk",
"cfibwh1",
"cficnl3",
"cfidpb1",
"cfidsr0",
"cfiea8z",
"cfiehyp",
"cfiem7f",
"cfif6o0",
"cfifck3",
"cfifka8",
"cfiglj7",
"cfigv9w",
"cfigx5z",
"cfihcig",
"cfihf89",
"cfihwnv",
"cfii4k3",
"cfilque",
"cfimu5h",
"cfiogf5",
"cfiv7rg"
],
"score": [
94,
5,
2,
11,
6,
78,
2,
7,
6,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it has to do with our wonderful plumbing and mechanical systems. We're unused to smelling it regularly. Dogs, on the other hand, like to see what other dogs have been around. It's like another dog delivered a hot steamy message to the neighbor's yard.\r\rPersonally, I say just wait until you change diapers. Even once they're potty-trained, you still have to help wipe. The smell eventually doesn't phase you.\rEven so, every once in a while, there are some really nasty toddler poops that smell like dog shit. Those are gross. But otherwise, the normal smell of human poop becomes significantly less offensive to the nose.",
"In addition to what other have said, yes we are 'conditioned' from a young age to find the smell unpleasant. People around us tell us feces are unpleasant and we learn from them.\n\nAlso, yes we are cognitively programmed to find certain things unpleasant - bitter, sour foods, certain smells like sulphur (and feces) because they were probably bad for us, poisonous or contained parasites. We have natural selection to thank for that - people who didn't find these things unpleasant likely ate them and died of tapeworm. Thus those genes were bred out.\n\nIncidentally, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned some humans DO like feces. This is psychological though, not biological. ",
"Well not ALL humans dislike the smell of feces, for starters. :D",
"A dog smells in \"layers\". So instead of all the ingredients making one single foul smell, they separate the different odorurs and can determine things like the health of the indiviual they are sniffing. \n\nOne example would be a stew. We would only smell the stew, while a dog would be able to smell all the different ingredients.",
"I think I read somewhere that the \"yuck\" face made when you smell bad things actually increases the size of your nasal passages so you can smell better. This is to force you to smell feces so you can track other animals (which is probably useful to non-human animals). I've seen my cats make the yuck face when licking eachother's butt holes.\n\nEDIT for sources:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"This can be best explained by the autonomic [disgust response.](_URL_1_) \n\nDisgust is a basic human emotion. It's origin and how it works is still being highly debated. \n\nSocial psychologists, with an evolutionary perspective, will argue along the lines of the social brain theory (Our brains are larger than other animals, more complex, and developed because our species had the capacity and need for social development). Our highly socialized brain, through evolution, have developed a variety of automatic responses, physical/mental/emotional, to protect oneself from harm. The smell of feces disgusts humans, because our bodies already assume via smell that the substance could be harmful. \n\nThis article floats along the lines of what I just mentioned, but speaks more about genetics (our current, observable DNA), than just pure evolutionary theory: _URL_0_\n\n~~Our bodies do not handle eating feces very well, metabolically. Other animals, on the other hand, have different enzymes and natural immunity to various things in nature. Perhaps other animals have evolved to enjoy the scent because their bodies can process fecal waste, and their autonomic functions view it as a source of nutrients rather than harm.~~\n\nEdit: /u/CommentKing has corrected me, it is not our enzymes that cannot process, it is our stomach acid. Thank you for enlightening me :)",
"Aren't fazed is an understatement. My dog chows down at the cat box buffet.",
"Possibly this should be it's own ELI5, but: Why do I tollerate/like my own farts/poops but anyone else's makes me gag?",
"There was a documentary that discussed this. I forget what one. The premise was that it is a response developed over the centuries to unsanitary conditions, and therefore dangerous to your health/life, to be avoided. ",
"Because, unlike us, they eat that shit. ",
"I think the only exception to that rule is mom's of new born's that breastfeed. All my kids poo smelled like fresh popcorn until they started to eat solid food.",
"Dogs, unlike humans, have [anal sacs](_URL_0_) that contain a pungent liquid content that is near their anal sphincter. As feces exits their anus, it presses against these glands allowing the secretion to coat the feces. This pungent liquid is unique to each dog, their \"fingerprint.\" It's used to let other dog's know whose territory this is based on the unique funk of their poo.",
"Speak for yourself ;)\n",
"never eating my tea on reddit again :|",
"My dog loves the smell so much he eats it directly from the cat box. ",
"We train our children to be disgusted by feces. Children start off finding the smell of feces appealing, that's why they have no problem playing with it.",
"People love the smell of shit. Who are you kidding?\nWhat do you do when someone says they farted? You sit there until you smell it too.",
"Animals can smell food left over in poop",
"It can be explained from a sociological perspective in that we are told from a young age that this substance, feces, is not desirable. Therefore, every aspect of it becomes undesirable including sight and smell. The fact that SOME humans are repulsed by it is simply a social construct. Other cultures use their feces as fertilizer and are unfazed by working with it. this is simply because their culture has a different set of values than ours as well as a different set of social constructs. ",
"Giving an upvote just for spelling faze correctly.",
"Because humans with that trait survived to pass it on top offspring, as it was advantageous to them. Because of differences in physiology this trait was not advantageous to rats or dogs.",
"Specifically in the case of mice, they are pooping and peeing all the time so when they smell it they assume they are in a safe place where other mice have been hanging out. So if you remove mice pee and poop while at the same time exterminating the living vermin, new vermin are less likely to come and think, oh hey this place is pretty cool. Instead, they think why isn't there any poop or pee around here? Something is wrong... \nthat's what the exterminator told me. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flehmen_response",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_senses#Smell"
],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/disgust.shtml",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_gland"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1h3o22
|
canadian football + rules
|
You can also explain like I'm a dumb Packers fan. I guess I'm looking for the differences between NFL and the CFL since I decided to start watching I want to know what I'm looking at.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1h3o22/eli5_canadian_football_rules/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caqj5h7",
"caqja8u"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The main differences you'd probably notice right away is that we use a larger field, have 12 players per team on the field, and that there are only three downs. There are [a fair number](_URL_0_) of other minor differences as well though.\n\nOne thing that should be pointed out as well is that this isn't a Canadian version of an American game. not that you said any such thing, but someone always does. It developed here at the same time, and they are really just two flavours of what could as easily be called \"North American football\".",
"3 downs. Bigger wider field (including end zones), 12 men on each side (extra man will likely be a slotback/dback), play clock is 20 seconds, kicking is really different including the offense can kick the ball in motion in play like rugby(!), I believe only two timeouts per game (not reset by the half), no two minute warning. The season is played from june to november because of weather. Some other smaller technical differences like NCAA and NFL.\n\nIt's much faster than American football but the differences aren't so great that American players can jump in pretty easily after a couple weeks at most."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_Canadian_football"
],
[]
] |
|
4wwhtc
|
the soviet government structure
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wwhtc/eli5_the_soviet_government_structure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6aii69",
"d6aj4ja",
"d6aj7og",
"d6aktsn",
"d6akz4x",
"d6alyct",
"d6anwiy",
"d6apleh",
"d6apzm1",
"d6araix",
"d6aral7",
"d6b1yl1",
"d6b2681",
"d6b42h2",
"d6bgo0a"
],
"score": [
538,
55,
2,
1517,
10,
81,
2,
29,
2,
18,
35,
3,
5,
5,
13
],
"text": [
"The key thing to understand is that the Soviet government's structure wasn't that important because the USSR was a single party state. So imagine America if only the Democratic Party was legal. You'd still have a president, a Supreme Court, a house and senate. But the person who set the agenda would be the person in charge of the Democratic Party.\n\nSham democracies will organize like this and have elections between two candidates from the same party. Unfortunately, it dupes a lot of people. \n\n",
"Emigre from a post-soviet country here.\nMay I ask, what period are inquiring about? Pre-Stalinist, Stalinist, Late Soviet period (circa 1977 till the fall of Communism)?\n",
"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a bit hard to explain like you're five but I can try. The USSR is dated to be as old as 1922 and lasted until 1991. Under this state title, the \"Union\", at its height, consisted of modern day:\n\nArmenia\nAzerbaijan\nChina (only parts)\nEstonia\nGermany (only parts)\nGeorgia\nKazakhstan\nKyrgyzstan\nLatvia\nLithuania\nMoldova\nMongolia\nPoland\nRussia\nTajikistan\nTurkmenistan\nUkraine\nUzbekistan\n\nIn child terms, the actual system and way the government ran changed many times over, but in essence Russia was in charge. These other nation's government's were similar to puppets having their strings pulled. No matter who was in charge Russia was always the puppeteer. \n\nEach government of the territories under USSR control had their own smaller scale versions of the same government system, all funneling resources eventually to the Russian epicenter.\n\nThe system of government on the outside would seem to be good. Factory and industry worker and farmers would all do their part to supply what was needed, and the government would distribute every good and service equally, regardless of social status. No primary religion was required by the state. Medicine would be universal as well. \n\nOn the *inside* the system had many flaws beginning with the fact that the government officials at the top directly controlled where resources (food, threads, oil, etc) ACTUALLY went and were never regulated by anyone except the very tip top of the ladder. These tip top leaders over the course of the USSR's existence were men named Lenin, Stalin, Ivashko, Kalinen, and Gorbachev. \n\nWhat made the USSR notably terrible was Josef Stalin at his height of influence and power. He was a very paranoid man with many political enemies who would throw anyone into a gulag (Russian labor camp or prison, usually in the harshest of areas like the frozen tundra) just for looking at him wrong. Under all of the rulers bad things would tend to happen to those who had anything negative to say about the USSR, but Stalin is quite infamous for his evil ways.\n\nAGAIN, this is an ELI5, not a technical definition. Most of this information (except for the country list which i took from Wikipedia) is from what i learned in school. Further reading on the USSR is recommended if you want to explore all of this deeper. \n\nedit: spelling and grammar errors",
"The Soviet structure changed multiple times in history. I'm going to talk about the pre-1989 system. There's a lot of really weird \"communist\" administrative names that get used, so it gets pretty confusing. The Soviet system is based around the idea of \"soviets\", which roughly means workers' council. Furthermore, the administrative system is split between the actual government and the Communist Party. \n\nRurally, people would vote for their village soviet (city council). Each village soviet would send a delegate to the township soviet (county council). The township soviet makes laws for that particular area.\n\nIn cities, it was slightly different. People from different productive groups (unions) would send delegates to the city soviet (city council). \n\nIt's insanely complicated at the provincial/district level, but the idea is the same. Local councils send delegates to higher-up councils. So forth. \n\nAt the very top, you had the Supreme Soviet (House of Representatives). These guys were supposedly the highest legislative body, but were really just rubberstamping whatever the Communist Party wanted. They also selected the Council of Ministers, which were the guys running the day-to-day operations (education, infrastructure, etc.). The head of the Council of Ministers was the Premier of the Soviet Union.\n\nIn reality, the country was run by the policymakers internal to the Communist Party (CPSU). These policies were supposedly created by the Congress of the CPSU, which was composed of delegates from around the USSR. \n\nHowever, the Congress only met every few years, so most of the actual decisions were made by the Central Committee, which was separated into the Politburo and the Secretariat. The Central Committee also included other members, but was often only rubberstamping what the Politburo wanted. \n\nThe Politburo were the head honchos. They made the big policy decisions. Most people think of the Politburo when they think of the guys who worked with Stalin, Khrushchev, or Brezhnev. These are the guys who run the show, but you can see a lot of historical conflict between the Politburo and other organs of the government.\n\nThe Secretariat were the administrators responsible for the day-to-day running of the Communist Party. The leader of the Secretariat was the General Secretary and was the head of the whole CPSU. When we talk about \"leaders of the Soviet Union\", we mean the General Secretary. Khrushchev, Stalin, Lenin, Gorbachev were all General Secretaries.\n\nAll in all, the Soviet government is really, really confusing. Especially when you realize that most of the \"councils\" and \"organs\" were rubberstamping orders from top-down.\n\n**TLDR: USSR had a day-to-day government, which was run by the Council of Ministers and led by the Premier. The Communist Party was run by both the Politburo and the Secretariat. It was led by the General Secretary.**\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Ok, so this is for the USSR after 1977 and before 1989 as I understand it. \n\nFirst, there is some disconnect between how an American thinks of the legislative power and day to day running of the country and how the USSR operated. There are the 'organs' of government which actually have similar powers, draw from similar pools of people (often simultaneously) and all go at it together.\n\nFor instance there were between 3 and 5 space agencies building, designing and testing rockets during the space race. So imagine there were 5 NASAs and they all got funding from various political officers, legislative branches and governments. But this applies to every governmental function more or less and even crosses the boundaries of the soviet republics which composed the USSR.\n\nAt the top and off to the side a bit is the Communist Party. They hold real power, but in general take care to diffuse that power into their organs of governance. After Stalin they distanced themselves from the autocratic form of Leninism. So there was a power struggle and those that won that power struggle became the leader of the Communist Party. The leader then appointed an inner circle (the Council of Ministers) and powerful political figures (First Secretary, other communist party positions). The party itself met every five years at a congress, which famously directed the five-year plans. This is where the favor of the wider powerful people in government could be expressed and the party held power over the leaders (in theory). There is another layer outside of the inner party a kind of general admission communist party in which most of the important people in the USSR belonged.\n\nThe 'inner party' then diffused into the larger organs of government. Namely the Presidium, Supreme Soviet and Government of the USSR. Each of the positions in these organs would be filled by the Communist Party faithful and be promoted based on a strange system of organized corruption and patronage and factions within the power structures of the party.\n\nThe chairman Presidium was the de jure head of state, when the Supreme Soviet was not in session. The presidium made decrees, interpreted laws, oversaw elections, controlled the armed forces, etc. \n\nThe Supreme Soviet had legislative powers but mostly rubberstamped laws from the Premier or Party directly. They were also proportionally democratically elected in theory. \n\nThe Government of the USSR generally ran things and functioned as the executive branch. This is where the Premier of the Soviet Republics was situated, who was the de facto head of state. The Premier was also sometimes the leader of the Communist Party. The govt generally oversaw various on the ground institutions. Although there was generally a lot of politics over funding which could come from any of the above mentioned agencies. \n\nThen below this there is the cluster fuck of actual agencies. They gained and lost power through the political machinations of the individuals of the above organizations also those with real power in the military, various independent security agencies, autonomous regions (secret military/research areas like Los Alamos, USA in the 1940s) and major industrial centers (huge factories which controlled huge areas and eventually vertically integrated for raw materials).\n\nThere is also the can of worms that all of this was done while not talking of Capitol (the money kind Marx cared about). So much of the funding was in terms of work hours, housing vouchers, raw materials and political favors.",
"Simple ELI5 version. The USSR ran under a system called [Council Democracy](_URL_0_) (\"Soviet\" means \"council\")\n\nYou elect a city council. It is a mostly fair election (unless this is during Stalin's time) where local issues are debated.\n\nThe City Council then appoints a representative from among themselves to go to the Council that runs the County.\n\nThe County Council then appoints a representative from among themselves to represent them at the Provincial Council (\"State-level\" in US terms).\n\nThe Provincial Council appoints a representative from among themselves to go the the National Council.\n\nThe National Council appoints a member from among themselves to be the General Secretary (Head of State).\n\nThrough this system, the influence of public opinion is focused solely at the local level. The system of appointments to higher councils dilutes public opinion in favor of bureaucratic interests.\n\nThe theory behind it was that it was supposed to be a more fair and representative system than the parliamentary democracies of the West that was more reactive to the will of the population as a whole (since their main criticism of parliamentary systems was the capture by bourgeois special interests). In practice, however, it turned out that people in government have personal interests as well and it became an oligarchic system completely immune to popular interests because as a representative to one of the higher councils, you could just bargain with your lower council to ensure you can't be ousted by creating laws that make it hard for competitors to challenge your supporters.\n\nThis means that even if there were ideological divisions within the Communist Party, they had an incentive to remain together and reconcile those differences rather than split into an opposition to gather popular support for a change in policy. The poorly planned electoral system is what allowed the USSR to be both a \"democracy\" and a totalitarian dictatorship.",
"From someone who live in a communist country. I try to make the best tldr i could. English isnt my native language so excuse me.\n\nIt has a congress and a government, and the court too. But the communist party is the highest headquater, not government. The party will decide how big things will work in the country. And everything must go in that way. The presidium is \"elected\" but actually it is the guy who has highest power to take the position.\n\nBasicly, if you want to get into the government/court/congress you must be a member of the party. Since the party has the direct power in selection candidate for the position.\n\nSo if one day the party decided that the country need to trade with the western, they will allow the gorvenment to open the port and citizen are allow to trade with western people ",
"You'd be better off asking in /r/communism101 or something. There you'll find a mix of people who have studied the (several) systems in depth. Most of the answers here ignore the fact that the Constitution of the Soviet Union was overhauled multiple times.",
"I'll preface by noting that this isn't conducive to ELI5. The government structures were convoluted and dynamic in some respects.\n\nHowever, the big picture included two legislative houses, and an executive branch that like much of the world separated head of government from head of state. \n\nThe court system was subordinate within the government.\n\nThen there was the Communist Party, which was an integral part of the government, selecting and promoting officials at all levels of government.",
"The structure changed over time so I will only explain the main principles and the structure before the collapse. \n\nThe Soviet Union was officially a federation of \"Soviet Socialist Republics\". The largest one - Russian FSSR was also a quite complicated federation in itself. The word \"Soviet\" meant \"council\" and was purely political and decorative like the word \"people's\" in other socialist states.\n\nThe Soviet union had a parliament - the Supreme Soviet - which was like the US congress. It didn't have a president because nominally it was a parliamentary republic where the Soviet had all the power and it nominated a government which was led by the chairman - the prime minister. The respective republics had their own soviets which were like state congresses. \n\nHowever the real power lie with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which was like a parallel government with formal constitutional ties to the government because the party was the only one allowed. It was led by the Central Committee which was like a parallel government and this central committee being a huge bureaucratic body had also a \"head\" or an \"executive office\". This head was the Politburo - the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and it was like the council of actual ministers. The chairman of the Politburo as traditionally the \"General Secretary\" and he was actually in charge of the country. The Communist Party of the Soviet union had its daughter parties in all the republics and all of them had their local central committees. The Communist Party had also its own Party Congress which was like the Supreme Soviet only for the member of the party.\n\nThe way it worked was that all the decisions were made up within the Politburo unless every now and then a larger shift occurred within the party and the Party Congress was involved in the political dealings. The Supreme Soviet only rubber-stamped all the decisions and served as a grand illusion that the USSR is a democratic republic. In Britain you have two main parties and the tradition of the cabinet and the shadow cabinet. In the USSR it \"just so happened\" that the communist party being the only party allowed managed the cabinet and the shadow cabinet at the same time and as a savings measure integrated it into one! Socialism is a better system!\n\nIt is therefore quite important to realize that the decision to dissolve the Soviet Union was happening not within the communist party system but within the Soviets - the local assemblies. The communist party was divided too - after all you couldn't be a delegate to the Soviet and *not* be in the Communist Party but it was the parliaments where the push to change the system started and gained momentum. Yeltsin - the first president of Russia - was the nominal president of the Soviet of the Russian Federative Soviet Socialist Republic. So in a way the Soviet Union collapsed because the local parliaments were fed up with being just the pushover rubber-stamp joke and not the seat of the national power as the constitution promised. \n\nInteresting thing also - initially the chairman of the party was the leader of the party and the country and that function naturally fell to Lenin. But after Lenin's death people started fighting among themselves, nobody had Lenin's position and people wanted to prevent the second most influential Bolshevik - Trotsky - from replacing Lenin. Stalin who was the secretary general at the time maneuvered very skillfully leading people against one another and eliminating political opponents but never formally claiming the position of the leader of the party. It wasn't until 1941, shortly before German invasion that he was appointed the \"prime minister\" of the USSR. So in fact it wasn't until after the Great Purge that he nominated himself to position of nominal power. Compare that with Hitler who was declared Fuhrer (new title) and took over both the office of the Chancellor and the President within two years of nomination to Chancellorship. Stalin was far more practical but as a result \"General secretary\" was traditionally the chair of the politburo.\n\n\n\n",
"- Neighborhood council elects a representative to the city.\n- City representatives elect a representative to the county.\n- County representative elect a representative to the state.\n- State representatives elect the leaders of the country.\n\nIn context of the west:\n\n- You vote for your mayor.\n- Mayors vote for state governors\n- State governors elect the President.\n\nBut the catch is that every candidate is endorsed by the same party, and as you get further and further up in the system, it become easier and easier for the top level to simply pander to the people that elect them instead of the actual voters, leading to a corrupt system rife with nepotism and inefficiencies where politicians largely look out for their own immediate self and close circle rather than the people.",
"Some people explained it already, but given that my family background is from the USSR, I could give a bit more insight. \n\n\nThe USSR was governed by the Communist party. So although there was a parliament and such, it was closer to the DNC, and them voting on things, except without any other parties. And if you wanted to participate in government on any level, you had to become part of the Communist party. \n\nThe reality though, was that the General Secretary was dictator, and the main Council of the Communist party created whatever laws they wanted, and everyone else \"voted\" in accordance with their wishes. \n\nThe Communist party also had local branches representing various countries, areas, and even neighborhoods. It decided everything from supply side economics to what would be taught in schools. The \"people\" were able to input, but only if they were part of the communist party (not everyone in the USSR was part of the Communist party) and only if it was a matter the General Secretary didn't particularly care about (i.e. local matters). ",
"Russian law student here, had to learn this during the first year as ''History of law and state of Russia''. So, forgive me for possible mistakes, it is not information I use that often. Also, sorry for eyebreaking grammar mistakes.\n\nAs for the question itself: soviet government differs depending on the period, but for most of its history is was like this-there is the Hight Soviet(Counsil), which on period consisted from ''representatives''(who were chosen without alternative, at least for most of USSR history), which for most of the history consisted of two branches-Soviet of Nationalities(selected from every soviet republic) and Soviet of Union(form USSR as a whole). This is de jure the only rulling body of the intire USSR, no separation of power exists, even as a doctrine(just like in Britain some time earlier, btw-parlament is allpowerfull). However, the High Counsil only acts during assemblies(siezdi, съезды) and while it is not assembled, the Presidium rulles as supreme rulling body, desisions of which could only be overrulled by High Counsil during assemblies. Thing westerners could call ''executive'' body is Soviet of People's Commissars/Ministers, which manages accordig to the derectives of aforementioned bodies.\nThis is a very crude picture (not including such things as separation of ''state bodies'' and ''bodies of state's power'', ''control bodies'' and ''supervision bodies'' etc.) there and no intirely trutfull for all of soviet history (only 1936-1941 1945-1977), but it's all I could provide you with wihout making things up. Feel free to ask questions, will try to answer later.",
"OP, you should try /r/askhistorians, since the USSR is past the 20 year rule there and cold war logic/misconceptions are countered by professional study",
"So some people keep saying that because the Soviet Union was a single party state, the structure didn't matter. This is ludicrous. The structure does matter, because the structure describes the process of how governance was conducted. I'm sorry so many people wanted to waste your time with quibbles like that. \n\nThe question actually is very difficult to answer, because the government of the Soviet Union was constantly evolving in a way that the US Government, with its rigid constitution, does not. Imagine if one year the House made all the laws that mattered and the Senate really only was a 'rubber stamp' organization that just signed off on what the House did, then the next year the Senate made all the laws that matters, and the House was ignored. Then imagine that a special committee of the Senate, just the top leaders, was formed and this group had lawmaking authority, and in turn selected an executive to execute the laws...it really changed a lot. \n\nThere is a general picture, though. \n\nThe first thing to know is that the Communist Party is just a party. There are elections in the Soviet Union. Now, the Communists for the most part appear to have rigged elections (mostly by intimidation, but perhaps also by actually manipulating ballots) so that Communists either were the only candidates running, or they always won with obscene percentages of the vote (96% - really). The Soviet Union was legendary for its turnout, too - 90%+ of voters turned out. These voters would elect local party officials. To stand for an election or really have any political influence of any kind you had to be a Party Member, which not all people were (in fact the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) only had a million or so members). The local officials would then, much like in a Parliamentary Democracy, select leaders from the Party Members and select regional delegates to the regional legislature which was called...\n\nSo you may have wondered where the word \"Soviet\" comes from. \"Soviet\" is actually a word that means \"Council\" (in the USSR) - basically, this is an elected body that made rules - locally, nationally, and for the Union. \n\nEach nation in the Soviet Union had many territories, and each territory elected a regional Soviet (like a House of Representatives). That Soviet, in turn, selected members of the Supreme Soviet of that Nation. Russia has a Supreme Soviet, so did Ukraine, Poland, Kazahkstan, etc. These Supreme Soviets elected a Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. \n\nThis structure, by the way, of lower elected bodies electing higher elected bodies, layered like a wedding cake with tiers, is very common in the Soviet system of government - even to the point that even tiny groups at the very top still elect even smaller groups. In the US, you only exercise legislative power in the full body of the House or Senate (or Parliament) - but in the Soviet Union, usually the power gets 'handed up' to a smaller committee for various reasons (mostly political expediency and greed). \n\nThe Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union (from now on I'll just call this Supreme Soviet) was the foremost legislative body in the country. It made the laws much as the US Congress or UK Parliament does. It elects another, superior group called the Presidium of the Soviet Union. This body performs a lot of the 'smaller' rule making functions, eg selects the Council of Ministers which is a sort of 'head of the bureaucracy' (imagine if instead of reporting to the President, the Executive Department Heads (eg Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, etc) were selected directly by Congress and reported to Congress - this is *sort of* how it works in the UK). The Presidium also appointed judges, declared war, ratified (but did not sign) treaties, appointed ambassadors, etc. \n\nThat's basically the legislature. On to the Executive. \n\nThe Executive was completely contained within the Communist Party. Periodically, there would be a Party Congress (all the members would go to meetings, and vote on constitutional amendments and party policies). This can be thought of as analogous to the \"primary\" process in the US within each party - the Republicans basically select their candidates this way (but since the CPSU always wins, the primary is effectively the election). The Party Congress would also select the Central Committee (this is how we get to the primary analogy). The Central Committee of the Communist Party was effectively the \"executive body\" - any major decisions/policies would be made within the Central Committee. The Central Committee would in turn elect a Politburo (Political Bureau). The Politburo was where the main power was held. This committee of about 10-14 people of huge political influence (all of them were also in the Council of Ministers, the Central Committee, the Supreme Soviet...etc) made all the decisions of the Soviet Union. The Politburo was chaired by the General Secratary of the Communist Party - this person also usually help the post of Premiere, and was effectively the Prime Minister/President of the Soviet Union. Depending on how much power this person was able to wield within the Politburo, they were effectively dictator of the Soviet Union (though even they could be removed and replaced if they antagonized other powerful people in the party). \n\nSo we have a legislative Presidium elected by the Supreme Soviet, which has some functions we'd normally think of as \"executive\" tucked in. \n\nAnd we have an executive Central Committee, which elects a small group to actually exercise authority. \n\nAnd then a Council of Ministers which, like the federal Executive Departments actually does the day-to-day business of the government. \n\nI should note, some sources will identify the Council of Ministers as the Executive - to me this is kind of the tail wagging the dog, as the Politburo Members would also wear Ministerial \"hats,\" the real power was always in the Politburo (or the Central Committee). \n\nNow the thing is, as I noted up top, this was constant in flux. Some groups were very important in different eras and not important in others (particularly in the Party - Central Committee/Politburo/etc). This was done in part to \"cut out\" certain individuals who fell out of favor - a sort of political coup; rather than simply removing someone from office and replacing them with someone else, the whole structure of the government would change. \n\nGenerally speaking the structure is clearly identifiable, the issue is whether or not specific organs were doing what they are said to do in any given premiership. For example, Andropov might've depracated certain CoM functions and transferred them to the Central Committee - while his successor felt differently. At the end of the day, in the Soviet Government a lot of how it worked depended on the \"user\" (the General Secretary at the time). \n\nThe thing that is consistent, though, is there was always a fanatical desire to \"cover up\" failings and wrongdoings. Presumably, this was to protect the integrity of the single-party state...but whatever the reason, even now it's hard for people who weren't in the system to say just how it worked. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
37524i
|
why is cow manure okay to fertilize plants but cat manure isn't?
|
Some articles have indicated that cat manure is okay for flower plants but definitely not for veggies due to toxicplasmosis. Although some articles say it's no good at all. Any advice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37524i/eli5_why_is_cow_manure_okay_to_fertilize_plants/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crjqwy2",
"crjrjh4"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The excrament of carnivores have different nutrients than those of herbivores, and the risk of disease is much higher as you yourself indicate. ",
"Cats are obligate carnivores; their diet is protein and fats, neither of which make good compost, and in fact can destroy compost ecosystems.\n\nCow manure is already halfway-composted cellulose and lignin, which is exactly what plants and compost ecosystems need."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8abtde
|
why is it easier to train drug sniffing-dogs than it is to build a drug-sniffing device?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8abtde/eli5_why_is_it_easier_to_train_drug_sniffingdogs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwxe4or",
"dwxj7xv"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Dog's have very, very good smell sensors. Plus, manufacturing dogs is a well known and established process. The most effective smellers can be used for used to sniff out bombs, and the others can be sold in pet stores to help offset their production cost.\n\nA chemical ccounterpart, like a time-of-flight mass spectrometer, would need to be extremely sensitive, and these scientific apparatus are very expensive.\n\nUsing chemical detectors requires a constant supply of reagents. Dogs make all the chemicals they need inside, from the food you feed them. This is a very efficient distribution system. While trained dogs are not cheap, everything else is much more expensive. Government, in general, prefers the solution with the lowest life-cycle cost, in general.",
"I have read black bears have a sense of smell about 10 times better than a dog. Would it be possible to use a (tame) bear and get even better results?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
fe8vuz
|
how come commercial airlines don't simply fly as fast as they can from place to place?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fe8vuz/eli5_how_come_commercial_airlines_dont_simply_fly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjmk6ql",
"fjmk6yd",
"fjmk994",
"fjml8ll",
"fjmo5ol",
"fjmoamt",
"fjmq1bn",
"fjmurfu",
"fjn5omw"
],
"score": [
4,
18,
12,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Fuel economy. There’s an optimum speed where the use of fuel plateaus out then it takes a lot more fuel to go faster.",
"Flying as fast as possible is not the most economical way of flying, aviation fuel costs a lot of money, as does repairing engines and flying as fast as possible means you burn a lot of fuel and break the engines a lot more so they fly at a slower speed to make it cost less for them",
"Airlines make their money on being efficient. Their biggest cost is fuel. Their goal is to be as efficient as possible when flying their aircraft, routes, and so on, and yes, this also involves being on time and going fast, but efficiency is most important.\n\nThey fly the routes and speeds that are most efficient for them and thus, the most profitable.\n\nNow that said, modern commercial airlines actually do fly very close to their maximum speed. Their cruising speed is generally right at the edge below their max and they calculate everything out to figure out whats the absolute best speed at every single point in the flight on the route they are on",
"I mean, they pretty much do fly (at least at cruising altitude) very close to their maximum safe speed, but regardless, airlines are not in the business of moving people and cargo as fast as possible, they're in the business of moving people and cargo as *efficiently* as possible. That means flying at the ideal speed to get the best fuel economy. Fuel is very expensive, and flying faster burns more fuel.",
"Flying fast uses more fuel than flying slow.\n\nThe airline fly at the speed that is most economic.\n\nFlying faster would be possible but more expensive and there isn't much demand for that sort of thing.\n\nExtreme cases like supersonic passenger travel required special planes like the Concord. They simply didn't make the airlines enough money and are no longer a thing.",
"Something like Concorde was a luxury rich persons way of crossing the Atlantic, expensive, but fast. Most people don't require that sort of speed for the cost. All modes of transport have a sliding scale of speed Vs cost etc",
"We do, a lot of the time. Flying as fast as possible is actually more fuel efficient than flying more slowly when you are flying into a headwind. Flying more slowly with a tailwind is even more efficient. Here are a few other reasons we don't zoom everywhere at ludicrous speed:\n\n1. Turbulence. Flying fast through turbulence would be like trying to drive fast over a pothole filled road. It would never hurt the plane, but it would risk injury to the flight attendants and all of you schmucks who keep your seatbelts unfastened even when the light is on.\n\n2. Exceeding airframe limitations. Going even one knot faster than the airplane is allowed to go is cause for a maintenance logbook write-up and inspection. If your aircraft is only allowed to fly at 340 kts / .82 Mach and you hit some light turbulence, or some wake, or mountain wave, you can easily gain 10 knots or .02-.03 Mach before you can correct it. Keeping a speed margin reduces the amount of pain in the ass reports and paperwork you have to file.\n\n3. Climbing fast means it will take forever to get up to altitude. Descending fast means you may have accidentally planned for a steep descent which can cause a high deck angle and feels like a rollercoaster going down. Unsettling and uncomfortable to the passengers.\n\n4. It's noisy as hell, especially in older airplanes.\n\nThose are the biggest reasons off the top of my head. Even if dispatch plans our flight at ass hauling speeds, we will often slow it down for the above listed reasons. Flying at redline as opposed to a speed with a more comfortable safety margin might reduce the flight time by like 10-15 mins on a four hour flight, which we can usually gain back by asking for shortcuts anyways.",
"One reason everyone else missed is drag. As far as it is reasonable, planes really do fly as fast as they can. The problem is that flying doesn’t work the same way at all speeds.\n\nFlight speed is classified in a few categories: subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic. Subsonic flight is relatively simple, but the other two are immensely difficult. If you look at planes capable of supersonic flight, such as the concorde, sr71, fighter jets, etc. They are all super long and very very thin. This is because drag when traveling above the speed of sound spikes way up. You need an extremely thin profile in order to overcome drag easily, and also reach that speed quickly because most engines for those planes don’t work as well at lower speeds. Planes also don’t get much lift from thinner wings, so you need to burn tons of fuel accelerating to the right speed. All of these things make supersonic flight mostly prohibitively expensive, and on top of that, they are really really loud.\n\nModern jumbo jets fly at between 80-85% of the speed of sound. There is considerable drag at this point, but it is right before it starts to increase very sharply. Fuel economy is good at this speed, and planes with this design can glide very far.",
"There is another issue that has not. Even mentioned yet: if you arrive to early at your destination, air traffic control is just going to put you in a holding pattern until there is space for you to land. So you can fly really fast, and burn extra fuel doing it and then have to wait in line; or fly at the speed that will get you there just in time to land."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26tmvs
|
if i set my alarm for 6 am and i wake up between 5 and 530 would it be more beneficial to go back to sleep for the extra hour or half hour, or just start my day off when i initially wake up?
|
The reason I ask is because I usually just go back to sleep and try to sleep and get the hour or whatever. But I've been hitting a wall of tiredness after I'm awake for like three to four hours even if I have coffee or other stimulants.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26tmvs/eli5_if_i_set_my_alarm_for_6_am_and_i_wake_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chucfyl",
"chucgm9",
"chuf4qz",
"chufasq",
"chuoa6s"
],
"score": [
89,
3,
16,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Just stay up. The reason being if you go back to sleep, and sleep over 20 minutes you will enter another sleep cycle. You feel refreshed when you wake up at the end of a cycle. Sleep cycles are anywhere from 3-4 hours depending on the person. If you go back to sleep for an hour, you are most likely waking up in your deep sleep or [REM cycle](_URL_0_)",
"I think it is beneficial if you start off when you wake up. Sleep cycles occur with a period of about 30-45 mins. If you sleep again, it is more likely that you will interrupted during your REM sleep, which can make you feel all groggy.",
"If you wake up anything less than one hour before the alarm, just get your lazy ass out of bed. Get on with the day. Take some extra time for a decent breakfast for a change. Leave for work early and beat some of the rush hour. Time spent going back to bed is time wasted. At least you can go milk a cow.",
"One sleep cycle (from light to deep back to light) is about 90 minutes. So if you've got that much time before you're supposed to get up, then keep sleeping. If not, but you go back to sleep, then you'll be roused by the alarm when you're in the middle of or partway through the cycle. You'll feel groggy when you get up because you will have been pulled out of the deep part of the sleep cycle. ",
"Coming from a person who hits snooze alot, its better to wake up to the first alarm and get up and at em. The more I hit snooze the more tired I feel."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/excessive-sleepiness-10/sleep-101"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
67rsna
|
is laziness a natural human trait or is it a learned behaviour?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67rsna/eli5_is_laziness_a_natural_human_trait_or_is_it_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgspupt"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"It is a natural trait in many animals, conservation of energy is a good survival strategy, especially where food may be difficult to come by."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6ldijx
|
why are more and more local news stations focusing on national news stories instead of local news stories?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ldijx/eli5_why_are_more_and_more_local_news_stations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djsylas",
"djt5v83"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It is cheaper to buy news stories pre-packaged than to generate new content with actual reporters.\n\nAlso, many local stations are actually parts of large networks controlled at a national level.",
"Strangely, you ask this the day after John Oliver does a news story on this subject...\n\n[Last Week Tonight - Sinclair Broadcast Group](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc"
]
] |
||
3d54xf
|
what makes the ak-47 one of the most reliable guns in the world? why can't other companies replicate this reliability?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d54xf/eli5_what_makes_the_ak47_one_of_the_most_reliable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct1uwqd",
"ct1xx7x",
"ct1yglc",
"ct21h7f",
"ct22gle",
"ct237fb",
"ct27tb8",
"ct2kqw6"
],
"score": [
140,
39,
3,
5,
10,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than I am but I'll try to keep it as ELI5 as best as possible. The tolerances(spaces between moving parts) in the AK are loose. There's lots of room for gunk and dirt to get in there and the gun will still fire and cycle when the trigger is pulled. With loose tolerances, failure to properly clean and lube the weapon won't hinder it from firing like the M-16 from the Vietnam era. ",
"The AK is copied all over the world. The most common one is the Chinese-made Type-56. In fact, true AK-47s are kind of rare, and if you find one, it's probably a Chinese knock-off. Most of the ones sold (legally) in the US are clones.\n\nThe reason it's reliable is covered in the other comments. Large clearances between moving parts, and a piston instead of direct-blowback. \n\nHowever, just because it's famous and reliable doesn't mean it's the best weapon in the world. They're not very accurate at long range, they're big, and they're heavy. \nSo there are compromises militaries make when choosing weapons. The US mostly uses the AR platform- M16/M4 varients. They're not as \"reliable\" in the sense that they're more prone to jams when extremely dirty, but they're lighter and more accurate. And the reliability issue can be mitigated by simply training service members to clean thier weapons regularly and look after thier equipment. ",
"Reliability as in theres lots of clearance between parts. More room means its harder to clog and jam. \n\nDownside of this is accuracy and weight. Some professionals would take accuracy and lighter systems",
"As stated AK-47 (actually a 47 is super rare, almost all are AKM's but thats not the issue) are reliable because of relative huge clearences between the internal parts (shake an AK and it will often rattle) while this give excelent reliabillity it kills any hint of accurassy. Gun makers today sets accurassy very high on the \"important list\" so you cant have these clearings between all the parts because everything will not line up exactly the same between shots. For an AK and at its time this did not matter, as more often than not you where so close to your enemy that you could smell their breath. Today its a different age and you make weapons that are reliable accurate and light weight (AK is a heavy bastard) all these three things naturally contradicts eachother so clever solutions are employed to make it as good as the technology allows as of now.\n\nSo while the AK enjoys a legendary reputation its by today standards a pretty crappy weapon its reliable yes but it can barely hit anything over 400m and it is much heavier than it looks.... that beeing said the most fun i have ever had was at a shooting range in poland where i got to shoot a AK-104 (medium size AK in 5,56x45) and to this date i have not shot anything (i shoot alot) that was as pleasurable as that thing. Would buy one in a hearth beat if i could.",
"The ELI5 answer is that other companies can replicate how reliable it is, but there is a trade-off between reliability and other things like accuracy. ",
"Don't be fooled. There is a reason only poor countries use the AK as a primary battle rifle. ",
"It really was only slightly more reliable than the M16. The M16 just gets a bad rep because of its mass introduction in the Vietnam War. It was supposed to be a self cleaning gun, which it is, but somewhere along the line someone screwed up and it was given to US soldiers as a gun that never needed to be cleaned, which is not true at all, not even for the AK47. So the soldiers where never given the cleaning kits they were supposed to have and never actually maintained their rifles since they were told it didn't need to be cleaned.\n\nSecond, the propellant used for the ammunition was very dirty and caused a lot of buildup, contributing to the problem.\n\nOnce these problems where corrected, new ammunition, distribution of cleaning kits, and I think they also changed the material of the barrel, the M16 performed pretty much on par with the AK47 for reliability. \n\nThis is really one of those myths that just persists in history more because it makes a good story rather than actually having any basis in reality, sort of like Kennedy's jelly donut. ",
"ELI5: People say that because there are two guns in the world compared. The AK47 from Russia and the M16 from America. The American gun has a system that makes dirt from every shot fired blow back into the place where bullets load into the barrel. It gets very dirty, and has to be cleaned a lot. The American gun also is a very tight fit between parts screwed together, so when it gets dirty, it stops working and it jams. The American gun requires a lot of oil and cleaning. \n\nThe Russian gun has a big heavy piston that can push through dirt. It also has loose parts that allow it to work when dirty. It is also very inexpensive and easy to make. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2wb785
|
what mechanism allows a toaster only lock down to toast when the toaster is plugged in to the outlet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wb785/eli5_what_mechanism_allows_a_toaster_only_lock/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cop6sdi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The sides are probably held apart by a mechanical spring. The spring is overcome by an electric motor/servo, so if power is lost, the servo/motor fails, and the sides move apart."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3e5cma
|
how does traffic happen and then disappear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e5cma/eli5_how_does_traffic_happen_and_then_disappear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctbnnim"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the time it's because someone brakes. The cars behind subsequently brake which causes a chain reaction of braking to a lower and lower speed until a stand still occurs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22avlb
|
in light of the cosmos reboot and that movie gravity, what would it be like to float into space untethered, and how long will a human being survive?
|
I haven't seen the movie Gravity but in the trailer it shows the astronaut floating into space not connected to anything. After watching the Cosmos reboot and understanding the immensity of space, I wondered what it would be like for a human being to just float out untethered and without bound.
How long would they survive assuming a large supply of oxygen? at what speed would they travel and in what direction? what would be the cause of death? and hypothetically speaking, if they had an endless supply of oxygen/nutrition, what would be the next limiting factor?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22avlb/eli5_in_light_of_the_cosmos_reboot_and_that_movie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgl0399",
"cgl0hsu",
"cgl1xb8"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Assuming an endless supply of oxygen, CO2 scrubbing and food without the need for an entire space station to provide them, the cause of death could be one of many things. Depending on whether you were in shadow or light and how far from the sun you were, you could either die of hypothermia as your space suit slowly radiated away heat that was not replaced, overheating as you basked in light and absorbed heat faster than you could lose it, or by irradiation due to solar flares or suchlike. Another possibility would be (similar to Gravity) impact by some sort of debris, be it space junk or small meteorites that caused a hole in the space suit or just killed you outright.\n\nThe speed at which you traveled would depend entirely on the speed at which you pushed off from whatever took you up into space. Assuming you pushed off at 5 meters per second, you'd be travelling at whatever speed the thing you pushed off from was travelling, plus 5 meters per second. If the thing you pushed off from was in orbit around the earth, you'd also be in orbit. If it was en route from the earth to the moon, so would you. It's pretty difficult to meaningfully alter your course in space, since everything is so far away. There's a reason people use big-ass rockets to alter their courses :P",
"if you have enough oxygen and water and food, AND carbon dioxide removal AND urine and feces disposal.\n\nthe next big things that'll kill you are:\n1) the cold. it's pretty close to negative 273 degrees. but suppose you had infinite power source , since you're already assuming infinite oxygen and good, it wouldn't be a big deal to heat you up. \n2) the sun's radiation. since you're a sole astronaut without a radiation shield, it'll cook you pretty good and after a while \n3) micrometeors. basically pebble bullets moving at 1000mph. that'll ruin anyone's day\n",
"You would feel nothing particularly different from being inside a spacecraft. You would float, \"weightless\" through the void. One interesting thing is that without one of those backpacks with little rockets on them, you won't be able to stop the spin you had before leaving your ship. It's one thing to be floating serenely for the rest of your days, quite another to spend them spinning madly head-over-heels *with literally no way to stop.* Sorry about that.\n\nAs far as how long you'd live, it's most likely that you'd die of thermal effects. A lot of people think that you would freeze instantly, but without anything to conduct the heat out of your body, cooling down to freezing would take a long time. Now consider that you generate heat constantly. You, and every piece of equipment on you. Every manned spacecraft that flies today has large radiators to radiate waste heat into space. Even if your suit has one, it probably wasn't made to keep you alive for days or weeks outside the ship. I expect you'd die of heat stroke. Sorry."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4ygoiu
|
what is the point to the questions on job applications (race, gender, veteran status, etc.) when you can choose 'i prefer not to identify' anyway?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ygoiu/eli5_what_is_the_point_to_the_questions_on_job/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6nlw05"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Data for the govt statisticians at bureau of labor statistics (under Dept of labor). Also to ensure companies are complying with employment laws"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cr2kz2
|
why do vehicles (especially trains/trams) have this "bump" when they stop completely?
|
Basically every vehicle has it but in trains/trams is it particularly strong (probably because they have so much mass).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cr2kz2/eli5_why_do_vehicles_especially_trainstrams_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ex1bcpl",
"ex1einz",
"ex1en4w"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes , it is called inertia. According to newton's law of motion, a body will continue to have its momentum (m\\*v) unless it is applied a force to change this. In terms of trains, trams the braking applies the force and thus the train stops but you who was moving along with the train did not have any force acted on you, due to which you feel the bump until friction, or some other force helps you stop. This lag in coming to zero speed is the bump you face",
"This jolt can be explained by a property known as jerk. Just like acceleration is how fast you are changing speed, jerk is how fast your acceleration is changing. \n\nWhen a vehicle is slowing, it is typically done at a constant rate of acceleration, for the comfort of the passengers. However, when the speed reaches zero there is a sudden change in acceleration from the rate you were decelerating at to an acceleration of zero (You do not start moving backwards, which would happen if you maintained constant acceleration). It is this jerk that you are feeling.",
"What you are feeling is \"jerk\" or the change in acceleration. It's the same sensation when someone suddenly slams on the throttle or brake. \n\nThis occurs when a vehicle comes to a stop because brakes only help decelerate when the vehicle is moving. When the vehicle comes to a complete stop, the acceleration goes from {some big negative number} to zero almost \"instantaneously\" (over a small time); imagine the time it takes for the vehicle to go from 0.1kph and to 0kph. \n\nJerk = change in acceleration / time. \n= {some big number} / {small time}. \n= {some bigger number}"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8ohig2
|
how is paleo any different from atkins?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ohig2/eli5_how_is_paleo_any_different_from_atkins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e03cf9n",
"e03eve6"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Paleo isn’t anti carb per we, it’s about natural unprocessed foods theoretically similar to what a human in the paleo era would eat. As a consequence of no potato chips, ice cream, and other processed foods carbs are naturally lowered and nutrition (from all the ideally organic greens and such) is increased. \n\nAtkins is about replacing carbs with fats to put the body in ketosis but doesn’t concern itself with the quality or origin of the food. ",
"From what I understand part of the benefit of paleo diets is eating uncooked items. Cooking food helps break down proteins, making it easier to digest and unlocking more caloric value. So eating raw food means you extract less nutrients and get full without the same level of weight gain potential"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
cxty5w
|
why are magazines very typical for rifles, assault rifles, and pistols, but very atypical for shotguns?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxty5w/eli5_why_are_magazines_very_typical_for_rifles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyndx12",
"eynf8pq",
"eyngny6"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
7
],
"text": [
"Size of shotgun shells for starters, makes more practical sense having it in a tube fed magazine under the barrel.",
"Not all rifle magazines are \"typical\". Bolt action rifles often have integral, clip fed unremovable magazines. Lever action rifles often have tube magazines. The removable sector magazine is convenient for semi auto and full auto firearms, that is why a lot of these firearms have removable sector magazines. Non automatic firearms, such as shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles have a variety of magazine types.",
"Pump action and semi automatic shotguns do have magazines, they're just not usually removable. They're a tube magazine underneath the barrel.\n\nI'm guessing you're asking why are detachable box magazines uncommon. It's because shotgun cartridges don't lend themselves very well to stacking on top of each other. They have a wide rim, and are plastic which can deform under pressure. This can cause feed problems which makes the gun unreliable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bia9lx
|
why does the entire strip of land from morocco to mongolia appear to be desert on the world map?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bia9lx/eli5_why_does_the_entire_strip_of_land_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elz3h12"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The Himalayans, The Alps, and the Caucuses. The parts of the world you described are in their rain shadow. In addition the latitude they exist at is such that the prevailing winds draw moisture away from them. It's a double whammy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
j3ll8
|
li5 corporate personhood
|
How can a corporation be a person? In our punitive justice system, bad people go to jail, but you can't send a corporation to jail, so there's no incentive to be "good". Beyond fiscal compensation how else can a corporation be punished like a person?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3ll8/li5_corporate_personhood/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28utis"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Corporations are persons in the sense that they can own assets, sign contracts, pay taxes, etc. It allows a group of people working together to jointly undertake business as one entity according to their articles of incorporation. There is nothing inherently bad about it. \n\nIn the criminal justice system, criminal charges can be brought against a corporation. They can be fined, they can have injunctions entered against them forbidding them from producing a product or entering a particular market, or they can be ordered to institute a set of procedures to remedy illegal behavior. [Here](_URL_0_) is an entire memo by the US Department of Justice detailing handling criminal charges against corporations.\n\nHowever, to a certain extent, corporations can't break laws. They are just a means of organizing people, and for every law broken, there is at some point a person who made the decision to break the law, and instructed subordinate employees to follow through on the action. A preferred method of dealing with criminal behavior where a corporation is involved is to find the responsible party within the corporation and criminally charge them.\n\nThe problem with all of the above is that when large corporations are involved in unethical or illegal activity, politicians often shy away from strictly enforcing the laws, and leniency is often urged when prosecuting corporate crime. This is a more a problem with political corruption and culture (who wants to be labeled anti-business?). Also, prosecutors have had difficulty prosecuting defendants who broke the law while carrying out their job. For example, Ralph Cioffi managed a hedge fund for Bear Stearns involved in subprime mortgage debt, and was acquitted on all charges for deceiving investors. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/documents/reports/1999/charging-corps.PDF"
]
] |
|
27ceyx
|
equity vs royalties and how does one make money on both?
|
I searched and this has kind of been asked before, but I didnt really get the answers responded.
I watch shark tank and have never really understood why royalties are so bad and suck the blood out of companies. How would you make money otherwise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27ceyx/eli5_equity_vs_royalties_and_how_does_one_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chzhxvh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Royalties are usually related to a licensing agreement. Say I invent a widget and patent it. I don't really have the resources to manufacture and sell it so I license it to you. You build the widgets for $5, sell them for $10, and pay me a royalty of say $1. You still make $4 in profit for doing most of the work but I collect the small fee for you using my idea.\n\nEquity is actual ownership in a company. Using the example above, lets say I have an idea, but you know how to implement it and have the money to do so. We might form a partnership where you own maybe 75% and I own 25% of the company. I have 25% equity in the company. Whatever profits the company makes I'm entitled to 25%. If the company gets bought by someone else I get 25% etc"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3m1e2c
|
why are abs shaped like little squares instead of being one large muscle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m1e2c/eli5_why_are_abs_shaped_like_little_squares/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvb4y38",
"cvbi39h"
],
"score": [
21,
3
],
"text": [
"It's actually two muscles, one long one on each side (running top to bottom). What creates the indents is connective tissue. The muscles are called the rectus abdonimus and the connecting tissue is called linea alba.",
"The linea alba runs north and south. The horizontal indentations are formed by tendon-like borders of the various abdominal muscles intersecting with the linea alba. They're called aponeuroses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
48ejrj
|
hpv is supposedly bad and needs to be cured - but i've also heard that it's not that bad and basically everyone has it. which is it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48ejrj/eli5_hpv_is_supposedly_bad_and_needs_to_be_cured/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0j0dre",
"d0j0gfi",
"d0j0hmn",
"d0j199i",
"d0j8s7e",
"d0jdtpu",
"d0jgreq"
],
"score": [
11,
151,
4,
8,
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Think about it as a risk factor; while HPV may physically show as genital warts for many (or asymptomatic), it increases the risk of developing cancers. ",
"Both. It's very, very common infection that in some cases leads to bad health effects, including cancer. Only a small percentage of people who get HPV will develop cancer, but because so many people have it, that small percentage is still a huge number of bad health outcomes that could be avoided if everyone got vaccinated to prevent HPV.",
"It's a bit of both. If you're a guy, odds are good nothing will happen to you, maybe warts, maybe genital warts. Either way, not a big deal. \n\nIf you're a lady, odds are still good nothing will happen. But if something does happen, that something is cervical cancer. So while the odds aren't super high it'll turn out badly for you, it's 0 to 100 from \"meh\" to \"oh shit I might die\" really fast.",
"There are a bunch of different strains of HPV. Some (like HPV 16 and 18) tend to cause a lot of cancer, some (like 6 and 11) tend to mostly cause warts and other less serious problems. The overwhelming majority of sexually active adults in the US show signs of having been infected with at least one strain of HPV, but not everyone gets a cancer-causing strain.",
"There are lots of strains of hpv. a very few cause cancer, mostly hpv 16 - oral cancer - and hpv 18 - cervical cancer. yes, you probably won't get it. but just think about the following. this is a cancer caused by a virus, not genetics, abuse of cigarettes, whatever. your dna, your healthy lifestyle wont save you. you can get (say) the hpv 16 virus JUST FROM DEEP KISSING. that's right, from making out. you're right, health professionals DO NOT WANT TO FLAG THIS FACT. hpv 16 infection can flare up in you in the form of throat cancer, tonsil cancer, tongue cancer, years later. once you have the hpv 16 virus THERE IS NO WAY OF ERADICATING IT. yes, your organism might get rid of it over a couple of years. this is usually the case. but it might not. medicines, treatment wont help. and every time you french kiss someone, you might be passing it on. you got that: you kissed someone, maybe you gave them cancer. or they gave it to you. oral cancer from hpv 16 is now a BIG problem. if you have any sense you will get immunised against hpv 16 and hpv 18 NOW.",
"Source: Have the strand of HPV that causes cancer. I think it's strain 16 or 19, not sure which.\n\n(I'm also not goggling, just taking this off the top of my head)\n\nThere are about 20 strains of HPV. Most of them, about 60% have zero symptoms at all and will go away on their own. There are about two strains that cause cancer, and two that cause genital warts (maybe three). *Most* people have the benign strains that go away on their own. Some of us have the cancer-causing strains or even the wart causing strains. \n\nThat's not to say i'll develop cancer. 95% of the cancer causing strains clear up on their own. So it's a small, small percent.",
"HPV is extremely diverse, there are hundreds of different types that prefer to either infect 'wet' or 'dry' tissue. Generally most types are asymptomatic or cause minor self-limiting infections that can present as warts. However some types are more pathogenic and and cause severe diseases including cancers of the cervix and head/neck. These are referred to as 'high-risk' types and are targeted in the commercially-available HPV vaccines. Why some types cause cancer, some cause warts, and some do nothing noticeable is of course one of the main focuses of molecular research on HPV. If you were interested in any followup questions i can go into more detail (my PhD supervisor's lab was an adenovirus/HPV lab)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20r6gc
|
why are you meant to unplug your electrical device after it has finished charging?
|
What is the harm in leaving it plugged in? I have been told that it is bad for battery life to leave my phone charging all night for this exact reason, I am just unsure why. Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20r6gc/eli5_why_are_you_meant_to_unplug_your_electrical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg5yv8m",
"cg6c2p0",
"cg6gwj7"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Battery charge micro cycles! Finally a question I have some knowledge on!\n\nYour phone looks at the battery when you plug it in and says \"Oh no! There's only 10% charge here! We should move it up to 100%\" because that's what the programmers told your phone is right.\n\nSo your phone pulls power and charges itself right up to 100% and stops. Now a battery won't hold it's 100% capacity charge indefinitely, and power starts to slowly drain. When it does, your phone says, \"Oh no! There's only 98% charge here! We should get it to 100%\" because that's what the programmers told your phone is right.\n\nSo the phone pulls power and charges itself right up to 100% and stops.\n\nNow you may have heard that batteries can only charge so many times before they die. This is true. And every time the phone goes 98-100-98-100-98-100 that counts as partial charging, and those partial charges really start to add up fast overnight or all day long and all night long in the case of laptops that are always left plugged in.\n\nSuddenly, your phone's battery loses its ability to hold a charge because of these constant mini-charges.\n\n**THE GOOD NEWS:** People realized this was happening and made a change. When your phone says \"100%\" it may actually be 90%-100% and stop there, or charge to 100% and let it decay to 90% or lower before charging again. The amount of time it takes to decay from 91 to 90 is a lot longer than 100 to 99. In other words, you can leave your phone plugged in overnight. 10 years ago, it was a bad idea.\n\n**BONUS INFO:** If you're going to store an electronic device for a few weeks (or much longer) without using it (but you're going to use it again on that charge) and it runs on a battery, don't charge it more than ~80% to ensure maximum battery life in the future.",
"as someone who has killed two phone batteries and a laptop battery, please unplug your devices. my phone's battery would be fine with texting but a phone call wouldn't last more than ten minutes without my phone dying.",
"Basically, it comes down to chemistry. Charging and discharging a battery is just applied chemistry. Theoretically, these processes are completely reversible, but in practice, various things prevent this from happening. Sometimes, small short circuits occur that reduce the amount you actually get out of the same amount of charge. Sometimes chemical processes occur that increase resistance in the battery. All these things are what cause reduced battery life. \n\nFrom a practical sense, there are five main things that reduce the life of your battery. However, which ones actually apply to your battery **depends on your battery**. (In particular, the battery's chemistry, like \"Li-ion\", or \"Li-Po\".) \n\n* Charging and discharging - Just the act of using the battery reduces the life a little bit. This is why batteries are described with a limited number of charge cycles. Each cycle only reduces the life a little bit, but eventually it builds up.\n* Overcharge and undercharge - This tends to be really bad for the battery's life, and can be downright dangerous. However, pretty much every device or charger today has safeties put in place to prevent this. But under some unusual circumstances, it can still happen.\n* Leaving the battery charged - Some batteries are damaged by leaving them charged up. Being charged up allows extra reactions to happen that reduce the life of the battery, such as growing crystals that cause tiny short-circuits.\n* Leaving the battery discharged - Likewise, some batteries are damaged by being left discharged. All batteries tend to leak charge, and the battery being completely empty may not necessarily stop this. This leads to undercharging, which damages the battery.\n* Time - Most importantly, pretty much all batteries degrade over time. There's not much you can do about this. \n\nRemember that some of these are less or more of a problem for some batteries. If you want to know what the best practices are for your battery, figure out what kind it is, and do some research! A lot of confusion comes from people applying the wrong set of rules to their battery."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
mqigk
|
citizen kane is such a big deal in film.
|
I hear a lot of talk about the movie and would like a little primer before I jump in and watch it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mqigk/eli5_citizen_kane_is_such_a_big_deal_in_film/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3318vt",
"c331rjq",
"c3334ed",
"c333zi1",
"c3318vt",
"c331rjq",
"c3334ed",
"c333zi1"
],
"score": [
22,
17,
7,
3,
22,
17,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It's considered big in part because Welles was an innovative cinematographer that really used camera angles in new ways and to give the movie depth. \n\nIt was also fairly controversial in that it was based on William Randolph Hearst, who owned like half the papers in the country at the time. ",
"Well, there were many different techniques used in the film that had not been used so powerfully before. The use of scale, shadows, framing the shots, and other things were done to a level that was really technically groundbreaking. \n\nAdditionally, there was so much detail in each scene for even little things that you catch only after studying the film. It was clear that every detail in the movie had been carefully put in for some effect. \n\nIf you want more info on this, I recommend that you get the Ultimate Collector's Edition and then listen to the movie commentaries by Peter Bogdonovich and Roger Ebert. They will explain, in simple language, why each shot is how it is and the multi-layered symbolism behind each element. ",
"It's pretty much the first film that looks and flows like films do today. If you want to follow the leaps, jump from Potemkin (1925 for editing), Citizen Kane (1941 for composition) and finally to Breathless (1960 for taking the camera out of the studio).",
"As an aside, if you can watch Citizen Kane in a cinema do so; on a T.V. it is very good but in a cinema it is stunning!",
"It's considered big in part because Welles was an innovative cinematographer that really used camera angles in new ways and to give the movie depth. \n\nIt was also fairly controversial in that it was based on William Randolph Hearst, who owned like half the papers in the country at the time. ",
"Well, there were many different techniques used in the film that had not been used so powerfully before. The use of scale, shadows, framing the shots, and other things were done to a level that was really technically groundbreaking. \n\nAdditionally, there was so much detail in each scene for even little things that you catch only after studying the film. It was clear that every detail in the movie had been carefully put in for some effect. \n\nIf you want more info on this, I recommend that you get the Ultimate Collector's Edition and then listen to the movie commentaries by Peter Bogdonovich and Roger Ebert. They will explain, in simple language, why each shot is how it is and the multi-layered symbolism behind each element. ",
"It's pretty much the first film that looks and flows like films do today. If you want to follow the leaps, jump from Potemkin (1925 for editing), Citizen Kane (1941 for composition) and finally to Breathless (1960 for taking the camera out of the studio).",
"As an aside, if you can watch Citizen Kane in a cinema do so; on a T.V. it is very good but in a cinema it is stunning!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s0k7d
|
why is greek life such a big deal in america compared to canada, and what exactly is so special about it/what does it entail?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s0k7d/eli5_why_is_greek_life_such_a_big_deal_in_america/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdspu7u",
"cdsq5dy",
"cdsqc1n",
"cdssbo2"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"At my university just about everyone went greek. The Greeks had higher GPA's than the campus average, they had higher graduation rates and more sports involvement. \n\nSo here in the US if you want to have a social life and you're not a dimwit, you try to go greek.",
"It's an excuse to drink a lot. People who live in Canada already have an excuse: they live in Canada.",
"Going Greek allows you to be part of an exclusive group of people. Some people do it to party, some do it for friendship, while others do it for the networking opportunities after college. For some it's just 4 years of their life and that's it. For others, it's part of them for their lives and they continue to give back to their fraternities as volunteers or mentors. \n\nGoing Greek for me allowed me to meet some of my closest friends in college and we still get together even though we all live in different states.",
"It's simply organized social networking. Often when you go to college, you don't know many, if any, people. The Greek organizations are an easy way to join like-minded individuals--assuming that you are like-minded with the Greek culture.\n\nMost schools have other potential organizations for you to join if that's not your scene."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9s6w9o
|
why are highway miles preferred over city miles when it comes to buying/selling used cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9s6w9o/eli5_why_are_highway_miles_preferred_over_city/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8mjfll",
"e8mjim0",
"e8mjsiy",
"e8mk8g3"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
30,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm just going to start with the fact that almost everyone will admit its a bit subjective. I think most will agree that stop-and-go is considered heavy(ier)-duty than highway-cruising, and is therefore more destructive. So all things being equal, you would want less, if any, city driving.\n\nIt really depends on the area and condition. It's an issue where you have to weigh the body vs. mechanicals. In New England, or the rust belt, for instance, age is important due to how long the body has, however, in a dry, salt-free, temperate area mileage is more an issue than age.\n\nMotors will run forever, theoretically, but today's uni-body vehicles have only so much that can be done to prevent them from rotting in poor environments.\n\n\n",
"Stop and go traffic (city miles) just results in more wear and tear on various car parts than driving at a steady pace (most highway miles) typically does.",
"Highway miles are easier on the car. It's driving at a constant sped, no stop-and-go traffic, with constant airflow through the cooling system keeping this engine cool.\n\nCity driving is constant stopping and starting, constantly varying speeds (which means constantly shifting gears) with periods of idling in the mix where airflow through the cooling system is limited, allowing the engine temperature to fluctuate.\n\nAll of this adds up to increased wear and year on the engine, drivetrains, breaks, etc.",
"95% of engine wear occurs when the engine is cold. you end up with a lot more cold starts at 100k if you got all the mileage in the city than driving long distance across the country often."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1n07om
|
as a heavy alcoholic why my hands shake when i'm sober but don't shake when i drink.
|
Question in the intro
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n07om/eli5_as_a_heavy_alcoholic_why_my_hands_shake_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cce8iqs",
"ccec259",
"ccec2bc",
"ccee9pd"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Alcohol works by altering the level of neurotransmitters, or making them work better or worse in your system. There are two kinds of neurotransmitters, inhibitory and excitatory. The inhibitiory kind are enhanced by the alcohol, and the excitatory are diminished.\n\nThese alterations cause the nerves that are firing off your muscles to also calm down. This is why the shaking goes away, as well as the other calming effects that alcohol produces.",
"I find if I have a good (big) meal I dont shake as much in the morning, \nAnd the hard stuff is worse for me than beer and wine, in particular white wine is good, red is not so much.\nI drink because I won't sleep at night unless I do and thats worse than trembling hands. ",
"PSA: As already mentioned, a severe alcoholic suddenly abstaining from alcohol can experience severe, possibly fatal, DTs (seizures). It is not recommended to quit alcohol cold turkey. Seek professional help. Some hospital pharmacies will have a bottle of cheap vodka on hand. While usually used to treat antifreeze poisoning, it may also be given IV to treat admitted patients having seizures due to withdrawal. Alcohol is one of the few drugs where withdrawal can directly lead to death.",
"your alcohol has altered your GABA system, basically the \"brakes\" to your whole system. The constant alcohol in your system has taken the place of your GABA thus when you stop drinking, your body doesn't have enough of the naturally occurring molecule to switch the \"brakes\" on.\n\n\nWhen you drink again, the brakes get applied and you feel calm.\n\n\nGood luck, it takes a long time and is a hell of a ride to get back to normal. It can be done though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2t8e2c
|
after raw material, manufacture, packaging, logistics, and all the other tremendous overhead in running a global company; where is the profit margin on a 20 cent package of ramen noodles?
|
I guess I'm going to need to see Murachan's financial books to get an answer I want. I've taken micro/macro economics, intro level business courses, etc. I'm not looking for an answer explaining the fundamentals of a "dog" company.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t8e2c/eli5_after_raw_material_manufacture_packaging/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnwnzq0",
"cnwxuxf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cost of production and transport is less than the cost to the consumer.\n\nRamen is made of extremely cheap ingredients in vast quantities. The company only makes a penny or two per sale, but has hundreds of millions of sales.",
"I know this one from a Public Seminar for Government employees. 4.7 cents per Case. I think the case has somewhere between 8-12 packs in it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
20f8rr
|
llc's or limited liability company's?
|
I see LLC attached to a lot of business titles, I googled it, Wikipedia'd it, and didn't get far looking for an explanation as if I was 5. Can you do it reddit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20f8rr/eli5_llcs_or_limited_liability_companys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg2npym"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"An LLC is a \"Limited Liability Company.\" It is **owned and managed by members,** as opposed to partners or shareholders. Each member may have different level of ownership or management responsibilities. How these are divided up is determine by the \"management agreement\" or \"operating agreement,\" which is a contract between all the LLC members determining their rights and obligations with respect to each other and the LLC. Membership interests are substantially more difficult to transfer from one person to another, as compared to stock. Transferring, creating, or withdrawing membership interests often requires a unanimous vote among the partners.\n\nThe business entity also offers **limited liability** to its members, such that any liability on the part of the LLC is limited to its assets only. In other words, you generally can't sue an LLC and obtain a judgment against the members *personally.* Corporations work much the same way. (You *can* accomplish this through what's called \"veil piercing,\" but that's only in extreme cases.)\n\nThose are the broad strokes. Did you have any questions in particular?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
e9m5cd
|
how can the united states have both a strong economy and also have a large number of individuals who live below poverty, college grads who are burdened with debt, individuals who can’t afford medicine, etc...?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e9m5cd/eli5_how_can_the_united_states_have_both_a_strong/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fajolyg",
"fajq0q3",
"fajq3x7",
"fajq7jc",
"fajs4qe",
"fajtg3j"
],
"score": [
6,
17,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A strong economy can be judged many different ways for the disparity of wealth to the level of gross domestic product (the things that were made that year) generally gdp is the metric for how an economy is doing and the us does just fine when when it comes to making things. Essentially as long as the gdp is above the interest relate we pay on our national debt we are ok.",
"Its a mixture. GDP, which is what people mean by the \"economy\", is a very outdated metric (it was developed in part to show military production capabilities in a manufacturing economy, not output in a service economy), so it has a lot of problems with showing what its designed to. However it also has a lot of problems with people, primarily journalists, trying to use it to show things its not designed to measure. The issues with it are varied and in some cases complex, but it suffices to say that it is only really somewhat useful for estimating raw output for the sake of government policy, and shouldn't be used to estimate much else. If you want to estimate quality of life its better to split countries into categories of GDP (edit, per capita) > $20,000 or so and GDP < $20,000, and use other measures from there. That's because GDP is very important in poor countries, but in wealthier ones it loses its meaning a little. \n\nIn the specific case of the US there are a few causes of the issue you mention. The primary one* is that GDP measures output, not distribution. The US has more than enough wealth to provide free healthcare and education and to eliminate poverty. However, the US economy is structured in a way that means that the money isn't spent on that. The US has more large houses, higher wages for skilled labour and far more billionaires than Europe, at the expense of the things you mention. \n\n\n*There are a few statistical issues with how GDP is measured and how it could be improved, but its probably not worth getting into. An example is that private healthcare contributes its profits to GDP, whereas state healthcare is measured by its costs. Because profits > costs, the US gets an artificial boost to its GDP. However these issues are fairly minor compared to the primary one, which is distribution. It doesn't matter if \"real\" output is $50,000 or $60,000 if the median wage is $31,000.",
"It’s by design. Products are produced and services are sold, but the profit from those things is simply concentrated into fewer and fewer individuals. People are still working hard, or even harder than decades past, but the money they are able to earn buys them less than it used to. Also, many jobs have simply been lost to automation or overseas meaning a highly skilled autoworker is now stocking shelves at Walmart. Walmart is making billions of dollars off the thousands of people it employs, but each of them is making as little as $7.25 an hour. Costs have simply risen faster than wages.",
"A strong economy by us standards just means a lot of wealth is being generated. It doesn't do anything to measure how that wealth is being distributed.\n\nIn the US a handful of people control almost all of the wealth being created due to various economic factors, laws and regulations that allow such hording to take place. They have a number of industries that are incredibly unbalanced in terms of competition, creating near monopolies that allow a small group of companies to centralize the majority of the wealth and leave the rest of the people fighting over relative scraps. \n\nLoose labor laws allow these companies, even the most wealthy companies, to hire labor as below poverty wages in order to ensure the wealth stays within the control of those few people.",
"This is better in r/answers or r/askanamerican.",
"Look up, Runaway Capitalism. \n\nIt took off during the Reagen administration and never came back or at least nothing was ever done to curtail its negative effects and ramifications."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29pyw7
|
why do banks offer interest? what’s in it for them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29pyw7/eli5why_do_banks_offer_interest_whats_in_it_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cincnsr",
"cincow5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They get your money. Would you give money to a bank if you didn't get anything in return? The interest is a payment to you so you'll give them your money.",
"When you give your money to banks, they don't just keep it in a vault, or on a hard drive. They're allowed to invest it, or loan it out to other people. So long as they have enough cash on hand to give out when someone writes a check or uses an ATM, you won't miss it. Generally speaking they make more money doing this than they give you in interest."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1mpylp
|
historically speaking, why do college football superstars (i.e. tim tebow, cam newton) generally not succeed in the nfl?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mpylp/eli5_historically_speaking_why_do_college/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccbi9nk",
"ccbm84n"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, first off, a lot of them do succeed in the NFL. It's just more interesting when a really good college player turns out to be a bust, so people talk and think about it more. Most good NFL players were good in college.\n\nSecond, because of the way that the draft works, college stars tend to end up on the worst teams. The best player in the world can't save a team like the Raiders singlehandedly. They have to deal with inept coaches, incompetent teammates, and the unreasonable expectation that they can somehow turn the worst team in the league around. That's a lot for a young guy to handle.\n\nBeyond that, there's a number of reasons why college success doesn't necessarily translate to NFL success. There's a lot of sloppy stuff that you can get away with in college football that just doesn't fly in the NFL, which is especially an issue for quarterbacks. There's also players like Reggie Bush who are tremendous athletes, but were somewhat over-reliant on being able to just outrun and outmaneuver everyone and don't really know how to follow their blockers correctly and so on.",
"The biggest thing to keep in mind is that even the absolute worst teams in the NFL are made up of the best college players. \n\nWhat Tebow lacked in good mechanics he made up for in sheer athleticism. At the college level that's pretty much enough to make you a top player. By being faster and stronger on average than everyone else you can simply outplay almost everyone else on the field. \n\nIn the NFL, his athleticism was matched by just about everyone else in the league. [As an example, this monster about to murder that poor man with the football ](_URL_0_) and also seen here [about to eat a QB like a turkey on Thanksgiving](_URL_1_) runs the 40 yard dash just half a second slower than Tebow.\n\nIn college, he wasn't part of a pro style offense so not only was his throwing mechanics poor, but he couldn't make reads accurately and go through progressions as good as even mediocre backs up in the NFL do.\n\n Cam is in a slightly different situation because most would say because he should have the tools he needs to succeed, he's just on a bad team. \n\nIn general though it's hit or miss. Sometimes colleges just don't stress the things that make successful NFL players like in Tebow's situation. He wins games for you in college so you're not going to bench him for poor mechanics and decision making. You just let him do his thing and win games. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Vince+Wilfork+Miami+Dolphins+v+New+England+RI9Ws-KnWZEl.jpg",
"http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/v_wilfork2.jpg"
]
] |
||
16cfq4
|
how is it that water doesn't fill our heads when we submerge them in water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16cfq4/how_is_it_that_water_doesnt_fill_our_heads_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7urlx4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's air inside you--in your lungs, sinuses, ears, etc. When you submerge yourself under water, there's no way for that air to escape because the weight of the water is pushing in on it, keeping it inside you (unless you, say, open your mouth). The air also exerts pressure on the water keeping it out of you.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1t96hx
|
the difference between an allergy and an intolerance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t96hx/eli5_the_difference_between_an_allergy_and_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5qpg5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An allergy in an auto-immune response (meaning your immune system is activated) to an external, harmless substance (usually a protein) in the environment. \"A substance that causes a reaction is called an allergen. These reactions are acquired, predictable, and rapid (usually within a few seconds).\" Typically it can be life-threatening, or if continuously exposed can become a life-threatnening reaction (e.g. anaphylaxis). Reactions can occur by smelling touching or ingesting the substance. Typical symptoms include rash, hives, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, trouble swallowing or breathing, and chest pain but the severity varies from person to person and from substance to substance. **An allergy is an immediate immune response to an external substance that can result in life-threatning symptoms which are not limited to the digestive system.**\n\nIntolerances by comparison are usually a gradual, not life-threatning reaction to ingesting a particular food. Typically this only happens when you eat a lot of a particular food substance and the onset of symptoms is typically delayed. For example, someone who is allergic to lactose will react immediately even to a small amount. Someone who is intolerant will react gradually after eating a large amount of lactose, moreover they will very likely be able to tolerate a small amount. Intolerances can be due to a lack of a particular enzyme, for example individuals who do not produce enough of the enzyme *lactase* cannot break down lactose the sugar in milk. Thus they experience symptoms of lactose intolerance. Other triggers are irritable bowl syndrome, food poisoning, stress and psychological factors. A person who is intolerant will typically experience bloating, gas, nausea, stomach pain, diarrhea, heartburn, headaches or vomiting. **An intolerance is a delayed response to an external substance which has been ingested, symptoms are typically limited to the digestive system, it is not life-threatning, and it does not involve the immune system.**\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ev2qjt
|
the law of reflection
|
Can anybody explain it? I don't really get how it works.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ev2qjt/eli5_the_law_of_reflection/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fft2se3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine a skateboarder standing very upright and rolling around on the mirror surface. Now change the skateboarder into a dotted line rolling around. If the mirror is curved, the skateboarder/dotted line will always face away from the mirror surface where it touches. The dotted line is used on diagrams to represent an imaginary reference line which stands at right angles to the mirror surface. The law of reflection just says that when a ray of light bounces off a mirror, the imaginary line will always be halfway between the inbound and outbound ray. We call the imaginary reference line 'the normal.'"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f2gki2
|
the difference between systemic vascular resistance and pulmonary vascular resistance
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f2gki2/eli5_the_difference_between_systemic_vascular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhcenga",
"fhch992"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To understand the difference in resistance you have to understand the difference in systems. \n\nYour pulmonary system moves blood between the heart and lungs. \n\nYour systemic system moves the oxygenated blood that is returned from your lungs to your heart throughout the rest of your body. \n\n\nThe resistances of the two are how much resistance needs to be overcome to circulate the blood within the systems.",
"In the most aimplest way you can say that svp is corelable to left ventricule preasure and pvr to right ventricular preasure. What makes the vascular preasure however are a bit more complicated viscocity of blood mass and diameter of the vessel all effect it and when you change a parameter it efects vascular resistance(side note vasoconstruction increase the blood preasure by decreasing diameter of vessel thereby it increases vascular resistance also but as said VR has many component changing many can neutrolise eachother)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4c8loy
|
why do flights from nyc to china go north above alaska then back down, rather than bee line to china
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c8loy/eli5why_do_flights_from_nyc_to_china_go_north/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1fyyb4",
"d1fz00t",
"d1fzb8v",
"d1fzeyl"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because that's the shorter route. Flat maps sometimes don't do a good job of representing a spherical earth, especially at the poles. If you look at a globe, you can easily see that this is true.",
"The earth is a globe, not a flat map. The northerly route is shorter when drawn on a sphere.",
"Because that curve on the map is actually a straight line on the ground. It is called a \"Great Circle\" route, because it follows one of the straight lines that go all the way around the earth.\n\nWhen you see the direction of those flights, you realise what it means for the earth to be round. If you look at that flight's path on a [Polar Projection](_URL_0_) map of the earth, which is a map centered on the north pole instead of the equator, those 'over the pole' flights make sense.\n\nThere are two reasons why flights can now take these routes. One is that planes are now reliable enough that the cold over-water (or ice) routes don't carry too much risk; the other is the end of the cold war means that planes from the west can overfly Russia.",
"Removed as a repost, though the specific places named are not always the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection#/media/File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
87vm0r
|
how do humans meet the brains glucose demand of 420kcal (105g sugar) per day?
|
_URL_0_
I mean, even 100g rice only yield around 28.8g of sugar, which has to be split between liver (for brain functions) and muscles.
The brain needs around 105g of pure glucose per day, but where does it come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87vm0r/eli5_how_do_humans_meet_the_brains_glucose_demand/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwfvr7f",
"dwg7lnv"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"You need 1500~2000kcal per day, so that 420kcal is a big portion (but an easily achievable amount). \n\nYour body turns other calories (like that 100g of rice's ~130kcal) into glucose to power your brain, through the glycogenesis process in the liver. That's what keeps glucose in your blood in high enough concentrations to keep your brain working.",
"Not all nutrients can be synthesized by the body and we must eat them directly in order to get them into our system. Luckily for us your body *can* sythesize glucose from other compounds you eat. You don't have to eat actual sugar to get glucose into your body."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ktiav
|
how bacteria in pools don't mutate to be able to deal with chlorine as we see with superbugs and antibiotics.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ktiav/eli5_how_bacteria_in_pools_dont_mutate_to_be_able/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clojs02",
"clou8vg"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The same way you can't mutate to deal with getting hit in the head with an RPG. It's just too deadly.\n\nAntibiotics are meant to be strong enough to kill the bad bacteria, but not too strong as to harm your body, so they have to work in a different way than chlorine.",
"You can think of it how specific the damage done is by antibiotics vs stuff like chlorine or alcohol. Antibiotics generally work by having the right chemical shape to stick onto important proteins in a bacteria that it needs to survive or grow and messes up how they work. This means that, for example, a bacteria may only require a single mutation in those same proteins that doesn't let the antibiotic stick as well anymore and they become resistant. \n\nStuff like chlorine or alcohol are just generally harsh. chlorine will actually chemically react with all kinds of stuff in a bacteria (or you) and basically eat away at it. It is much, much harder to adapt to such a harsh non-targeted threat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
au2brd
|
how do government's reduce inflation in their economy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/au2brd/eli5_how_do_governments_reduce_inflation_in_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh52hfw",
"eh53iwc"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Typically this is done through a reduction in government spending combined with an increase in the prime lending rate. ",
"By decreasing the amount of money in the economy. The quickest way to do this is to raise interest rates. Increased interest rates encourage people to save money and discourages people from spending money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
30mzwp
|
how is it that "bots" can be taught to play computer games but a picture of letters that need to be typed into the empty field next to it is supposed to prove you are human?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30mzwp/eli5_how_is_it_that_bots_can_be_taught_to_play/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cptw2kp",
"cptw2us"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Bots, are unintelligent sets of \"Macros\" or strings of commands that are inputted into the computer based on information that was already accessable and programmed in by a variety of interfaces.\n\na CAPTCHA device, is a fraud prevention device that uses randomized letters and numbers in different fonts and distinctions that make it difficult for programs to \"analyze\" or read the inscription and lettering.\n\nThe human eye, can observe and transeve these images quite easily, and proves the validity of a person. Programming this kind of analysis into a comp[uter however has proven to be extremely difficult. Even banks and other establishments that use \"handwriting analysis\" technology have to have the lettering written very preceisely and accurately so that it may verify the pickup on a high resolution scan.\n\nNormal programming is not able to achieve the level of perfection needed to emulate the processing power of the human eye at this time and it remains a valid way to prove life of participant to those who are requesting it.",
"Computers are better at some tasks than others.\n\nPattern recognition is something human brains are extremely good at ans that we as of yet can't really make computers do nearly as well.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
33x7ar
|
why are restaurants so dimly lit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33x7ar/eli5_why_are_restaurants_so_dimly_lit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqp70rv",
"cqp9pwe"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Well, as I remember, affection can be seen in the eyes. \n\nThe dim lighting allows us to notice the slight dilation or widening of the iris that are hints that are otherwise unnoticeable when ample lighting forces our irises almost shut. That is why romantic lighting is usually quite dim.",
"Lighting designers light spaces dimly to create an intimate setting. This technique is used with several others to achieve the effect. You can see where the lighting designers are coming from by seeing the whole strategy:\n\n-Turn down over-all light levels in a space to make it feel \"quieter\", or reduce visual clutter. This makes you feel more relaxed.\n\n-Place spot lights directly over points of interest, such as tables/guests in a restaurant, or store displays at Hollister. This highlights the object and creates a very dramatic effect in comparison to being lit from all sides in a normal setting. This focuses the attention.\n\n-Provide low-level lighting along the perimeter of the space. You will generally see small spot lights lighting up the walls of a dim restaurant. This gives the room a healthy \"glow\" and makes you feel safe and composed.\n\n-Use \"warm\" colored lights that appear more yellow than white. Yellower light makes you feel more casual and comfortable. \n\nLighting design varies completely based on the mood a designer is trying to create. For example, big box retailers like to flood their spaces with soft white light, because this makes the store seem large, free, and open, which makes people move around more. More expensive retailers will use more nuanced visual effects to make people more distracted by the merchandise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3atonc
|
my kid wants to know: if a ladybug fell all the way down from the top of the empire state building, would it die upon impact? (assume the insect did not attempt to fly.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3atonc/eli5_my_kid_wants_to_know_if_a_ladybug_fell_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csftxi0",
"csftxr8",
"csfu4up",
"csfwla0",
"csfxqyd",
"csfzpsh",
"csfzsbx",
"csg03ov",
"csg0ocy",
"csg0r8j",
"csg0xc7",
"csg1c7w",
"csg1f6b",
"csg2q84",
"csg36wa",
"csg49bd",
"csg53pi",
"csg57cd",
"csg6vmh"
],
"score": [
1747,
170,
72,
8,
6,
18,
3,
3,
2,
4,
7,
5,
4,
2,
5,
2,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Doubtful.\n\nA ladybug's terminal velocity (the maximum speed it can fall at) is probably pretty darn slow (less than 30 mph) because it is very light and has a decent surface area. (Ratio of surface area/weight is important in determining terminal velocity.)\n\nImagine if you threw a ladybug right at the ground. It probably wouldn't die. And you'd be throwing it at or near its terminal velocity. So, the greater height (Empire State Building) would not increase this speed. Thus, it could survive the fall.",
"No, it would not die, unless it landed in a frog's mouth.\n\nThe reason is that the air acts as a cushion for the bugs. I am sure that your kid has seen dust floating in the air, or soap bubbles, or something similar. The lady bug is light enough that, while it wouldn't float in the same way---probably, depending on the wind---it wouldn't be able to fall very fast. Thus, it would still be moving pretty slow, even all the way at the bottom.\n\nBut humans or bigger/heavier animals would be in trouble because we're very ~~big~~heavy, and the air doesn't cushion us as much, so we'd be moving very fast.\n\nOPTIONAL EDIT: \n > Also important is how hard the bug would hit. Imagine a marble rolling off a table and hitting a hardwood floor. It makes a pretty loud noise. If the floor is hard enough, the marble might even shatter.\n\n > But, now imagine that marble is made of foam, instead of glass. Even though it will probably fall at the same speed (since the air won't slow it much more than the marble), it will only make a very quiet bump when it hits, and even if it's stiff foam, probably won't break.\n\n > EDIT: As per /u/turymtz , whether something shatters depends on many factors, not just the force when it hits the ground, so the analogy is imperfect.\n\n > A big part of the reason for this is that the marble is heavier, and so it hits with much more force even when moving the same speed as the foam. This is similar to the lady bug versus a person. The ladybug is not only slowed down, but is pretty light, and so doesn't hit the ground very hard, and so it's less likely to break.",
"Probably not.\n\nAll things have \"drag\", that means that they catch the air rushing by. All things act like their own parachutes, in a way.\n\nNow, why do some things break when they hit the floor and others don't?\n\nWell, some things are denser, that means that at the same size, they weigh more. Some other things are shaped in a way that catches the wind rushing by. A parachute is great at catching the wind rushing by as you jumpf from a plane, for example. By doing so, oddly shaped things or things that don't weigh much compared to their surface area are slowed down more by the air they fall through.\n\nNow, why would a ladybug survive? This is where unfortunately, mathematics come into play. The surface area exposed to the air an object falls through grows (or shrinks) with the square of the diameter (\"size\" in one dimension) of the thing, provided its shape remains the same. \n\nIt's easiest to understand by thinking of the surface as an area and areas are measured in squares like square feet.\n\nThe weight of the object (if the shape stays constant) changes by size^3 as opposed to size^2 for the surface. Volumes are measured in ^3. Think of \"cubic\" inches.\n\nSo, since weight changes more strongly than surface if you shrink something, that means that very small objects have less volume (and thus, weight) per size than they have surface per size. The smaller they get, the more surface is there per unit of weight to catch on the air the thing falls through and thus to slow it down.\n\nLadybugs are small, They weigh very little compared to their surface area, so the air slows them down a lot.\n\nNow, if something falls, its weight has a constant pull on it, downwards. This constant pull accelerates the falling object. Normally, it would be getting faster and faster, but the air-drag counters that. Friction from the air grows with the speed something falls. When the friction is just as strong at the pull from the weight, the thing that falls stops to accelerate. It won't fall any faster than that.\n\nNow, finally, we've established that ladybugs are small and that this means they have little weight to pull them down and make them go faster but lots of surface (relatively) to slow them. Therefore, the friction from the air equals the pull from their weight at rather slow speeds. So slow, indeed, that the ladybug can survive to hit the ground at that speed. Since its weight can't make the ladybug go any faster than that speed no matter how long the fall (it stopped accellerating after all) it doesn't matter how high the building is, the ladybug will survive he inpact.",
"no, ladybugs terminal velocity is too low to kill her. terminal velocity is the maximum speed a thing can fall, it would not get hit harder as you drop her from a table or empire state building.",
"To add to the answers already here is the square cube law - As your size is squared (multiplied by itself (in case your kid is really young - Multiplication is adding a number to itself the number you are multiplying it. So 3^2 (squared) is 3\\*3 is 3+3+3), some aspects are cubed (multiplied by itself, then multiplied again (3^3 is 3\\*3\\*3 is 3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3))\n\nWeight is one of the cubed things. It also works in reverse, too. So for every millimeter in size the ladybug is, it is lighter than a person",
"*If they fell down a mineshaft, an insect would be unaffected; a rat would be stunned; a dog would be killed; a man would be broken; and a horse would splash.*\n\n\nI read this some decades ago in a children's science book. I forget the source, but I'll never forget that imagery.\n\nEDIT: I found the original source (by searching for [\"horse splash mineshaft\"](_URL_0_)) - it's a little different than what I remember, but a *great* overall read on differences in scaling.",
"The lady bug wouldn't physically be able to fall fast enough, if something were to push it faster, the pressure from the speed would most likely kill the lady bug. If it just fell from the top, assuming no wind was present, it would most likely survive. Bugs also have a harder exterior than most animals so I think that helps. Feel free to disprove me I'm just going off what i know.",
"You should tell your done about the opposite of this effect. Ladybug lives, small mouse probably does, cat gets all broken up inside, human gets mushy inside and maybe a few poaces where it bursts through. Elephants? Elephants practically explode. ",
"No. Too light. A mouse has been scientifically observed to just bounce slighty when dropped from an airplane. ",
"It wouldn't die. \n\nIf you drop a mouse from any height it wouldn't immediately die (it might break a leg and die though)\n\nIf you drop a rat it would likely die\n\nIf you drop a person it breaks and dies \n\nIf you drop a cow it pancakes and obviously dies\n\n\nBasically it's the fact that volume is exponential and surface area is quadratic. As you scale higher, the area the force of your body is distributed over a larger area, but relative to the increase in volume (and weight thus force), surface area is a lower ratio. The size of a mouse is roughly the sweet spot for falling any distance. \n\n\n\nFun fact: if you drop a cat off the Empire State Building it would likely also live.\n\n\nEdit: I see a lot of people talking about terminal velocity. Anything is going to reach terminal velocity falling off a skyscraper. This is largely irrelevant. Plus animals are relatively homogenous in shape to a certain boundary (ie there aren't many really wide bottom heavy animals, parachute shaped animals)",
"I remeber I was in the Eifel Tower and some guy told me not to throw my candy wrapper off the top because it would pick up speed on the way down and kill someone....",
"I know that if you drop an ant from any height that it will be fine. An ant doesn't have enough mass to become damaged. Perhaps the same can be said for lady bugs\n",
"No. Not enough mass to reach a speed that would damage itself, air resistance would win out and would be a fairly soft landing.",
"The fact that ladybugs also have exoskeletons play a roll in this as well, correct?",
"Most things smaller than a rat will not achieve enough force no matter how far they fall for the impact to be fatal.\n\nA professor used mice off the roof of a 7 story campus building to test this theory and got in a fair amount of trouble.\n",
"People please stop saying probably not. There is no way that it would die for the reasons already discussed. A lady bug most likely hits terminal velocity falling off a 1 story building so increasing the height above the distance it takes to hit terminal velocity will do nothing. \n\nPS. the force of the wind generated near large high rises like the Empire State Building will have a massive effect on the ladybugs velocity as well.",
"This same question was asked about two years ago, except in reference to ants:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nPut simply, if you make something twice as big, it weighs EIGHT TIMES as much. If you go in the other direction (making something half as big), then it weighs 1/8 what it did before. So you can see that something that's REALLY small will weigh almost nothing.\n\nAlso, for really small things like insects, air acts like it's pretty thick. All those legs and body pieces slow them down, sort of like a parachute. Insects don't weigh much, and the air slows them down quite a bit. That's why humans fall like a rock and insects sort of... don't.\n\nBut mostly, they say falling doesn't kill you--its the sudden stop at the end. Ants top out at about 4mph in freefall, and I would guess ladybugs are about the same. Humans go on to 125mph or more. What really saves their insect-bacon is being so light. Since they weigh so little, there's a lot less of them that has to be slowed down when their little bodies hit the ground.",
"Probably not. Its terminal velocity (its maximum speed when it falls) is very low. Plus, its perpendicular area to the ground divided by its mass is very high too (it almost has a deployed parachute shape). I think it would survive without problem. There are simulators on the web for that kind of physics, it would give a very precise answer.",
"Even a mouse would live if it jumped off the empire state building beacuse its low weight equals a low terminal velocity. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/#q=horse+splash+mineshaft"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f9sjz/eli5_how_can_insects_fall_from_proportionally/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
45se2w
|
why are some people mute?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45se2w/eli5_why_are_some_people_mute/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czztg2o"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"There are many types of mutism. Sometimes it's a problem with their brain's ability to process language, others suffer from selective mutism where they get so uncomfortable in certain situations that they can't speak, others are deaf and can't repeat what they can't hear, some have paralyzed speech musculature, etc...\n\nCould you be more specific?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2cjd98
|
why does my vision darken when i get off the couch?
|
Is this a serious issue?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cjd98/eli5_why_does_my_vision_darken_when_i_get_off_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjg1tlc",
"cjg1xyl"
],
"score": [
7,
9
],
"text": [
"This sounds like [*hypotension*](_URL_0_) - low blood pressure.\n\nWhen you're sat down and stand up quickly the body takes time to increase heart rate and constrict your veins in order to increase the blood pressure in the brain. If you jump up too quickly, there isn't a quick enough response and the blood pressure in your head decreases, causing blurred vision or dizziness. It can be exacerbated by old age, drugs, decreased blood volume (often through dehydration) or many other simple causes.\n\nHowever, I'd see a doctor just in case. It doesn't hurt to be safe.",
"The blood pressure in your head briefly fell.\n\nIt's called postural hypotension and is used as a clinical sign, especially in emergency medicine. It's not usually considered dangerous by itself, but if it happens often enough to bother you it's worth talking to a doctor.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_rock_geothermal_energy"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.