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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22zcsk
|
why didn't all life on earth evolve to simply utilize energy from the sun rather than consuming other life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22zcsk/eli5_why_didnt_all_life_on_earth_evolve_to_simply/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgrvivn",
"cgrw9y3",
"cgrwn7w",
"cgsb6vz"
],
"score": [
99,
5,
21,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it become more efficient to consume something that had already gathered energy rather than collect it on its own",
"Because another organism is more calorie dense and it takes less time to gain the calories by consuming another, than sit out in the sun and soak it up. ",
"Well, it probably goes back to the origins of life... \nDifferent types of Archaea, which are believed to be most similar to primitive life, use different types of energy sources. Some use metal ions, hydrogen gas, sunlight (but not photosynthesis), organic compounds, carbon fixation, etc... long story short, there are MANY ways to utilize energy, and any one of them could have dominated. \n\nMy next point is that evolution doesn't have an end-goal. It adaptation to outcompete everyone else; life evolves to be BETTER suited to a niche, not necessarily BEST suited. \n\nApplying this to Archaea, you can start to see where life diverges. Maybe one primitive life form was better suited (due to a random mutation) to fix carbon. Its progeny inherit the trait and soon that genetic line thrives. Maybe another mutation to a different primitive life form allows it to use metal ions more efficiently. It no longer has to compete for carbon, and it thrives as well, in a seperate niche. \nNow we have two species. After a couple of generations, a random mutation here or there, and we have two VERY different species, though both rely on their original methods of creating energy. They each fulfill a place in the environment, to the point now where they're not really competing with each other.\n\nA couple of million years down the road and we have more complex cells that have mitochondria (probably just from absorbing a smaller cell and keeping it because it provides energy somehow). Later on, some of these cells ALSO absorb another small cell, this time one that uses sunlight for metabolism. These cells can get energy from multiple sources now, true, but they are better suited to a different physical location i.e. near sunlight, so they remove themselves from the other cells that can't photosynthesize, and again, aren't really competing with each other. \n\nA few more million years, and the chloroplast-lacking cells that kept accidentally absorbing other cells have evolved to break down these absorbed cells for energy. They evolve to rely on breaking down other cells instead of fixing carbon because this is more efficient for their current design... remember, this current design is far, far different from the original one. Here we have the origins of \"eating,\" which works because of the environment these cells are in. Meanwhile, the chloroplast-having cells are so far evolved from their original design that it's no longer necessary to use metal ions for energy production, so nobody notices when that adaptation is lost. \n\nThis is a long-winded story, but it kind of provides an over-simplified, almost certainly wrong, explanation of evolution. \n\nTL;DR- Evolution has no \"goal.\" Life evolves to have better tools for its environment. Sometimes by chance or random mutation, certain adaptations arise and competition for one resource falls while another rises. Life takes advantage of this. \n\nEdit: clarification",
"easiest answer: who would eat the plants?\n\nplants need a lot of area to get enough sun for their needs. they compete with other plants for decreasing amount of area. if all we had were solar creatures they would be competing like the trees. and all the area on earth is covered in these creatures. but add in a creature that eats plants and now there is room for more plants to grow, that creature can be smaller since he doesn't need a huge area to get his energy he just takes what the tree makes. so while the trees are off competing to get as much sunlight as they can he competes in another way...by eating them. \n\nnow we have all these creatures eating plants and these plants trying to prevent being eaten but with some making things for the creatures to eat to help spread the plant's seeds. and then we get another nice niche...something to eat the things that eat plants. rather than competing for plants (which with all these plant eaters is becoming difficult to do) let's just eat the things that eat plants and take THEIR energy. you don't need to grow tall to reach the tree tops or wander looking for grass, just go look for something eating those things and eat them.\n\nthat's the high an low of it. eating plants means you don't have to be as big but you do need more energy to go find plants to eat. eating herbivorous means you don't have to compete for plants. each of these stages favour having less surface area.\n\nhowever most creatures still get nutrients from the sun. humans synthesize vitamin D for instance from sunlight. many mammals synthesize vitamin C as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2krmy5
|
why do russian jets keep invading other countries air space? is it a sign of things to come or are they just trying to look scary? how does it benefit them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2krmy5/eli5_why_do_russian_jets_keep_invading_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clo1r9c",
"clo2du0",
"clobtwu"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"IIRC they [did not invade](_URL_0_) any airspace, they kept to international airspace.\n",
"It has been very common for adversaries to test each other's reactions for decades now. Russia does it to NORAD (edit: the joint Canada/US air defence system, for those not familiar with the term) fairly often, or to the UK or Norway, and the US routinely does so to [China](_URL_0_), [Russia](_URL_1_), and whichever other countries they feel like doing such a thing to. They don't actually enter each other's airspace, though. They fly as close as possible in an attempt to elicit a reaction from the other side.\n\nThis serves several purposes. You can gather data on their radar systems, test their reaction times and procedures as they scramble interceptors to meet you, and you can also use it to say \"hey, we're here, and we're powerful enough to deliberately poke you like this.\"",
"Major powers all have a long history of flying NEAR the (undisputed) airspace of other countries as a dick-swinging move, it's mainly bluff and bluster. But outside of war (or similar military strikes), I don't believe any country aside from the US (and maybe the Russians) has actually intentionally violated another country's *actual* airspace. The US has done quite a bit of it with the U2 and SR-71, and that continues today with drones.\n\nOne has to differentiate between the actual, undisputed, internationally recognized airspace of a country (typically, directly over it or within X number of miles of an ocean border), and some arbitrary zone that a country or organization like NATO has unilaterally *declared* to belong to it. That sort of airspace gets violated all the time, but again, it's mainly for bluff and bluster.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.dw.de/russia-conducts-maneuvers-in-nato-airspace-as-it-waits-for-french-warships/a-18029072"
],
[
"http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/07/lad.09.html",
"http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/02/us/us-spy-plane/"
],
[]
] |
||
4qn67z
|
why can kidney donors continue on with life having one kidney, but those they donate to cannot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qn67z/eli5_why_can_kidney_donors_continue_on_with_life/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4uaogr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > If a patient only suffers the failure of one kidney, why are they in need of a donor\n\nThey don't. That would make no sense. You only need a new kidney if both of your kidneys don't function correctly. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
38og25
|
why do some websites require you to wait 5 seconds before beginning to download?
|
They also have a link that you can click if the download doesn't begin after the delay. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38og25/eli5_why_do_some_websites_require_you_to_wait_5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crwitdd",
"crwlskn",
"crwmmil",
"crwo023",
"crwt2nb",
"crwt4h6",
"crwuu9m",
"crwvoeb",
"crww1hl",
"crww38j",
"crwwkj7",
"crwxt3f",
"crwzdvt",
"crx89ld",
"crxidhs"
],
"score": [
402,
10,
187,
38,
9,
10,
7,
73,
6,
3,
9,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It allows them to artificially add value to premium models by removing the countdown in exchange for a fee.",
"I always it was so that you could look at the ad while waiting. And then if you need the ad's service, you click it.",
"A lot of ad companies don't count the ad as watched if a user is watching it less than a certain amount of time. \n\nSo in order the generate revenue they force you to watch the ad\n",
"It originally was because some browsers wouldn't automatically start a download right away (lag, or waiting to open filesystem, etc.) and they wanted to prevent you from downloading two copies simultaneously on accident. ",
"Most people answered the title question. As for the question in the body..\n\nA script is supposed to run after the countdown is over. The script is what starts the download. On the off chance it doesn't work, there is a download button which can be used to either run the script again, or get you the direct link to the download. It is basically a redundancy",
"On top of what everyone else commented, I see it as a last chance to cancel the download if you clicked the link by mistake. ",
"Strictly speaking, no browser is supposed to auto redirect you, ever, without your express intervention (i forget which set of standards/conventions says this). However, many browser allow it anyway. Often time, if the web devs change something big, it's easier to have the old url auto redirect to the new url (If you closely watch the url and tab title, you can see this). Sometimes, the in between url will have analytics code. On less than state of the art servers, this redirect may not work right away. So they give it a few seconds",
"* Anti-scrape / anti-ddos : In some cases, it's a method to prevent people from scraping download links using automated software. \nAfter the page loads and the timer expires, the link is created and made available to person that wants to actually download.\n\n* for advertising: In some other cases, when the link is created there is some information added to the link which makes it unique to each person accessing the website. This prevents people from copying the link to clipboard and pasting it to various friends, so each person has to access the website, which means ads will load and the owner of the site will get some revenue from ads. \n\n* revenue from membership/premium accounts: As above, after time expires, the server will give user a link. \n\nIt's possible to have anonymous users receive a link pointing to a server that's on a network with cheaper bandwidth, so the average downloads speeds are lower. Registered (or premium/paying) members could receive a link which points to servers closer to the user, or located in networks with faster speeds, so users experience faster download speeds. \n\n* geolocation : This can also be combined with offering a download link closer to user (if you have two servers, one in US and one in Europe, you may want to give a Canadian user the link pointing to US server, and a French user may prefer to download from the European server)\n\n",
"The hamsters need some time to get the wheel moving before it can effectively service your request.\n\nPlease think of the hamsters next time your download is delayed.",
"I expect that there are many reasons, but I have used this technique myself for one very specific reason - dealing with \"idiot\" users.\n\nFirst of all, the reason why you have a separate page that activates the download is for 3 reasons:\n1. Show another ad\n2. Run analytics\n3. Stop hotlinking\n\nI used to run a music hosting website at my old uni years back. Being a music school, it was simply to allow people to post their own music online easily.\nWe also used a separate download page, very similar to the \"Your download will start in 5 seconds, otherwise click here\", but originally without the artificial waiting time.\n\nWe quickly noticed that we had almost 50% more hits on the files themselves, compared to the download pages. If anything you would expect this to be the other way around.\n\nDoing some research it seemed that people were clicking the actual download link again, even though the download had already automatically started.\nAdding the standard 5 second delay solved this issue.\n\nI don't know why it started, although I assume it has to do with ad revenue. These days users are so conditioned to it, that you almost have to do it yourself, or many users will download duplicate files.",
"Wow, some of these answers...\n\nMaybe if you're trying to download something from RapidGator or some other cookie cutter filehosting site, sure, it's to make premium look nice.\n\nBut for most other sites which don't even have premium offerings, it's about load balancing and selecting a proper server to serve you the file from. It also lets them distribute the load to other servers so that if someone on reddit links to them, reddit doesn't hammer one single server with a bunch of download requests. \n\nMany reputable sites do this, even those that offer open source software. ",
"Used to run large local file-sharing site for my country, there are minor reasons others listed (like making premium accounts more appealing and advertising time), but real and main reason (same reason I turned this option on) is this:\n\n\nFiles need times to download, and different users have different connection to the internet, so each file download opens connection for undefined time, since servers that are in datacentre (aka collocated) has to pay for bandwidth, you may end up your server's connection all used up.\n\n\nSo basically wait times gives server chance to finish other user's downloads (upload for the server, download for the user) and serve other user, without becoming un-accessible. ",
"Yes, in order for the company that you are downloading the file on they need users of there site to watch an ad, thus, making you wait 5 seconds to make sure you actually saw the ad.",
"Page or 'download waiting' gives websites tims to showcase advertisements. In some instances, 'download waits' give DDL (direct download) sites incentive for you to purchase their 'premium' service, which usually means instant downloads, faster download speeds, and parallel downloads.",
"They make their money off advertisements, and because most people would just skip through the ads to get to their download, the websites force you to wait a few seconds which kind of forces you to look at the ad... And as a result they make money. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1oe4rl
|
how did electronics start?(computers/tvs/anything with a screen)
|
Say me and my 100 closest friends are the only people on earth.
Primitive society, nothing electronic, just the earth.
How were the first televisions or computers made? You just put together a bunch of random things and a TV screen appears and broadcasts a picture?
It seems like magic how these electronic started. How did they?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oe4rl/eli5_how_did_electronics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccr5g72",
"ccr67zi"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"To be very basic, screens are made up of pixels and when different codes are ran through the device it projects those images on the monitor. Different codes create a different arrangement of pixels. All electronics are powered through different coding, monitors are just very elaborate displays created by different codes.",
"\n**Step 1: create wire**\n\nSkills needed: basic mining/metallurgy\n\nSmelt copper and draw wire - cover with sap (Gutta-Percha if you can find it) to insulate.\n\n**Step 2: create a battery**\n\nNew skills needed: basic chemistry\n\nMake sulfuric acid by cooking up some sulfur and niter in a lead-lined box filled with steam. Careful it doesn't catch fire. Copper and zinc will do as electrodes, submerged in the sulfuric acid. Viola, you have voltage.\n\n\n**Step 3: create a resistor, inductor and capacitor (the three passive electrical components)**\n\nNew skills needed: none\n\nResistor: squish a bunch of carbon (burnt firewood) between two copper plates.\n\nInductor: wrap your wire around a cylinder (a twig will do) over and over. Make stronger ones by making cylinder out of iron\n\nCapacitor: place something very thin and non-metallic between two copper plates. Paper will do if you have invented it, or you can just find some pretty pretty mica in the ground.\n\n\n**Step 4: create a thermionic device**\n\nNew skills needed: more advanced metallurgy, vacuum pumping, glassblowing would help\n\nA thermionic device is also lovingly called a \"vacuum tube\". This gets a little tricky, since we have to find a metal to heat to a glowing hot temperature without it melting to make the device operate. So you finally figure out how to work with Tungsten or something, and you fashion a little coil of it inside a glass bulb with two other wire screens nearby. Then pull a strong vacuum inside the bulb (like a reverse bicycle pump; but really, really precise and hard to pump). Now when you put voltage through that little coil and get it white-hot, you can use the voltage on one wire screen to control the current through the other wire screen. (wow!) And for those of you jumping ahead - this is called a triode, and it's exactly what a transistor does (but not at all how a transistor works).\n\n\n**Step 5: create a relay**\n\nNew skills needed: none\nArrange copper wires near an inductor, close but not touching. Put a little bit of iron on one. When current goes through the inductor, it will pull that wire into contact with the other, making a circuit.\n\n\n**You may now build: Computer**\nyou now have all the components you need to build an electromechanical computer. The Triodes do the computation and the relays store the bits.\n\n\n**Step 6: create a speaker**\n\nNew skills needed: none\n\nFind a magnet (lodestone). Put an inductor near it. When current goes through the inductor, the magnet will wiggle. Fix it to a drumhead or something to get a good surface area. \n\n**Step 6a - create a microphone.**\n\nYou just have - wiggle the magnet and current will be generated in the inductor. (symmetry is cool)\n\n\n**You may now build: Radio**\nyou now have all the components you need to build a radio transmitter and receiver\n\n\n**Step 7: create a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)**\n\nNew skills needed: basic phosphor chemistry\n\nYou notice a mixture of Zinc Sulfide with other metals glow various colors when you put them near a thermionic device. You make a giant thermionic device and paint the glass just past the front \"screen\" with this stuff. You put some extra copper control plates around the outside of this giant tube to help aim and focus the beam (where ever the beam hits, the screen glows!).\n\n**You may now build: Video Games**\n\n\n**Step 7b: create a video camera tube**\n\nNew skills needed: basic optics\n\nTake your CRT and turn it around (yea, symmetry again!). Paint the glass with selenium instead of your phosphor. Put some lenses in front to focus the image on the screen. Sweep the beam all over to read the level of light hitting the screen.\n\n**You may now build: Television**\n\nColor TV is left as an excercise for the reader.\n\nEverything else is just making things faster, smaller and cheaper - usually by exploiting very different physics/chemistry/engineering principles; but the above is some of the stuff that got us here.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5z36t7
|
pulsar map by carl sagan
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z36t7/eli5_pulsar_map_by_carl_sagan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deuydyv",
"deuyor8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the days before GPS following a map basically meant looking for landmarks. \nEG: I see the Washington Monument to my right, there's The Capitol to my left, therefore I know where I am standing. \nHowever, aliens won't know that we named that star Alpha Centauri and that star Wolf 359, so how would we get it across, that when we say we are in that direction from Alpha Centauri and that direction from Wolf 359 we are standing here. \nSagan try to solve this problem with the Pulsar Map. \nPulsars are stars that spin rapidly at a constant rate. To someone looking at it, it's like the star is blinking at a constant speed. \nSo Sagan proposed this, rather than say this angle from Alpha Centauri and that angle from Wolf 359. \nFind a bunch of pulsars, and convey,we are at this angle from a star that is blinking this often, that angle from another star that is blinking that often and so on. \nThen include a bit of information, this atom is made out of these many neutrons and protons, it does this at a regular rate, the star blinks that much slower than this atom. \n \nThis is alot easier to convey than, this random star is called Alpha Centauri and so on. \n\nSagan might not have been 100% creative for this. In fact pulsars were so weird when they were first discovered astronomers thought they might have been purpose built alien navigation beacons. It would seem fitting that we use them as such.",
"There is the ever present problem of how to communicate with aliens, the Pioneer plaque was one attempt at that. Note that we can't names because they are human inventions and only existing because we give them meaning, we can't use miles, because once again, we invented the distance of the mile. \n\nIt was a method for triangulating the location of the Earth. Pulsars are neutron stars that spin at a set interval, and each pulsar spins at a different speed and pulsars can potentially exist forever (although their spin slows down slowly, but this rate is very very slow). That makes each pulsar unique, making them ideal for setting set locations in the sky. The frequency of the rotation is listed in binary represented by horizontal and vertical dashes, time is denoted by using the spin flip transition of a hydrogen atom's election, which sounds complicated and it is so I will just leave it as the speed at which something happens in a hydrogen atom, this is used because seconds, minutes, and all other common forms of time are human inventions based what goes on in our solar system, aka a day is 24 hours only because the Earth rotates once every 24 hours relative to the sun, this does not necessarily happen on other planets. This is also why two models of a hydrogen atom appear on the plaque.\n\nThe lines denote the pulsars angle and their length denotes their relative distance from Earth. Knowing this data, it is completely possible to triangulate the location of the Sun assuming you understand what is written and you can look at the sky."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3kqr0o
|
how does a country go from being dirt poor to incredibly rich in such a short amount of time?
|
Places like South Korea, Japan and Singapore for example.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kqr0o/eli5_how_does_a_country_go_from_being_dirt_poor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuzovne",
"cuzpeyl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's usually a result of a rapid shift from an agriculture-based economy to an industry based economy. If everyone grows food, you'll be able to feed yourselves, but not much else. However, if you buy/make machines that let fewer people do the same amount of food production, you free up a lot of labor to develop your manufacturing and tech industries, which is where money from international trade can really start pouring in. The reason it happened so fast in places like Japan and the Republic of Korea was partly because of close agreements with the US that helped thing along, and partly because they were adopting technologies and infrastructures that had already been developed elsewhere, rather that starting from scratch. They didn't have to invent the power plant, or the tractor, or various such things. They just had to build them.",
"Fundamentally, having something that wealthy countries want.\n\nThe long answer is, every country is different.\n\nI will address the three you mentioned.\n\nJapan launched a nationwide program for modern industrialization in the late 19th century, quickly outstripping many European nations and most of the US, which was very rural. It then used this power to conquer most of Asia. The wealth acquired, and the industry necessary for the war and political effort resulted in a powerful and mature economy. By WWII, Japanese technology was unrivalled, particularly mechanics and metallurgy. The war with the US saw the destruction of a lot of goods, and the prior 70 years of industrialization had wrecked the environment, but because the political and industrial structures were very mature and efficient, the same corporations and leaders went to work rebuilding the country. This is why the largest corporations in Japan are the ones they are.\n\nKorea was not extremely poor as a country until the Japanese conquered. They had thriving international trade and production, stretching along the Chinese coast all the way to India. When the Japanese conquered, this ended. When the Japanese occupied Korea, they moved industry to modern heavy production, built rail, and introduced chemicals to farming, but they also levied heavy food and material/production taxes on the Korean citizens. Following the collapse of the Japanese Empire (Meiji) Korea became trapped in the cold war. Rather than continue on the path to the heights of industry, the country fell into civil war, ultimately dividing into two governments. The almost 30 years of war completely ravaged the nation. The last 30 years of relative peace have been a chance to rebuild. \n\nSingapore was a small nation on the edge of the S. China sea, forming part of the silk road. It became a British territory 200 years ago. Singapore has had wealth flowing through its ports for 1800 years. It has been an intercontanental trading post for 200 years. When the british relinquished control 50 years ago, the government was able to retain much more wealth, and focus it on state funded development programs, so the infrastructure and education was quickly and vastly improved. However, the nation was not poor before, or after. It simply stopped exporting its wealth in the form of taxes to Britain. Today, as before, however, the nation is very internationalized. It has always been a place where many peoples come, and most of those migrants, like all migrants, are poor. So there has always been a large, impoverished population. But the business and leadership class there have been wealthy for 1800 years.\n\nThese three countries are not technological leaders by luck, or because of external reconstruction efforts. Rather, they are small, have high levels of homogeneity, have strongly hierarchical/authoritarian social structures, and states with a high degree of social power. This allows their governments to set pogroms/agendas and run projects on large and small scale to great effect. Corruption and rebellion in such states is more dangerous that purer democracies, but these states also can get more done with less. Their citizens, as a throwback to Confucian roots, see these social and political arrangements as a benefit over nations like the US, which can be crippled in swing politics, or Germany, which is paralyzed by foreign and domestic obligations. Coupled with strong trade relationships, the mainstay of all three (being resource limited,) these countries have flourished.\n\nIn the case of Japan and Singapore, being left alone has been best. Korea might have been similar, with much shorter war and a clear winner, but because of foreign involvement, and ultimately a proxy war, the fighting was protracted and no clear winner stands. The north was the industrial power house, and was much more wealthy than the south into the 90s, then the situation reversed. Through it all the US has fulfilled an armament role to give the south a credible bargaining chip in the armistice. Because the south was the most devastated by the fighting, and because the north was building and industrializing at such a heavy rate, the US funded and advised in infrastructure and development projects in the south. This was to try and keep up with the north."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
aeie7l
|
why are so many organs universal?
|
So many forms of life harbor hearts, lungs, bladders, wombs, brains, kidneys, livers, stomachs, etc. or equivalent.
Why is there not more diversity? The only real variation I can think of is plant life.
edit: I understand that these things are necessary for life on Earth, what I'm asking is why are there not many variations on these designs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aeie7l/eli5_why_are_so_many_organs_universal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edpeqrq",
"edpfezf",
"edpfth1",
"edpfwp7",
"edphmo6"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
21,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"there are actually quite many variations - just compare \"heart\" of an Annelidae to one of a human. \n\nAdditionally, more complex organisms usually evolved from the more simple ones, so many of their designs just carried on upwards since no change was needed (just some sort of upgrade for example)",
"Everything evolved from common ancestors. DNA is the common factor in heredity because the first cells had that. All vertebrates evolved from early fishes with that common basic body plan. Blood circulation hearts and lungs go back to the earliest ancestor of those. To see variation, you have to go back to the appropriate evolutionary branching point. Plant cells versus animal ones. Exoskeleton against internal. Bony fish splitting from cartelaginous species and so on.",
"Simply, we all came from a common ancestor which had those organs. Once a heart or a kidney was developed, there was a benefit to the organisms that had them and they survived better. Most of the organisms that didn’t either didn’t survive or couldn’t continue to get bigger and more complex. Those that had them, eventually became all the animals we see today. Take a look a insect organs for example, they’re quite different - more similar in many ways to what the first organisms could’ve looked like.\n\nThe other reason is that once you have a heart, say, it’s kinda hard to change it a whole lot. Either you’re gonna make it perform worse for a brief period, so the individuals carrying it will perform worse and probably go extinct, or you’re gonna have to start developing a second heart which could then take on a ‘better’ form. The latter is problematic though because for a really long time you’d just have a pretty useless second heart, while the original one would be carrying all the weight. There would therefore be nothing keeping the rubbish heart there long enough for it to get better, and so it wouldn’t stay around.\n\nThe last answer is that many of the organs are kinda the best design for their function. Take the stomach, a chamber that holds food and digestive stuff. You wouldn’t want the acid etc to get all over your other organs, so keeping it all in a bag is a pretty good option. So naturally, most stomachs out there are gonna look basically like a bag to keep food and digestive chemicals in, and the rest of the body out, be it an insect stomach or human stomach.",
"Actually there are billions of variations. I guess what makes you think there are not many of them is that we categorize different variations of organs under the name of \"heart\" for example and you think there is only one design called heart. When you say hat, there are zillions of different designs which can however be named still as hat, right?",
"Well... all life needs one very basic thing to survive... energy. Energy is released on an atomic level when breaking substances down, mainly carbohydrates (food). So to live you're going to need some way of absorbing the substances, extracting the good stuff from them, breaking them down to release the energy, some way of disposing the waste stuff, storing excess energy, sending it to each part of whatever life form you are looking at, and some network to control everything. Hello organs. The functions and organs needed are similar because life needs them for this purpose \n\nSo similar to computers with electricty, we are all biological machines that need energy to fuel our existence requiring a system to attain and use this energy. What's more is that all energy throughout the universe, all matter, comes from the big bang. We all come from and use the same energy that made EVERYTHING, everywhere, from the start of the universe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rb5w1
|
how are some social media accounts able to find and follow my account without me ever having interacted with theirs, solely based on my search history or recent page visits?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rb5w1/eli5how_are_some_social_media_accounts_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cne7trc",
"cnerfx4"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you visit a site the site will leave a cookie in your browsers history\nSocial media sites just search for cookies when you visit their site and know where you've been on the internet",
"Its because participating in social media means you are bought and sold like a cheap hooker. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
mmn0b
|
capacitors
|
Hey guys. I'm a novice when it comes to electricity/electronics, but I'm trying to learn and pick it up by myself.
One component I've had a little trouble fully wrapping my head around is the capacitor. I'll explain what I currently know, ask a question, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about something.
So say we have a capacitor and a battery connected to a circuit, that's all present on that circuit. From what I understand, electrons will flow from the negative terminal on the battery and hit one plate of the capacitor, causing it to be 'negatively charged'.
Most sources I've read say the other plate becomes positively charged and the capacitor will start storing energy until it reaches capacity, at which time the current will slow to a halt until it's discharged - and they just leave it at that without much more explanation.
My question is regarding the 'positively charged' plate. Does it become positively charged because the extra electrons building up on the negative plate repel electrons on the other side, and send them back towards the positive terminal of the battery (thus reducing electrons and causing it to be 'positively charged')? Is it that simple, or am I overlooking other important details?
Also, when it's said that capacitors actually allow AC through, do electrons physically pass through the dielectric in some odd behaviour, or is it because the power source reverses its polarity?
Any explanation or correction would be appreciated!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mmn0b/eli5_capacitors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3252m2",
"c3265s4",
"c327om2",
"c3252m2",
"c3265s4",
"c327om2"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can think of the positive end of the capacitor as being connected to an electron \"drain\". The voltage provided from a battery only \"pushes\" in one direction, so the electrons are free to leave. This produces a net positive charge. On the other side, electrons are being packed on to the capacitor plate, producing a net negative charge. The longer the circuit runs, the more electrons pile up, essentially filling the capacitor and eventually repelling all incoming current. In an AC circuit, the current is not going in the same direction long enough for the capacitor to fill. \n\nIf you're really interested in this stuff, I would recommend the book \"There Are No Electrons\". It's basically one giant collection of electricity analogies, and they're very helpful. ",
" > My question is regarding the 'positively charged' plate. Does it become positively charged because the extra electrons building up on the negative plate repel electrons on the other side, and send them back towards the positive terminal of the battery (thus reducing electrons and causing it to be 'positively charged')\n\nYes.\n\n > Also, when it's said that capacitors actually allow AC through, do electrons physically pass through the dielectric in some odd behaviour, or is it because the power source reverses its polarity?\n\nNot really. The easiest way to explain this is just for you to do the derivation of a capacitor's reactance. But bear with me as I try to explain.\n\nIn a DC circuit that's been attached to a capacitor, charge flows \"through\" the capacitor (see my comment to your first question) for a little while, until the capacitor is charged. Say this takes, for example, 3 seconds for a given capacitor and voltage. So when you start that circuit, there is current flow for 3 seconds, and then nothing. \n\nIn an AC circuit, though, this doesn't happen quite the same. For instance, North American power is RMS 120V, 60Hz AC. Or, the important part: It reverses polarity 120 times per second (because it reverses polarity twice to make one cycle). Which is a lot faster than 3 seconds. \n\nSo the AC circuit, for the first 1/120th of a second, charges the capacitor like a DC current (I'm simplifying a bit). But then, when it changes polarity, the capacitor starts discharging as current flows in the opposite direction. This repeats, forever.\n\nTL;DR: in AC, current reverses direction faster than it takes for a capacitor to charge, which is why capacitors \"let AC through\". ",
"The way to think about any circuit components is in terms of currents and voltages.\n\nOne thing that's important to remember about circuits is that each wire has a constant voltage. Thus, if you have a wire going from the positive terminal of your battery to one plate of your capacitor and another wire going grom the negative terminal of your battery to the other plate of your capacitor, it makes sense to say one capacitor plate is at a positive voltage and one is at a negative voltage.\n\nIn DC circuits (direct current, i.e., AA battery + resistors + capacitors, etc.), capacitors are used as timing components. If you hook a battery up to a resistor, you (essentially) instantly get a current flowing. However, if you hook the battery up to a network of resistors with a few capacitors thrown in there, it will take a little bit of time for the current to reach its \"steady state.\" This is because capacitors cannot change the voltage difference between the two plates (i.e., the voltage ACROSS the capacitor) instantaneously. Therefore you get a time delay in the behavior of your circuit.\n\nWhen you have AC signals (signals that oscillate at a certain frequency), the ones that get through are the ones that oscillate at a much faster rate than the \"time constant\" (or average time delay caused by your capacitor and resistors). What's important is that the voltage on both sides can change quickly, even if the voltage ACROSS the capacitor can change only slowly. Thus, if you look at a quick little portion of an AC signal that makes the voltage on the positive plate jump up really fast, the voltage on the negative plate has to jump up really fast too in order that the voltage stay more/less the same across the capacitor. In other words, a change in voltage at high frequency (AC) on one side of the capacitor produces an equal change in voltage on the other side, so the signal \"passes through\" the capacitor w/ AC circuits.",
"You can think of the positive end of the capacitor as being connected to an electron \"drain\". The voltage provided from a battery only \"pushes\" in one direction, so the electrons are free to leave. This produces a net positive charge. On the other side, electrons are being packed on to the capacitor plate, producing a net negative charge. The longer the circuit runs, the more electrons pile up, essentially filling the capacitor and eventually repelling all incoming current. In an AC circuit, the current is not going in the same direction long enough for the capacitor to fill. \n\nIf you're really interested in this stuff, I would recommend the book \"There Are No Electrons\". It's basically one giant collection of electricity analogies, and they're very helpful. ",
" > My question is regarding the 'positively charged' plate. Does it become positively charged because the extra electrons building up on the negative plate repel electrons on the other side, and send them back towards the positive terminal of the battery (thus reducing electrons and causing it to be 'positively charged')\n\nYes.\n\n > Also, when it's said that capacitors actually allow AC through, do electrons physically pass through the dielectric in some odd behaviour, or is it because the power source reverses its polarity?\n\nNot really. The easiest way to explain this is just for you to do the derivation of a capacitor's reactance. But bear with me as I try to explain.\n\nIn a DC circuit that's been attached to a capacitor, charge flows \"through\" the capacitor (see my comment to your first question) for a little while, until the capacitor is charged. Say this takes, for example, 3 seconds for a given capacitor and voltage. So when you start that circuit, there is current flow for 3 seconds, and then nothing. \n\nIn an AC circuit, though, this doesn't happen quite the same. For instance, North American power is RMS 120V, 60Hz AC. Or, the important part: It reverses polarity 120 times per second (because it reverses polarity twice to make one cycle). Which is a lot faster than 3 seconds. \n\nSo the AC circuit, for the first 1/120th of a second, charges the capacitor like a DC current (I'm simplifying a bit). But then, when it changes polarity, the capacitor starts discharging as current flows in the opposite direction. This repeats, forever.\n\nTL;DR: in AC, current reverses direction faster than it takes for a capacitor to charge, which is why capacitors \"let AC through\". ",
"The way to think about any circuit components is in terms of currents and voltages.\n\nOne thing that's important to remember about circuits is that each wire has a constant voltage. Thus, if you have a wire going from the positive terminal of your battery to one plate of your capacitor and another wire going grom the negative terminal of your battery to the other plate of your capacitor, it makes sense to say one capacitor plate is at a positive voltage and one is at a negative voltage.\n\nIn DC circuits (direct current, i.e., AA battery + resistors + capacitors, etc.), capacitors are used as timing components. If you hook a battery up to a resistor, you (essentially) instantly get a current flowing. However, if you hook the battery up to a network of resistors with a few capacitors thrown in there, it will take a little bit of time for the current to reach its \"steady state.\" This is because capacitors cannot change the voltage difference between the two plates (i.e., the voltage ACROSS the capacitor) instantaneously. Therefore you get a time delay in the behavior of your circuit.\n\nWhen you have AC signals (signals that oscillate at a certain frequency), the ones that get through are the ones that oscillate at a much faster rate than the \"time constant\" (or average time delay caused by your capacitor and resistors). What's important is that the voltage on both sides can change quickly, even if the voltage ACROSS the capacitor can change only slowly. Thus, if you look at a quick little portion of an AC signal that makes the voltage on the positive plate jump up really fast, the voltage on the negative plate has to jump up really fast too in order that the voltage stay more/less the same across the capacitor. In other words, a change in voltage at high frequency (AC) on one side of the capacitor produces an equal change in voltage on the other side, so the signal \"passes through\" the capacitor w/ AC circuits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1rg1fz
|
why do companies that have monopolies advertise?
|
Why do companies like De Beers bother advertising if they have no competition?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rg1fz/eli5_why_do_companies_that_have_monopolies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdmv863"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They aren't advertising to say their product is better. They are advertising to say \"hey come buy our product\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
djvc57
|
how does the sun make things pale?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/djvc57/eli5_how_does_the_sun_make_things_pale/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f48ijic"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Most colors for manufactured things come from [pigments](_URL_1_). Pigments are chemical compounds that absorb most wavelengths of visible light and reflect a fairly narrow band of visible light (thus giving it its color).\n\nUV light is highly energetic, and [can break down chemical bonds](_URL_0_). Pigments subject to UV light (like from the sun) over long periods of time will get broken down, thus changing their chemical structure, and thus making them less good reflecting a specific wavelength of visible light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet\\#Degradation_of_polymers,_pigments_and_dyes",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment"
]
] |
||
b2kwne
|
what causes the pulsating noise when you drive with the windows down, and why is it so much worse with the rear windows than with the front windows?
|
MY EARS, WHAT IS THAT
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2kwne/eli5_what_causes_the_pulsating_noise_when_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eitb625",
"eitewzd"
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text": [
"It is called Helmholtz Resonance. It only happens when you have one side open and the rest closed so if you have the front left window open you wont hear it if the back right window is also open. \n \nIts like when you blow air into a glass bottle and it hums. The air is coming into the car and it wants to get back out but since there is only 1 way in or out the air is fighting at the entrance. Its like when people try and get on a elevator before everyone else is finished getting off everyone bounces off each other and it makes a lot of noise.",
"When air blows in, it increases the air pressure, making the air want to blow out again. But it can't, since more air is blowing in in the same spot. So it vibrates, and causes that pulsating noise. \n \nTo get rid of this noise, simply open more windows. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ah6oow
|
why do the exact timings of solstices and equinoxes vary?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ah6oow/eli5_why_do_the_exact_timings_of_solstices_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eebw773"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The timing doesn't really vary, it's just our calendar that's not exact. If we wanted to we could define our calendar based on the exact dates of solstices & equinoxes. We already have a calendar which we have refined to be more accurate by determining when leap seconds need to be added."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9qi5ov
|
the van allen belt and how we surpassed it on our way to the moon
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9qi5ov/eli5_the_van_allen_belt_and_how_we_surpassed_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e89do0n",
"e89ejqp",
"e89kg1a"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a magnetic cloud that prevents most charged particles of the solar wind from hitting Earth. Apollo flights went through it at one of it's thinner spots, while going pretty fast. Of course the spaceship was large, much larger than the particles of solar wind.",
"The Sun throws out fast, electric particles called solar wind. These would make us sick if they hit us. However, the Earth is a giant magnet, and it bends those particles away from us and keeps them from reaching us. It also traps them in a ring around the Earth. That ring is the Van Allen belt. The astronauts passed through it on the way to the Moon, but they weren't there long enough to get sick. ",
"It isn't a physical impediment, see focused radiation trapped there is still very thin. It passes no real risk to most electronics, especially for the short duration of exposure. Apollo era electronics are not very sensitive, using large robust components in comparison to modern materials.\n\nAs for biological risks, astronauts went through quickly, and the levels aren't high enough for immediate results. Apollo astronauts have apparently had more cardiovascular disease than other astronauts, but that may be due to the small number statistics. You can get weird patterns with only a few people in a data set.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1yrwxb
|
why are major tv shows never leaked online before their air date?
|
Classified military data is leaked all the time (Manning, Snowden), and music albums are often leaked MONTHS before their release by careless studio staff. Torrents for major cinema releases pop up on the internet before they've left theatres...why don't we see new Walking Dead or Breaking Bad pop up weeks before the air date, especially since all of the material has already been recorded?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yrwxb/why_are_major_tv_shows_never_leaked_online_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfn7w08",
"cfn8a1j"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"Because these days it's is all very tightly controlled and it's easy to figure out who did the leaking. The person who leaked would be found and certainly sued into bankruptcy, fired for sure and blacklisted for life in that industry. \n\nBack in the day you actually used to have leaks like that. Half of The Sopranos season 4 leaked online a month before the first episode aired.\n\n",
"Before a movie is released, it's typically \"screened\" at dozens or hundreds of theaters around the country a few weeks in advance - this gives critics a chance to review the film before the general public. The film used in most theaters is physically mailed, so there are hundreds of copies. This gives all of the employees at all of those theaters access to the film and an opportunity to illegally make a copy to upload illegally - or look the other way while someone else does so. It only takes one bad employee at one theater to leak it.\n\nIn contrast, many TV shows only finish editing a week or two before the show actually airs, and they don't show it to anyone who doesn't actually work on the show until then. They don't need to physically mail anything - the show is either broadcast or sent digitally within the internal network of the TV station that broadcasts the show.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
lj9th
|
compound interest - what do i need to do to make it work for me ?
|
I'm five years old, I want to start saving money for my future.
a wise man once said "Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world"
what does he mean and how can I make this work for me ?
Thank you
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lj9th/compound_interest_what_do_i_need_to_do_to_make_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2t57rn",
"c2t76pj",
"c2t57rn",
"c2t76pj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Step 1. Put money in an interest earning savings account.\n\nStep 2. Leave it there for a long time.",
"It refers reinvesting interest earned on a investment. Earning interests off of previously earned interest. So the rate at which you get returns from your investment accelerates.\n\nWhether or not a person earns lots of money depends on initial investment and the interest rate. $1000 over 10 years at 2% isn't worth it, but $15000 at 12% over 10 years will make you a huge profit",
"Step 1. Put money in an interest earning savings account.\n\nStep 2. Leave it there for a long time.",
"It refers reinvesting interest earned on a investment. Earning interests off of previously earned interest. So the rate at which you get returns from your investment accelerates.\n\nWhether or not a person earns lots of money depends on initial investment and the interest rate. $1000 over 10 years at 2% isn't worth it, but $15000 at 12% over 10 years will make you a huge profit"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
276m13
|
how does the amniotic fluid in the womb not damage the skin of the baby?
|
Does the baby's skin not absorb the fluid and become too fragile?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/276m13/eli5_how_does_the_amniotic_fluid_in_the_womb_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chxw63c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The skin of the fetus is covered in a waxy, hydrophobic white substance called vernix caseosa which protects the skin from around the 18th week onward. Babies are often delivered with a visible amount of it still on their skin, but post-mature babies (42 weeks thereabouts) can be seen to have lost much of the vernix and their skin can be flaky, peeling, and damaged because of it. \n\n*edit: clarification*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
eyq9v1
|
how are wild and sometimes dangerous animals in documentaries filmed so close and at so many different angles without noticing the camera operator?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyq9v1/eli5_how_are_wild_and_sometimes_dangerous_animals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgikj3l",
"fgiobhe",
"fgioecn",
"fgiof4a",
"fgj0nd1",
"fgj123a",
"fgj5awo",
"fgj9nfk",
"fgjcuzj",
"fgjcy12",
"fgjda32",
"fgjfyvo",
"fgjgda6",
"fgjjvp1",
"fgjk20b",
"fgjkve3",
"fgjrz5k",
"fgjsx87",
"fgjvxd7",
"fgjx2te",
"fgk5es0",
"fgk5jtc",
"fgk8j10",
"fgkq1n7",
"fgkqpx9"
],
"score": [
195,
11571,
3,
309,
36,
53,
2,
106,
18,
5,
2,
10,
7,
3,
4,
2,
4,
2,
7,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The photographers use really long telephoto lenses. If you ever see photos of the photographers they have lenses that are a foot long. So they really aren't that close to the animals. They get the angles by just quietly moving around or working in teams.",
"lots of different ways of doing.\n\n1. So really long lenses is one reason - the photographers are not near the animals and can zoom in close. They can also utilise hides (Like camouflaged huts) or ghilli suits or whatever.\n2. Camera traps are another method - just hide cameras everywhere and only have them activate when there’s movement, don’t need a camera man stakes out for days then.\n3. Oddly enough, befriending the animals is also an option. Planet Earth II had the film crew integrate into a troop of monkeys.\n4. Shooting animals in captivity is also an option - portions of Blue Planet were shot in a aquarium.\n5. This is perhaps the most surprising one - it’s not real! All the different shots of animals at different angles telling a vivid story of fight and flight - is very very often the animal on different days edited in such a way to tell a good story (not even always the same animal) and capture all of the behaviours that need to be showcased. So if there’s a lot of cuts in a wildlife sequence theres a pretty good chance it’s not all shot at the same time.",
"I would suspect that these days a lot of the cameras are set up close to the critter's location and remotely operated.",
"they use really giant ass cameras for distance \n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"The think that amazes me about wildlife shows are the winter ones filmed in the Antarctic or Artic storms etc. like how the heck is the camera kept frost free and not affected by snow etc.",
"OP should watch some of the \"making of\" episodes of the BBC nature doc series. They have some of the tactics used in the end of each episode as well.",
"BBC nature documentary unit mounts the stabilized cameras on cars, boats, helicopter, drones and one time even an elephant (for the tiger kill shot in The Hunt).",
"I’m not a photographer or film maker but I am a wildlife ecologist and have spent a lot of time in the wild with animals and some time with a film crew from Animal Planet when they were filming a documentary series.\n\n1.) I worked on a long term research project studying behaviors of wild primates. The troops that we studied had been “followed” by researchers for nearly a decade, so they were habituated to the presence of small numbers of people with equipment. This was one of the primary reasons that the crew selected our population to film, they knew they could get good shots.\n\nAlso, most wildlife in popular safari destinations in Africa are semi-habituated just from tourism. I’ve seen lion kills and many other intense natural behaviors happen within 20 yards of multiple vehicles.\n\n2.) The camera technology that they use is absolutely amazing. A shot that appears to be feet away may actually be 100+ yards out.\n\n3.) Strategic placement of blinds. In arid environments a lot of interesting behavior happens in close proximity to water because that’s where the wildlife gather. Set up a blind in those areas and sit and wait and eventually you get good footage.\n\n4.) A lot of what you see are actually montages over multiple days made to look like some dramatic sequence.",
"Most of the animals aren’t really as dangerous as the documentary wants you to think. Especially when there is probably a camera crew, lots of equipment etc. the humans are novel, and sometimes a curiosity, and not natural prey.",
"That’s a good vox video I’ve seen months ago.\nHope it answers some of your questions about this topic. \n\n_URL_0_",
"What you don’t think about is that for every one awesome shot there are probably dozens that didn’t make the cut.",
"This does not work for large animals, but I know one technique for smaller and more reclusive animals is to build a large and well-stocked terrarium and then capture one in the wild, film it in the terrarium, and then release it back into the wild. It's very humanely done, similar to animals temporarily captured for scientific monitoring.",
"The newest David Attenborough documentary on BBC, “Seven Worlds, One Planet”, has behind the scenes clips of camera crews getting insane footage. If you’re in the US like myself, I believe the extra footage is free to watch on the BBC America app/website.\n\nEDIT: [Here](_URL_0_) is the one of a camera crew capturing footage of a new hunting technique polar bears are using as they adapt to the lack of sea ice in the arctic. But in hindsight, the one where they film a [Puma hunting](_URL_1_) may better answer your question.",
"I just listened to a 99% invisible episode that discusses this topic. Besides the really long range cameras people use, the episode talked about how a lot of noises you hear in nature documentaries actually come from sound libraries where theyre either created or previously sampled. Highly recommend the episode and the podcast in general for people interested in design \n\n_URL_0_",
"Read Chris Palmer's book, \"Shooting in the Wild.\" Through conversations with Chris as well as having personally worked on some wildlife documentaries, I can tell you that most of what you see in nature documentaries has been faked to some extent. \n\nPredators are usually filmed either in captivity or on wildlife reserves where the animals have been habituated to the presence of humans. \n\nThose different angles are often indicating that the shots were filmed at different times, possibly of different animals, and edited together to make it look like one piece of action. Can you really tell the difference between one three-year-old female hippo versus another if they don't have any scars or identifying marks? Nope.\n\nEdit: I think that these practices will eventually be seen as harmful a few decades from now. When you fake these behaviors and interactions among animals, you are superimposing your own ideas about the animals to stand in for real behavior. This will accidentally perpetuate and ingrain myths about wildlife that we don't know are false right now. When Walt Disney's film crew had those lemmings driven off of a cliff, they sincerely thought that they were just simulating real behavior. But it turned out that the lemmings-jumping-into-the-sea thing was a myth all along and the supposed documentary film helped to perpetuate it far longer than need be. Modern nature documentaries that fake shots and action are probably doing the same thing in some respect.",
"It is because wild life photographers use super lenses with a powerful zoom that allows them to be far away from the animal and get super detailed images.\nThis is also good because the photographer is not that close to the animal, keeps a safe distance and is able to capture the animal in its natural environment and behavior.",
"They use blinds, remote cameras, and super telephoto lenses _URL_1_ _URL_0_",
"I've seen one instance where they attach a camera to an rc car and drove it into a lions den.",
"People keep saying \"long lenses\" but that is not always the case. \nA lot of times photographers takes weeks to take a shot that you see in a documentary for 20 seconds. \nHow they do it to animals that afraid of people, is make them get familiar with the camera person. \nMeaning that person will just be around their habitat, basically doing nothing, not trying to interact with them, not trying to get close to their home. \nOver time they get used to the fact that the person is there, he or she are harmless, and over time will start moving close to them, be more curious, and that will give them more chance to take photos. \nAnd as the animals get familiar and more comfortable, they will ignore the person even if they run along side the animal. \n \nThat is how you get those photos. \nShooting a white fox for planet earth, the camera man was just around the fox's habitat for over a couple of months until the fox allowed him to move closer, and the fox was curious about the person. \nThe couple of minutes of segment they did, took months to make and they almost gave up.",
"[like this](_URL_1_) and [this](_URL_0_:)",
"More recently they have developed 'critter cams' that look like rocks, tree trunks, turtles, etc. Things that normally wouldn't arouse suspicion even if the animals do smell human scent on hem.\n\nTheres some funny footage out there of Chimps, lions and elephants reacting and interacting with these devices.",
"I assume they just edit out the parts where water drips or snow fall on the lenses. \n\nThe crews who film this are amazing. Any behind the scenes clips are fascinating when they show them.",
"An insanely long zoom lens on camera. a 200-600mm f4.5-6.3 or 600mm f4 more specifically with possibly an APSC camera body which amplifies that range by 1.5x. Combined possibly with a 2x extender giving a possible zoom range of 600-1800mm.",
"Did someone watch that Netflix documentary about night animals?",
"I used to think all the sound effects were real and it absolutely amazed me that they could get such awesome sound from things like ants and spiders. Little did I know basically all sound in movies besides the dialog is fake and made in a studio by people called Foley artists. Theres a great documentary about it that shows the Foley artist working on \"A Quiet Place\", these people are so damn creative and such amazing artists."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/cute-animal-photography-edwin-kats-14.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/qAOKOJhzYXk"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/seven-worlds-one-planet/video-extras/season-1/episode-02-north-america/singing-belugas-whales",
"http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/seven-worlds-one-planet/video-extras/season-1/episode-03-south-america/filming-first-successful-puma-hunt"
],
[
"https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/sounds-natural/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/CvwzYBp.jpg",
"https://i.imgur.com/sjObNSE.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=how+national+geographic+photographers&oq=how+national+ge&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3.9497j0j7&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=tsWVaXwqOrhkPM",
"https://imgur.com/gallery/vNPOQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1nstv2
|
which is more efficient at using energy? the human body or an engine?
|
If my body uses 1kJ of chemical energy in food to do work and an engine uses 1 kJ of chemical energy in fuel to do work, which releases less total heat?
Another question, what system do we know of that is the most efficient at using chemical energy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nstv2/eli5_which_is_more_efficient_at_using_energy_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cclolnb",
"cclqoxn"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We are approximately 20% efficient.\n\nThe internal combustion engine is approximately the same, while the rocket engine is around 70%. The electric engine is around 90%.",
"Muscles operate with an efficiency of 18-26%, whereas most internal combustion engines have an efficiency of about 18-20% (70% for jet engines and 85-90% for electric motors from wiki). \nOverall, jet engines should have the highest efficiency (assuming chemical energy as the primary source). \n\nSources: \n[1] _URL_0_\n[2] _URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle#Efficiency",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency"
]
] |
|
a8et2j
|
when you're running a fever...
|
Why do you have cold spells aswell as hot? I've got a 38 degree temperature right now and am shivering under my duvet..
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8et2j/eli5_when_youre_running_a_fever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eca3fsr"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"An easy way to describe it is that your body WANTS to heat itself up to try and fight off the infection. It does this by making you think you're cold, resulting in shivering that raises your body temperature to a level that will hopefully kill off the invading forces.\n\nThis happens because your brain basically adjusts your bodies thermostat point - it wants to be hotter, so it increases the desired temperature, meaning your body temp is now below the desired temp, making you FEEL cold, which your body then works to correct by shivering and giving you the fever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6k17tq
|
why the soviet hockey team was so dominant, even beyond other soviet sports like basketball and football.
|
So, I understand that the Soviet Union gamed the Olympic Amateur rules by having the athletes essentially be paid to train like pros, but play as amateurs. However, with this being the case across the board, why was their hockey team so much more successful than the rest?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6k17tq/eli5_why_the_soviet_hockey_team_was_so_dominant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djipt23"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Much of the countries who play hockey have much smaller populations than Russia. If you look at countries like Canada, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, etc... they are usually 3-15x smaller in population than Russia. So right off the bat they have a much higher pool of players to choose from. Additionally, hockey is/was a premier sport for Russia. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
rqbao
|
why semis make wide right turns but not wide left turns.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rqbao/eli5_why_semis_make_wide_right_turns_but_not_wide/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c47s4hh",
"c47s7mu"
],
"score": [
9,
15
],
"text": [
"Roads in the US are designed so that left turns are naturally wider than right turns. A semi can manage the normal left turn curvature, but they're too large to manage the normal right turn curvature. Thus, you get warned about semis making wide right turns, even though the actual curvature of the right turn is no wider.",
"They do make wide left turns, it's just that (in America anyway) the lanes of perpendicular traffic to the truck's left mean that it has to drive out farther into the intersection so the turn is not quite so acute.\n\n[Look at this diagram of an intersection.](_URL_0_) To make a right hand turn from Mill Ave to Colonial drive, a truck would have to make a very sharp right hand turn which is difficult for it to do because trucks are so *long*. So they have to stick their noses out halfway into the intersection and then turn the wheel to the right. But if it were turning left at the same intersection, look at how much space those lanes of traffic on Colonial drive give it to make the turn! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/31000/31000/31051/14480_files/images/fig28.jpg"
]
] |
||
3lxo7f
|
what is going on with the gop apparently trying to block the pope from speaking to congress?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lxo7f/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_the_gop_apparently/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cva5gzl",
"cva5ibz",
"cva5txa",
"cva7dy4",
"cva87xh",
"cvajq31",
"cvarbx4"
],
"score": [
12,
8,
6,
6,
2,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Haven't read much into this (because the Pope being in DC is going to play merry hell with my commute) but I would suspect that the GOP is worried about what the Pope is going to say.\n\nThe Pope's stance on several things (gay marriage, social services, healthcare) are highly likely to be counter to what the GOP is preaching. While the US is not a Catholic majority state... there are still a huge number of Catholics here so the Pope's word carries a lot of weight. ",
"You don't just show up and say, \"hey, I want to talk to congress.\" Congress has to approve of it.\n\nThe pope will likely talk about climate change and income inequality, and that is not a message the GOP is interested in during an election cycle.",
"He was invited to speak by both John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi (they're both Catholic). A lot of Republicans don't want the Pope, who is decidedly against Republican policy on a number of issues (climate change, immigration, and even to an extent gay marriage) to wade too far into politics in his papal address to Congress.",
"They are? I haven't seen that the Republicans have taken any such action.\n\nThere is at least one individual Republican boycotting the speech...is that what you're talking about? He wrote a whole article on his reasons. ",
"Some Popes say mostly conservative things, and then the GOP is all excited. \"See! Pay attention to the Pope! He's religious! That is God talking!\"\n\nBut the current Pope sometimes says liberal sounding things, about wealth inequality and global warming. So now the GOP is unhappy and doesn't want to hear from the Pope.",
"They are worried he might remind them and the Americans in general what the Christian values actually are",
"This particular Pope is a socialist hippie commie Pope, not a good, respectable Republican Pope.\n\nSo he's likely to spout socialist hippie crap like helping the poor, forgiving your enemies, not persecuting gays, blah blah blah...and conservatives don't want to hear stuff like that. \n\nThey worship Republican Jesus, who WANTS you to have fully-automatic assault weapons. Republican Jesus thinks the poor are poor because they're lazy and stupid. To Republican Jesus, \"turn the other cheek\" is an aiming method...\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1dxpgt
|
why can't we use coca-cola's global distribution system to end world hunger?
|
I've always been told that the key to ending poverty was not that humanity needs more food (as we already have too much), but that we could not get the food to where it needs to go for whatever reason. I just [read](_URL_0_) though that Coca-Cola is distributed in 200 countries around the world, which I'm pretty sure is ALL the countries. No more countries after that.
So how come we can't leverage Coke's distribution system, or a Coke-style distribution system, to alleviate world hunger?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dxpgt/eli5_why_cant_we_use_cocacolas_global/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9utsu4",
"c9utuwi",
"c9utvob",
"c9uyi07"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"If they could find one penny's profit out of it, they would. . . but there's no money in feeding people that can't afford the food or can't afford to buy advertising from them. ",
"Coca-Cola's global distribution system only works because it is profitable. It would cost much more money than anyone is willing to spend to make a similar system for food distribution.",
"Because... it belongs to coke, and it costs money to run. Money which isn't earned by giving food to people who don't have money.\n\nIt's not that we are unaware how to bring products to Ethiopia, of course we know how to do that, just fly a plane in.",
"Mostly because, even \"bad guys\" like Coke.\n\nFood is used as a weapon in many parts of the world. It's not that there isn't enough of it (either grown domestically, or able to be given by others). \n\nIf I'm a member of ruling military junta/dictatorship/ruling ethnic or religious caste, and I don't like \"those guys\", and \"those guys\" are starving, why would I want to make it easy for them to get food? Either I'll bar NGO's (non-governmental organizations) from helping them, or steal the food for me and my friends, or sell it to \"those guys\" at inflated prices.\n\nMeanwhile, Coke isn't exactly \"food\", and it's innocuous enough that nobody, including the above, really goes out of their way to stop distribution."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/81637d8c-b7ed-11e2-9f1a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Sd40U0eL"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
35ipb4
|
-why is most insulation pink?
|
Title
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35ipb4/eli5why_is_most_insulation_pink/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr4r1ew"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Owens-Corning dyes their insulation pink as part of their branding strategy. They are the market leader, so you've probably mostly seen their products.\n\nOtherwise, there's nothing special about the color pink for insulation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
n8irj
|
what's a ganglion cell, what's a neuron, and what's the difference?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n8irj/whats_a_ganglion_cell_whats_a_neuron_and_whats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3741l6",
"c3741l6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A neuron is a cell that allows different parts of your body to communicate with each other. Neurons are made up of three parts- a cell body, which is the control center of the cell, dentrites, which gather information for the cell, and an axon, which passes the information on to another cell in your body.\n\nAll nerve cells (neruons) come together to make up the nervous system, which is broken down into to major parts- the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system. The peripheral nervous system consists of all the neurons outside of the brain and spinal cord, while the central nervous system is the neurons of the brain and spinal cord. A ganglion is a group of neuron cell bodies in the peripheral nervous system, so a ganglion cell would be one of the neurons located in a ganglion.",
"A neuron is a cell that allows different parts of your body to communicate with each other. Neurons are made up of three parts- a cell body, which is the control center of the cell, dentrites, which gather information for the cell, and an axon, which passes the information on to another cell in your body.\n\nAll nerve cells (neruons) come together to make up the nervous system, which is broken down into to major parts- the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system. The peripheral nervous system consists of all the neurons outside of the brain and spinal cord, while the central nervous system is the neurons of the brain and spinal cord. A ganglion is a group of neuron cell bodies in the peripheral nervous system, so a ganglion cell would be one of the neurons located in a ganglion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
g2shvs
|
is the technology behind zoom actually super groundbreaking or advanced compared to older videoconferencing options like gotomeeting/skype/hangouts, etc?
|
Why does Zoom seem so much more popular than those older conferencing options? The vid quality is just better? Or UI is easier? Or b/c you don't need to sign up?
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g2shvs/eli5_is_the_technology_behind_zoom_actually_super/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fnna53v",
"fnnaad1",
"fnnege8",
"fnnr2p8",
"fno17fe",
"fnp74iy",
"fnrkbxf"
],
"score": [
11,
9,
5,
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"No.\n\nNone of these are particularly groundbreaking, nor are they trying to be, they just offer a service thats basically the same type of video conferencing that has been around for 40 years, albeit of course tailored to a more modern audience. These companies don't really compete on features of their product, they compete on sales.\n\nThere are some groundbreaking video conferencing systems out there, but these are generally only used in high-end business and education and come with a significant price tag.",
"Zoom has a freemium business model, where a completely free version can be used for small calls. This attracts people to it. Alternatives like WebEx or gotomeeting had no such option.",
"A lot of the older videoconferencing options had problems with lag, stutter, failure to connect, difficulty connecting in certain network configurations, etc. Some of them relied on plugins that could be finicky to install or were often missing (e.g. Silverlight). \n\nZoom pretty much \"just worked\". Most of the others now \"just work\" too, but they certainly carry some reputational baggage from the dark old days when things were hit or miss. So one part is being born late enough in the game that a lot of the enabling technologies (internet speed, network infrastructure, webcam driver quality, CPU/GPU performance) were mature.\n\nThere is a web standard called WebRTC that is now in all the major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) that solves videoconferencing in-browser, without need of any downloads, and there are some services that are wrapping that in a reasonably easy to use way.\n\nVideo conferencing is fairly complex from a network point of view, so there are lots of ways in which it's tricky to keep secure. Zoom has had a series of fairly careless-looking mistakes. To their credit they seem to be saying and doing the right things about it now, so they may yet earn back the trust they burned by their earlier decisions and mistakes.",
"It isn't ground breaking, it is just easy to use, and in the right place at the right time. If COVID hadn't happened, Zoom would have remained obscure. \n\nZoom is slightly easier to use than some of the alternatives for a few reasons:\n\n1. It offers basic service for free, while many other video conferencing tools require a payment. Even small costs are enough to deter a lot of people. \n\n2. You don't have to sign up for an account to join a meeting. Skype, GoToMeeting, and Hangouts all require you to create an account in order to use them. \n\n3. Zoom offers some tools that are useful for holding larger meetings and lectures, while some other tools like Skype are better for small meetings. For instance, Zoom allows for things like voting, or for a single user to administer the meeting and control how/when other people can contribute.",
"Thanks a lot for the answers. Makes sense!",
"For my organization, Zoom went to the top because of the amount of simultaneous video feeds up at once while not lagging and also having good quality. We often would test with upwards of 80 people all with webcams on. Being able to see everyone or focus on speaker only, and the ease of screen share made it a favorite. Can't think of another product that can do that.",
"Texting and video conferencing apps have this phenomenon. Every few years someone invents a technology that already exists and everyone jumps on board like it is something new. The issue is security - the purpose of security is to keep unwanted people out. It is therefore always going to make things harder to use - you put a lock on a door, now the user has to know how to use a key. There is a three way relationship in applications - flexibility and capability versus usability versus security. They each are in direct conflict. Zoom is very capable and flexible, and it is easy to use. Any guesses how good it’s security is?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
93hy5z
|
why are we getting less rain as the oceans become hotter and not more?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/93hy5z/eli5_why_are_we_getting_less_rain_as_the_oceans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3ddgg9",
"e3dejqw",
"e3depwv",
"e3derui"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Who is \"we?\" Some places are getting less rain and some are getting more. Weather isn't one thing.",
"Overall there is more rain and humidity with global warming. This is because there is more liquid water in the atmosphere with the melting of the ice caps. However, the effects of global warming aren't the same everywhere. It is causing climate change throughout the world, which results in more rain in some places, less rain in other places, warming in some places, and cooling in other places.",
"Come and spend a week in the UK. If we get anymore rain they'll need to change its name to the Underwater Kingdom. It rains here waaay more than it used to. A month's worth in a day type of thing. I live in Glasgow and they've been upgrading the sewers for the past few years to increase capacity.\n\nEdit: Some of my massive dumps may be contributing to the sewer thing.",
"We, as in Earth are seeing more rain. Changing weather patterns means that that rain doesn't fall where it used to or is becoming more concentrated in certain areas. We're seeing short intense bursts of rainfall in areas that were more accustomed to prolonged, steady rainfall. Rainfall patterns are also shifting. The majority of rain falls back into the ocean."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1laxfg
|
why is the movie the hobbit so different of a movie from the lord of the rings, despite having the same director?
|
And some of the same actors too, for that matter.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1laxfg/eli5_why_is_the_movie_the_hobbit_so_different_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbxejxd",
"cbxeraq",
"cbxfcji"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"They're different stories. ",
"Apart from the obvious storytelling differences, a lot of the differences can be attributed to different filmmaking methods.\n\n*The Lord of the Rings* was shot on film; *The Hobbit* was shot with electronic cameras. The difference is not vast, but it is noticeable. The quality of a scene is distinctly different between the two media. Some prefer one over the other, but even if you don't have a preference, there is a difference there.\n\nSecondly, because of the different media, the lighting of *The Hobbit* is dramatically different from the lighting used in *The Lord of the Rings.* The differences aren't easy to explain succinctly, but suffice to say that the use of a different type of camera necessitated different lighting, and you can see the difference.\n\nThird — and perhaps most significantly — *The Hobbit* was shot stereoscopically, while *The Lord of the Rings* was shot flat. This had a *significant* effect on the way scenes were staged and shot. Some basic techniques of shooting motion pictures, like the use of depth of field for creative or storytelling purposes, simply aren't available when you shoot stereo. And of course, *The Lord of the Rings* made use of a lot of tricks of perspective to frame shots with actors of different scales. The unavailability of those tricks also bled over into how scenes were able to be set up and shot in *Hobbit.*\n\nFinally, there's the fact that *The Lord of the Rings* made *extensive* use of miniatures, while *Hobbit* made extensive use of computer graphics. Now, objectively, neither one is \"better\" than the other. But they *are* different. They evoke a different feel.\n\nAll of these are very subtle things. Most of the time you wouldn't even notice them, much less find them objectionable in any way. But this is a very unusual case. We have a very long, very ambitious film that was made in a distinctive (and wonderful, let's just be honest) way … and then the *same team* came back a decade later to make another movie with the same setting and some of the same characters using *completely* different filmmaking techniques. The result is a movie that only barely resembles is predecessor. All those tiny differences add up to something enormous, when you compare the two films side by side.",
"The hobbit was written as a less serious kids book, it is actually very short and easy to read and focused on action vs the LOTR books which are much slower and more serious.\n\n\n\nHow they are stretching it to three movies I am not sure, but they are padding it with valid details from Tolkiens notes and other books.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
41uqyp
|
how are kids in africa eating for only 5 cents a day and how can i eat for only 5 cents a day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41uqyp/eli5_how_are_kids_in_africa_eating_for_only_5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz5925q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Move to Africa. The cost of living is extremely cheap. If you want to save money here, buy a Costco bag of rice and beans and have that every day. Lots of nutritional value for pennies a day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9yfh9l
|
if a magnet can’t attract aluminum, then how do they use magnetic cranes to pick up soda/food cans in landfills and recycling centers?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9yfh9l/eli5_if_a_magnet_cant_attract_aluminum_then_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea0yct5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First, aluminum cans aren't the only type out there. There are tons of much older cans that were made from steel and those are picked up by magnets. So if you're watching an older movie with one of those magnetic lifters, it's grabbing everything because cans were largely steel back then.\n\nAlong the same lines, many aluminum products aren't 100% aluminum. Many types of aluminum can have a pull-tab that's a different type of metal. (I had an uncle with Alzheimers who spent the last years of his life using magnets to separate beverage can pull-tabs into steel and aluminum piles, and then the aluminum ones were used to raise money for charity.)\n\nSo you take your magnet and stick it in a pile of junk, and you'll pull out two types of metal: ones that magnets attract like steel, and ones that are attached somehow to steel, like an aluminum can with a steel pull-ring. Any metal that's left behind is mostly going to be aluminum, and you process the leftover bits accordingly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
22f2ms
|
how is it that robert de niro has come to act in so many bad late-career films?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22f2ms/eli5_how_is_it_that_robert_de_niro_has_come_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgm68va"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"He's cashing in. He doesn't have many opportunities left so take advantage of the ones you do. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22xkcb
|
why isn't nicotine (or cigarettes) a schedule one drug in the usa?
|
To be classified as Schedule 1 they need to...
1. have the possibility of abuse by users
2. no current use for medical treatment in USA
3. lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug under medical supervision
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22xkcb/eli5why_isnt_nicotine_or_cigarettes_a_schedule/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgrd4cw",
"cgrd8yh",
"cgrdjq0",
"cgrebx9",
"cgrejk5",
"cgreloa",
"cgrez46",
"cgrfcyy",
"cgrfsu2",
"cgrfzfa",
"cgrgasz",
"cgrgbni",
"cgrhapw",
"cgri0sb",
"cgrj9ic",
"cgrjkyl",
"cgrl4js",
"cgrl5sb",
"cgrmszd",
"cgrnxkq",
"cgro4nw",
"cgroo35",
"cgrptgz",
"cgrptz0",
"cgrxk36",
"cgs08vb"
],
"score": [
5,
139,
580,
3,
12,
4,
2,
2,
388,
2,
7,
11,
2,
3,
6,
5,
2,
11,
3,
6,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing because for a quite a while the economy was dependant on it.",
"It's basically because tobacco, like alcohol, has a long tradition in our society. Also, smoking doesn't seem to impede people from working, so it isn't seen as as great a threat, as say, marijuana or heroin.",
"The tobacco companies have really good lobbyists. \n\nThat should answer any of your questions about the tobacco industry.\n\nEDIT: More Info.\nFor anyone wondering about tobacco lobbying. \"Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.\" The tobacco companies pour massive amounts of money into 3rd party lobbyist groups who then offer the money indirectly to politicians in exchange for influence on their decision making towards tobacco laws.\n**ELI5:** They pay the politicians off so that they vote in their favor.\n\nIn 1998, over $70m was spent on lobbying for the tobacco companies (source _URL_0_). Due to the public finally realizing the negative effects of these products, tobacco companies now have less traction in politics. In 2013, approx. $22m was spent lobbying tobacco. Luckily, in the U.S, the public has opened their eyes to the issue and rates of cigarette smokers decrease every year and laws that damage the tobacco industry have been passed. An example is that you cannot smoke inside of most businesses in the U.S (might vary by state, I'm not sure).\n\nTLDR; **The tobacco companies have massive amounts of disposable money that they use to pay off the politicians.**\n",
"Nicotine dose have accepted safety for use under medical supervision. \n\nWe give patients nicotine replacement patches in the hospital all the time. Granted we are not actually \"treating\" anything other than the prevention of patients being total assholes because we're not letting them smoke. ",
"You guys can jerk around and whine about lobbyists and corruption in the system, but the truth is tobacco was already being sold and used regularly by a huge chunk of the population. There was historical precedent. \n\nIt's the same reason Tylenol is still sold today and is over the counter. Tylenol is the #1 cause of liver failure in the United States and has many noxious long term side effects. \n\nIf Tylenol was invented today it would *never* pass FDA guidelines and be approved for sale over the counter. But yet... it's being sold in every pharmacy. Why? Because it's been around and became a widely accepted drug *before* the FDA was created.\n\nCocaine, weed, and other recreational drugs were around for just as long, but they were never mainstream. They weren't ingrained into society as something everyone is using, so when the FDA decided to put drugs into Classes they were able to target those drugs.",
"Tradition.\n\nThere really isn't any more to it than that; if tobacco, white sugar, or distilled alcohol were discovered today, there would be moral panics in the newspapers and a rush to pass laws against them.\n\nInstead, they're the three drugs that fueled European expansion into the western hemisphere. Much of the land rush into the western hemisphere, especially in the Caribbean and northern South America, was about European nations trying to find places where sugar cane would grow, because they were going broke importing it from China; rum distillation based on (illegally imported) molasses from the Caribbean was what funded all of New England; tobacco was Europe's first profitable export to Asia, then America's first profitable export to the world. The natives might have had time to recover from the great plagues of the 15th through the 18th centuries if it weren't for the profitability of western hemisphere exports of molasses, tobacco, and rum.",
"O yes I should probably answer your question basically one of the factors is cigarette companys are POWERFUL and they are freaking RICH and once you start smoking you want more and more and more the companys have tons of smokers standing behind them and they have tons of money so if you try to do anything about it they are an army of smokers and tons of money to win the law suit \n",
"We should ban alcohol too right? ",
"**History.** Tobacco was widely used well before we learned about its dangers. It was a big part of the economy by the time people realized it was bad. Things like pot just weren't industries that employed loads of Americans. Pot wasn't part of society. Banning tobacco would have meant changing the habits of \"polite society\" and shutting down a big enough portion of the economy that it would have sent shockwaves with loads of unemployed people overnight. While other drugs may have been used, they weren't the type of thing you'd use in the office during a meeting with your boss. Those things make a difference.\n\n**Psycho-Active Effects.** Nicotine is certainly addictive. Nicotine may have affects on one's body. However, no one is going around claiming, \"you can't smoke a cigarette and drive a car.\" That makes a big difference. Cigarettes are certainly damaging to one's health. They are certainly addictive. However, they don't have an immediate impairment to one's physical and cognitive faculties. You know how people post things on reddit \"I got high last night and ended up ordering this ridiculous thing on Amazon\"? No one is posting, \"I smoked a cigarette and it caused me to do this ridiculous thing.\" You drink alcohol and drive, maybe you crack up your car and kill yourself or someone else. You smoke a cigarette and you're harming your health, but it isn't messing up your ability to function as a human being for the next 2 hours. Which of these two statements sound reasonable: 1) I can't get high tonight because I have to finish my math homework -OR- 2) I can't smoke some cigarettes tonight because I have to finish my math homework. Similarly, 1) I can't get drunk tonight because I drove to this party -OR- 2) I can't smoke cigarettes tonight because I drove to this party. Really, the stuff you need to be responsible for can be done on cigarettes.\n\nNone of this is to say that cigarettes are good or that pot or alcohol are bad. Cigarettes fall into this weird zone.\n\nBetween friends, let's say that second-hand smoke didn't exist and nicotine wasn't addictive. Then what makes cigarettes different from some really unhealthy food (or living in a city with lots of smog)? The really unhealthy food is harming your body. The smog is harming your body. But neither are impairing your ability to function with normal human capacities that society would want to stop (like we want to stop drunk driving). The fact that it is addictive and second-hand smoke does exist makes it more of a problem. But it doesn't have the same short-term effects to one's ability to function and that fact, combined with the history and money behind it, means that it stays off the list.",
"Do you want to be around when EVERY SMOKER IN THE COUNTRY QUITS AT ONCE? Because I will be taking a 3 month sabbatical Anyplace But Here if that ever happens O.o\n\n(\"Do you WANT riots on the street? Because that's how you get riots on the street.\")\n\n(See also: Prohibition of alcohol)",
"Because tobacco companies ~~bribe corrupt~~ lobby politicians with the amount of money they make. The ~~bribe~~ money from tobacco companies goes to help politicians with campaign funds and other things.",
"There are thousands of substances that meet that definition that are not classified schedule 1.\n\nThe psychoactive effect of nicotine is so mild that it just isn't considered a \"drug\" the way other schedule 1 substances are, despite technically falling under the definition of drug.",
"Ultimately the answer is because the FDA chose not too schedule tobacco and nicotine, BECAUSE it would have to rank it as schedule one.\n\n",
"No it's not because of tradition or lobbyists. Why isn't caffeine a schedule 1 drug? Same reason. ",
"Well, nicotine all on its own is no worse for you than caffeine, it also has no mind altering effects other than a slight calming effect.",
"nicotine is actually good for brain function and can be treatment for ADHD and ADD (which is against what schedule 1 states, but I doubt anyone actually uses it to tread these conditions)\n\norally taking it is still carcinogenic I believe, but it is not as bad as inhaling the smoke it would create.",
"Why would you think it needs to be?",
"First, recognize the flaw in your title and you'll understand a bit better. \n\n > nicotine (or cigarettes) \n\nCigarettes consist of *thousands* of different chemicals. Nicotine is just one single chemical that happens to be in cigarettes. By itself, nicotine **does not** meet the requirements of a Schedule-1 drug (it's about as dangerous as caffeine). Putting cigarettes on the list would be like putting an entire drug store on the list. Which *specific* chemicals in cigarettes need to be classified as Schedule-1? You can't just say \"Cigarettes\" on the list, because that describes plant matter rolled up in a paper tube. So if I roll up some oak leaves, I'm committing a crime? \n\nMy point is that a Schedule-1 drug cannot be defined so loosely as you seemed to think it should be, and the primary drug associated with cigarettes isn't even that harmful, nor is there even a high amount of it. \n",
"Because nicotine is not any more dangerous than other stimulants. (It is found in tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, etc)\n\nI think you are implying \"tobacco\" with your question.",
"Funny, I literally asked why Reddit despises nicotine so much just the other day: _URL_0_\n\nI list a bunch of studies showing the mental health *benefits* of nicotine. Read them and judge for yourself. For me cannabis, which I enjoy from time to time greatly exacerbates my social anxiety. Nicotine relieves it.\n\nedit: \n\nNicotine has been used before there were corporations. And in America before there was a government. It obviously is used because it makes it's user feel good and when taken in ways other than smoking, isn't bad at all.",
"Here's the simplest and most unbiased way I can answer:\n\nThe narcotics schedules list and classify *illegal* narcotics.\n\nNicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc. are not illegal, so they are not scheduled as narcotics.",
"Because nicotine on its own isn't bad for you. It's everything else in the cigarettes that is bad for your health.",
"I've always been under the impression that nicotine (but not cigarettes) is a safe, albeit addictive, drug not all too dissimilar from caffeine, just with a bigger buzz and greater addictive qualities.\n\nYou could argue that cigarettes should be banned, but that's an issue of tradition; tobacco was a foundation for our economy in colonial times and still is in many areas.\n\n\n",
"addiction ≠ danger.\n\nuse ≠ abuse.\n\n\nalso, cigarettes tend to be more addictive then nicotine it self. as cigarettes contain roughly 5 other addictive chemicals (oh and other *shit*) making them very harmful and addictive.\n\nhowever, nicotine by itself roughly as addictive and dangerous as caffeine.",
"It must be the enormously well established tobbaco industry's lobbyist bombarding anybody that even hint to provoke their 1/2 trillion dollar industry. Which may include policy makers and those in charge of mediating in between... congress I believe.",
"By that logic caffeine should be a class 1 restricted drug"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=a02&year=2011"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22t9pl/eli5_why_smoking_nicotine_is_universally_despised/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3d8olb
|
how is it possible for a planet to cast a shadow?
|
Explained!
As seen in this picture:
_URL_0_
I thought there was no light in space. Sorry if it's a stupid question.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d8olb/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_a_planet_to_cast_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct2sca4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not trying to be patronizing, so please don't be offended by this question: If you believe that light cannot travel through space, how do you explain why we can see the sun?\n\nLight can travel through space, because it doesn't need a classical medium to travel through. Actually, the electromagnetic field is the medium through which light travels, but that goes a little too far.\n\nSince light can travel through space, planets can obstruct its path. That is exactly what we see here. The sun is somewhere to the right of Saturn, so it blocks the light rays from reaching the rings behind it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/IA3PVYn.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
px29g
|
various phone tones
|
Can someone explain the noise made of a phone call in progress before the receiver picks up, the noise made before sending a fax, and other random beeping noises and their differences?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/px29g/eli5_various_phone_tones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3t1rfp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Wow, there are a lot. I'll describe some and hopefully others can add more.\n\nFirst, a bit of history: a long time ago, telephones were connected manually. All of the phones in your neighborhood would each have a wire running to a single office. When you picked up the phone, an operator would answer it, find out who you want to talk to, and then connect your wire to someone else's wire for as long as you wanted to talk. Making a long-distance call meant that the operator had to contact the operator in the next town over, and they had to contact another operator, and so on until they had all made a connection to the person you wanted to reach. The further you wanted to call, the longer it would take to establish.\n\nYears later, people started replacing operators with computers. Now when you dial a phone, a computer on the other end listens to the sounds you make and connects your phone to the phone of the person you want to reach.\n\nDial tone: This sound is made by the phone company so that you know that your phone is working and that it's ready for you to dial.\n\nTouch tones: Each key on your phone makes a different sound, and the computer at the phone company's office listens to those sounds to know what number you want to dial.\n\nRinging: When the phone on the other end is ringing, you're not actually hearing the phone on the other end, you're just hearing the phone company's computer make a sound that lets you know their phone is ringing.\n\nFaxes and modems: two computers are sending messages to each other using sounds. This is exactly like using touch tones - with a bit of practice, you could learn to hear the difference between all of the sounds and I could send you a numeric message by pressing numbers on a phone and you could listen to the sounds and know what number I wanted to send you. That's exactly how computers (including fax machines) communicate with each other over a phone - they send numbers using sounds. The only difference is that computers can use more than just 10 - 12 different sounds, and they can send them really fast.\n\nSo specifically, there's one sound that a fax machine sends when it's ready to listen, and another sound a fax machine sends when it's about to send, and after that a bunch of really complicated sounds that transmit a picture, one pixel (dot) at a time.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
49geit
|
illegal immigration vs immigration vs refugees vs asylum seeking
|
I'm trying to form an opinion on what I think of the issue of illegal immigration. However, I only have a vague idea of what it could be and some parts of it mesh with the others in the title. I'd like to have a clearer picture. Maybe a broad explanation (using an allegory?) and then further along more technical stuff.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49geit/eli5_illegal_immigration_vs_immigration_vs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0rm40x",
"d0rmcen"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Refugees and asylum seekers are requesting legal permission to stay in a country, because of problems in their home country.\n\nIllegal immigrants are staying in a country without permission.",
"* Illegal Immigrant-Any individual that is present within another nation in contrast to the immigration laws of the country. These people can come within a country for many different ways such as crossing a border or just simply staying past an expired visa.\n\n* Asylum Seeker- Someone who's fleeing their country, claiming that they have a well-founded belief that their lives are in danger due to religious, ethnic, sexual orientation grounds, etc.\n\n* Refugee-A broad term. Can refer to someone who's request for asylum has been successful or more broadly to anyone fleeing their country for (persecution or economic reasons).\n\n___________________________________\n\nNow the analogy.\n\nI have a boat. Right now I only let 10 more people on the boat a year, based primarily if they have family members on my boat, or if they have some very valuable skills.\n\nNow a lot of boats are crappy so people want to be on my boat. Some sneak into my boat at night, others ask to be on my boat for a couple of days but never leave. Some of my officers think we'd have less of a problem of stowaways if I just let more people on the boat.\n\nThen, I sometimes let people on my boat who had to flee their boat because their captain was trying to kill/persecute them. However, sometimes people who are on a shitty boat will claim that they are being persecuted for a chance to get on my boat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2nl3w0
|
how does testimony from something that happened 5-10-20yrs ago hold up in court?
|
The Cosby case made me think about how the prosecution can make 20yr old charges stick legally.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nl3w0/eli5how_does_testimony_from_something_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmeju1c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure what your question is. If the statute of limitations on the charges in that state hasn't expired, then a prosecutor can bring a case. It's up to the jury to decide whether testimony about things that happened 20 years ago are credible or not.\n\nIn many states there is no statute of limitations on rape."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4xhq2r
|
how does race make a difference when it comes to sports?
|
There are many examples of where members of a specific race or groups of races just dominate in a certain field.
For example,
Kenyans in long distance,
Eastern Europeans in gymnastics (until recently),
Chinese in diving/gymnastics
And then there are cases where a race just can't compete with others,
For example,
A lack of Africans in water and ice sports, a weak Asian track record, and probably some others I don't recall at the moment.
What causes these differences?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xhq2r/eli5_how_does_race_make_a_difference_when_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6flrjv",
"d6flzxr",
"d6fnjke"
],
"score": [
27,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"There are genetic differences between individuals, and at high levels these differences can have a large impact. Genetic differences are heritable, of course, so if there's a great gene for running that happens in lineage X .005% of the time, as compared to .00001 percent of the time in other lineages, then great runners may well seem to come disproportionately from wherever that lineage resides, all else equal.\n\nHowever, your question doesn't really ask that. Your question is asking about race. But what do you mean by race? What definition are you using that \"Kenyans\" (a country of 40 million with dozens of ethnic groups), \"Chinese\" (a country of a billion people who are 95%+ a single ethnic group), and \"Eastern European\" (many countries and ethnic groups, depending on definitions) are all races?\n\nAnd, of course, the interplay with sports is odd. Sure, Michael Phelps seems built to swim, but his proportions are just as far away from the average \"white\" person as they are from the \"average\" black person. \"Racial\" differences at this level are going to have a lot more to do with how we define race, and how race defines us (by setting social values on certain activities and correlating with resources an interest) than the genetics, especially given that we are already talking about extraordinary people. \n\nIt's edgy to say it's all about \"genetics\" and, of course, genetics and heritable traits are real. But as your own questions shows, there's no direct line between even genes and success. There was no genetic drift among Eastern Europeans---certainly not the entire group---that suddenly made them beatable in gymnastics. When talking about \"racial\" groups, these sorts of differences are all but guaranteed to be the result of chance, values, history, and resources, as much as anything else, particularly genes. ",
"It's important to understand that race doesn't exist in biology, it's purely a social construct. Geneticists tossed the concept in the dumpster decades ago.\n\nThe groupings you're describing are a little closer to what's usually called populations, and the reason why one of those might dominate in a sport might be anything from local environmental conditions that give them some kind of physical edge all the way to just societal attitudes towards the sport. If the area is just REALLY into the sport for whatever reason, they will produce more people who are better at it than an area where most people couldn't care less, which is why you'll never see Saudi Arabia beat Canada at ice hockey. \n\nRussians have long dominated the chess world mostly because the game is more respected over there than it is elsewhere, so they manage to shake more chess prodigies out of the trees.\n\n",
"As others have pointed out, \"race\" as is conventionally used by lay people has no scientific basis. It's a social construct that changes from place to place and different eras. There's an endless array of examples to show this, but as an example, think of how prior to 100 years ago the Italian and Irish immigrants were not considered \"white\" in American culture—but both groups of people are now thought of as \"white\". This is from a century of cultural changes, not biological changes.\n\nMost of the differences are the socio-economic, cultural & environmental pushes people feel from living in a certain country. Certain sports/games have more cultural relevance in one country/culture/sub-culture vs. another.\n\nConjectural Example: China dominates table-tennis because of the cultural importance in China and thus the training facilities and motivation are easier to come by than other countries. America has a high-population of immigrants from China as well. So why aren't all the Chinese-Americans besting Chinese table-tennis players? It's not really seen as a \"sport\" in America, so the facilities and motivations are probably a lot lower than in China."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5b9f81
|
why are some people calling for a snap election in the uk in relation to the high court brexit ruling?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b9f81/eli5_why_are_some_people_calling_for_a_snap/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9mquj5",
"d9mqumd"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The High Court has ruled that the government cannot invoke Article 50 (which is the official procedure to begin the UK's withdrawal from the EU) without first getting the permission of Parliament. The government has said they intend to appeal this ruling, but if the Supreme Court agrees that Parliamentary approval is required, then that will be that -- the government will have to abide by the law of the land.\n\nAnd because many MPs are anti-Brexit, it is by no means certain that the government would get Parliament to approve the invocation of Article 50, certaintly not within the time scale that Mrs May has laid down (ie. by the end of March 2017).\n\nSo one way round that would be to hold a snap general election, which would effectively be the government's attempt to fill Parliament with pro-Brexit MPs who would then back the Prime Minister all the way.",
"The court case was about whether there needs to be a vote in Parliament before invoking Article 50 (the process for leaving the EU), or whether the Prime Minister can do it without consulting MPs.\n\nThe result was that the judges determined that the government does need a vote in Parliament first.\n\nSome people who support leaving the EU are worried that MPs (who were mostly pro-Remain before the referendum) might vote against leaving the EU, or at least delay it. So they might want a snap election so that more pro-Leave MPs can be elected, who won't want to block or delay the process.\n\nOther people who don't want to leave the EU might want a snap election so there's a chance of electing pro-EU MPs who will block it.\n\nIt's unlikely there will be a snap election. The Conservatives do only have a slim majority (which is getting slimmer since two of their MPs have recently resigned), but most MPs even from other parties believe the referendum result should be respected even if they don't personally think it's a good idea. So I don't think the PM would support having an early election."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5go0zw
|
why do large dense cities like those in india and asia have non-stop honking?
|
I was just listening to a segment on NPR where a correspondent was reporting from Delhi and I had difficulty focusing on what he was saying because it was just non-stop honking. I know cities have honking, but is there any reason for these cities in particular? It's almost obnoxious.
Edit: Thank you for the replies! It makes sense now. As someone used to a honk free environment, I imagine it would take a while to get accustomed to all the noise. Interesting stuff though.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5go0zw/eli5_why_do_large_dense_cities_like_those_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"datplry",
"datprp5",
"dattvuk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > I know cities have honking, but is there any reason for these cities in particular?\n\nWestern countries have well-established and enforced traffic laws, but those areas just sort of have automobiles and flat areas. Everything else needs to be worked out as they go so finding space and announcing intent is a free for all. The honking then is less a protest at someone in the wrong and more a necessary communication avenue.",
"I've found that in the Western countries, honking is a way of saying \"I think you're an idiot and you are doing something wrong\" whereas in India/SE Asia it's a lot more casual like \"hey man, just a heads up that I'm here.\" Just a cultural difference based on what I've seen.",
"Most foreign countries use the car horn as a tool to communicate with pedestrians and other drivers. I have heard the driving in India is a bit hectic when you are just watching it but taking a ride with a seasoned cabby is a quick way to learn that it is a well orchestrated cluster fuck."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3m7aed
|
why don't used tampons and pads need to be disposed of in biohazard waste containers?
|
Blood and vaginal secretions are both considered potentially infectious body fluids and any other item that contains those things (or that has been in contact with those things) is considered a biohazard...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m7aed/eli5_why_dont_used_tampons_and_pads_need_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvckey1",
"cvckize"
],
"score": [
21,
16
],
"text": [
"Blood and other fluids that show up in a hospital are considers biohaz Asa prophylactic measure, because people in hospitals tend to be sick. Not so in the population at large. ",
"Biohazard containers are utilized only in hospitals, laboratories and such where they regularly handle a lot of biological materials from wide spectrum and where it is important to avoid potentially infectious agents.\n\nPoop, saliva, smegma, semen and snot are also potentially infectious, but we don't poop or spit or throw condoms or wank papers in biohazard waste containers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7kodr0
|
why did variolation/inoculation of smallpox acquired from sores have a less severe infection than naturally acquired smallpox?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7kodr0/eli5why_did_variolationinoculation_of_smallpox/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drfwrxp",
"drfwtx8"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"They didn't inject them with smallpox.\n\n\n\nThey used cowpox, a very similar body that your body uses to create anti-bodies that work against small pox. By fighting off the much less severe cowpox your body is capable of fighting off the more virulent smallpox.\n\n\nEdit.\n\n\nWhoops I'm thinking of the vaccine not the scab related transmission.\n\n\nComprehension fail.",
"The \"donor\" scabs/sores were usually taken from a person with a mild form of the disease. After that, they were dried out and/or mixed with other chemicals, to further weaken it. So the patient ended up receiving only a very weak dose of smallpox. More than that, the procedure meant that you could wait until the patient was in good health before infecting them, ensuring that the patient had all their strength to fight off the disease, unlike natural smallpox which might happen to strike when they were sick with something else."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8pusfc
|
in real life we can create a green paint from the combination of blue and yellow paints. then why is it different in the electronic world where green is considered the primary colour, and yellow is the combination of blue and green?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8pusfc/eli5_in_real_life_we_can_create_a_green_paint/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0e6suj",
"e0e7c6l",
"e0e9932",
"e0ec5mx",
"e0ef6n7",
"e0eo675",
"e0fk8f8",
"e0fmef3",
"e0fosp8"
],
"score": [
1088,
32,
7,
143,
5,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are comparing pigmentation with light. They are different. Pigments filter light out (absorb it instead of bouncing it off). When you mix all primary pigments, you get black because they are filtering out all colors of light. When you mix light, you are adding lights to each other. When you mix all the primary light colors, you get white. ",
" it’s called additiv and subtractive colors.. if you mix all physical colors you get some kind of black. If you mix all colors from light it’s white",
"In addition to the difference between light absorbing pigments and frequencies of emitted light, there's the fact that your eyes have red, green and blue sensors in them that absorb those frequencies of light. Yellow is figured out by your brain based on the amount of light being absorbed by those sensors.\n\nSo in the electronic world, light emitters attempt to fool the sensors in your eye, as opposed to pigments, which just absorb whatever frequencies they absorb and reflect the rest back to your eye.",
"ELI5: Let's say you want to create a sculpture. Mixing paint is like starting out with a big chunk of rock, and having to remove some rock to reveal a figure inside of it. Mixing light is like starting out with an empty table, and having to add clay to get the figure you want. Paint is like removing chunks of rock, while colored light is like adding chunks of clay. To our eyes, both seem like just simple colors, but in reality the two work in opposite ways: one removes color, the other adds color.\n\n-----\n\nThere are two mistakes in your assumption. In paint, you mix Cyan (not Blue) and Yellow to get Green. When mixing light, you combine Red (not Blue) and Green to get Yellow.\n\n[These are the rules](_URL_0_):\n\n* White = Red + Green + Blue \n* Red + Green = Yellow \n* Red + Blue = Magenta \n* Blue + Green = Cyan \n* opposite of Red = Cyan \n* opposite of Green = Magenta \n* opposite of Blue = Yellow \n\nWhen we say we're \"mixing paints\", we *start out* with white paper so we already have all the colors there before we even do anything. Therefore, you must *remove* colors to get other colors. Paints act like filters as they remove colors. When you mix Yellow and Cyan, you are not actually mixing two colors, but you're really *removing* two colors. Yellow paint removes Blue, Cyan paint removes Red, which leaves you with the only color left: Green. Remember, White = Red + Green + Blue, therefore White - Blue - Red = Green.\n\nWhen we say we're \"mixing light\", we *start out with darkness*. This means you have to *add colors together* to get anything. So you simply add whatever colors you want. You get Yellow when you mix Red and Green light, Magenta when you mix Red and Blue, and Cyan when you mix Blue and Green. And of course White when you mix Red, Green and Blue.\n\nComputer screens mix light because when you turn them off, they're black. So they start out black and therefore can't remove color because there is nothing to remove. Printer ink and paint must remove color because they start out with white paper and already contain all colors, so they must remove some colors to \"gain\" other colors.\n\nThere aren't really two models for mixing colors. The confusion comes from the expression \"mixing colors\" that is equally used for both light and paint. When mixing paint, we're not mixing colors, we're actually subtracting colors, because paint acts like a filter.",
"First of all, what is light, what is paint, and what is color!\n\nWhat it light? Light is a wave in the electro-magnetic field... but it does not matter here. Light is also made of photons... but it does not matter here either. Light is an addition of multiple frequencies, and it can be decomposed in what we call a spectrum... or a rainbow! Ah, now we are talking! And if you want to understand color, you of course want to look at rainbows.\n\nWhat is paint? Paint gets its color from a dust that absorb some color, and reflect some other: pigments. The more selective/picky is a pigment, the more colorful it looks.\n\nWhat is color? Well, your eyes are actually not so good at seeing color, we are almost color blind, and of all the infinite different colors of the spectrum, we can only distinguish three groups: the blue-ish, the green-ish, the red-ish. But don't worry, our brain are there to help, and they can reconstruct an idea of the actual color, from those 3 information.\n\nSo, what about yellow? Well, your brain see yellow if it see green-ish and red-ish but no blue-ish. Because, pure yellow, in the rainbow, appear like that to your eye.\n\nThat mean we can trick the brain into seeing yellow: add green light and red light and you get yellow. Ok, that's the way your screen works, but it does not work with paint.\n\nActually, you can't mix anything and get yellow, you actually need yellow in the first place. The primary colors of paint is yellow, cyan and magenta. Why? Well, paint do not produce light, it reflect or absorb it, and you have to put white light on it to see it. Yellow paint is a paint that absorb blue, and reflect red and green. Cyan paint is a paint that absorb red, and reflect green and blue. Magenta paint is a paint that absorb green, and reflect red and blue.\n\nSo, if you want green paint you need to absorb red and blue light. If you put in cyan, you absorb the red, and you add the yellow, and it absorb the blue. And tada, only green remains!\n\nThat is why we consider paint as substractive-coloring. If you mix all paints, you get black. While light is additive-coloring. If you mix all lights, you get white.",
"Okay so let's talk about paint and how it makes colors.\n\nFirst of all, you've been taught colors wrong in art class. The primary colors for paint (aka the primary subtractive colors) are Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta. Not Blue, Yellow and Red. BYR is just a more normal and \"natural\" set of colors for artists to use.\n\n(Fun fact, many printers use CMYK (the K is for black) because it can produce all the same colors as BYRK, and more)\n\nOur eyes can only see Red, Green, and Blue light. (Sidenote: it can see yellow light, but that's because yellow light is interpreted as a bit of green and a bit of red)\n\nWhite light is essentially all colors of light mixed together, although since our eyes can only see Red, Green, and Blue, white is _really_ just a mix of those three colors. Why aren't those the primary colors for paint though?\n\nPaint works by absorbing light, and then reflecting other light. Let's let CMY be the primary colors and then see what it's like if RGB were the primary colors.\n\nCyan light to our eyes is a mix of green and blue. So Cyan reflects green and blue, and absorbs red (as far as our eyes care. Magenta light is a mix of Blue and Red, and absorbs Green.\n\nIf we mix Cyan and Magenta, the cyan absorbs the red light, and the magenta absorbs the green light, leaving only Blue light for our eyes to see.\n\nNow, let's try using RGB as primary colors... Red is red, Green is Green. If you mix red and green, the red absorbs a lot of the green light, and the green absorbs a lot of the red light, leaving you with some gross colored paint (probably a dark brown, gray, or some other gross color)\n\nCyan, Magenta, and Yellow are known as the subtractive primary colors. this is because when you mix two of these colors, they absorb (subtract) different colors of light, and the ones that each of them don't absorb gets let through, making a new color. (What I was explaining earlier)\n\nRed, Green, and Blue are known as the additive primary colors. This is because when you mix two of these colors together, they combine (add) to make more colors (ie Red plus Blue makes Magenta)",
"When you're making colour for physical objects, you're putting colour on **white** paper(/plastic/whatever). We call this the **CMYK** method. (\"Cyan, Magenta, Yellow\")\n\nWhen you're showing stuff on a computer screen, you're showing colour on a **black** screen. We call this the **RGB** method. (\"Red, Blue, Green\")\n\nWhen displaying on white paper, you need the ability to create black\n\nWhen displaying on a black screen, you need the ability to create white. \n\nLook this diagram: [_URL_1_](_URL_0_)\n\nColour is a funny thing. In order to make it show the colour we want, we have to \"arrange\" the colours in a way that mix well for the format we want.\n\nAs you can prob guess, there's a bit more to it than this, but these are the basics.",
"Additive vs subtractive color systems.\n\nPigments work as a subtractive color system. The pigments absorb certain colors and reflect others. So you are subtracting colors from a surface.\n\nElectronics like monitors are additive color systems. The monitors have really small dots of usually red, green, and blue. The dots are lit up to product color. So you are adding color to what is a usually black background.",
"Chemicals mix changing the frequency of light bouncing off of them.\n\nThe fine texture of the chemicals that do this arent synced with the spectrum of color that we know about.\n\nIt's like if you bounce sound waves off a wall - then do it after putting dirt on the wall. the dirt doesn't have a fixed effect on the wall that changes the sound wave an exact amount, it might make it a little rougher and make the sound spread out a bit but it's _nothing_ like smashing two different frequencies of sound together.\n\nEven think about ripples in still pond-water. Two ripples hitting eachother or merging are going to have a different effect than whatever the ripples are bouncing off of the edge of the water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.infinity-printing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AdditiveVSSubtractive.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3300/tlg0ml/product_images/uploaded_images/rgb-vs-cmyk.jpg",
"http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3300/tlg0ml/product\\_images/uploaded\\_images/rgb\\-vs\\-cmyk.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
16jghb
|
in the golden globes why are comedy movies and musicals one category ?
|
i was scrolling through the list of winners and i noticed that tv comedies have their own category but for movies comedy and musical is the same category,why ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16jghb/elif_in_the_golden_globes_why_are_comedy_movies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7wm3ns"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because they decided there aren't enough consistency with good comedies and musicals to justify giving each their own category."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
30eun8
|
my professor claims linear algebra is used in the programming of search engines. how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30eun8/eli5_my_professor_claims_linear_algebra_is_used/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cprrbrd",
"cpru4yy"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"basically using matrixes of data and calculating the corresponding eigenvalues allows for faster searching and comparison of data sets than some other methods.",
"*Disclamer: This is old memories, this might be partially incorrect*\n\nLets take an example: **synonym search**\n\nYou take a word and want to find, in a database, all the words that have a close meaning. How do you represent close-ness ?\n\nA common way of doing this is to store the words in a highly multi-dimentional vector space. Usually 512 dimensions. But let say we have only two of them. One dimension represent redness, the other greenness.\n\nYour word database (set of points) is this one:\n\nName | Redness | Greenness\n-------|-----------|------------\nPink | 1.0 | 0.7\nRed | 1.0 | 0.0\nCrimson | 0.9 | 0.1\nYellow | 1.0 | 1.0\nChocolate | 0.8 | 0.5\nLime | 0.0 | 1.0\n\nNow, you look for the closest points, in the database, to \"Red\". You see that Crimson is really close, then comes Chocolate and Pink. While Yellow and Lime are quite far.\n\nThe thing is, the hard part is to assign those values. It is easy for colors, but for other more abstract and less measurable words it is harder. What you can do is extract, from a big bunch of texts, closeness in meaning (people tends to use synonyms to avoid repetition). Now, take this big closeness matrix, decompose it into a diagonal matrix, and keep the 512 biggest eigenvalues (those will corresponds to your axes, because the fact that those have big values is related to how well they spread your words onto the space). Finally, apply some linear-algebra magic to find the coordinates of each word in this space.\n\nIf you want to do research on the topic, look at **Spectral Clustering for Machine Learning**."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
a2gx2g
|
the problem of infinite regress and the meaning of the phrase 'turtles all the way down'
|
I tried reading about the problem of infinite regress but I'm still no more knowledgeable than when I started.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2gx2g/eli5_the_problem_of_infinite_regress_and_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eay6zqm",
"eayyik6"
],
"score": [
22,
2
],
"text": [
"For certain questions, especially philosophical questions, you can make up an answer that sounds really good. But if you think more about the answer you gave you just created the same question again.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nLike if you didn't know what gravity is you could wonder how the earth stays up, and answer it must sit on the back of a giant turtle. That sounds like that answers the question but five minutes later you will realize it doesn't because then what does that turtle stand on? You can answer another turtle and just get stuck in a loop of never actually answering the question. \n\n\nThe most common application is claiming god created the universe without answering where he came from. you just moved the mystery one step back. (and the answer to that is some special situation thing where the same rules don't apply to him, but you could just say that about the universe in the first place if that is an option)",
"The problem of an infinite regress is a central feature of cosmological arguments, because an infinite chain of causes extending into the past becomes problematic.\n\nImagine a chain where every link represents something that happened. You got hungry, that’s one link. You sat up, that’s the next link. You walked to the kitchen, that’s the next. And obviously the links of chain go into the past too. What happened just before you got hungry, and before that.\n\nNow imagine following those links of chain infinitely into the past. Sounds weird, right? But bear with me. You follow it and follow it, but can never reach the end because it’s infinite. Now think about it the other way. If you “started” infinitely in the past and followed the chain forward, you could never reach the present moment in time either, just as you couldn’t find the starting end if you were following it backwards. Basically, how could you ever arrive at the present moment in the chain if it extended infinitely into the past.\n\nThe solution to the problem is to posit something that exists outside of time, something timeless which can, through an act of will, not some mechanical process that’s part of the chain of events, act as an unmoved mover or prime mover, if you will. Basically, God.\n\nObviously these arguments get more complicated, and if one thinks they’re a lock proving unequivocally through deductive reasoning that God exists, well, that’s hardly the case. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jn2h8
|
why is java widely considered a bad programming language?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jn2h8/eli5_why_is_java_widely_considered_a_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbgbocw",
"cbgcp52"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Java isn't a *bad* programming language. It has its quirks but the foundation is great. Java has always had a lot of catching up to do. For example, people often criticised that Java 1.4 was absolutely antiquated and clumsy and at times a bit hellish to code in, but the transition to Java 5 and 6 and 7 was nothing short of amazing. They managed to modernise the language very fast. However, I think one of it's problems is that it's always been a badly managed and badly marketed language, and Sun/Oracle is a bit clueless what comes to keeping the language in their \"possessions\".\n\nJava was designed by Sun Microsystems, which is generally considered to be a great company with great engineers. And a terrible marketing department. Essentially, they made a wonderful programming language, but didn't really know how it should be used for. A programming language usually evolves when people find uses for it and get new ides to bring it to life. Because the business side of Java was a bit spotty, Java's history is full of attempts that worked *spectacularly* well (Servlets, Java desktop apps), attempts that worked moderately well but not quite as well as envisioned (Applets), and attempts that failed pretty hard (many extension projects like Jini).\n\nAnd part of the bad management from that era is that Java was never made properly open and standardised. There have been *attempts* to that effect, and they've certainly succeeded in bringing the industry together, and shortly before Sun was bought by Oracle they even made the whole thing open source, which was an incredible move *(though people kept wondering why the hell didn't they do it earlier)*. But they have always had a *tiny* but *really important* barrier in the corporate side that guards the trademarks and whatnot. *(In my opinion, they should just submit the Java language to ISO or other standardisation body and quit being the official gatekeeper of standards compliance.)*\n\nOh, yeah, Sun was bought by Oracle. Which, as everyone knows, is a company with great marketers, terrifying management and questionably competent engineers. And a terrible, *terrible* security policy. Oracle likes to harp about how their database was \"Unbreakable\" and had amazing security, but the fact is that they were [not exactly good at responding to security threats](_URL_0_). And with Java, they've continued this exact same thing. The rhetoric goes like this: they consider Java a *vital piece of enterprise systems* and *vital pieces of enterprise systems* have very, very complicated upgrade processes because they're *enterprise* systems. So of course, anything more than 1 update per quarter is a burden for the poor system administrators worldwide. So don't worry, if someone finds a bug that can destroy everything, it will be fixed in the update sometime next year! *(Most people might find this somewhat unacceptable.)*\n\n",
"Java is the vanilla of programming language flavors: anyone with a lot of experience with different varieties can give you a reason it's not their favorite, but it's simple, good enough for most uses, has a very established customer base and wide usage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://attrition.org/security/rant/oracle01/"
],
[]
] |
||
5l1c8i
|
why does the us allow spies from other countries to station in the us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l1c8i/eli5_why_does_the_us_allow_spies_from_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbs7cze",
"dbs7eu2",
"dbs8d0u",
"dbsdnew"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
16,
5
],
"text": [
"They don't. Espionage is illegal and if a spy is caught there is no mechanism to protect them from the government that caught them. If the US finds a spy within its borders they are arrested, sent to prison, sometimes even ones like guantanamo or black sites where they just disappear. ",
"Plot twist: we don't. Intelligence agents enter under the guise of being a diplomat or an embassy worker or some stuff like that.",
"As others have said, the US doesn't, for the most part. Most countries don't but there's always exceptions. Do you consider NSA personnel to be spies? They're in a lot of places officially: Australia, the UK, etc. Remember, officially the CIA doesn't have offices overseas. Of course, everyone knows that they do, but officially they don't. Likewise, everyone knows that Russia- and every other country- has spies in the US. The US knows. The US even knows who some of them are and where they live.\n\nWhy do they allow them to stay here instead of kicking them out? Because those spies- while they might suspect something- aren't positive that the US knows who they are. And while they're in that limbo, they'll still go ahead and, to the best of their ability, execute their mission. But if the US ***does*** know who they are, the US' own counterintel spies can watch them execute their mission and find out what they know and what they don't.\n\nIt's part con game, part game theory.\n\nWelcome to the wide world of intelligence.",
"Officially, they don't, as others have mentioned.\n\nOne reason, though, that you allow spies to remain in your country even when you know they're spies, is so that you can feed them deliberately wrong information, and track their contacts. If you knew that, for example, North Korea was working on a laser superweapon program, and that they had a spy working at an American laser superweapon factory, you could kick them out of the country. *Or* you could work out a plan to leak to that spy laser superweapon plans that are actually incorrect and would result in a massive failure. North Korea gets the plans from their spy, spends billions building the superweapon, it completely fails, and now you've fucked them over, diverting funds from their military projects that might have actually worked. \n\nOr you might determine that this particular spy is unlikely to accomplish anything meaningful (or you prevent them from accomplishing anything meaningful), and instead just spy on *them* to learn about North Korean spying practices. What communication methods do they use? Who handles them? What is their level of sophistication? Who do they talk to? Maybe you can learn information that helps you thwart other, more crucial, spying efforts. Letting the guy who spies on outdated artillery programs keep working might be worth it if it helps you identify the spies at the nuclear weapons sites.\n\nAnd sometimes it's not even about that specific spy, but the techniques you used to find them. Say, for example, that you've cracked the code the North Koreans use in phone calls. If you identify a low-level spy and arrest/expel them, the North Koreans might figure out that their code has been broken and switch to a better one. It's better to leave the low level spies alone and wait until you've identified a spy so high-level that it becomes worthwhile to take that risk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
907e9y
|
what is the difference between exclusivity and patents for brand name drugs? what is the implication when one runs out vs the other?
|
I have looked online and read the FDA website but can't seem to find a very clear explanation. I understand exclusivity usually runs out before the patent and that a patent running out would definitely allow the production and sale of generic drugs. However, I'm unsure what happens if exclusivity runs out and if that allows for generic drugs or not and what the implications are for the maker of the drug and the consumer looking to buy the drug or the generic form.
Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/907e9y/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_exclusivity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2obdk5",
"e2obshe"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In brief, patents are issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, which is under the Department of Commerce. They are directed at the objectives of Commerce. Exclusivity measures come from the Food and Drug Administration, and are directed at the objectives of Health and Human Services.\n\nSometimes the two overlap. For example, HHS has a desire to ensure that certain drugs are tested for safety and efficacy with children. So they'll extend a patent by six months if a company responds to a request for pediatric clinical trials. In other cases HHS may favor busting patents; if a company can successfully invalidate a patent they can get six months of generic market exclusivity. Other cases are completely independent. For example a New Chemical Entity is entitled to five years of market exclusivity, and Orphan Drugs can get seven years of market exclusivity.\n\nWe recently published an article on the complexities of patents and regulatory exclusivity influencing Viagra generic entry: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) . For simplicity (there are exceptions) it is the latter of the blocking patents and the regulatory exclusivity protections that dictates the earliest generic entry opportunity. Patents tend to last longer than regulatory exclusivity, but they can be invalidated or challenged, so it's usually the patents which have the most influence on generic entry.",
"A patent can be applied at any time in a drug's development, but is required before submitting a drug for approval. The patent protects the drug, as well as other related technologies (the synthesis route, equipment used in manufacturing, processes, etc).\n\nOnce approved, the FDA grants an exclusivity timeline based on the type of drug submitted. This means that for a period of time, the FDA will not accept and approve applications of similar drugs submitted by others. This is exclusivity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/viagra-a-complicated-case-study-of-generic-drug-market-entry-in-the-united-states/"
],
[]
] |
|
3y5vq4
|
why doesn't air separate into layers of each of its individual components based on density?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y5vq4/eli5why_doesnt_air_separate_into_layers_of_each/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyat37z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It would but air is far to volatile to stay separated. The sun heats the earth as the earth rotates on an axis as it orbits the sun. Everything is constantly changing as warm air rises creating winds that constantly mix the atmosphere. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
twl2w
|
that urge to pace while talking on the telephone.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/twl2w/eli5_that_urge_to_pace_while_talking_on_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4qf6qf",
"c4qfdx6"
],
"score": [
15,
5
],
"text": [
"Talking on the telephone lacks that certain something called visual feedback. When you’re not able to give and receive as many\n cues conveying enthusiasm, boredom or even anger, your body reacts, says Ken Fogel of the Chicago School of Professional\n Psychology. “When someone is present, you’re not the only one holding on to these emotions. They’re passed back and forth,”\n he says. “But on the phone, it’s like you’re juggling a hot potato and you can’t pass it to anyone.” Walking transfers that emotion to a\n physical action. Don’t fight it – studies show that fidgeting, pacing and other unconscious movements can contribute to a greater total\n calorie burn than formal exercise does.\n\n\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"My mother makes fun of me every time I do this (which is every time). The main line for my house is located in the tiled kitchen, so I always pace like a chess knight. Three up, one over. With obstacles like the table and the kitchen island, things get fun. Just thought I'd share. :D"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.menshealth.com.sg/ask-experts/why-do-i-pace-when-i’m-phone%3F"
],
[]
] |
||
1hsbox
|
cults
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hsbox/eli5_cults/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caxg9za"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A cult is an organization which claims to have some kind of hidden knowledge which is not available to the average person. Once people become interested in having this knowledge, the cult uses this interest as leverage to gain loyalty and financial backing from it's followers. To maintain their numbers, cults usually resort to some kind of pressure to keep their followers from leaving. \n\nOften, this knowledge is of a religious nature, sometimes in the form of self help, other times it is in the form of a divine revelation or prophecy. People who join the cult are either A) people who seek to improve themselves by the methods the cult outlines (See Scientology, the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, The Nibruan council) or B) trying to achieve the status of \"chosen people\" who will be saved from some kind of apocalypse (See Heaven's gate, Branch Davidians, Aum Shinriko).\n\nGenerally, but not always, a cult is led by a single, charismatic person who attracts followers to their cause, usually by the sheer force of their personality. In general, intense psychological tricks are used during the induction process. These can vary greatly from organization to organization, but their typical aim is to \"break down\" the mental defenses of new members, and put them into a tractable and fearful state in which they obey orders and display unbending loyalty to the organization, even if it means their own death. \n\nCults draw their perspective members in by a variety of means, many of which can be very effective to someone who isn't aware of what's going on. These kinds of initiation proceedures can last months, using an incremental approach. This results in a lot of curious people who find themselves much more involved with the group than they ever intended. Others prey on the lost, the weak willed or the desperate, preferring to work with people they can induct quickly, rather than going through a drawn out process of initiation. \n\nThe reasons people start cults seems to be primarily for either financial gain, or because the leader actually believes their own teachings. Cults can be a very lucrative business, usually through soliciting donations or by selling literature and other learning tools to their followers. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
37f7os
|
why are there dark, almost black, spots in fire?
|
I understand that there are bright spots in fire, but how are there spots that look black? Shouldn't the flames brighten up the dark spots? Is it an optical illusion because the bright spots are so bright? This gif shows dark spots on the flames well. _URL_0_
EDIT: This is an oil fire with water poured onto it. source: _URL_1_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37f7os/eli5why_are_there_dark_almost_black_spots_in_fire/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crm71zv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Is it an optical illusion because the bright spots are so bright?\n\nYes, in part. But it's also because fires aren't uniform, they aren't the same temperature everywhere. A fire is a process of combustion between the fuel and the oxygen, so different parts of the flame are at different stages of the process. Some parts are beginning the process, some parts are peaking, and some parts are done with the process and cooling. The difference in temperature between the hottest and coolest parts can be enough to create a difference in brightness. And if the fire is inefficient enough that there's smoke and other particulate byproducts being generated, sometimes that's what looks dark. There are more dark parts at the end probably because of the stuff they poured onto it."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://i.imgur.com/veLwp9h.gifv",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgdRR4yj8Y"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2n5264
|
could there ever be a country where everybody lives a rich and lavish lifestyle?
|
By this, I don't mean everybody makes an equal amount of money. I mean could there ever be a state where everybody in a country lives like the "top 1%" in many countries do now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n5264/eli5_could_there_ever_be_a_country_where/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmadvzf",
"cmaesiq",
"cmagfio"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Sure.\n\nOf course that would require either:\n\nAn end to scarcity - meaning that there is unlimited (or nearly so) resources so that everyone can have some.\n\nOR\n\nThat the country in question has enslaved a significantly larger population of people and is using them to provide for their own lifestyle.\n\nThe short and sad truth is that there isn't enough to go around and nothing comes for free. To have 100,000 people consume X amount of resources a day would require that everyone else consume less. \n\nSo either we change that equation... or some people get screwed. ",
"Yes and no.\n\nYes: because there not only can be (but will be) a state in which everyone lives like the top 1% do now. Its in the future. Think about it, even a middle of the road class person now has luxuries only kings could afford a few hundred years ago: security and medical forces on call (police and ambulances), even more so many food choices able to be prepared at your whim (grocery stores and restaurants), hot water for a bath, the ability to travel long distances, ect. The list goes on.\n\nNo: because humans take most of their concepts of value relatively. Even poor people today have a higher quality of life than over almost everyone who lived in any sort of distant past, ever. But do they celebrate this? of course not, because compared with others today they are shown what they do not have that they theoretically could have. Its all relative, and the \"top 1%\" is literally defined by the fact that the other 99% *can't* have what they have, even if the definition of such is constantly shifting.",
"It really depends heavily on what you mean by a rich & lavish lifestyle. If you're talking about everyone being able to afford expensive stuff, then yes it could certainly happen, but much of a lavish lifestyle is based on having the money to pay people do do the day to day drudgeries and undesirable jobs. A highly paid sewer maintenance tech may be able to wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche to work, but that doesn't change the fact that he has to wade through a river of shit on a regular basis. \n\nIt is certainly possible for wealth distribution be even such that everyone has the ability to afford a high standard of living, but there are plenty of essential jobs that are unpleasant which must be done by someone, and it would be hard to argue that the people doing these jobs have a rich & lavish lifestyle regardless of their income. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4zh86j
|
what is the end goal behind a virus, what is their motivation?
|
I realize viruses aren't exactly living creatures, but what is their goal?
Why do they choose to infect us or kill us?
How does this benefit them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zh86j/eli5_what_is_the_end_goal_behind_a_virus_what_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6vsf9d",
"d6vwhj0"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Viruses don't have motivation because they can't entirely be said to be alive, but the viruses that create more of themselves die less compared to their lesser counterparts, so the end goal of a virus is to have as many versions of it in the world as possible, so a virus killing the host is exactly what it dosen't want. Plagues that kill are from other species, where what the virus would to to make the animal sick and dispurse more copies in blisters, coughs, diharea, etc. kills a human, because they think they're in their native animal, not in a human. I imagine that this could go both ways, with Sapiens Flu killing animals",
"Why do we live? How does that benefit us? Life as whole is a stubborn chemical reaction that refuses to die. \n\nSame with viruses, they exist because they can exist. \n\nIf it can exist and avoid death, it will, whether it wants to or not. It's simply selection of self replicating system that can properly adapt to environmental change. In fact **we** are little more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3fg8db
|
how come when i'm struggling with a video game mission it suddenly becomes easy after a long hiatus from the game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fg8db/eli5_how_come_when_im_struggling_with_a_video/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctoazku"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes taking a break from something will help you relax and look at it from a different way. It's a lot easier to do things when you're calm to start. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5zexv6
|
why do cosmetics companies discontinue popular products?
|
I've lost track of things that have been discontinued and not even replaced by something similar. And all were pretty popular products. I've never understood why companies do that. It seems so counterproductive.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zexv6/eli5_why_do_cosmetics_companies_discontinue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dexjzsv"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There's a number of potential reasons:\n\n\n* What was popular to you/even in your city might not be popular on a national/international scale so they decide to move away from that product and push their attention to a new product\n\n\n* The company wants to consolidate the number of products they offer, the one that get discontinued is in a product-line they don't want to pursue any more (typically not enough sales or not enough margin) or they've got another product that they believe covers that product so discontinue to simplify their range/offer\n\n\n* cost of production increases - maybe it uses a material that's got more and more expensive and rather than reformulate and try to keep selling the product under the same name they've had to withdraw it because it's no longer commercially viable (or in the case of some products no longer legally allowed...a good example is active ingredients in pesticides for plants).\n\n\nThere's plenty of other reasons besides this but the above are some of the reasons for getting rid of a product - sales volumes and margin will be the biggest factors though and with international businesses it's very hard for anybody but the company itself to get a feel for those facts/figures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2i47og
|
what happens when you stub a toe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i47og/eli5_what_happens_when_you_stub_a_toe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckypuy6",
"ckyq5ci"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"You hit it hard against something unintentionally, usually while walking. ",
"The front of a toe has little tissue to absorb impact. If you slam it into something with all the muscle power and mass of the leg, that's bound to hurt. Someone else will have to fill me in on the nasty details.\n\nSide note: paradoxically, shoes can make this worse. If you usually wear shoes it's easy to forget about your feet and become sloppy with them. If you then happen to be barefoot without being more careful, you're much more likely to stub your toe and stub it hard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2iafmr
|
when your hair gets wet, is it each follicle absorbing water, or is the water getting trapped between the follicles?
|
This thought occurred to me in the shower
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iafmr/eli5_when_your_hair_gets_wet_is_it_each_follicle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl0baxp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The former.\n\n[Hair can absorb up to 30% of it's own weight in water](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQygQwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hair-science.com%2F_int%2F_en%2Ftopic%2Ftopic_sousrub.aspx%3Ftc%3Droot-hair-science%255Eso-sturdy-so-fragile%255Eproperties-of-hair%26cur%3Dproperties-of-hair%23HAIR-AND-WATER&ei=8y0wVI65Oe6u7Aa8v4CgBg&usg=AFQjCNGiSCBvtLVe4Sutki8Bztfnm3E09w&sig2=MQdQOWvhhB2XCGJziwocFQ&bvm=bv.76802529,d.ZGU"
]
] |
|
51ztw2
|
how does a worm takes control over bugs like praying mantis, spiders...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51ztw2/eli5how_does_a_worm_takes_control_over_bugs_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7g9cmq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think you're talking about nematomorph hairworms\n\nThis would be a good question for r/askscience or /r/Entomology/\n\nIn the mean time, here's an example of how it's done with parasitic worms and grasshoppers\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0901_050901_wormparasite_2.html"
]
] |
||
g0ir02
|
how do cable companies produce/provide internet service for customers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g0ir02/eli5_how_do_cable_companies_produceprovide/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn9wq7h",
"fna0fat",
"fna5700"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"They’ll install a cable to your house and let you use it to plug your computer in. The other end is connected to a global network of other cables, all connected together and to other computers.",
"You’ve been into an office, possibly a computer room. Maybe you’ve seen a network switch. It’s the device that all the cables from the office’s computers attach. Each computer has its own address, like a street address. When one computer wants to talk to another, say to send a file, it packages up the info and puts the other computers address on the label. Sends it to the switch which reads the label and sends it on its way over to the correct computer. \n\nThe internet works the same way. All cables go to network switches which route the traffic so packages find their intended address. All traffic has that address label to tell switches where they want to go. And, yes it’s all wired. \n\nAh, wireless devices.... this is something like air mail, the plane takes off and lands somewhere. The package leaves your phone flys through the air and lands at the Access Point where it is routed to the next switch, over wires, which then directs it onto the next until the package reaches its address. \n\nEnter the cable companies. They are paid to manage the cables and switches. They do not create, provide, or produce the internet. The internet is all the traffic, the packages.\n\nOf course there is more equipment than switches and access points but then I’ll have to write that response in ELi10.",
"The very start of this is the cable companies head end office, where they will have a backbone fibre optic connection to one of the big players in internet backbone, Layer3 et al.\n\nThey feed this access into a type of large server called a CMTS. From the CMTS, they go to from the headend to a 'node' which is a large metal box that feeds individual neighborhoods. \n\nIn some systems this node will be fibre optic in, fibre optic out, in older areas it this might be the first point in the system that is actually coaxial cable. \n\nFrom the node, you can then either feed 'trunk' amplifiers, which serve as smaller connection points for individual streets, or directly to 'taps'; Taps are were individual houses and appartments are connected to. \n\nThen your cable modem will sends modulated RF signal (called DOCSIS) back allll the way to the head end, where the CMTS will translate to regular IP out to the wider internet.\n\nSource; cable tech"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6iioes
|
why does all software need regular updates all the time?
|
I understand that newer computing power and better system specification would make things like Windows XP obsolete over time. But why can't we just upgrade some components of Windows XP to make use of better resource like 5TB RAM and 32core 64GHz CPU to have 3D holographic display and patch some security loophole when necessary to make it the "perfect" OS that can be used for 100 years? Why do we instead keeping coming out with Win2000, Win10 that made older system obsolete?
My question came from the fact that until recently I have been using Ubuntu 10.04 and very happy with it, but was forced to change because the support needed in 2015. It comes to my mind that why can't we just make a perfect system that only requires minor safety and incremental updates (like for new hardware) only when necessary and leave the features untouched. Why do Ubuntu needs to have a team of developers working on it all the time to come out with new features and change the current functions?
And then there exists things like Microsoft Notepad that virtually never changes AFAIK and stays relevant. Is that only due to its extreme simplicity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iioes/eli5_why_does_all_software_need_regular_updates/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj6l8pm",
"dj6sel3",
"dj8h111"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"How would you setup ubuntu today to handle a quantum GPU on a PCI-e 5.0 link outputting to a holographic display?\n\nYou can make software awesome and super expandable and make it last forever\n\nIt will cost you 100x as much, take 200x as long, 30x bigger, and be 1/4 as fast as software designed to do what it needs for today. Feature creep is the biggest enemy of software development, planning for the future can lead to a project stalling and falling into development hell, support just what you need to today, maybe consider tomorrow, but build something you can ship\n\nPerfect is the enemy of good, and good enough is what lets us move forward quickly",
"There are plenty of software packages out there that don't need and rarely do get updates.\n\nThe problem is that since today everything is internet connected, much of the software on those internet connected devices needs to be constantly patched to close newly discovered security holes.\n\nWith an OS like Windows XP that does not receive any more official security updates this can lead to very bad things very quickly.\n\nAnother thing that you have mentioned is the keeping up with new hardware. Usually this is just done through drivers and doesn't need and direct changes to the underlying OS and the software running on it.\n\nHowever sometimes the changes in the hardware are so fundamental that they require major changes to the very principles that the OS it based on.\n\nYour example was Windows XP with 5TB of RAM. (current Windows 10 Pro and higher only supports up to 2TB or system RAM if you want to use 5TB you need to install the latest server version of windows.) This was indeed a very big problem. the original windows XP was a 32-bit operating system and could only address up to 4GB of RAM. To give it the ability to handle more RAM the whole OS needed to be changed into a 64-Bit OS which required many many changes to the software involved. So they came up with windows XP 64-Bit which supported up to 128 GB. It took a few more versions before the 64-bit version of the OS was what became the standard.\n\nMinor changes in the hardware can be easily dealt with even by older software but big changes that affect underlying paradigms like the switch from 32-bit to 64-bit or the one from BIOS to UEFI or similar require more changes to the software.\n\nThat being said, if you look at the latest version of an OS like Windows you will find that underneath the hood there will be some small programs and parts of programs that have barely changed at all in a decade or more.\n\nNotepad may look like it has barely changed, but it has undergone some changes. For example the way that the language support was separated into a mui file like with all other Microsoft programs. The simplicity of the program comes in part from the fact that much of what little it does is actually done by other parts of the OS like the file open dialogue which is part of the OS.\n\nThere are also many superficial and unnecessary changes to the User Interface that are perhaps just done for marketing purposes rather than any real technical need.\n\nThese superficial changes sort of cover up the fact that the Software underneath is much the same that it was before. The thinking is that customers are less likely to pay money for a new version unless they can actually see that it is newer and better somehow.\n\nStill there is a market for software that shouldn't or can't be updated frequently. Mainly embedded devices or places where safety and security are a big issue. These may keep for a few years or even a decade as long as nobody tries to connect them to the internet or tries to plug in newer hardware.\n\nAn example that may come the closest to what you meant may be corporate systems like IBM's AS/400 which has been around for almost 30 years and received lots of new hardware and software versions since then, but which is fundamentally still the same it was in the late 80s and even today with all the support for new concepts can run legacy applications that were written decades ago and haven't had much in the way of changes since then. Of course the normal user interface is still a bunch of green text on a black screen for that system which helps to explain why in the consumer market so much emphasis is on changing how the graphics of a system looks to the user.",
"Software doesn't *need* to be updated. If you don't change anything on your computer, *and* you're not using that computer on a network like the internet where it needs to talk to other computers, then it can run just fine without any updates.\n\nUpdates can add functionality. If you add new hardware, you may need new software to take advantage of it. This usually doesn't mean re-writing everything, just a small part like an aptly named \"device driver\".\n\nUpdates can improve functionality. If you're getting regular updates to your software, it's likely getting some speed, and memory usage improvements.\n\nImprovements can involve breaking previous assumptions, resulting in a complete overhaul of existing functionality. When there's a possibility that this breaks functionality, software developers often change the major version naming of the software so that it's very clear to the consumers (users and developers) where the compatibility line is. Windows 10 for example is much easier to use on a touch device, because of all the interface overhauling. All that interface overhaul however had the chance to break older software that relied on the older interface."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
vk7xl
|
- what are contrast and sharpness on my tv, and how should i set them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vk7xl/eli5_what_are_contrast_and_sharpness_on_my_tv_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c558hdp"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Contrast is the difference between light and dark parts of the image. The contrast control makes the brightest part of the image brighter, making the difference between dark and light parts of the TV image greater.\n\nThe brightness control makes all parts of the image brighter or darker. \n\nSharpness makes the parts of the image that already have contrast have more contrast at that spot. This usually happens at line boundaries. The lighter side of the boundary is made even brighter and the darker side of the boundary is made darker. This fools your eye into thinking the boundary is sharper. This is called [edge enhancement](_URL_1_).\n\n**Sharpness setting:** If you have a nice, modern TV, set your sharpness to the default, or in many cases, set it to 0 (as long as the image isn't getting softer). The sharpness setting *adds fake sharpness* to the actual image. It is not supposed to be sharper than the original content.\n\n**Contrast setting:** You need to use a [test pattern](_URL_0_). A test pattern usually has a row of grayscale boxes that go from black to white. You typically adjust the contrast so that the white box is as bright as possible while still being able to tell the difference between the brightest box and the second brightest box (bad contrast is when non-white boxes are too bright and look white).\n\n**Brightness setting:** Using the same pattern as above, you set the brightness so that the black box is as dark as possible while you are still able to tell the difference between the darkest box and the second darkest box."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_enhancement"
]
] |
||
2ux8j9
|
how do we find decay rates for materials that don't change much over millions of years?
|
Up there ^
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ux8j9/eli5_how_do_we_find_decay_rates_for_materials/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coci21s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Half-lives are incredibly stable, so once you get a tiny change, you can extrapolate the half-life rate from there. Which means that you can basically get a chunk of the radioactive material, measure it long enough to have an idea of how often a decay event occurs, and then do some math to figure out how long it would take for half the material to decay. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
76r9y8
|
why did the sky in ne england go dark for about 20 mins this afternoon?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76r9y8/eli5_why_did_the_sky_in_ne_england_go_dark_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dog30cr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Storm Ophelia has picked up lots of dust from the African desert and it's all blowing around in the sky.\n\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/london-sky-cloaked-in-strange-orange-glow-in-storm-ophelia-dust-phenomenon-a3659886.html"
]
] |
||
e4brvt
|
why do ‘tactical’ flashlights use red lenses?
|
I’ve heard it was because red light waves don’t travel that far, but I can see the red light on an airplane wing that’s miles away.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e4brvt/eli5_why_do_tactical_flashlights_use_red_lenses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f98lgo4",
"f98n6qg",
"f98ove5"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
12
],
"text": [
"To not mess up your natural night vision. Also, I believe it doesn't show up on night vision/IR.",
"I was adding to the other posters. A tactical flashlight is meant for situations where you want to see without being seen. It gives enough light for you to read a map by, but allows you to get closer to an opponent without him seeing you do it.",
"Greetings from /r/flashlight.\n\nFirst of all, \"tactical\" flashlight doesn't have a fixed definition - it tends to be more of a marketing term. Most lights marketed as \"tactical\" don't have a red LED or include a red filter.\n\nWe do see a number of posts from people in various armies asking for lights with red capability though, usually because someone well above their pay grade has mandated it for reducing observability. Oddly, there doesn't seem to be any limit on output or intensity most of the time, and someone looking upon [this](_URL_0_) from a mile away would easily be able to tell someone is using a light source.\n\nThere's also a perception that red light doesn't ruin dark adaptation. It's half-true: at similar intensity, red light will have less impact than white, but it's harder to see what you're doing with red light, so it kind of evens out. I'd make the same argument for observability: the most important factors are to use as little light as possible, and avoid pointing light sources directly toward where an observer might be.\n\nMuch of this doctrine was likely developed long before the advent of modern LED-based flashlights, which can support dimming between a hundredth of a lumen (literally thirty times dimmer than a firefly) to over a thousand (car headlight). A red filter substantially reduces the brightness of a fixed-brightness white light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/4mVvg0b.jpg"
]
] |
|
1zdbpa
|
what are the health/safety risks of using this microwave (pictures in text)?
|
Pictures here: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)
Please help me explain to my dad how unsafe this microwave is.
My dad has a very old microwave that he refuses to replace. The inside has a great deal of paint chipping away, exposing metal, and the plastic on the inside of the door is melting off, potentially actually burning during use.
My dad is a very intelligent, highly educated man, but he seems to be in denial about how unsafe this is. He responds to scientific facts and explanations, please help me convince him to replace this microwave.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zdbpa/eli5_what_are_the_healthsafety_risks_of_using/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfsn8an"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The inner part of a microwave is called a [Faraday Cage] (_URL_1_), which stops the microwaves from inside the box from escaping. If the cage is broken, the microwaves are escaping and can be very harmful to [people] (_URL_0_).\n\nIn your pictures, the mesh (especially on the front door) does not appear to be broken and that is the important part of whether or not the microwaves are escaping. If you actually want to test if the mesh is broken, place something easily meltable, like an ice cube or chocolate bar in front and if it melts, the cage is broken and is very dangerous."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/Hv8Uw"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn#Adults_and_microwave_ovens",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage"
]
] |
|
3him1m
|
why do xbox and nintendo controllers both use x, y, a and b?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3him1m/eli5why_do_xbox_and_nintendo_controllers_both_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu7p5nv",
"cu817dn"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"X and Y and A and B were old standbys in math and then in computer programming. X and Y were the default designators for coordinates in 2 dimensions (remember all those graphs in algebra?); A and B (and sometimes C) were the default variables: A^2 + B^2 = C^2.\n\nIn designing the controller, these designations probably related directly to what was happening in the software, since they represented instructions to move things on screen and to choose options.",
"Early game controllers with buttons usually didn't have labels at all, were labelled numerically, or were labelled with specific actions (jump, fire, and similar). For those with no label it was rare for there to be more than one button, so there wasn't a label needed, and those with two or more they were usually in unique locations (on top of a joystick, left or right, a gun trigger, etc.). Those with a lot more buttons usually had them in a grid like a phone or keypad which were either numbered or the games came with a piece of paper that you could put over the buttons to label them for each game.\n\nFrom 1983-1985 what's known as the video game crash, or Atari crash occurred. Video game consoles were thought of as a fad that was over and the market was considered dead beyond a few niche die hards.\n\nThen the Nintendo Famicom came out in Japan in 1983 with the buttons labelled B and A, and two years after the Nintendo Entertainment System in the US.\n\nWhy B A instead of 1 2 or I II or A B? Probably just because many of the previous controllers that had come out had used 1 2 or I II style button designations, and B A instead of A B likely because they're Japanese and traditional Japanese is written right to left as well as another way to differentiate themselves from the previous consoles, the most popular of which were from the US and, when labelled, had left to right numerical labels.\n\nThese two consoles quickly became the dominant hardware in their respective markets, so their competitors copied them. NEC used numbers still, but in the reversed order like Nintendo. Sega kept the more western ordering with A B. Even Atari copies them at this point and switches to an identical B A.\n\nSega adds a third button with the obvious A B C in 1988 for the Sega Master System (1989 Sega Genesis in the US).\n\nNintendo adds a the familiar diamond layout 4 button setup with Y X B A, along with L and R shoulder buttons in 1990 for the Super Famicom (1991 Super Nintendo in the US).\n\nWhy Y X? Most likely because at this point arcades had started to label their buttons A B C D etc and they again wanted to differentiate themselves. Why those particular letters? Teotwawki69's guess below is as good a guess as any, though again Nintendo is Japanese so I don't know how prevalent using x and y were there. More likely it was simply to not use C and D and they're clearly different from A and B as well as L and R which have clear positional meanings.\n\nIn 1993 Sega releases a new controller for the Genesis with 6 buttons, but they're laid out in two rows of 3; X Y Z A B C. This is because of the gaining popularity of 6 button fighting games in the arcades, mainly Street Fighter 2.\n\nFrom here out Nintendo basically keeps experimenting with controller layouts and the rest of the industry decides the SNES got the button layout right. Sega adds the shoulder buttons and keeps the 6 face buttons for the Saturn, then drops down to 4 face buttons and two shoulder triggers for the Dreamcast. Sony enters a partnership with Nintendo for a CD addon to the Super Famicom / SNES that Nintendo pulls out of, so they enter the market with the exact same button layout for the face buttons but re-labelled as a further abstraction, and one that doesn't suffer from translation problems, and to distance itself from Nintendo. Atari tries to bring back the number pad ... and then flames out again.\n\nNow we get to the original Xbox. Sega has started to pull out of hardware, but they and Microsoft worked together on the Dreamcast. This leads to the original Xbox controller being pretty similar to the Dreamcast controller, but borrowing the 6 face button layout of the Genesis and Saturn, but with X Y B A White Black, and the dual joysticks of the Playstation 2 which is quickly becoming the dominant player. Eventually Microsoft copies the dual shoulder button approach that both Nintendo and Sony use and ditches the white & black buttons. Again we're back the the SNES button layout!\n\n\nSo the TLDR; the answer to the original question of why XYAB? Because Nintendo did it to be different and everyone copied them because they were the market leaders. That and Sony copyrighted their solution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7wbndl
|
what causes snoring
|
I've read about when nose is blocked or the breathing technique is not proper, we snore while asleep. That nose sprays before bed helps with this.
Can someone help it break down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wbndl/eli5_what_causes_snoring/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtz3gml"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Those can have an affect on snoring but it is mainly caused by the tongue partially covering the airway during sleep so when you breathe in slight reverberation occurs causing snoring. this usually occurs when lying on your back as this allows gravity to pull the tongue back. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2b5xsm
|
when you hear stories of stranded mountain climbers who get dehydrated and can't get water, why can't they eat snow to help?
|
Why does the snow need to be heated to get water? It seems like if you got in trouble somehow, you would just eat the snow out of desperation, to save yourself. How come people don't do that? I have never mountain climbed, don't know much about it. I've just noticed this detail in some survivor stories and don't know why climbers get dehydrated surrounded by frozen water.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b5xsm/eli5_when_you_hear_stories_of_stranded_mountain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj23edn",
"cj2487e",
"cj2534f"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Eating a lot of ice isn't a good idea when you are right on the edge of freezing to death too.",
"The snow is essentially takes in heat from your body to turned into a liquid. It's involuntary, put an ice cube in your mouth and it will begin to melt because your body temp is about the melting point of water. It's how you get that heat back that's the issue (food? burnig body fat?). If you're out of food then you're really only prolonging the inevitable (and making your body kill itself to stay alive). ",
"Your biggest issue in a snowy situation is usually hypothermia and keeping your temperature up. If your temperature gets too low, you get sluggish, lay down, then don't get up again. Every time you eat snow, you're voluntarily lowering your body temperature, as it seeps into the ice to melt it into water. So yeah, while you can live 3 days without water, you might only live an hour with a core temp of 85F or below. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s12y3
|
could a person get a vocal chord transplant and be able to sing well or sound different?
|
Since Michael Jackson died, if a doctor or somebody, got his vocal chords early enough would you be able to sing well like he did?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s12y3/could_a_person_get_a_vocal_chord_transplant_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdsw031"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Singing comes from a lot more than just the vocal chords. The brain, ears, lungs, and even the skeleton play a big role in voice. Just having someone's vocal chords would not give you the ability to sing like them.\n\nIf you were to steal Michael Jackson's larynx, and have it seamlessly transplanted into your own neck, chances are you would sound a lot like him when saying \"AAAAAAA\" or \"OOOOOOOO\", but not so much if you were speaking intelligible words. The vibrations from your vocal chords would sound right, but the things the rest of your body would do in response to them would not."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1gbbx2
|
how could time have started and how can it end? isn't it infinite?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gbbx2/eli5_how_could_time_have_started_and_how_can_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cail9nw",
"cain5ky"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Thank you to both of you! that really helps!",
"According to Lawrence Krauss, space and time come into existence via the laws of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately there is no ELI5 for quantum mechanics. The best thing to do is look up his book \"A universe from nothing\" or watch on of his talks on the subject on youtube. As for the END of time, we may be able to conceptualize that better; we now know the universe is expanding and it's rate of expansion is accelerating. The universe is getting colder and emptier. Eventually every galaxy will be so separated from every other that any inhabitants alive at that time (we're talking trillions of years) will think they are the only galaxy in the universe. As more trillions of years pass, the stars will run down, their heat dissipating across the emptiness. Further still and even normal \"stable\" matter will eventually decay. The universe will be cold and filled with only the most diffuse energy ... free photons. Nothing else will happen, and by THAT definition we can perhaps say that time would have effectively ended. If nothing is ever going to happen, the notion of time becomes meaningless. The universe will not go out with a bang, but with a whimper."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
arjt4l
|
how do experts learn to read ancient languages?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arjt4l/eli5_how_do_experts_learn_to_read_ancient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egno022",
"egno4hg"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Having a rosetta stone helps. (Hyroglyphics----- > lLatin----- > English) If you cannot read whatit started as, maybe you can see if anything influenced it, or if it had influence on other languages. Are there any pictograms or reoccuring image word combinations? Most languages have a logic to them an professionals can trace origins using local historic accounts.",
"it's like solving a puzzle you start with the easy obvious ones and keep guessing\nlanguages are all connected and close to each other\nat the end it's all just guessing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
54fzcm
|
if the total number of people that ever lived is only 108 billion, how can i have over a trillion ancestors?
|
Am I related to everyone?
I have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents.
Let's say we go back 1000 years and we assume the interval between each generation is 25. 1000/25 = 40 so
2^40 = 1,099,511,627,776
Edit: added math
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54fzcm/eli5_if_the_total_number_of_people_that_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d81i1kl",
"d81iqlu",
"d81man8",
"d81wyne",
"d81y7hg",
"d81zbvn",
"d836ia0"
],
"score": [
2,
37,
9,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's call \"inbreeding\". \n\n[Marriage between 1st/2nd cousins currently accounts for about 10% of marriages globally](_URL_0_), and it used to be higher in most of the world. Marriage between cousins doesn't carry the same risks of resesive genetic conditions that you get with marriage between siblings, but still reduces the number of ancestors you'd have.\n\nAlso consider that if you go back enough generations there's a good chance whoever you're in a relationship with is someone you're related to.",
"That one trillion ancestors is not one trillion *unique* ancestors. Go back far enough and you'll start to find common ancestors for people (see: Ghengis Khan and the approximation that 0.5% of the male population of the entire world can trace ancestry back to him; or how about the fact that all but one of the US presidents [up to Obama] are descendants of King John of England). Do you have European ancestry, like I do? Then we're both likely related to Charlemagne the Frank.\n\nYou've had relatives breeding into your family tree again and again and again, sometimes deliberate but most times accidental and unknown. There's still a massive ancestral difference between (say) a native Icelandic person and a Han Chinese person and you'd have to go back much further in time to find a common ancestor than you would two ethnically similar people who lived in the same area.\n\nBut, yes. You and I and everyone else are all related in some way.",
"Because many of those trillion are the same person, over and over again.\n\nFor a crude example, say your parents were brother and sister. You wouldn't have four grandparents, you would only have two, your paternal and maternal grandparents would be the same.\n\nThe same is true with cousins, and historically speaking, a *lot* of people who got married were second or third cousins at least. That puts a whole bunch of duplicates in that family tree.",
"Others here have explained it just fine, but for anyone wondering, the term for it is \"pedigree collapse\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"Not only are you related to everyone, you're related to every organism on Earth. If you trace back enough great, great, great... grandparents back, you'll eventually get to an organism which produced asexually, and continuing further, was the last common ancestor of all current life on the planet.\n\nSo you're actually a very distant cousin of your dog, your wife, and the tree outside your house.\n\n_URL_0_",
"You don't have to go very far back to find common ancestors. My first wife and I are ninth cousins (common ancestor circa 1650).\n\nI live in the U.S. mid-west and I've read that, for those born here, we are on average sixth cousins - meaning we have a common ancestor just six generations (~150 years) ago.",
"Others have basically answered the question, but here's an interesting blog post that does a good job explaining pedigree collapse:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/garden/26cousins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor"
],
[],
[
"http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/01/your-family-past-present-and-future.html"
]
] |
|
3otgbk
|
what makes stuff that is sweet stick to things?
|
Like, what is the science behind it? Also, why does it happen with things like syrup more often?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3otgbk/eli5_what_makes_stuff_that_is_sweet_stick_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw0bx20"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because of sugar. Sugar makes everything sticky.\nCopied from an /r/AskScience post:\nSugars are comprised of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. The negative electrons on Oxygen balances itself out by attracting Hydrogen. Water breaks these bonds so the sugar molecules no longer bond just to each other. Hydrogen from the sugar has a strong attraction to the Hydrogen in the water. These Hydrogen bonds make the sugar \"sticky\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
j39vu
|
[li5] can someone explain rocket propulsion to me
|
I've been a space nerd all my life, but it's always boggled my mind how people managed to basically control and direct a drawn-out explosion into space.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j39vu/li5_can_someone_explain_rocket_propulsion_to_me/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28rvp2",
"c28rx8g"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's really just like filling a balloon and letting it go. When you blow up a balloon you fill it up with more pressure then the surrounding air. So when you open the bottom of the balloon the air escapes. This air escaping pushes the balloon back and it fly away. This is newton third law (The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear) or for every action (air escaping) there is a equal and opposite reaction (balloon moving forward)\n\nRockets work the same way but instead of being full of extra air their full of chemicals that will create gas (air) under the right conditions. This gas is expelled out of the bottom of the rocket pushing it forward and the rocket control the amount of gas created to push the rocket forward at the best speed. ",
"You fill up tanks with a substance that explodes, and a substance that is mostly oxygen. Then you use pumps to control how much of each is allowed to be pumped into the engine (which is just a big nozzle where you explode the substances) You need the oxygen because the exploding stuff needs it to burn. To change the direction of the rocket, you can have a motor that aims the nozzle in different directions. Also, if you have more than one engine, you can have some engines be on a higher setting than others which can turn the rocket.\n\nOne important idea for rockets is stages. It is wasteful to bring a fuel tank (even an empty one) into space because it needs a lot of energy. So, when you use up a fuel tank, you drop it and start using a new one. this way, you are only having to carry the stuff you still need. If you look at the Space Shuttle, it has the Shuttle, a big orange fuel tank, and two Solid Rocket Boosters. the Solid boosters are like what I described except the exploding stuff isn't a liquid. They get turned on first and lift the space shuttle for a few minutes, when they are all used up, they drop them. Then the space shuttle keeps going using the fuel from the big orange tank. When all that is used up, they drop that too. That way, for the last little big of moving around in space, the shuttle is very light and doesn't need a lot of fuel to move."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1zybd8
|
under the right conditions could a brain fully function outside of the body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zybd8/eli5_under_the_right_conditions_could_a_brain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfy2v63"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"With current technology? No. Theoretically? Yes check out _URL_0_ for some of the issues."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat"
]
] |
||
4vag8j
|
how does git work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vag8j/eli5_how_does_git_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5wvxsc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Okay. Here goes. If I am wrong on any of this or anybody has any improvements to add, please throw down a comment. I'll edit the answer accordingly.\n\n**Commits:**\nCommits are organized like a giant tower. You have a lobby at the bottom (the initial commit), and then you have more pieces that are stacked on top each other. Each \"floor\" of the tower is a commit. These commits hold information about what has been changed since the parent commit (the previous floor). Each of these commits come together to make one complete building (this would be your working tree).\n\nTo help explain, imagine this tower:\n\nFloor 1 has a table.\nFloor 2 has a chair.\nFloor 3 has a computer.\nFloor 4 has some office supplies.\n\nYou have a bunch of movers who carry all the furniture over from floor 1, to floor 2, to floor 3, etc. until they bring all of it up to the roof (your working tree). On your four-floor tower's roof, you have a table, a chair, a computer, and some office supplies.\n\nNow, let's say that the computer was too old. You didn't like it, you want a new one. You create a 5th floor that has a different computer and leave a note that says \"throw away the old computer\". When the movers reach the fifth floor, they read the note, toss your old computer out the window, and carry the new computer. On your five-floor tower's roof, you have a table, a chair, *a brand new computer*, and some office supplies.\n\nWhat if you needed a hole drilled into your table and then filled with cement for some crazy reason? You add a 6th floor, leave a bag of cement and a note that says \"drill a hole in my table and fill it with cement\". When the movers reach this floor, they drill a hole in your table and then fill it with cement and carry on. On your six-floor tower's roof, you have *a table filled with cement*, a chair, a brand new computer, and some office supplies.\n\n**Branches and Merging:**\nIt's time to design the 7th floor of the tower. You want red carpets, but your girlfriend wants to buy a chandelier instead. You would rather have the carpets now, but she wants the chandelier now. Because you two can't make up your minds, your girlfriend builds a new tower based off of your 6-floor tower (the new \"chandelier\" branch). You add your carpets to your 7th floor, and your girlfriend adds her chandelier to her 7th floor.\n\nA little while later, you and your girlfriend realize its stupid to argue over trivial details. Your girlfriend decides to move back into your tower, and bring her chandelier with her. You can't exactly change your 7th floor anymore, since you already built it. Because of that, you build an 8th floor (the merge commit). She puts her chandelier and other new pieces furniture into this new floor.\n\nYour eight-floor tower has your red carpet, as well as the stuff that she had in her tower.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**ELIHaveACSDegree:** Check out [this article](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.sbf5.com/~cduan/technical/git/"
]
] |
||
2xhccm
|
why does my dog choose so carefully where he pees?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xhccm/eli5_why_does_my_dog_choose_so_carefully_where_he/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp03tk5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs actually communicate by peeing certain ways or places. If he pees on a place which had already been peed on, he is kinda respondibg the message by the previous dog. Also they can mark their terrotories or leave a message for other dogs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22mf7a
|
how rainx works
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22mf7a/eli5_how_rainx_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgo7w3i"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The main chemicals in Rain-X are called polysiloxanes, which are as much fun to use as they are to say. Basically these are hydrophobic silicone polymers. So when you use Rain X, you're basically spreading a very thin inert sheet of plastic over your car. This causes the water to bead up and run off because it is being repelled by the Rain X. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4nwmld
|
in simple terms, how does one value a company? from a large company like apple or a little startup that has yet to go public?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nwmld/eli5in_simple_terms_how_does_one_value_a_company/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d47jbb7",
"d47jrao",
"d489er4"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"A number of things go into it.\n\nFirst there's the direct \"liquid\" assets that the company fully and clearly owns (they call them liquid because they're easy and quick to liquidate and turn into actual cash). If the company has cash reserves of a million bucks, it's worth at least a million bucks. If they have stock in another company, that stock can be easily sold, and that adds to its value. \n\nThen there's the not-so-liquid assets it has, like owned land and factories and company cars and head office buildings and stockpiled raw materials. These \"fixed assets\" can be worth billions if a refinery, or might not be worth anything at all in a virtual business.\n\nNext comes their \"receivables\" and their \"book of business\". The first is how much they are owed from others that have bought their stuff but not paid yet, the second is the amount of business they have contracts for but haven't completed yet. If you know you're going to sell $10M in contracted orders until the end of the year, that $10M is almost as good as cash! \n\nBranding comes into it too. Everyone knows what you mean when you say \"Pepsi\", so having ownership of that very word can be worth a whole lot of money.\n\nAnd you have intellectual property. Do you own a novel way of improving internet search speed efficiency and accuracy? Google might pay a bundle to take that and put you out of business.\n\nNext there's good will. This is things like relationships with your customers that someone else takes over if they buy your company. You might not have any contracts signed yet for 2017 (so next year's book of business is zero!), but if you have excellent good will, there's a good chance that you will get some contracts.\n\nThere's other factors that go into it too like your staffing trajectory (how many skilled people are you gaining/losing), your growth or shrinkage ratio, the quality of your company's leaders, and whether or not you're being sued at the current time. \n\nIt's a lot simpler for start-ups. Usually the book of business and the intellectual property are the most important things. ",
"You own a lemonade stand. To do so you have to own some resources (lemons, secret recipe, contract to buy lemons at X dollars per pound for the next several months, a building, juicers, cash on hand for transactions, etc.). Your business gets X dollars in revenue on average each year, has Y expenses, and has Z debt. This all gets added up into your company's \"book value,\" as it shows up on things like your balance sheet, statement of cash flows, and income statement, which are commonly referred to as the company's books.\n\nWe know from comparing your stand to other lemonade stands and other similar business, like the snow ball stand down the road, that your particular stand is either performing well, about as could be expected, or worse than normal. \n\nWe then look at things like how we think the economy, weather, and lemon harvest are doing and whether people will have enough money to buy lemonade, will want lemonade because of the heat, or whether lemons will be more or less expensive in the future. \n\nBased on all this information, we can get a good idea in terms of how well we think both your particular lemonade stand and the summer refreshment industry in general will do in the future. Based on this, we give your company a value, and this is generally what you hear reported in news stories. Put simply, this is where we say that a man looking to buy your lemonade stand should pay you X for it.\n\nCompanies are often bought or sold for more or less than the generally agreed upon value for various reasons. That value also may or may not be then reflected accurately in the company's stock price if it is publicly traded, as the stock price can be affected by a lot of things that have little to do with the lemonade stand's actual profitability, such as the 9/11 attacks bringing down prices on the stockmarket overall (Which is why President Bush advised people to go shopping after. He wanted to ensure that people regained confidence in the market and keep both stock prices and the economy chugging along).\n\nEdit: Another reason is that a given company may be uniquely valuable to another in a way that others don't immediately realize (today's purchase of LinkedIn by Microsoft being a timely example, as Microsoft paid far more for the company than the cumulative market value of all its stock).",
"How much would you pay for a $1? Obviously, a dollar.\n\nBut how much would you pay for a business that gives you $1 every year? It depends on a lot of things: competition, stability, inflation, interest rates, the economy, how long you'd keep receiving that $1, etc.\n\nCompetition - the more competition, the less certain you'll be about earning the dollar every year. Some years you might even run a loss if the competition eats your lunch. \n\nStability - if labor, materials, rent and equipment costs change significantly from year to year, the business might not be able to generate $1 consistently every year.\n\nHigh inflation erodes the value of that $1, so high inflation hurts the value of a business. Negative inflation, i.e. deflation, is even worse. Deflation increases the value of the $1 (i.e. you can exchange it for more products) over time so people would want to hold on to it rather than invest it or spend it. This causes investments and consumption to fall into a downward spiral so your business would have fewer customers over time.\n\nInterest rates. If interest rates were high, you could simply put the money in the bank and watch it grow very quickly. This makes the prospect of earning $1 a year less attractive so high interest rates tend to depress the value of a risky business. Moreover, high interests rates are often associated with high inflation.\n\nIn a bad economy, the value of all assets get depressed. As the relative value of other assets (say a house on sale) seem more attractive, this depresses the value of the business you might be trying to value.\n\n$1 a year for 100 years is worth a lot more than $1 a year for 10 years!\n\nAs a digression, Warren Buffett's investment success can be summarized as follows: Buy businesses with low competition, high stability, and make sure it's one that can remain in business for several generations. Then wait 50 years or more.\n\nStartups are a lot harder to value. By definition, startups are business experiments. They are valued based on what they could be worth in 7-10 years under certain assumptions about how big the customer/user base might be. Then investors work backwards to arrive at a current valuation. Eg if company could have 1 billion users in 10 years, it could generate $10-20 billion in advertising revenues and the company could be worth tens of billions. A VC needs at least 10-20x returns over 10 years so today he'd value the company at 1/10th or 1/20th of what it could be worth in 10 years. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7vkz6h
|
when my internet connection goes down, but it still shows i'm connected, what is happening?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vkz6h/eli5_when_my_internet_connection_goes_down_but_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtt4g29"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My guess would be that you have a wireless network, and you’re still connected internally to the network, your phone to the router or your laptop to the router etc. So your network connection is still there, but not your Internet connection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4du5pj
|
what keeps the man to woman ratio in the human population so even?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4du5pj/eli5what_keeps_the_man_to_woman_ratio_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1ucp1j",
"d1ucweu",
"d1udacl",
"d1urr3b"
],
"score": [
21,
3,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"DNA is stored in large clusters inside each cell in your body known as Chromosomes. Each cell has the exact same set of DNA.\n\nThere are a total of 23 pairs, or 46 total chromosomes for humans. You get 23 of them from your mom on one side of the pair, and 23 from your dad on the other side of the pair.\n\nOne of these pairs known as the \"Sex Chromosome,\". If you're female, both sides of the Chromosome are known as X, so you have an XX pair of sex chromosomes.\n\nIf you're male, you have one X Chromosome, and one Y chromosome. So the pair is known as XY.\n\nA woman will ALWAYS give an X chromosome to her child, as she only has X chromosomes to give.\n\nA man however, can give either an X OR a Y chromosome to their child, and he makes an even number of sperm with either an X or a Y inside it.\nAnd it is what that sperm carries, that decides the gender of the child.\n\nAnd with an even number of sperm both X, and Y, means roughly an equal number of male and female children.",
"Actually women are slightly more likely to give birth to male babies, but being that it is generally the men getting sex-chromosome related diseases and dying in wars and fighting for mates, and have lower life expectancies, they typically die at a faster rate than women. The generally higher danger of being born male perfectly balances with the higher birth rates for males.",
"The odds of a child being male or female are roughly 50%, regardless of how many men or women there already are.\n\nSex is determined by the 23rd chromosome. Every chromosome is a pair. With women, that pair is XX, with men that pair is XY. Sex cells (eggs and sperm) take the pairs and split them. That means *every egg ever, bar none* (with the *exceedingly minor* exception of people with very unusual genes) has one X chromosome. A normal XX gets split into two Xs.\n\nThe cells from the father split, then, making either an X or a Y. *Every male cell ever bar none* (with the minor exception of people with very unusual genes) has an X and a Y, so when you split it, there is *always* an X in half and Y in half - a 50/50 split. It will always be 50/50.\n\nHalf of the sperm will have an X, half will have a Y. Being otherwise identical, the sperm all have an equal chance of reaching an egg. No matter how many sperms you're talking about, no matter how many eggs you're talking about, the odds will always be 50/50 that the sperm will be an X sperm, or a Y sperm.\n\nNow about those exceptions: occasionally people are born with three Xs, two Xs and a Y, just an X, just a Y, etc. Sometimes the cells to make the eggs and sperm don't split correctly. The vast majority of the time, the resulting chromosomes are too messed up for a child to develop. Sometimes it's not too messed up for a child to develop and be born, but [they don't develop correctly](_URL_0_). So you have to consider a person whose chromosomes split badly, but only on the 23rd chromosome and either no where else, or the other mistakes aren't a problem. *Even among those cases*, it's rare for the resulting person to be capable of sexual reproduction. Most of the time, they are sterile, because their genes are already messed up so there's no way for their cells to split correctly. Occasionally viable gametes will form, but those would be gametes with all the right numbers of genes, so more than likely their children will be born without any problems. Basically, this can account for a tiny tiny percentage, but we're still taking about an average very close to 50/50.\n\nSo why isn't it exactly 50/50? No one is entirely sure, but there are a few factors. There is what's called \"epigenetics\", which are *basically* things you inherit that aren't genes. Your body has a lot of genes that only activate when there are certain environmental factors, and *some* of them may possibly affect your reproduction. We really don't yet understand how epigenetics work, but we know they're there. It *could* be that epigenetics affect how likely a sperm is to make it to the egg, either by slowing or stopping either Xs or Ys, or helping them.\n\nThere are also, of course, the environmental factors of *who survives long enough to fill out a survey*. In the United Arab Emirates, for example, the ratio is (according to [wikipedia](_URL_2_)) 2.74 around the ages of 15-64. But *at birth* it's 1.05, which tells us that a lot of girls are being killed before they hit 15, which unfortunately is [probably not very surprising](_URL_1_). If you look at that list, though, it's almost always very close to 1:1 at birth. The small differences are *probably* due to epigenetics, although another theory is that because the Y is very small relative to the X (and every other chromosome), the Y sperms are just a little smaller and lighter and thus just a tiny bit faster, and thus men are just a tiny bit more likely to be born.\n\nEDIT: Why am I getting downvoted? o.O Have I said anything that's actually wrong?",
"The roughly 1:1 sex ratio is common among many species. The reasoning for this can be somewhat explained by fishers principle. \n\nE.g. Say there are more females in a population, giving birth to a male with result in higher mating prospects for the male offspring. Therefore, parents who are genetically disposed to giving birth to more males will be naturally selected for and have their genes passed on. This advantage will reduce as you approach the 1:1 sex ratio in a population. The same works vice versa: if there are more males, giving birth to females will result in more of the parents genes being passed on into grandchildren. This keeps the balance between the amount of males and females in the human population. I have heard that environmental factors can also play a role in sex-determination of offspring, however, this would not explain the maintenance of the 1:1 sex ration.\n\nAnd note that this is not the case for all species. Many species have very unequal sex ratios and this is of course is a result of life histories and reproduction strategies. There is a really cool, and incestral, example of the unequal sex ratios of a certain species of mite (cannot remember the species) in Stephen J Goulds - The Panda Thumb. Worth checking out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Flogging_and_stoning",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio"
],
[]
] |
||
2v3z92
|
why can't you lock your phone when listening to youtube, but you can with other apps such as soundcloud?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v3z92/eli5_why_cant_you_lock_your_phone_when_listening/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coe8j47",
"coebyu9"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Because Soundcloud is an audio player and as such doesn't require a screen to be on to used fully.\n\nYouTube is (primarily) meant to be used as a video viewer and as such would require a screen to be on to use. Why waist time adding extra functions to an app that aren't needed in its primary function. ",
"Many apps that do this are being taken down by YouTube right now. My understanding of it it that they don't want you to have the benefits of say, listening to music for free, and not actually watching the ads. It's a calculated move, not just laziness. If you're on android, firetube works great."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
72z79k
|
the difference between thermoelectric effect and photovoltaic effect
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72z79k/eli5_the_difference_between_thermoelectric_effect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnmcazd",
"dnme5kd"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The thermoelectric effect is when electricity is generated due to differences in heat, and photovoltaic is when electricity is generated by exposure to photons of light. For example, a thermocouple generates tiny amounts of electricity at the junction of two different metals, and that can be used to provide a temperature measurement. ",
"Thermoelectric: thermo = heat. This is heat to electricity, usually through a thermocouple.\n\nPhotovoltaic: photo = light. This is light to electricity, usually through a solar cell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6bqyol
|
why does it take an online deposit three days to appear in your bank account?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bqyol/eli5_why_does_it_take_an_online_deposit_three/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhot1dh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Two possibilities (assuming you're in the US):\n\n1) The US financial system still runs mostly on a daily batch system. Transactions that travel to other systems usually get batched up and processed at the end of the business day. Sometimes a transaction has to travel through 2 or 3 different systems before it gets to you, so that's the 2-3 day delay.\n\n2) Your bank likes to hold on to the money for the extra day or two so they can earn short term interest on your deposit funds. It may not be much for your particular deposit, but if they do it often enough with enough deposits, they earn a pretty penny.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5j4a3l
|
why dont people just move to another country and covert their old currency into foreign one then become super rich?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j4a3l/eli5_why_dont_people_just_move_to_another_country/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbd9ukt",
"dbdjdtv",
"dbdld60"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"People do this all the time. For example, some Americans retire in Mexico or Thailand, where their money goes a very long way.\n\nBut most don't. They don't want to be far from all their friends and family. They don't want to be in a country with inferior medical care, inferior police protection, water that's not safe to drink, traffic that's frequently lethal, an unstable government, and a language that they don't speak.",
"Back in the early 90s, I spent four months in Russia. I took with me $400 (US) in cash (this was before things like online banking, and Russia had no credit cards or ATMs), and that lasted me for the whole four months, with some left over. Once I changed something like $100 into roubles, and the bank didn't have any higher-denomination notes: I was given large bundles of 25-rouble notes which I had to stuff into all my pockets and hope that I wouldn't get mugged or pickpocketed.\n\nCould I have simply brought over all my savings and stayed in Russia as one of the richest men in St Petersburg? In theory, perhaps. But it would have been a bad idea.\n\nFirst of all, the reason the rouble was so weak was that the Russian economy was in a terrible state. This was just after the fall of communism: the old Soviet Union's economy was shot to pieces already, and then everything collapsed. Buying groceries was a difficult task, and mostly involved walking into stores and seeing what was available that day. I would walk past a music store, notice a pyramid of toilet rolls in the window, and go in to stock up on toilet paper in case I didn't see any for the next month.\n\nSure, most of the big hotels had \"duty free shops\" which sold stuff imported from Ireland (for some reason I never fully understood), but at the kind of prices you'd get at home anyhow, and they only accepted dollars. You could easily blow two weeks' worth of money on a bar of British chocolate.\n\nBasically, there's not much point in being super rich if you can't actually buy anything with your riches. Would you rather live in a nice, airconditioned condo close to your family and friends, or in a crumbling apartment in a city where nobody speaks your language and you throw a party when you succeed in buying a box of cornflakes?",
"You may not want to convert all your dollars because your dollars are worth more to the person your are making a transaction with because your dollar is more stable than their own currency. Thus, you may get a better deal in dollars than the local currency. And if the local currency fluctuates a lot you may loose value over time. Plus, in case you suddenly need to leave due some revolution, etc., dollars would be better than the local currency where ever you end up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ebj5dh
|
why does the temperature change so rapidly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ebj5dh/eli5_why_does_the_temperature_change_so_rapidly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fb57vn6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are patches of air that are warmer or colder than others all over the earth at the same time. The air on earth is always in motion and patches of air move together. Air can be cold due to the altitude of the air or it being nearer to the arctic/antarctic. \n\nEven when the sun is shining like it was yesterday, if a patch of cold air moves to your neighborhood today, it will still be cold when it gets there. Even when it is cold you can still feel the warmth of the sun if you stand in its light, but you will also feel that cold air that is all around you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ph6ho
|
reddit celebrities
|
Specifically, in a place where everyone exists by pseudonym and direct democracy is in effect (aside from the vote fuzzing,) how does one become popular or even famous on this site. How do people like andrewsmith1986 and Forthewolf become the celebrities that they are?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ph6ho/eli5_reddit_celebrities/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3pbs6p",
"c3pcz4i"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, FTWX asked to be a celeb. \n\nI became \"famous\" by commenting a lot and being everywhere. ",
"Some people are also mods. POLITE_ALL_CAPS_GUY was a first a really popular novelty, but now he's a mod of several subreddits (including a few big ones)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7ti5yy
|
4 points on a compass
|
I realize that it's a cultural construct, but it seems to be a very common one. In Asian, Native American, European, and a few others, there always seems to be North, South, East and West. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ti5yy/eli5_4_points_on_a_compass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtcovcn",
"dtcpc9v",
"dtcxify"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"North and south are to do with the magnetic polarity of the planet. East and west are used as chartering factors, namely that of navigating anything that is not direct north/south. \n\nThese are the bare minimums of navigating. \n\nAs in it has nothing to do with culture - it is just simply the most logical method of discerning direction. ",
"It's the simplest way yo give absolute directions. If you need to tell someone what way to go you need reference point and direction.\n\nA flat surface is 2 dimensional, you need at least two directions in your system to fix an arbitrary direction, and a way of saying backwards in each one. That gets you a miniumn of four points on a compass to define direction. Then you name them, the direction the sun sets and the direction the sun rises are opposite, and then you add left and right of that to get the other two. Those are the easiest to figure out if your lost.",
"The desire to navigate and make sense of the surroundings necessitated the use of a north, south, east, or west. But at the end of the day, on a much deeper level, we are all following our internal compass towards our destiny."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1nu3mi
|
lets pretend i killed every single mosquito and fly in the world. would i cause some sort of disaster?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nu3mi/eli5_lets_pretend_i_killed_every_single_mosquito/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccm1y0a",
"ccm1yv4",
"ccm46k3"
],
"score": [
17,
33,
2
],
"text": [
"In most places, mosquitos could disappear without causing much impact. Few if any mosquitos are pollinators, or numerous enough to make up large amounts of any predator's diet, or really affect larger animals.\n\nOne place where this is not the case is in the arctic. Reindeer herds cannot spend much time eating the lowland grasses without becoming anaemic from loss of blood from the mosquitos. Without mosquitos, reindeer would spend all summer grazing, probably overpopulating the areas and decimating the grasses that they eat.\n\nFlies are a different matter. They are an essential part of cleaning up dead carcases and other waste matter. They are numerous and large enough to be the basis of many food chains.",
"Mosquitos and flies are 'bottom of the food chain'. Yes they bite us and annoy us.\n\nBut mosquito larvae are amazing fish-food. They take tiny bits of algae, that are useless to most aquatic organisms, eat it, and convert it into a nice high protein snack for fish/fish-fry (Baby fish).\n\nMANY frogs rely on fly larvae to survive.\n\nThere are also many species of flowers that rely on flies to survive. Most famous is the Corpse Flower (It smells like death/decay and thus attracts flies for pollination)\n\nMosquitos and flies are just part of the food chain. To make too big a dent in them would result in food shortages for many other organisms. \nPerhaps it helps to think that \"The best use for flies and mosquitos is their babies. Their babies are excellent food for many organisms\"",
"I would think that if there were no flies, there would be a lot of animal corpses lingering around. The fly will lay their eggs in rotting meat, and the maggots will feast on the flesh. This helps with the decomposing process. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10mlyz
|
why is the security chip & pin combo on my credit card considered a better security check than my signature?
|
I don't understand the acceptance of Security Chip + PIN that can be guessed/stolen easily is considered a safer measure than my hand written signature. If this is true, can someone please ELI5?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10mlyz/eli5_why_is_the_security_chip_pin_combo_on_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6erxwj",
"c6es520",
"c6et9dh",
"c6euu13"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Who verifies that your signature is the same as the \"correct signature\"? I'm fairly certain I've never signed my name the same way before, and anyone can just look at your signature on a check you give to them and be in.\n\nIn contrast you'll likely never have any reason to give anyone your pin, and if your card is missing you'll probably have it cancelled right away probably before any harm is done.",
"The thing to remember about credit cards is that security is nowhere near the top priority. Convenience is.\n\nThat's why over the years — since the early 1990s — credit-card transaction processing companies (like Visa, for instance) have been loosening the various security-minded rules. For example, all the major credit-card processors now allow merchants to skip the signature step entirely for some transactions. This works out, because the higher volume of transactions — from a million and a half people all rushing through the line at the Starbucks between 8:45 and 8:55 every morning — far outweighs the extra cost to the processor of dealing with the occasional instance of fraud.\n\nBasically, credit cards are only as secure as they need to be for them to work well. Any more security than that would be counterproductive.",
"Next time you use a credit card, sign the receipt \"I stole this card\". I would bet everything I own that the cashier takes the receipt and goes about his/her day",
"I can't believe that UK is so far ahead of US with this tech! We've used it for several years now.\n\nAnyway, surely you can see its easier to scribble a name than to randomly guess (correctly) a 4-digit number?\n\nJust avoid the cards with the NFC capabilities as they are easily cloned. And never tell anyone your PIN, even the bank."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3iprkr
|
voltage, current, resistance, energy, power and charge in terms of electrons
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iprkr/eli5_voltage_current_resistance_energy_power_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuik6i5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Think of cars on a highway traveling through a large puddle of mud\n\nThe current is the number of cars going through the mud each second\n\nThe voltage is the difference in speed before and after the mud\n\nThe resistance of the mud would be \"how deep is this mud, as in how much would this slow down a car\" If the street is wider and there is the same amount of mud, it slows down each car by a smaller amount. The value is the voltage divided by the current\n\nThe power is the speed multiplied by \"the number of cars going through the mud each second\".\n\nThe total energy is the power multiplied by time.\n\nSo if 5 cars travel through the mud per second, the mud slows each car by 10km/h, and the final speed is 20km/h The current would be 5, the voltage is 10, the resistance would be 2. The power would 100 and the total energy would be 100 after 1 second, 200 after 2 seconds, 300 after 3 seconds..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
375ic3
|
when word historians say that the first known use of a word was in 1906, how does that process go? look through every book for the use of the word?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/375ic3/eli5_when_word_historians_say_that_the_first/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crjvoe9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are literary scholars who pay attention to that stuff as it's happening, such as the people who write dictionaries. They keep track of what words have recently become commonplace and then track down the source. It's a lot easier to track down the source of a word that's only been in use for a few years (\"selfie,\" for example) than it is to go and root around for a word that's been in use for decades.\n\nWhen a scholar wants to go and figure out when the first usage of an older word is, they check the work of the scholars around that time and see what *they* recorded as the first usage. It would take way too long to dig through every piece of writing from that time (primary sources)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
46p0co
|
if i ate nothing but candy, could i still lose weight?
|
I have a weird question kinda. I want to maintain my current weight but I also don't want to give up all the great food and junk crap the world has to offer.
If I stay within my daily calorie intake limit, could I eat nothing but say candy, chocolate and fast food and STILL lose weight/fat?
So if say I need 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight, and I eat 1800 calories worth of McDonalds, Oreo's, and ice cream, does that mean I still lose weight/fat that day?
All healthiness aside, just in terms of weight and bodyfat. Is there anything else that can affect your weight or is the calorie intake absolute? Can I eat all sorts of unhealthy crap as long as I don't go over my calories and maintain my weight?
Sorry if the question seems silly.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46p0co/eli5_if_i_ate_nothing_but_candy_could_i_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d06u0ee",
"d06u5n4"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"A college professor once did this to show you can, but he was being monitored heavily the whole time because it can be risky. It's the junk food diet, as long as you get all the necessary vitamins and the correct calories you can lose weight",
"A professor of nutrition went on a diet for 10 weeks, consisting largely of twinkies, oreos, and doritos. While still maintaining multivitamins and a protein shake daily with occasional greens as well to not go completely off the deep end. After the 10 weeks of controlling a steady stream of 1,800 calories a day he lost 27 pounds, lowered his bad cholesterol by 20% and upping his good cholesterol also by 20%. Most weight loss is from a steady intake in a caloric deficit (IE don't eat 1,700 of your daily 1,800 in one meal). If you do this make sure to also grab multivitamins if you don't already have them, and ensure you're getting some protein. Obviously these are also just short term results, and it's not recommended you over indulge in junk food over a balanced diet and daily exercise.\n\nArticle link here (sorry for ghetto link I'm on my phone)\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/"
]
] |
|
kvjtf
|
why the gop doesn't want to tax the rich and the corporations.
|
Trying to understand their reasoning.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kvjtf/eli5_why_the_gop_doesnt_want_to_tax_the_rich_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2nkfbp",
"c2nkh2f",
"c2nkpj7",
"c2nkfbp",
"c2nkh2f",
"c2nkpj7"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Two reasons: Fairness and economic incentive.\n\nThe fairness reason is obvious: There exists some *fair* level of taxation for a given person or entity. Everybody has their own idea of what that fair level is, but everybody agrees that the level shouldn't be *unfair.*\n\nThe economic incentive reason is more complex. Everybody who earns money in a given year — and this includes both individuals and companies — does stuff with that money. For example, they might spend it on things. That's good. They might invest it in things like bonds or shares of stock; that's even *better,* because money invested that way drives the economy significantly. Or they might just stuff it into their mattresses or whatever. That takes money *out* of the economy, so it's bad.\n\nTherefore, we have three broad categories of things people can do with their money: They can spend it, they can invest it, or they can neglect it in some way. We *don't* want people to neglect their money; that's bad for the economy. It's okay if people spend their money on goods or services. But it's *better* for the economy if they invest it.\n\nSo the government uses tax policy (as well as tons of other means, but right now we're talking about tax policy) to *discourage* people from neglecting their money and *encourage* people to invest their money. Because that's what's best for everybody.\n\nOne school of thought says that the government should do a bunch of stuff, and it takes tax revenue to fund that stuff, so we should tax people and companies with lots of capital to invest in order to raise more tax revenue and do more stuff.\n\nA second school of thought says that the government should do *less* stuff, which means it'd need less tax revenue, so we can tax people and companies with lots of capital less, thereby encouraging them to invest it and grow the economy.\n\nA third school of thought says that the government should do a reasonable amount of stuff, which requires a reasonable amount of tax revenue, but that when the economy isn't growing as fast as it normally does it's better for the government to run at a deficit — that is, spend more money than it brings in in tax revenue — than it is for the government to raise taxes. That's because raising taxes takes money out of the economy that would otherwise be invested, which is exactly the *opposite* of what you want to do when the economy is recovering from a contraction.\n\nThere's no objectively correct approach. Some people think one of those three approaches is the right one … and just to make matters even more complicated, some people think that the right answer is a sort of blurry hybrid of two, or even all three, of those basic philosophies.",
"for corporations.\n\nWe live in a global world . Big corporations can easily move their base of operations to another country.(as in leave most operations in the US and just move the ceo and other big wogs to other countries. 60 minutes did a good story on this couple of months ago )\n\nAs for taxing the rich people, The GOP generally feels that the government wastes money (which it does). So if you take money from people and give it to the government it stifles growth. so for prosperity you need money supply to be in private hands. Now if you want to understand these concepts, you need to go to college.\n\nAlso the GOP is not against taxing rich people the question is how much? ",
"The GOP isn't against taxing the rich and corporations, they just believe taxation in general isn't a good thing.\n\nThe \"trickle down\" effect that many GOP and Reganites refer to is related to an idea that came from classical liberalism. Frédéric Bastiat, a french economist in the 1800's came up with the parable of the broken window. \n\nIn short, if a kid breaks a shop owners window, the shop owner stimulates the economy by spending money to replace the window. It's easy to see the economy being stimulated in this way, but what if the window wasn't broken? Would the economy still be stimulated?\n\nYes, because the money that went toward the broken window would have gone to more supplies, hiring some help, or other business expense. The money would have been spent regardless.\n\nPeople that believe in the broken window fallacy believe that rich people and corporations hoard money and drive people into poverty. They believe that in order to counter-act this, rich people and corporations have to have their money forcibly taken from them to be used for the \"general welfare\" of society. It's easy to see this money going towards the \"right\" things, but if rich people and corporations didn't have their money taken from them, the money would still go into the economy in the form of private jets, fancy restaurants, and other luxury industries that employ real people.\n\nSo, the GOP believe that rich people and corporations know how to manage their money better than the government. I mean, rich people know about money because that's how they got rich. The government is in trillion dollars of debt, so I can see their point.",
"Two reasons: Fairness and economic incentive.\n\nThe fairness reason is obvious: There exists some *fair* level of taxation for a given person or entity. Everybody has their own idea of what that fair level is, but everybody agrees that the level shouldn't be *unfair.*\n\nThe economic incentive reason is more complex. Everybody who earns money in a given year — and this includes both individuals and companies — does stuff with that money. For example, they might spend it on things. That's good. They might invest it in things like bonds or shares of stock; that's even *better,* because money invested that way drives the economy significantly. Or they might just stuff it into their mattresses or whatever. That takes money *out* of the economy, so it's bad.\n\nTherefore, we have three broad categories of things people can do with their money: They can spend it, they can invest it, or they can neglect it in some way. We *don't* want people to neglect their money; that's bad for the economy. It's okay if people spend their money on goods or services. But it's *better* for the economy if they invest it.\n\nSo the government uses tax policy (as well as tons of other means, but right now we're talking about tax policy) to *discourage* people from neglecting their money and *encourage* people to invest their money. Because that's what's best for everybody.\n\nOne school of thought says that the government should do a bunch of stuff, and it takes tax revenue to fund that stuff, so we should tax people and companies with lots of capital to invest in order to raise more tax revenue and do more stuff.\n\nA second school of thought says that the government should do *less* stuff, which means it'd need less tax revenue, so we can tax people and companies with lots of capital less, thereby encouraging them to invest it and grow the economy.\n\nA third school of thought says that the government should do a reasonable amount of stuff, which requires a reasonable amount of tax revenue, but that when the economy isn't growing as fast as it normally does it's better for the government to run at a deficit — that is, spend more money than it brings in in tax revenue — than it is for the government to raise taxes. That's because raising taxes takes money out of the economy that would otherwise be invested, which is exactly the *opposite* of what you want to do when the economy is recovering from a contraction.\n\nThere's no objectively correct approach. Some people think one of those three approaches is the right one … and just to make matters even more complicated, some people think that the right answer is a sort of blurry hybrid of two, or even all three, of those basic philosophies.",
"for corporations.\n\nWe live in a global world . Big corporations can easily move their base of operations to another country.(as in leave most operations in the US and just move the ceo and other big wogs to other countries. 60 minutes did a good story on this couple of months ago )\n\nAs for taxing the rich people, The GOP generally feels that the government wastes money (which it does). So if you take money from people and give it to the government it stifles growth. so for prosperity you need money supply to be in private hands. Now if you want to understand these concepts, you need to go to college.\n\nAlso the GOP is not against taxing rich people the question is how much? ",
"The GOP isn't against taxing the rich and corporations, they just believe taxation in general isn't a good thing.\n\nThe \"trickle down\" effect that many GOP and Reganites refer to is related to an idea that came from classical liberalism. Frédéric Bastiat, a french economist in the 1800's came up with the parable of the broken window. \n\nIn short, if a kid breaks a shop owners window, the shop owner stimulates the economy by spending money to replace the window. It's easy to see the economy being stimulated in this way, but what if the window wasn't broken? Would the economy still be stimulated?\n\nYes, because the money that went toward the broken window would have gone to more supplies, hiring some help, or other business expense. The money would have been spent regardless.\n\nPeople that believe in the broken window fallacy believe that rich people and corporations hoard money and drive people into poverty. They believe that in order to counter-act this, rich people and corporations have to have their money forcibly taken from them to be used for the \"general welfare\" of society. It's easy to see this money going towards the \"right\" things, but if rich people and corporations didn't have their money taken from them, the money would still go into the economy in the form of private jets, fancy restaurants, and other luxury industries that employ real people.\n\nSo, the GOP believe that rich people and corporations know how to manage their money better than the government. I mean, rich people know about money because that's how they got rich. The government is in trillion dollars of debt, so I can see their point."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1hzbog
|
types of dos and ddos attacks
|
I would really like to know about them and get a few links to help (and p.s. can I get arrested for asking?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hzbog/eli5_types_of_dos_and_ddos_attacks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cazg0fx",
"cazkydc",
"cazkzab"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"DoSS- denial of service script.\n\nIt sends traffic to a site. If the servers are aren't very big they crash. It's not illegal to ask , but it can be if you use it in a malicious way.",
"Sad to see no one grabbed this one, but here's an overview. The actual technique are rather varied and I don't really know too much about them but they all follow a similar pattern.\n\n* DDoS Attack\nA Distributed Denial of Service attack is where you have a lot of computers all sending requests to a server. An easy way to think of this is like a pharmacy. You walk in, ask for something (Service Request) and the pharmacist verifys your information (Request Parsing) then goes to get your medicine (Data Retrieval). A DDoS attack would be like getting a huge group of people to all go to the pharmacy at the same time and demand things all at once and over and over that may or may not be something they actually have (Junk Data). Eventually the pharmacy gets overwhelmed and they have to stop all incoming requests meaning that it shuts down.\n\nThis is usually accomplished through things called \"Botnets\" which are vast non-centralized computer networks, most of which have no idea that they're being used as such, they're hijacked for this purpose through spyware and viruses. To control all of these computers you have \"Herders\" or people that control the \"Herd\" of \"Zombies\" or \"Bots\", they pick where to direct the attack and all the \"Zombies\" start sending as many requests to a website that they can. The power of a given botnet can be measured in PPS or RPS, pings per second or requests per second respectively.\n\nA DoS attack or Denial of Service attack usually originates from a small group of computers or an individual computer, these don't work as well as it's rather trivial to block all requests from a single or small group of IPs but can take down lesser site with hosting that's either not ready for an attack or don't really care enough to protect a tiny domain.\n\nIt should be added that not all DDoS scenarios are malicious or intentional. You may have heard of reddit \"hugging\" sites to death and that happens because reddit is so huge that they can unintentionally take down a site in the exact same manner as a DDoS attack but completely on accident by diverting such a huge amount of traffic to smaller sites.\n\nAlso, as a personal note, no hacking knowledge is illegal to know or research. As long as you don't use anything you learn maliciously, you should never be afraid to research any topic relating to hacking or \"cyber-terrorism\". In fact, knowing about this sort of thing can stop it from happening to you so learn all you can. Also a shout out to the NSA since they no doubt picked up on the \"terrorism\" key-word.",
"There aren't different 'Types'. DDoS stands for Distributed Denial of Service. The concept is extremely simple, and the reason it is so effective.\n\nHave you ever been on Reddit and you come to a screen that say's \"Reddit is under heavy load right now.\"? That's because there is too much data going in and out of Reddit's servers for them to properly handle. This data is called traffic. Servers can only handle X amount of traffic(bandwidth); depending on how they are set up and how large they are.\n\nDDoS works by having a program effectively refresh a page on a website many times per second(hundreds or thousands), creating an immense amount of traffic for the severs to handle. Think of sitting on your computer and hitting the refresh button as fast as you can; it's like that, but much faster. Now have say 200 people do that and you can create some serious traffic flow for a website.\n\nELI5: Imagine a city with only a few cars driving around(traffic). They can get in and out of the city(server) easily because the roads(bandwidth) are open. Now imagine some asshole and his 200 friends drive into the city. A traffic jam is caused and nobody can effectively get in or out.\n\nI know that servers can crash and become more vulnerable to malicious attacks at this point, but I'm not 100% sure why. I think it's because the servers spazz out and crash when left to deal with so much traffic, but don't quote me on it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1gzovm
|
the basics of driving a manual (coming from an automatic)
|
I'm looking at buying a new car and I would like to get a sporty car (currently I have an SUV) and my friend has offered to teach me how to drive on his car but I was wondering if you had any tips before my first lesson with him so I don't come off as a total noob. I'm 25 and I've had my licence since 16 so I'm comfortable driving - just not much experience with manual transmission.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gzovm/eli5_the_basics_of_driving_a_manual_coming_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capdwqb",
"capec1e",
"caplc9f"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The basic idea is that you have to press down on the clutch pedal (which disengages the engine from the wheels) if you want to change gears, and that you'll need to do that a lot, so you will be using both hands an both feet. If you move too slowly for the gear you're in, the engine will stall. If you go too fast for the gear, you'll rev it higher than it needs to be at.\n\nThere's really no way to get a feel for it without actual trying it on a real car. Dont worry about feeling like a noob...if you are in N America, almost everyone is new at driving stick these days. You'll pick it up quickly enough.\n\nOne tip though...careful on the clutch. Don't let it out too quickly after shifting. You'll know if you do. The car will jerk :)\n\n[edit] If you know anyone with a car that has a TDI diesel engine, they are great to learn on. They are a lot more forgiving than the gas cars I've driven. Less stalling. \n\nDon't freak out when you stall the engine. You'll do it a lot at first.",
"This might not help you beforehand, but if your friend doesn't make you do this first - you should ask him:\n\nBefore you attempt to actually *drive*, just sit in the car, push down the clutch shift into 1st gear. Slowly pull off the clutch without using the gas at all.\n\nAs you let up on the clutch, you'll feel it grab and try to pull the car forward. This is when you would normally feed the gas, but instead just push the clutch back in (so you don't stall out). Do this several times without ever touching the gas pedal.\n\nThis will give you a better idea of when/where the clutch will engage. As you get a better feel for this, you will have a better idea of when to hit the gas.\n\nAlso, in manual cars the gas pedal tends to be more sensitive than automatic. When you are first starting out you may find you need to push much lighter on the gas than you think.\n\nGetting into 1st is the hardest part, once you are moving the rest is easy. Also you should make it a habit of hitting the clutch (or at least be prepared to) every time you hit the brakes.\n\nSome manual drivers develop a bad habit of simply throwing the car into neutral when coming to a stop, instead of downshifting. This is a bad habit because you never know when you'll need to accelerate again. You don't want to get yourself into a situation where you need to be in gear instead of neutral - and slam on the gas pedal only to have the car go nowhere.",
"Related question: ELI5 why some people prefer manual transmission?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ljh9j
|
how do humming bird wing feathers stay attached to their wings with the high g forces they would be subject to from the rapid wing beats?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ljh9j/eli5_how_do_humming_bird_wing_feathers_stay/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djubl9z"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Proportional mass to size differences make the strain on the wings infinitely less impactful than if someone your size would try to beat their wings that fast.\n\nHummingbirds are incredibly light, yet fragile. Their bodies are designed and have evolved to the absolute pinnacle of vertically based flight, better than bees flies and other vertically hovering capable creatures.\n\nThis insanely light and fragile design is both critically strong in critical areas, yet surprisingly durable for the forces exerted. Though this is to its advantage. There arn't many G-forces acting on a Humming Bird at all. It's overall mass and relative force is almost negligble due to it's lack of mass. Because it's wings are infinitely tiny compared to most, I think only 2-3g in mass, it can move them extremely quickly with little force and the displacement achieved is only somewhere around 50cm^3.\n\nThat being said, this tiny amount of movement done very rapidly, exerts alot less force than what you'd expect from something or someone human sized, and allows this to occur without significant injury.\n\nHowever, if that wing even touches something and breaks, then the hummingbird is essentially dead. Their wings are so fragile that the slightest accidental hit can fracture the wings in an instant prohibiting flight almost instantaneously."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.